Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

This page is for entries in 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 “green leaf”



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request 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

July 2017[edit]

The Slavic Latin contributions of[edit]

All of the contributions of this anon seem pretty shady to me, or at least under wrong title. @Metaknowledge, could you take a gander? —JohnC5

Also everything under Special:Contributions/ —JohnC5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Affected Latin entries:
Additionally all these entries might miss a label like {{lb|la|Medieval Latin}}, {{lb|la|New Latin}} or {{lb|la|Medieval Latin|New Latin}}.
As headers and inflection do not fit:
  • The names ending in -o could be nominatives or be inflected forms, e.g. Budimero as nominative or as dative/ablative of Budimerus (gen. Budimeri) or maybe of Budimer (gen. Budimeri).
  • Names ending with mer or mir could have any of the following declensions: a) indeclinable, b) 3rd declension wih gen in -is, c) 2nd declension with gen. in -i and maybe with dropping of e in mer or i in mir similar to e.g. Maeander, gen. Maeandri.
As for vowel length as inflection templates add macra on the ending:
dunno. Maybe after comparing Slave names lengths can be assumed. But before comparison is done, it could be better to give everything without macra.
As for specific names:
  • Muntimerus (Muncimirus) does exist. Muncimir could barely exist (there appears to be a document from 892 (DCCCXCII) containing this name, and two other usages which might relate to that document). Muntimer might be wrong (correct inflection table, but entry and head missing -us). Muntimirus, Muncimerus could exist too, but that's another thing.
    By the way: Muntimerus was created by who added a few more Slave names in -us.
  • Budimerus does exist. Created entry Budimero probably just is the dative/ablative of it. Budimer in the inflection section might be wrong.
  • Terpimerus could barely exist (the gen. Terpimeri can be found). Tripimirus might be inexistent.
- 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [1] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]



-- Dokurrat (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

, , , , , , , , , , , [edit]

Chinese section. -- Dokurrat (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am who added these symbols. Have you ever seen them in Chinese newspapers? I have. They also used in some publishings. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Octahedron80: I'm not sure if the weekday meanings of these symbols are inherent or just a SoP of ring and character. If these meanings have survived Rfv, we may need to add weekday senses to un-ringed characters too, I think. Dokurrat (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Usage of characters in brackets are attested [2][3]--Zcreator (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Most people type it out as three characters, e.g. (一), and rarely use the ligature character. Also, I haven't seen the usage with the ring. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • RFV failed for the ringed characters. As for the characters in parentheses, they are probably attested, but as mentioned above, most people would type it out as three characters. It may be more of an RFD issue than an RFV one. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]



Russian given names. Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominated by User:Recruos. Шахла́ (Šaxlá) spelling is citeable. It's just a transliteration of a name. I suggested the nominator to withdraw RFV. Ша́хля (Šáxlja) is a variant, harder to cite and, IMHO, the stress is wrong but with foreign names, the stress is not well-established. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev Will you provide citations for the <a> variant, so I can close this?__Gamren (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]


Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([4], [5]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


@Carl Francis marked this for speedy deletion, claiming that it is not actually Tagalog and not the correct spelling. I see use of this as a Filipino surname, and I'm not sure why @TagaSanPedroAko would be wrong about their native language, so I've brought it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


a It's Lumocso, not Lomocso and it's Cebuano. b The guy is just making stuff up as he goes along (see: Licuanan). c The guy is practically claiming every Filipino surname as Tagalog just because it's in forebears.io (see: Alterado, Magdayao and Bayot). He even made up an etymology for Alterado, claiming it's Spanish when his main reference, forebears.io, doesn't even have stats on Alterado in Spain.

@Carl Francis I have been out of WT for weeks, since I left for Canada, but I am pulled in to this thread by the arguments you point. So, let me answer your arguments you are pointing on this issue, since you pinged me in while I am away from WT:
  1. There is really a surname Lomocso (as I see it on one name I found in the news) , and Lumocso would be the main form, not the only correct form. Just mark Lomocso as an alternative form, and nothing else, so we do not inflame this argument.
  2. What do you mean of me creating out stuff? Yes, Licuanan also occur on the Tagalog regions because of migration, and that is not a reason to make it up as it is Tagalog. It is of Chinese origin, not Cebuano, and I have the sources to find their etymology. Don't push the argument they are Cebuano because it is common on its speakers. It is just associated with it, but not always, because there would be many families with that surname outside the Cebuano/Visayan regions, and not all of them would have their ancestors traced back to those.
  3. Claiming every surnames to be Tagalog is because they can be encountered in the Tagalog regions, particularly Metro Manila, and not just for because they are found in the Forebears surname database. I used Forebears for the stats for the surname as an approach I started after I found many Filipino surnames being listed in English already, through admin TheDaveRoss, who added many surnames in English based on 2010 US Census stats for a million surnames collected in the US. But, I now reduced my activity in adding surnames, and concentrated on the Tagalog vocabulary. And you are even claiming several Cebuano surnames of Spanish-language origin taken from the 1849 Catálog alfabético de apellidos to be native Cebuano. Alterado would have derived from Spanish (from a word that is not typically taken as a surname, but become so under the 1849 colonial edict on surnames for Filipinos), but not from Spain. You are free to remove the Tagalog entry of it, until I can prove it also exists in Tagalog. Please drop the argument that I mark every Filipino surname as Tagalog, as I changed my approach there: add only a Tagalog entry of a surname from any Philippine language if I can only prove it has also existed in the Tagalog regions, through migration of people who carried them. "Bayot" and "Magdayao" are, yes, Cebuano in origin, but that is not a reason to have it also in Tagalog.
I know you are a prolific contributor on Cebuano vocabulary, but let this thread be solved properly, without having to give further arguments that may worsen this..-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


A hot word, tagged as being older than a year, with no definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing a report that it became popular to use the manji (卍) in Japan's youth recently. There's even a manji gesture which consists of crossing your arms in some manner. The included Wikipedia article says it's a symbol for hype and basically means 'awesome', but I can't read the details. First reference (Kotobank) on Wikipedia says it's a compound of 'まじ' (really) and '卍' (cool) and got some media attention. I think kotobank.jp was used as an acceptable source for verification here before, but I don't know our policies. I added a definition at . Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added two examples of slang usage in online advertisements. The examples are about two years apart, so I don't think it is a hot word. There is also a lot of mention on the web or in magazines explaining the usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cnilep, there are only 2 cites (out of 3) for the adjective and only 1 for the noun. — surjection??⟩ 11:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize this was all on me. I added another adjective, but there's still just one for the noun. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Since the adjective seems to be cited, I've moved the RFV for the noun. If there aren't any more cites to be found for that one, I'll get around to deleting it eventually. — surjection??⟩ 20:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Vietnamese [edit]

I find it odd that Vietnamese writers would make use of a specifically Japanese phonetic glyph with a value of nu as the typographic equivalent of the " ditto mark.

I suspect that the intended glyph is not the Japanese katakana character (nu, Unicode hex value 30CC), but rather the graphically similar Chinese (and thus Vietnamese chữ Nôm) character (again, as well, Unicode hex value 53C8). In fact, the Japanese phonetic katakana character originally derived from a shorthand version of (used phonetically to represent nu), which includes the glyph as its right-hand portion.

Our entry at cites a website that appears to be volunteer-based data of uncertain provenance. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation's online lookup tool has no entry for ヌ (Ux30CC), but it does have an entry for 又 (Ux53C8). Could someone check other sources and confirm?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The website in question says has a pronunciation of lại, and you can find several instances of pronounced lại on the same site. It is very likely to be a confusion of the two by their shapes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information. The chunom.org website is the one cited at the ヌ#Vietnamese entry, and the data there is of unclear provenance. I cannot tell if this is a reliable and trustworthy source, or instead something that might be error-prone in a manner similar to Jisho.org. (That might be what you were suggesting, that chunom.org is error-prone?)
If, ultimately, the Ux30CC glyph is actually in use in electronic Vietnamese chữ Nôm texts, then we should probably have an entry. If instead electronic texts only use Ux53C8, ヌ#Vietnamese should probably go away.
Are there any other electronic Vietnamese sources, or even ideally published works, that use glyph (Ux30CC) interchangeably with (Ux53C8)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a reduced form of ("again"), used as an iteration mark in Vietnamese Chu Nom, e.g. 喑ヌ (ầm ầm), 猪ヌ (chưa chưa), 赤ヌ (xích xích), 紅ヌ (hồng hồng). Lại means “again”. Listing it on is probably using the wrong codepoint, but then I'm not sure where this should belong. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
They seem to use U+30CC and U+31F4 interchangeably, which suggests there is no officially assigned code point. I prefer moving the information to with a soft redirect at , until the official code point is given in Unicode. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Even Chunom.org's main entry is the U+314F one (), while their U+30CC entry is pretty minimal.
In the absence of any Vietnamese editor input, I second Shinji's suggestion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji: I checked the links provided by Wyang and the character is indeed attested in Vietnamese texts published from 1909 to 1940. The only problem is that it shouldn't be using the same codepoint that is meant for katakana. I don't think this character is unifiable with (the glyph forms are different) so I checked the proposed charts for CJK Extension G and H as well as CJK Extension B,C,D,E,F but this character is not there. I propose moving the entry over to ⿻㇇丶 (See Category:Terms containing unencoded characters for other terms that are not yet encoded). KevinUp (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that using the katakana codepoint is less troublesome, in the same vein as how Cyrillic codepoints are used for some tones in the old Zhuang Latin script. —Suzukaze-c 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, any chance that's a scanno kind of problem? I highly doubt that the original texts from 1909–1940 were using any codepoints at all.  :)  And thinking through how such texts became digitized, scanning + OCR comes to mind as a likely approach. And if the OCR engine weren't configured quite right, that might be how (Ux30CC) crept in where some graphical variant of (Ux53C8) might have been the glyph actually used in the dead-tree texts.
An idea, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Eirikr: I don't think Vietnamese texts can be digitized using OCR because many Nôm characters are still unencoded in Unicode. I think the Katakana character was chosen because no other character is available to represent that glyph (the links contain actual images of the text). For now, we could just keep the entry under ヌ#Vietnamese until it is encoded by Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
KevinUp: interesting re: digitizing.
For completeness' sake, I see that there is also (U+3121), visually identical to Japanese (Ux30CC) in some fonts, and more explicitly derived from (U+53C8). However, the Nôm lookup tool doesn't have U+3121 either, only U+53C8. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Eirikr, Suzukaze-c: I checked the images at chunom.org and noticed that there is another variation of this character where the dot does not extend beyond the bottom stroke of . Since this character is not a katakana or Zhuyin letter, it shouldn't be using any of these two codepoints. I think it would be better to move this entry to ⿻㇇丶 which can also represent the second variation of this glyph. KevinUp (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, thank you for the additional research. I wonder how much of this variation is due to differences in scribal handwriting? On the page for the ngày ngày example, for instance, I note several irregularities in other characters as well.
Agreed that our Vietnamese entry for this should probably be moved. One concern, however, is how would users find ⿻㇇丶 when searching? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
They won't. If the Nom Foundation is the primary body working on digital Nom texts, we should follow their usage. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]


Only 64 hits on Google, I never heard this word before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Morgengave, who made the entry. I can find some use on one Belgian blog, but otherwise only scannos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
While not common, there seems to be a slowly increasing use of the word:
  • (1998, NRC Handelsblad): Nu vier regels uit de Ballade van de dames uit vroeger tijd met de bekende slotregel, die trouwens bij Chaucer al te lezen viel over de sneeuwen van gisterjaar. [6]
  • (2015, Nieuwpoort Nieuws): Foto’s Van gisterjaar: Marktstraat in Nieuwpoort en het trieste waargebeurde verhaal van Peter ‘ Petje de Kortn’ Provoost. [7]
  • (2018, Autofans press release): Aan de éne kant heb je het Opel van gisterjaar met GM-invloeden, aan de andere kant het Opel van morgen onder Franse PSA-vleugels. [8] Morgengave (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Morgengave Are Nieuwpoort Nieuws and Autofans durable sources? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Morgengave Reping. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't think so. They don't seem to exist in printed form. Morgengave (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

ᡩᠣᡵᡤᡳ ᠪᠠᡳᡨᠠ ᠪᡝ ᡠᡥᡝᡵᡳ ᡴᠠᡩᠠᠯᠠᡵᠠ ᠶᠠᠮᡠᠨ[edit]

I'm wondering about this word's existence. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See w:Imperial Household Department. Also 內務府. Google depends on OCS for Manchu script, so you'll probably have to search using the transliteration. You could probably find it in Paul Georg von Mollendorf's "Essay on Manchu Literature" in Journal of China Branch of R. A. S., Shanghai, vol. xxiv (1890), p. 1-45. —Stephen (Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]


Attempted removal of {{hot word}} without any citations, let alone spanning a year. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This word was seen in the category Hot words older than a year, so I removed that template from the word's page, as it was written on the Category's page that this category should be empty.
    • Also, this word came into common usage when Indian PM announced demonetization of 500 & 1000 rupee currency notes, on 8th Nov 2016. So, yes, it has been over a year.
    • Nonetheless, the word was always in existence, as earlier too demonetization had taken place in 1970s.
    • Entire news is filled with this word. You just have to Google नोटबंदी, and you'll thousands and thousands of news articles on this word, both in domestic and international media. Most recent example I can quote now is this BBC Hindi report here dated 30th August 2018.
    • Also on there is Hindi Wikipedia [page] on that incident, in which this word comes frequently. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by JainismWikipedian (talkcontribs) at 00:46, 1 September 2018.
  • Yes check.svg RFV-Passed 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]


Suzukaze-c 06:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this suffice? google books:"ウォールフラワー"
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. This seems much more commonly to refer to Erysimum sp. (at least before the film came out). The "awkward person" usages I found were almost all in reference to the Stephen Chbosky young adult novel or the film adapted from it. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c Can this be struck? While there are only two cites for both meanings, there are enough results on BGC that it's hard to see how this would not be attestable. — surjection??⟩ 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Surjection: I still don't like the second sense, especially since it is glossed with "壁の花" in quotes (and the second quote is a translation of an English novel). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


This "combining form" is only found in one word (xochihcualli), and it's not clear that it should be divided into xochih-cualli rather than xoch-ihcualli. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The mentioned entry at xochihcualli gives cualli as "something good" and offers tlacualli as a comparison. However, the latter entry's etymology, itself a bit of a mess, derives cualli as cua (to eat) + -lli (presumably a nominalizing suffix, though we have no entry for this). Meanwhile, the etym at derived term xochihcualcuahuitl (edible fruit tree) glosses xochihcualli as "edible fruit"", apparently corroborating the "eat" sense underlying cualli.
I know very little about Nahuatl, but simply applying logic to what we have with these entries suggests that what we have is a dog's breakfast in need of cleanup. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]


(Indonesian term) - The Indonesian Wikipedia link doesn't use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Some web pages in Malay using the term in their titles: [9], [10], [11]. I don’t know if these pages are specifically in Indonesian Malay.  --Lambiam 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those first two links are written in Indonesian. The first link use Indonesian cyber guidance. The second link is a online mass media in Cirebon, Indonesia. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This article using the term is from CNN Indonesia. And this FAQ in Indonesian also mentions mecin / micin as alternative names for MSG.  --Lambiam 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those links are written in Indonesian. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Attested in Indonesian books: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Attested in Indonesian websites: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. ―Rex AurōrumDisputātiō 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rex Aurorum, could you add the cites onto the page so that this can be closed? — surjection??⟩ 11:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

jouer avec ses armes[edit]

Not an idiom in French, as far as I know, so I'd like some proof that it's lexicalised. Uses like this are few and far between, and nothing else than literary fancies, imo. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I see enough Google book hits plus many more Google news hits to sustain the idea that this is idiomatic. It would appear that the verb is extracted from an idiomatic phrase or saying chacun joue avec ses armes.  --Lambiam 08:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clearly lexicalized. Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018[edit]


Only 1 result at google books (which might be a mentioning), 1 in google groups (dialectal, for example with i = I, di = you (sg., obj.)). --Brown*Toad (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is one in de.sci.philosophie. The same one? I don’t get the intention of the “dialectal” parenthesis.  --Lambiam 19:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
google groups gave me this by opa2013 from 05.12.13: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett?s G?schenk hab i f?r di!" (maybe this link works...). My guess would be that it's supposed to be: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett's G'schenk hab i für di!". Anyway, i (= ich, I) and di (= dich, you [singular, object]) show that it's not normal High German but dialectal (Bavarian?). The parenthesis after you specifiy which you it is. --Brown*Toad (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It is the same message I saw. Nominative i and accusative di fit with Bavarian.  --Lambiam 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the encoding of that text: on my computer (Mac: both Firefox 64 and Safari 11.1.2), I'm seeing placeholders for umlauted vowels, apostrophes, and other "non-ASCII" characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously a difference of interpretation as to what language this is- Wiktionary doesn't require languages to have an army and a navy...
Move to Bavarian and look for references that meet CFI for that Limited-documented language. Pinging @-sche as the one who understands best how Wiktionary treats "German dialects". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz (1): I've the same problem - it looks like an error on google's/usenet's part and not on our part.
@Chuck Entz (3): google groups or usenet is an accepted source as for wt's LDL requirements. Thus the single quote could be enough to attest a Bavarian term. However, the text encoding problem could be an attestation problem. Is malformatted text acceptable? Can someone restore the text (there's a suggestion above, can someone verify or correct it)? Can someone translate it (suggestion: "Look #, a nice present have I for you" or "Look #, I have a nice present for you")? -- 23:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may have been entered in German by someone who genuinely saw it in German — I can find non-durable websites where it occurs in German [de] text — but if that's the only citation, then it seems it only meets CFI as Bavarian (although deciding between Bavarian-regional de and bar from only a very short text can be, well, like trying to decide if a single sentence is Scottish English or Scots). Since the malformatting isn't in the specific word we're trying to attest, and doesn't render the citation ambiguous or unintelligible as to meaning or language, it's tolerable, though obviously suboptimal. I would quote it with the errors intact, but we could provide a 'normalization' afterwards in brackets or something. Providing a translation is fine. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it should be quoted with the errors, as only that would give a correct quote. Bavarian i, di, für, hab, á, schau, Gschenk can be attested by other sources. [22] & [23] are dialectal (Bavarian?) and have nett's. - 10:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Moved from the entry:
  • 2014 November 28, Luger, Lukas, “Roland Düringer: Ein philosophierender Gscheidwaschl”, in 'Oberösterreichische Nachrichten'[24], Austria: Wimmer Medien:
    Die Transformation vom Prolo-Schmähführer zum philosophierenden Gscheidwaschl mag für das Seelenheil des Herrn Düringer eine Wohltat gewesen sein, für das Publikum hingegen nicht.
    (please add an English translation of this quote)
RFV-failed as German (there was only one German use, which I moved from the entry to right above this comment). Relabelled "Bavarian". - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]


RFV of all the definitions under ロリ#Etymology 2. —Suzukaze-c 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sense "person with the Lolita complex" removed by User:UhhMaybe. —Suzukaze-c 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this etymology circular? That is, ロリ1 is a clipping of ロリータ, while ロリ2 is said to be a clipping of ロリコン. But ロリコン is a clipping of ロリータ・コンプレックス. Therefore, both come from the same source. And the meanings are certainly related (1: an attractive young girl; 2: attraction to young girls; one attracted to young girls; manga depicting attraction to young girls). This is a case of polysemy, not separate lexemes with separate etymologies. [Also – キモい! sexualized orientalist nonsense] Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we can call that two separate etymologies, even if the two are related to each other. Roriitarori and Roriita konpurekkusurorikonrori are different etymological paths, not a case of polysemy of a term with a single etymology. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that the path you suggest is indeed the etymology. It could be, or the three senses listed could come directly from ロリータ. (Even if that is the path, I'm not entirely convinced that those are sufficiently separate, but of course it is not unreasonable for you or others to think that they are sufficiently separate.) At this point, we have neither attestation of the three senses defined, nor verification of the etymology. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]


It seems that this was added on the basis of some taxonomic names. But we don't consider taxonomic names to be Latin, do we? I'm not sure if this can be considered Latin either if that's the case. —Rua (mew) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Then move it. All we lose is the declension tables. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not pretending to know all the relevant policies and practices. I'm asking for clarification, and for action to be taken depending on what is needed. —Rua (mew) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There's never been any consensus. I don't really care. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The more common treatment seems to be to list such names as Latin, as seen for example for carolinensis. Like is done for that lemma, I think names for which the use is confined to taxonomy should be labelled “(botany, zoology, New Latin)” (with appropriate adjustments to the list of branches of biology – for evergladensis including mycology). Personally, I feel that including a declension table is over the top, though.  --Lambiam 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
My own thoughts is that they should be listed as Latin (without macrons &c), labelled as "New Latin", and that declension tables should be include only if any of the feminine and/or neuter, plural &c forms are also used (they're not in this case). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:iroquoianus, Talk:albifrons + WT:CFI are quite clear: The term has to be attested in Latin to be Latin.
@Lambiam: 1. carolinensis or Carolinensis can be found and possibly attested in Latin ([25], [26], [27]), though its sense might be different (compare karolinisch, carolinisch, Karl, Carl, and also see [28]: "acus Carolinensis, Karlsbader Insektennadel"). 2. People ignoring WT:CFI and (other) vandals don't change the rules because they ignore them.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not immediately see which clause from CFI applies here, but I have no problem with the L2 being changed to “Translingual”. I just reported on what appeared to be a commonly taken approach, based on inspecting a small sample of the most common epithets. If Carolinensis can be attested in Latin, it probably has a different etymology, being from Carolus without a detour through the Carolinas.  --Lambiam 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The most plausible ways to get Latin attestation for specific epithets like this are through Catholic Church Latin (many placename adjectives) or from scientific Latin taxonomic descriptions (mostly 19th century and earlier). This term, unlike caroliniensis or carolinianus, is not likely to be found in such sources. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: "including a term if it is attested" and "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning" - of course a Latin term has to be attested in Latin, with a use in a Latin media.
Trying to attest Latin with random non-Latin usages is the same as trying to attest English *handy (mobile phone) with usages of Handy or *footing (jogging) with footing.
And that doesn't work out.
@DCDuring: Church Latin doesn't attest taxonomic terms regarding labels and biological stuff like "Discovered in or native to [region]" as in magellanicus,
and Church Latin more often capitalises adjectives while in non-Latin biological texts it's more often uncapitalised.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Following Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/March#L2_of_taxonomic_components, I added a note last year to WT:AMUL and WT:ALA that terms only attested in taxonomic names are not Latin but Translingual. As this does not appear to be attested in any inflected form or in Latin (after years here at RFV), it's RFV-failed it as Latin and I've converted it to Translingual. DCDuring or someone else might like to apply the usual taxonomic-name templates. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


This "root" has no e in it, which makes it suspicious. IEW is 60 years old and thus not adequate as a source, and the Wiktionary page name doesn't match the form given in IEW anyway. —Rua (mew) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, this should just be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victar I added De Vaan as a more trustworthy source, but it's still somewhat dubious that there are no full grades anywhere. —Rua (mew) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Rua: I deleted the PII forms because those were all impossible. Now we're just left with the Latin and a couple dubious extra-Latin forms. --{{victar|talk}} 14:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua, Victar: I don't know about this particular root, but *bʰuh₂- is one root that doesn't seem to have had a full grade, so it wouldn't be without precedent. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Like I said, I'm more concerned with the lack of indubious cognates outside of Latin, which is grounds enough for deletion. --{{victar|talk}} 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
What are the IE cognates of Skt. √śad ("fall, fall out, fall off; collapse; decay, wither, perish")? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: Hölderlin2019 raises a good point. It's clear that Proto-Iranian *kat- can't be connected and should be deleted, but why is Sanskrit शशद (śaśada) = Latin cecidī impossible? It could even be evidence for a full grade *ḱh₂ed- (since zero grade *ḱh₂d- would have given לid- rather than śad-). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well for one, ×शशद (לaśada) does not exist -- it's actually शशाद (śaśāda), and that word reflects PIE *ḱe-ḱód-e, which itself points to a *ḱed- root. Secondly, I've only seen that word in the context of listing cognates for the Latin -- it's not in any of my Sanskrit dictionaries -- so it's very poorly attested which makes me question its meaning entirely and think that it's just a bunch of semantic massaging by Latinists. Not all Indo-European words need cognates, nor are all words actually from PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It's listed in both Whitney and MW? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant to write, "is it", and no, in Sanskrit the word शशाद (śaśāda) actually means "eating rabbits", as seen in Monier-Williams. --{{victar|talk}} 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant that it's listed in both Whitney and MW. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, accidental question mark than. That's the danger of using older sources; often inflection tables are assumed and not based on actual sources. The only form that is found in Sanskrit, and again, very poorly attested, is (only found once in AV) शत्स्यति (śatsyati) and everything else is fabricated. So again, ×शशद (לaśada) did not exist. --{{victar|talk}} 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It was a quizzical question mark. I don't know why you think the inflections are fabricated (by whom? Whitney/MW? the Indian grammarians?); both Whitney and MW assert that this particular one is attested in the Brahmanas. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Inflection tables are made up all the time. We do so even on en.Wikt. Modern sources ({{R:ine:LIV}}) cite the word as शशाद (śaśāda) and not ×शशद (לaśada) as seen in MW. Also, MW mistakenly associates this word with the unrelated शीयते (śīyate, to fall down), which is from *ḱey-. --{{victar|talk}} 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: But शशाद (śaśāda) does exist? If so, it can come from *ḱe-ḱod-e as you say, but surely it can also come from *ḱe-ḱh₂od-e, from a root *ḱh₂ed-, of which both the zero grade and the full grade could give Latin cadō. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Is *ḰHeT- even a valid root in PIE? In PII, you might also expect the laygyeal to have some sort of aspirating power. --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: We have entries for *kh₂em-, *kh₂eyd-, and *sh₂ey-, so the root shape seems to be rare but not impossible. As for aspiration, you'd expect it after a stop, but probably not after ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I was asking *ḰHeT- (=*KʲHeT-), not *KHeT-. I don't think it is. Aspiration would have been pre-PII. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: In both cases I suspect there aren't enough examples to allow us to generalize. CHEC is a rather rare root shape to begin with, so the apparent lack of ḰHeC- could be coincidental. And even if *-ḱH- became *-śʰ- in PII, are there enough examples of PII *-śʰ- to be sure that it didn't simply become ś in Sanskrit? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I found an example with *sḱeh₂i- ~ *(s)ḱh₂ey- ~ *(s)ḱeyh₂- (cut open, sting) which allegedly yielded σχάω (skháō) and ἔσχασα (éskhasa). Theoretically, I would think PIE *ḱe-ḱh₂ód-e would have yielded > śeśʰh₂óde > PII *ćaćʰHáda (=/tśatśʰHáda/) > PIA *śaśʰHáda > शहद (śaháda). Problem is, we lack clear examples of *ḱh₂. --{{victar|talk}} 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
My point exactly. We know that *źʰ became h in Sanskrit, but that doesn't mean *śʰ did. It may have become simply ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: This discussion is surreal. Whitney does not "make up" inflection tables; Whitney does not deal in inflection tables, except in his introductory grammars. What he does do is catalogue attested Vedic + Skt. forms and assign them to roots. MW is not in error; he's simply following the synchronic analysis of the ancient grammarians, whose fiat assignment in this particular case Whitney explicitly discusses. The reduplicated perfect in question is multiply attested in the Brahmanas. I'm frankly astounded by how tenuous your grasp of how to understand the Sanskrit is, never mind the Sanskrit itself Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
But Whitney doesn't list *शशद (śaśada); he lists शशाद (śaśāda), whose existence Victar isn't denying. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 16:40, 24 June 2019.
For one, I've only been referring to MW, not Whitney. Secondly, I'm not infallible and if I misread some source, I'm happy for someone to point it out, but personally attacking me is unnecessary. And lastly, any author is also fallible, especially in older works when our understanding of PIE and Sanskrit was not as developed and defined as it is today. I'm not sure which part you are claiming MW isn't in error of, but Rix agrees that MW mistakenly lumped शीयते (śīyate, to fall down) into this root, which probably had bearing on the definition he gave for it and calls into question the semantic connection to the Latin. --{{victar|talk}} 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, {{R:ine:LIV}} reconstructs the root as *ḱad- (*ḱád-e-ti > cadō) and {{R:ine:LIPP}} as *ḱed- (*ḱd-é-ti > *ḱₔd-é-ti > cadō). --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That could work too for those of us who believe that PIE primary a was merely rare but not nonexistent. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yeah, I'm not a fan of PIE a entries either. I think, however, there is some argument to be made that it existed natively in onomatopoeic roots. My preference would be for *ḱed- though. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


Kroonen does not have this verb. It only has one descendant, which does not match the reconstructed form. The noun *buþlą/*bōþlą, which the verb supposedly derives from, is not found in Kroonen's dictionary either. All this together suggests that this is a rather ad-hoc reconstruction and not supported well enough to have an entry. —Rua (mew) 16:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't reconstructible to Proto-Germanic really, only to (Proto)-Old English. build specifically has to come from early Old English metathesis of earlier *buþlą to *bulþą, with characteristic voicing to *buld-a- after /l/, then *buldijan-. An extra-Germanic cognate is found in Ancient Greek φύτλον, so the word is old, albeit with semantic shift, "live/grow". Burgundaz (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Rua: Old Frisian belda exist and derives from PWG *bōþlijan.[1] --{{victar|talk}} 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but then there's still no common preform that both of them can descend from. —Rua (mew) 09:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Boutkan, Dirk; Siebinga, Sjoerd (2005) , “belda”, in Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 1), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 36: “Denominative verb *bōdl-jan > *bēdl-(j)a(n) > bēlda with metathesis *dl > ld”


Not found in Kroonen's dictionary either, and few of the attested descendants match the reconstruction. Old English preserves -þl-, as shown in the descendants of other Proto-Germanic terms with this cluster, which rules out bold and botl. Moreover, these descendants have a short o. Old Saxon shows Proto-Germanic d, rather than þ (compare *nēþlō, where þ is preserved). Middle Dutch merges þ and d, so there is no evidence there either way. Old Norse indeed has a regular change þl > l, as is visible from the descendants of the other pages. All in all, I don't think there's enough evidence to clearly reconstruct this. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Rua: I went and added source and cognates. Old Frisian also exhibits the same metathesis, so maybe just an Anglo-Frisian random variant. --{{victar|talk}} 04:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


Looks spurious, also as Maria Besse, Britter Wörterbuch. Moselfränkischer Dialekt am "Tor zum Hochwald" has "Fuppes m. .. dummes Zeug, Unsinn ..". Super Teddy 3 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of Welt (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree.  --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam, Super Teddy 3 I'd say this one is cited, but we may consider moving Die Welt into the etymology section. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a procedure for contesting a closed rfv, but simply reinstating the tag should not be it. See also Wiktionary:Tea room § Regional German Fuppes ("football"). For establishing in the etymology section that this is not simply dialect, this page from the Rhineland Mitmachwörterbuch can be a second reference. (The article is not dated, but this was "word of the month" in May and June 2018.)  --Lambiam 09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambian: Please read the part about "Closing a request", especially this part: "“cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed": It wasn't cited for more than a week, and thus it wasn't closed correctly. Additionaly, one of the three cites wasn't even a usage but only a mentioning which isn't sufficient (WT:CFI#Attestation), so it wasn't even cited in the first place.
@Alexis: Additional mentionings can also be next to the usages. It doesn't count for attestation, but can give further information nontheless.
Now it's indeed more or less cited. It could be questioned if Tonight is really durably archived, but well. (en.wp, de.wp, tonight.de sound like it isn't.) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371C:3D52:F002:102E:8593:BFEA (talk) at 10:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC).


Currently the article states that the meaning is "dwarf". That is not correct. The meaning is: "submissive, docile, obedient", "bowing; bent over" or “distant” and or was used as the early name of Japanese (Yamato?). This needs to be corrected. I wanted to correct that, but was reverted and it was explained that I have to do a request for verification first. The "dwarf" or "short" meaning is this: —⁠This unsigned comment was added by AsadalEditor (talkcontribs).

@AsadalEditor: FWIW, The MDBG entry gives a meaning of dwarf for . Meanwhile, the MDBG entry for 矮 gives a meaning of short, but not dwarf. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Tooironic, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, Mar vin kaiser, any other active Chinese editors --

The MDBG and Unihan entries both list "dwarf" as a meaning for this character. My dead-tree copy of the 現代漢語詞典 (Xiàndài Hànyǔ Cídiǎn, Modern Chinese Dictionary) defines only as 我国古代称日本 (Our country's older label for Japan), so I suspect the "dwarf" sense might be obsolete, or at least archaic.

The nominating editor, AsadalEditor (talkcontribs), appears to have shown up to contest these two entries on April 27, 2019, and then vanished again.

Could any of you weigh in with your expertise? Does our Chinese entry need updating, perhaps with labels? And does our Chinese entry need any work?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I would help but I don't currently have access to any professional monolingual hanzi dictionaries. The basic resources I can access don't support the "dwarf" reading. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr: The Oxford Chinese Dictionary (牛津英汉汉英词典) defines it as "dwarf" and "short" and gives 倭刀 "short sword" as an example for "short" (though Guoyu Cidian defines 倭刀 as a kind of Japanese sword). I cannot find this sense in other dictionaries (modern or ancient). To me, it seems to be what I've heard this as what people claim to be the "original" meaning of the word, but I'm not sure if we can find actual uses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you both. FWIW, my (somewhat fuzzy) memory of past readings into Japanese armaments suggests that Japanese swords in antiquity may have commonly been somewhat shorter than those used on the continent, with the exception of the longer 太刀 (tachi) greatsword used by cavalry. So the gloss of 倭刀 as "short sword" or as "Japanese sword" would both seem to fit.
I did run across the Koolearn site's entry for 倭, which includes a sense for "short, dwarf, dwarfish", but I have no idea as to this resource's provenance, reliability, etc. I see the Kangxi page here, sixth character, but I confess that I cannot read enough of that to glean anything useful. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Kangxi doesn't seem to have this "short, dwarf" sense either. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]


I don't think this is a standard spelling. The same goes for 'warhi. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Spanish, eye dialect spelling of España. Ehpaña is much more citeable. Ultimateria (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: There's a lot of hits on Google Groups; are these just typos? Julia 08:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Julia: It can be hard to tell which ones are typos, but it looks like the majority to me. One is "epaña eh diferente" which uses another eye dialect spelling ("eh" for "es"). That and "pero que eto eh epaña" make only two that are definitively intentional. Ultimateria (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A query.
English spelling is extremely squishy. We've got oddball things like knight and night both pronounced like nite. Words like are could be realized as /aː/ or /ɑɹ/ or /aʊə/ etc. An argument could be made that English spelling is approaching logographic in its divergence from strict phonetics. Spelling night as nite is clearly just a visual divergence: both are pronounced the same.
However, various other languages are less loosey-goosey with their orthography. Words are pronounced as they're spelled. Thus, España and Epaña are not just visual differences -- the different spellings represent different phonetic realizations.
At what point does this spelling-difference phenomenon shift from "eye dialect" to just "dialect"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again, Wiktionarians are misusing the term eye dialect, which refers to a nonstandard spelling reflecting a standard pronunciation (e.g. English sez for says, whose standard pronunciation is /sɛz/). Unless /eˈpaɲa/ and /ehˈpaɲa/ are standard pronunciations in Spanish, these aren't eye dialect. They're nonstandard spellings, i.e. spellings reflecting nonstandard pronunciations. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC).


Rfv-sense: dhole. @Atitarev added it per Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (2002), but a newer (the newest?) version of the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese edition) does not have such a sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I won't cry if the sense is removed, it's from the old dictionary. BTW, I have pinged you on 猱犬 (náoquǎn, “dhole”), which I found in Pleco but you may have missed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: In the Dungan-Russian dictionary there is an entry for цэлон (celon) (tones III-I) with a translation шака́л (šakál, jackal) (for the lack of the more correct word for "dhole"). I'm pretty sure it's the equivalent of Mandarin 豺狼 (cháiláng). Dungan цэгу (cegu) = 豺狗 (cháigǒu) and цэгузы (ceguzɨ) are listed as synonyms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, there are hits for google:"一隻豺狼", which would suggest it's referring to some animal (rather than "the dhole and the wolf"). It'd be hard to pin-point which exact animal it's referring to. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
It seems that older work translate it as "wolf" (like [29]). I'm not sure if this is just an effect of translation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Die Grünen[edit]

The first sense. This doesn't count:

  • "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
  • "Grüne", "die Grünen" etc.
  • "Die Grünen" at the beginning of a sentence

For the second sense, one can find enough examples searching for "Partei Die Grünen". Daloda (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that your issue is that sense 1 is actually the sum of the definite article die and the plural form of the noun Grüne(r)? If so, I think you are right. But the sense ”(in plural, collectively) the German green party, 'Bündnis 90/Die Grünen'“, currently found at Grüner, may be more in place at Grünen. (Does it make sense that this noun has separate masculine and feminine entries? Can’t we combine them?)  --Lambiam 05:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, my point is: Does "Die Grünen" meaning "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" exists, is it attestable, are there pars-pro-toto uses? "Die Grünen" refering to an older party exists. And because of the capital D it's not just "die" + "Grüner".
(Grüner/Grüne and Grüne are different words with different gender and inflection.) Daloda (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


The word exists, but the characters seem questionable. I can only find this orthography in a wikibook (b:zh:福州語/數字). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

福州方言研究 writes the monosyllabic form (recorded in 福州方言詞典 1998 as ) as . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
榕典 suggests 捭哩. Perhaps we can move the entry there? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Spanish, "to tame". Ultimateria (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in this dictionary (not sure what "sl" means). DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently it means "slang". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It was WF who made the page, which is a bad sign. That guy sucks. Anyway, it seems to mean, unsurprisingly, to school or educate. Rare as hell, though. --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]


Swedish. Along with kd, seems to be uppercase. --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(normally considered offensive, often considered vulgar, ethnic slur) A dark-skinned person, especially a person of, or primarily of, black African descent", removed by an IP as "I am italian and I have never once heard the word "tizzone" used in that way. There's no trace of it anywhere on the internet that I could find of, and the italian page doesn't mention it either". — surjection?⟩ 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Not in my paper dictionaries. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's not how this works. Have you even considered that maybe your paper dictionaries don't cover racist slurs? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah. The arguments become stranger and stranger. It’s one of the most valuable parts of Wiktionary that we have words that fall under the radar, that aren’t covered and aren’t known by those people who else curate dictionaries. If you haven’t heard certain words, it also comes from a state of privilege. “I am Italian”, “I am German” ends up to be like “I have been brought up in the polite society”.
    That being said, if one listens to Italian rap music oftener one will probably stumble upon this word, as Metaknowledge’s quote has shown. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is RFV driven by WT:ATTEST, and for Italian, paper dictionaries do not even count toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak: I know this is real, at least in Sicilian (as used in the US), but I don't know how to search rap lyrics or sift through all the uses of the literal meaning, so I think it's up to you to save this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge Yeah but I have never learned Italian, let alone listened to raps in it, i.e. I am no active user of it yet, so I don’t know to search certain words or constructions to find certain things. (You might also create a Sicilian entry with a quote which will have a similar value.) Where are the Italians anyhow? None on Wiktionary apparently? (Oh, the last one was Angelucci, you know what happened. No Italians in the recent changes to Italian lemmas.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @GianWiki is a frequent contributor; maybe he can be of help. Canonicalization (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I have to say that – while I can see the word being used in such a sense – I've never heard (or read) it used in a similar sense. -- GianWiki (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
(For the benefit of a certain user, TW for mentions on the N-word.)
  • 2006, David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White, page 113 has a mention (but not a use), curiously as a Northern (rather than only a Southern) Italian word: "The word [tutsún, a slur for a black person], as Andrea di Tommaso wrote, came from "tizzone—a borning log or piece of wood which is black from being charred." Northerners in Italy, she continued, "sometimes refer to southerners as tizzoni (or Marrocchini—that is, Moroccans). The slur tutsún is "vicious," far more negative than melanzana, the racial slur derived from the Italian word for eggplant, which was also used as an imported immigrant term for African Americans." (Roediger mentions that this was part of Northern Italians considering Southern Italians to be African.)
  • 2018, Katherine Da Cunha Lewin, Kiron Ward, Don DeLillo: Contemporary Critical Perspectives, page 103: also mentions tizzone and says Italian Americans render it (in English) as tizzoon, tizzun, likewise a slur that "expresses the speaker's hatred, contempt, and fear of a black other".
    • In turn, 2014, Maria Lauret, Wanderwords: Language Migration in American Literature, page 47, has a quote from DeLillo's works of that English word: "There was always the neighborhood and who was leaving and who was moving in, showing up on the fringes. Tizzoons. A word Albert wishes they wouldn't use. A southern dialect word, a corruption, a slur, an invective, from tizzo, he assumed, a firebrand or smoldering coal, and broadened to human dimensions in tizzone d'inferno, scoundrel, villain." (Later, Lauret mentions how DeLillo has Albert compare and contrast the word with nigger, confirming the semantics.)
  • I can also find some citations of tizzun in italics in English texts:
    • 2018, William Boyle, Gravesend: "'Should've gone to Ford, Lafayette. But then you gotta deal with an army of tizzuns.'"
    • 1999, Nick Tosches, Dino: Living High in the Dirty Business of Dreams, page 76 (several other books by this author also use this word): "They followed the music, even to the Ionic Club and other tizzun joints, where few white boys ventured. 'We used to hit 'em.' Costanzo said. 'They used to have nigger singers in 'em.'"
I can't find any uses of the Italian word in books, though, searching together with other words (slurs or neutral terms) for "black" or "African". - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Used in various Brazilian funk song, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzavRj4pnK0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsl3uQdQw0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7urWiVOLcc

The sense in question is "(slang) to twerk", which currently has no cites. — surjection??⟩ 20:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

gen pl vicum[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Does not appear to exist. This is a defective noun with only certain cases attested. As those attestations are very frequent, I would expect the missing forms to be truly missing, not simply unattested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

k, m, q[edit]

Should be K., M., Q. (cp. Category:Latin praenominal abbreviations). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed, moved per nom. - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


Because of the missing dot it looks English and not Latin. --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Possibly should be mag̃ro, cp. [30], [31], [32]. BTW: Similary ptate (properly ptãte as in [33], [34]?), hmoi might be wrong... --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As to the latter, I see ħmoi, ħmõi and hm̃oi, but also (because of limited typographical capabilities?) vanilla hmoi.  --Lambiam 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

not.-Tir., n.-Tir.[edit]

"-" makes no sense (in Latin). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but the same can be said for a full stop to denote an abbreviation; yet, the latter is conventionally applied all over the place. Note that we also have n.-Tir. I believe the corresponding versions without hyphens (not. Tir., n. Tir.) are in use but unoccupied here, and so it appears safe to move them to that spelling.  --Lambiam 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
German and Latin not. Tir., Not. Tir., not. Tiron., Not. Tiron. (also with capital in Latin) can easily be found (Latin: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]).
[43], [44] have not. tiron..
I had no luck finding n./N. tiron./Tiron., n./N. tir./Tir. (in any combination regarding capitalisation) or any hyphenated form.
not. Tiron. had, for whatever reason, "|head=not.-Tīrōn." with hyphen. Based on that, I too would assume that "-" was incorrectly added (in a hypercorrectly Frenchy way?). --Brown*Toad (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess I was fooled by occurrences of n. Tir. as seen here, but examination reveals that the juxtaposition of n. and Tir. is incidental and that Tir. stands for Tirocinium.  --Lambiam 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin albicilla[edit]

@la, Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 I strongly suspect this is an erroneous adjective created by someone who didn't know Latin genders very well rather than a noun. In particular, it is used in Haliaeetus albicilla, which was originally named Falco albicilla. I suspect the person who chose the name Falco albicilla thought that falcō was feminine rather than masculine (an easy mistake to make), and accordingly used the feminine of albicillus (white-tailed). This error was then propagated when the genus was renamed. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed (Falco is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here] is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled about considering this Latin if it's only used in (one?) taxonomic name, but the evidence above suggests that the analysis of this as a noun whose second element is the noun cilla, rather than an adjective, is plausible. Anyone else want to weigh in? - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If it helps any, I suspect that Linnaeus capitalizes nouns in his taxonomic names, somewhat like modern German does. That would mean that Albicilla is confirmed as a noun rather than an adjective. As for whether this is Latin or Translingual: I've managed to track down some of the passages referenced by Linnaeus' inscrutable abbreviations, though perhaps not the same editions. These are works that predate the current binomial system, and they're mostly in Latin. These have albicilla as one of the names for the bird in question: Geſn.av.205 is Volume III of w:Conrad Gessner's Historia animalium, page 199 (in this edition, at least). Will. ornith. 31 is w:Francis Willughby's "Ornithologiae Libri Tres" page 31. Raj. av. 7 n. 5 is w:John Ray's "Synopsis methodica avium & piscium", page 7 no. 5. Although these are arguably mentions, note that two of them mention it in the accusative singular, in Latin running text. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Latin manuculus is marked as "Vulgar Latin", and many sources put a star by it indicating it's reconstructed. Can we attest it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin persecātus "dissected"[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Similar to above. The proper past passive participle is persectus. Does persecātus exist and if so when did it come into existence? Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “In the first conjugation -ātus was preserved and was extended to all verbs: [...] sectus > secatus”.  --Lambiam 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Sure; you can see this in the Romance languages. But this doesn't mean that such words are necessarily attested in *Latin* texts, and even if they are, I'd like to indicate what era to make clear this isn't Classical. Benwing2 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the quoted source puts asterisks in front of some forms, but not secatus, strongly suggests that the latter is attested in Vulgar Latin. This does not imply that this extends to persecātus, of course. All we know is that any attestations are unlikely to be Classical Latin.  --Lambiam 08:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Georges: "Perf. im Vulgärlat. auch secavi, wov. secarunt, Corp. inscr. Lat. 6, 30112: secarit, Serv. Verg. Aen. 5, 2: Partiz. Fut. Akt. secaturus, Colum. 5, 9, 2.: Partiz. Perf. Pass. secatus, Corp. inscr. Lat. 5, 5049, 12. de Rosci inscr. Christ. Vol. I. p. 265. Vulg. 4. Esdr. 4, 32. Commodian. apol. 514 (510)." But that's secare and secatus, not persecatus. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Trangomaron (talkcontribs) at 09:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC).


Error in replyto template: Username not given. This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of auctorō". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

[45]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [46], [47]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


Verifying entry {{zh-see|媽媽|ss}}: the second-round simplified form of 媽媽妈妈 (māma). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it is second-round simplified, but 媽々 may be attestable in older publications, like this(?). However, it seems to be difficult to find examples. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
More cases here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also here and here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Here as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm kind of skeptical about this, because 1) it says second-round simplified form here, but as far as I know no document introducing the simplification shows that 々 is used, and 2) this could be theoretically extended to other words, like 青青 (qīngqīng), 郁郁 (yùyù), 黃澄澄黄澄澄 (huángdèngdèng) and so on, and should we create articles for the 々 form of all of these?
Oh by the way, if the "second-round simplified form" is to be believed, should the 々 form of 青青 be 青々 or 𰀈々? --ItMarki (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


Made by the same contributor. —Suzukaze-c 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2019[edit]

Latin Aunes = Aunios[edit]

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, JohnC5 Aunes is claimed to be the Medieval Latin equivalent of Aunios, found in Pliny. The listed declension makes no sense (genitive Auniī) and I can't find any attestations. I'm inclined to just delete it straight away as nonsense but would like to see if anyone can attest it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The heck, @Froaringus probably mistyped or something like that. First created as Aunis, then moved to Aunes, then the content to Aunios but not bringing it over to put a {{delete}} to Aunes. It’s a thing made up in his mind, sure. Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry with Aunis, it was a mistype and I later forgot about it. The correct form, present in local Medieval Latin charters (CODOLGA) is Aunes.--Froaringus (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


Adverbs derived from second-class adjectives normally end in -iter (as in serviliter), not . Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

L&S: "Hence, adv., like a slave, slavishly, servilely. a servile: gemens, Claud. B. Gild. 364.", Georges: "Acc. neutr. poet. st. des Adv., servile gemens, Claud. b. Gild. 364." --Trangomaron (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Acc. neutr. poet.": so that would be servīlĕ with a short , not with the adverbial suffix . Also, L&S states that "Comp. and sup. of the adj. and adv. do not occur", yet Latisc added them. Canonicalization (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the one adverbial use by Claudian, in De Bello Gildonico: servile gemens. The pitiful moans come from a captured lion, called a monstrum by the Emperor’s father-in-law relating a prophetic dream. Might it be that the neuter form servile is in agreement with the neuter noun monstrum?  --Lambiam 09:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Not answering your question, but having scanned the dactylic hexameter, I can confirm it's a short . Canonicalization (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I removed the comparative and superlative forms, based on the comments above that they do not occur. Are we considering the citations mentioned above to verify this or to be using a different word (different POS)? - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō[edit]

@Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 @Lambiam Claimed to be an alternative form of odiō; conjugated like . Is it real? Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Also podeō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete odeō. As for podeō, this is supposed to be a variant of pudeō rather than possum. BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to escaiō, a macaronic spelling of excido. For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as odiātus and escaio, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a Dachsprache tradition.
Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with Medieval Latin werra. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:
"Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identified thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-defined social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be defined, as hopelessly vague."
The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]


Not in Le Trésor, which only has estencele as ancestor of French étincelle. Godefroy has estancele, but with a completely different sense.  --Lambiam 01:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 臀 (tún, “buttocks”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In Japanese 中殿筋 is a synonym of 中臀筋. I don’t know if a similar equivalence can be found in Chinese, although I see Google hits for 殿中肌 (e.g. here, where it appears to refer to the gluteus medius).  --Lambiam 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
It has been changed to "original form of 臀" by an IP in Jun 2020. The "alternative form" sense is not found in Hanyu Da Zidian or Guoyu Cidian, and is likely unattested. As a matter of fact, even the "original form of 臀" sense is probably also unattested. RcAlex36 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Persian: Tagged by Emascandam (talkcontribs) --Mélange a trois (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Added source. --{{victar|talk}} 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Are there three quotations for this? Persian is a WDL. — surjection??⟩ 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)



厼 (eumhun 금) It is the borrowed notation(借字表記 / 차자표기), which was veryfied in some references. (1984, P. Nam, “차자표기법 연구”(借字表記法 硏究), Dankook University Publish, published 1984.)Reference

是去有良。이거이신아。 attested in the Jeonyul Tongbo (典律通補 / 전율통보), 1786. Reference

--Meoru00 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, Tibidibi Are you familiar with this? RcAlex36 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@RcAlex36 This was used since the first millennium to write the distributive/emphatic particle (Yale: kwom), obsolete in modern Korean except in a few fossilized words like 다시금 (dasigeum, once again). Not sure about the glyph origin, though. Korean probably isn't the best L2 header for it.--Tibidibi (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


Real Spanish? Yes. Have I seen it before? Yes. Have I considered adding this term to WT before? Yes. Is it jocular? Yes. Is the etymology interesting? Yes, it's a Spanishized pseudo-English calque of por la cara. Does it appear in durably archived media? Not at first glance, but I'm sure with a bit of digging it might be. --Vealhurl (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is used here as the title of a news category; I am not certain that enredando.info counts as permanently recorded media. A book use: [48]. Another one: [49], but there it seems used as part of a proper noun (Baidefeis card), which may not count.  --Lambiam 05:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Old French plaigne and descendants[edit]

This is claimed to mean "plain" (flat expanse of land), which is misspelled "plane" in the entry. It appears the correct word is either plain or plaine. This is *maybe* an Anglo-Norman word; http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ has "plaingne" in this meaning among many other variants, which is similar to "plaigne". The form "plaigne" is also given in this dictionary as the first feminine form of "plein" "full". The English descendants "plain" and "plane" are claimed for this word, which doesn't agree with the etymologies listed for those words. BTW how would the gn sneak into this word? Maybe a non-attested VL *plānea? But then how does the feminine of "plein" end up as "plaigne"? @Fay Freak, Lambiam, any ideas? Benwing2 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The term occurs in the Vulgate Lancelot, in some mss. twice (see the footnote on p.329). I have no theory on the origin of the intrusive g, but note that Romansch plagn shows that nasalization of [n] can apparently also take place without high vowel following the n.  --Lambiam 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]


Igbo third-person pronoun, but capitalized. Seems dubious. There's a fuller entry at . — Eru·tuon 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see a few uses that are not sentence-initial (only in search snippets; web pages fail to display), but they are in Bible texts and seem to refer to the Judeo-Christian God. We do have He as an {{honor alt case|en|he|nocap=1}} Capitalized “ọ” may be attestable with the analogous sense in Igbo. The current definition is obviously inconsistent with the headword line.  --Lambiam 09:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure what's going on with this entry. In Latin, the consonant cluster dst only occurs in morphologically complex words that contain the prepositional prefix ad-. However, there is no base word stutia or stutus for a prefixed word "ad-stutia" to be built on. A prefixed word like "adstutia" would be expected to have the alternative form astutia, with elision of the d; compare astrictiō and adstrictiō. There is a Latin word astūtia, but it does not seem to contain the prefix ad-: it is from the adjective astūtus, from astus, whose etymology is a little unclear. The spelling adstutia could have arisen by analogy with words that did start with the prefix ad-, but I can't find that form actually listed in any reliable dictionary entry for astutia. The meaning is also slightly different ("adstutia" supposedly means "diplomacy", while "astūtia" is more like "cunning"). Can anyone confirm whether "adstutia" exists as anything other than a misspelling of astūtia?--Urszag (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A few occurrences in Late Latin: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. I am not sure how to place this, but it seems to arise from a false splitting. But why the effort to throw in an extra d? A pedantic way of showing off? I have not looked at the senses of these uses.  --Lambiam 21:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectives[edit]

RFV for any neuter form. Instead of "masculine and neuter forms identical to feminine forms" it might be "masculine forms identical to feminine forms; neuter forms not attested". --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly attested uses of some such adjectives with neuter nouns in some case/number combinations, although it's not commonly seen. I discussed this type of adjective on Benwing's talk page, where Benwing brought up the application of the adjective to the neuter noun vinum (Benwing gave the form vīnum aliēnigena, while Lewis & Short gives a quote for the same phrase in the ablative: "“vino alienigenā utere,” Gell. 2, 24"). Similarly, the L&S entry for indigena gives a citation for its use with the form vinum. I said on the other page that I don't know of any examples of a first-declension form being used for a neuter in the plural, and I am quite suspicious of the neuter plural nominative/accusative forms in "-ae" that we currently display. Many such adjectives seem to have had collateral second-declension forms.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also vinus m - might that occur in "vino alienigenā"? --Marontyan (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the Pliny citation that I mentioned in my last post, and it looks like it is actually ablative as well: "de indigena vino". So you're correct that these forms are not distinctively neuter as opposed to masculine, although I don't believe either of these authors ever uses the masculine nominative form "vinus". I will look for examples of the nominative singular in Classical sources (it's fairly easy to find a few post-Classical examples just by Googling the phrases mentioned above).--Urszag (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A much-mentioned example seems to be the use of ruricola to modify aratrum, in Ovid, but in this case as well the actual attested form doesn't seem to be nominative or accusative: the verse is given as "Tempore ruricolae patiens fit taurus aratri", with the genitive singular.--Urszag (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Another update. The post-classical examples that I mentioned seem to mostly be dictionaries, which are not so great I think as examples of usage. But in any case, here is one concrete example of "indigena" used with an unambiguously neuter noun: "Landwein: vinum indigena, vinum in ipsa terra natum: vinum vernaculum", page 1402 in Ausführliches und möglichst vollständiges deutsch-lateinisches Lexicon oder Worterbuch zur Übung in der lateinischen Sprache, by Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller, 1789. Because of the pedagogical tradition of classifying such adjectives as common gender, there seems to be a fairly firmly established idea in taxonomic circles that forms ending in -cola can be used in the nominative as neuter adjectives (these two blog posts reference that idea: https://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1658229.html, https://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/120246141998/atmidolum) so I'd imagine taxonomic examples can be found, but that runs into the issue that you've talked about in your other RFVs.--Urszag (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these even really adjectives, and not simply attributive nouns? --Lvovmauro (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "attributive" the term you're looking for, or did you mean to say "appositive" instead? Adjectives and appositive nouns are formally distinguished in Latin in certain contexts by the fact that appositive nouns could be of a different gender from the head noun; e.g. "flumen Tiberim". But aside from that, adjectives and appositive nouns tend to behave similarly. So despite the existence of this distinction, there were some doubtful or variable cases. Madvig, transl. Woods 1870 mentions the case of adjectival neuter plural forms victricia and ultricia derived from originally appositive victor/victrix and ultor/ultrix. It seems that compilers of other Latin dictionaries have generally been of the opinion that the use of indigena and alienigena in the quotations above was adjectival.--Urszag (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Old Prussian lemmas[edit]

For everything spelled with a macron (e.g. Dēiwas/Dēiws, piēncts) as it looks like reconstruction, neo-Old Prussian. See also: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Trothmuse (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered about our Old Prussian coverage as well, but I'm not sure anyone active here knows enough about the language and its corpus to dare to speak up about it or to be able to answer this rfv satisfactorily. I really am not sure what is to be done; if I had the leisure time right now to research this all on my own I would, but I don't. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they are. I know that Old Prussian has long vowels, furthermore the Elbing vocabulary, the one online, provides, I think, a reconstruction of words phonetically. The examples above are strange given the other Baltic languages don't have a ē in Lithuanian diẽvas and Latvian dìevs. From what I know, Old Prussian had no phonological development that caused stressed vowels to lengthen, only the opposite, that unstressed long vowels were reduced to simple vowels. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RFV for the following:

  • azzaran: EGPV "See   Assaran", see assaran
  • ballo: EGPV "Stirne   Batto"
  • dags: see EGPV in dagis
  • irma: EGPV "Arm   Irmo", TLP "irmo, Arm, Oberarm", see irmo
  • kams: EGPV "Bene   Bitte" & "Hu͡mele   Camus", TLP "camus, Hummel, [..] Voc. 788."
  • naguttis: EGPV "Nagel   Nagutis", TLP "nagutis, Nagel am Finger"
  • pazzuls: EGPV "Nacke   Passoles", TLP "pa-ssoles, (pl.?), Nacken"
  • salts: "(manuscript forms:) salta" sounds like "salts" is a non-manuscript form, i.e. a reconstruction. TLP "salta, kalt", WBdSG "kalt   Salta"
  • sirablas: EGPV "Silber   Siraplis" - only attested as acc. sirablan, cp. TLP?
  • skals: EGPV "Kinne   Scalus", TLP "scalus, Kinn"
  • sunnis: EGPV "Hunt   Sunis", TLP "sunis, Hund", WBdSG "Hundt   Songos"
  • swerreps: EPGV "Keynhe͡gest   Sweriapis", TLP "sweriapis (keynhengest) Voc. 431. ist nunmehr wohl hinreichend klar gelegt als Zuchthengst, Beschäler; es ist das Masc., welches den Femininis poln. [..], böhm. swerzepice, Stute, entspricht; [...] niederrhein. kîen, beschälen [...]"
  • August, Daggis, Rags: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.

EGPV = Elbing German-Prussian Vocabulary (by G. H. F. Nesselmann, online with reconstructions); TLP = Thesaurus linguae prussicae (etc.) by G. H. F. Nesselmann; WBdSG = Wörterbuch des Simon Grunau.
BTW RFC for undan and unds, see the comment in unds and in the source of wundan. TLP "wundan, Wasser, Voc. 59., wunda, Gr., vgl. und-s" and "und-s, nom., undan, acc. undas, gen. sg., undans, acc. pl., Wasser; Ench. [..]; wundan, Voc., wunda, Gr. s. dd." --Trothmuse (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (town) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (town), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (village) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (village).
If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (water) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (water).
One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [55] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


According to dictionaries it isn't attested:

  • L&S: "vēnus, ūs, m., or vēnum (vaen-), i, n. (occurring only in the forms venui, veno, and venum) [...]"
  • Georges: "vēnus, ūs u. ī, m. [...] nur im Dat. u. Acc. vorkommend [...]"

Hence it's *vēnus, or vēnum (defective). --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford Latin Dictionary says it's documented only in the accusative and dative, but venus is still the lemma form used in that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Marontyan, EncycloPetey How do you like the current arrangement? I'm inclined to make it into a template. Brutal Russian (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it attested in later sources? The OLD only covers Classical Latin, but if the lemma form occurs in later sources (Vulgar or Medieval Latin), then it would still be attested as Latin. Has anyone checked later sources? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectives[edit]

All created by the same user.
Just la.WP/WT protologisms (with changed capitalisation)? --Marontyan (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)





Telugu: Abbreviation. Apparently means "cat on the wall". Why would anyone abbreviate that???? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Rajasekhar1961...  --Lambiam 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
short form of గోడమీద పిల్లి (gōḍamīda pilli) (Cat on the wall). It is similar to మి.మీ. (mi.mī.) for మిల్లీ మీటరు. (millī mīṭaru.). If it is not clear, can we put a fullstop between the letters.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961 Yeah, but why would you abbreviate such an obviously SOP phrase? A google search brings up what looks like a movie/show, along with actual cats on walls. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be an idiomatic expression expressing uncertainty about how a situation will develop. (Self [te-0] and Google translate [te-1] at best, so this interpretation may not be on the nose.) It is pointless to define it by giving its literal translation, which does not carry that sense in English.  --Lambiam 11:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This Telugu dictionary explains it as “a proverbial expression for sitting on the fence”. It is not clear to me whether the idiom applies to a person (a fence sitter), or to an unresolved issue that can go either way, or can apply to either.  --Lambiam 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


-- 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([56], [57]) as well as elsewhere ([58], [59] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([60], [61]).  --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It's in Hanyu Da Cidian, but the current definition doesn't seem to be right. I'm having trouble understanding the definition that is given: "分处庭中,以示平等". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. I guess 分处 could mean 分别安置, 分别居住, or something else. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "compact; well-knit; tight". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic, you included this sense when you first created this entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "less advanced people". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I suspect this definition corresponds to 後進之人 in Guoyu Cidian or 指以后成长起来的人 in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "current residence". Tagged by @Dine2016 but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's referring to something like the "刚刚迁入的住所" part of the definition in Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian or "新迁入的住所" in Hanyu Da Cidian. This definition isn't quite adequate though, and "new residence" (the other definition) would capture this better. Pinging @Kc kennylau, who added this definition (though not quite active anymore). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


The quote is in English, put in a French section --Vealhurl (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are two French sources, but the term is spelled “p.p.c.” or “P.P.C.”: [62], [63].  --Lambiam 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]


I have no problem with the word or whenever it existed or not. My issue is in regards to whenever the word should be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *erþaburgz (earthen mound, earthwork) or *erþōburgz. This example is one of many PGmc where the first noun of the reconstructed compound ends with "ō" but the reconstructed compound has medial "a". I would normally check the descendent to see if I can deduce more information, however, most have no medial compound vowel e.g. Old English eorþburh, Old High German erdburg, Old Norse jarðborh. So now, I'm left wondering what form it should be. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The default medial vowel in pre-Germanic had become -o- for the thematic classes, as in Celtic and Latin. PGmc medial*-ō- would presumably have left some trace in OHG. Burgundaz (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

octavius, octarius[edit]

The references are English and possible the language got confused (compare Talk:bibliothecologia). --Bolaguun (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


This word is not found in either of the cited dictionaries. There is a word tzapalotl in Morelos Nahuatl, but that's spelled differently. Alexis Wimmer's Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl classique has an entry for zapalotl citing Clavigero's Historia antigua de Megico, but as far as I can see it only includes the Spanish loan zapalote, and not the Nahuatl word. (Plus I'm not sure if the Nahuatl of Clavigero's time would be considered Classical.) --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This string of letters, with some meaning, is mentioned as a Nahuatl word in a number of texts, one of which asserts it as a word in Sinaloa:
  • 2010, Daniel F. Austin, Baboquivari Mountain Plants: Identification, Ecology, and Ethnobotany, University of Arizona Press (→ISBN), page 30:
    SPANISH: lechuguilla (little lettuce), maguey (see A. parviflora for derivation), zapalote (from Náhuatl zapalotl, the name for A. tequilana farther south, Sinaloa);
And others place it as a word in Honduras, if that helps narrow down what varieties of Nahuatl to search in:
  • 1907, Alberto Membreño, Aztequismos de Honduras:
    Zapalotl, plátano. Color moreno de una clase de maíz. / Zapoyolo. Tzapoyollotl, centro del zapote. El hueso del mamey mexicano y del zapotillo.
  • 1982, Alberto Membreño, Hondureñismos:
    En azteca, zapalotl significa banano, plátano.
  • 1989, Alessandra Foletti-Castegnaro, Alfarería lenca contemporánea de Honduras:
    [] zapote, y "yolotl", corazón. maíz de color oscuro, negro veteado con rojo. Del nahua "zapalotl", plátano.
I can only find one string of running text, and the bibliographic details of it are unclear:
  • (on Google Books as "1958, Proceedings":)
    Sen tonali icuac notscaltili hueyi oquili nantzin nejua nicnequi nicmatis catlejua onquinosa tlacal tecuanantli oquili tlacal cuy hueyi san zapalotl quinopialia miec mañas Totecuiyo Dios mispiali. oquito tecuanconetl nejua niau nictetemos nana  ...
- -sche (discuss) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


This doesn't fit the Greek form, which reflects *temnō. —Rua (mew) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. According to Beekes 2010 in the entry for τέμνω, "The nasal present τάμνω << PGr. *tamnēmi < PIE *tm-neh₁-mi is original, as is the root aorist 3sg. *etemet < *h₁e-temh₁-t, which was replaced by a thematic aorist ἔτεμον. This situation was levelled in various ways in the dialects: Att. innovated with the present τέμνω, while epic Ion. and Dor. secondarily created the aorist ἔταμον." Beekes states at the beginning of the entry that the form τάμνω is attested in Epic Ionic as well as Doric. This τάμνω appears to be simply a thematicized version of the original athematic nasal present PIE *tm-neh₁-mi attested in several IE languages. --Demolition man (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think there's several aspects to look at then.
  1. Athematic vs thematic inflection.
  2. The appearance of the ē.
  3. e or a in the root.
Based on the forms you've given here, all forms of Greek seem to agree on the first two points: thematic inflection with no ē. They only differ with respect to the third point. I think Beekes is therefore correct on the distribution of e versus a. On the other hand, I think it goes too far to reconstruct Proto-Hellenic with athematic inflection and ē. After all, we know that PIE started off in one situation and Greek ended up in another, but we can't tell at what point one form got replaced with the other in the history of Hellenic. It could be entirely possible that an intermediate stage had thematic inflection but kept the ē, i.e. *təmnēō. In cases like this, I believe the reconstruction should be based on the later point in time (which is actually attested) rather than the earlier point (which is reconstructed). So I think that we should reconstruct *təmnō (aorist *(e)temon) for Proto-Hellenic, with points 1 and 2 agreeing with their later attested forms rather than their earlier PIE reconstructed forms. —Rua (mew) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms[edit]

In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish: Francia, Inglatera and Alemania. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [64], Mexico City.
That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
(That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New reference.

Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/December#Nahuatl_(nah):_convert_etymology-only_or_delete?. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the editors of the Nahuatl Wikipedia do not seem to be native speakers and I'm not sure if their writing would even be intelligible to native speakers. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "beating; pounding". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I'm not quite sure how "in Japanese contexts" would be relevant to this sense, seeing that the usage in Japanese isn't usually anything cultural. It's unclear what the IP who added the sense intended to say. There are lots of hits of "心臟鼓動" in Google books, but I would probably analyse this as a verb instead of a noun. 漢語大詞典 seems to include something similar under the sense 顫動: 郭沫若《洪波曲》第一章五:“盡管是怎樣化了石的廣州,經受著抗戰的大風暴,也微微地有生命的脈搏在鼓動。” It also includes our "to fan; to flap" under the same sense, as illustrated by this quote: 葉聖陶《一課》:“他跟著他們望去,見一個白的蝴蝶飛舞窗外,兩翅鼓動得極快,全身幾乎成爲圓形。” — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Latin: abbreviation of Publius. In lowercase. Good luck finding cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare: WT:RFVN#k,_m,_q.
Also I'd like to add the sense "Abbreviation of populus" as it should rather be p. or P. or P (as in SPQR) --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


For "pascha n (.., genitive paschae ..); first declension ..", which is not in Gaffiot or Lewis & Short. --B-Fahrer (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instances of paschae, pascham and pascharum. I didn’t immediately see uses that verify that the noun is also neuter in this declensional paradigm. BTW, I doubt that Aramaic פסחא(paskha) is “from” Hebrew פסח(pésakh); I think the two terms are merely cognates.  --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I already added a citation to Citations:pascha that shows it being used as a neuter first-declension noun (nominative "Pascha annotinum" alongside ablative "de Pascha annotino"; if it were masculine, these would be "Pascha annotinus" and "de Pascha annotino"; if it were feminine, they would be "Pascha annotina" and "de Pascha annotina"; and if it were third declension neuter, these would be "Pascha annotinum" and "de Paschate annotino"). For a few other examples, view the answers to this Latin Stack Exchange post, which I made in May: Was “Pascha” ever used as a neuter first-declension noun?. The question post there also cites a few sources that describe this word as being declined in some sources as a first-declension neuter with a genitive singular in -ae.--Urszag (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The citation at Citations:pascha could also have an indeclinable neuter and not a neuter 1st declension noun. Some of the examples at stackexchange are better (thank you for the link) - but they are Medieval Latin and hence there should be a note in the WT entry, or a much older citation. --B-Fahrer (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@B-Fahrer, Lambiam, Urszag: So is there any evidence of 3rd-decl use? And if anyone wants to add a usage note to the entry, that would be much appreciated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
All of the forms built on the stem paschat-/Paschat- unambiguously belong to the third declension. The things that are difficult to find evidence for are the gender of the first-declension genitive singular form "Paschae" and the declension category of the neuter singular nominative/accusative form "Pascha". The ablative singular form "Pascha" is clearly not a third-declension form. B-Fahrer suggests it could be an indeclinable form; that is technically possible, but a text that uses "pascha" as an indeclinable neuter would be expected I think to lack genitive "paschae" or to contain genitive "pascha" (which is as far as I know unattested, although I haven't tried to check for its existence yet). So I think "Pascha" in the ablative singular with neuter agreement is pretty strong evidence for the first-declension neuter paradigm. With regards to usage notes and dating, I don't know if I agree that the paucity of early examples is especially notable with regard to the first-declension neuter paradigm: as far as I can tell, the word wasn't very frequent in any of its forms until the rise of Christianity, so I'm not sure whether the feminine first-declension and neuter third-declension forms can be established as any older. The only hits for "Pasch" that I find in the PHI Latin Texts corpus are from Zeno of Verona's Tractatus (Zeno Veronensis Tractatus, ed. B. Löfstedt, 1971) . Zeno apparently lived in the fourth century CE. The sermons themselves seem to only contain the form "pascha"; there is evidence from adjective agreement that it is neuter (e.g. "legitimum pascha"). The first-declension genitive singular form "paschae" shows up in this document in sermon titles and in the table of contents—but I don't know what date those were written.--Urszag (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Any texts in which this word, as opposed to ἅρπη (hárpē), appears? I didn't see a Doric or Aeolic form mentioned in any of the dictionary entries linked from ἅρπη (hárpē). — Eru·tuon 03:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Χαῖρε, hello, nice to (virtually) meet you...
With regard to recent edits on ἅρπα I wasn't sure where to post this, I was just responding specifically vis-à-vis the Doric Greek morphology of ἅρπα but ran long touching on the broader subject of Greek dialects and their inclusion on Wiktionary, so I'll post this full comment on your talk page too...
Personally I am bewildered that a simple 1st declension noun like Doric ἅρπα for Attic ἅρπη would be controversial...? This is pretty basic Ancient Greek dialectal morphology variance. Doric (and Aeolic) retain original ᾱ which Attic changed to η in many cases (there are exceptions after certain letters ε, ι, ρ; whereas Ionic nearly always changes old ᾱ to η). 1st declension singular -ᾱ, -ᾱς, -ᾳ, ᾱν. In the plural the forms are the same as Attic except in the genitive plural Doric -ᾱων typically contracts to -ᾶν. Unlike some other dialectal variances, on an academic level Doric 1st declension in -ᾱ, -ᾱς for Attic -η, -ης is a fairly well-established consistent paradigm, a minor lengthening of one vowel...
....and Western/Central Greek dialects (Doric-Aeolic) preserved ᾱ which was the original Ancient Greek form; Attic-Ionic lengthening ᾱ to η was a later dialectal novelty unique to the Eastern Greek dialects (Attic-Ionic). Attic is in fact the variant form here from the original authentic archaic Greek form which Aeolic and Doric much more faithfully preserved...to this day Tsakonian, descended from Doric, spoken in the Peloponnese (albeit sadly endangered) preserves ancient α where later Attic-derived Greek substituted η.
And in the ancient world, Doric and Aeolic Greek is what they spoke in Sparta and all of Laconia, in Thebes and all of Boeotia, in Epirus, in Achaea and Thessaly, Corinth and Olympia, on the islands of Lesbos and of Crete (also a bastion of preservation for the most authentic original Ancient Greek, being the birthplace of Greek civilization going back to the Mycenaean Greeks and Minoan Greeks), and also in much of Magna Græcia (Italy and Sicily), including Syracusæ in Sicily, the home of Archimedes, and by the Classical period the greatest and most significant rival city of Athens in the Hellenic world, by some sources Syracusæ was even larger and more significant than Athens. (And of course if you know your history, Athens deciding to launch an infamous "Sicilian Expedition" to attack Doric Syracusæ during the Peloponnesian War would prove a catastrophic ruinous mistake for the Athenians).
This seems to touch on the other general problem raised by recent edit reverts, which is bias in Wiktionary's coverage of Ancient Greek hitherto, bias that should be removed. A 21st century electronic 'Wiktionary' should not perpetuate biases of 19th century-20th century elite French and Englishmen who based on historical judgments idolized all things Athens, put up on an Ionic pedestal (the other 2 Greek column orders being Doric and Corinthian, both Dorian speakers!) while demonizing and denigrating Sparta and all of the Doric and Aeolic Greek worlds, in fact all of Ancient Greek linguistic history except for c. 5th century BC Athens. Biased scholars many centuries later decided that Attic was superior and real Greek while other dialects mere imitators, Archimedes in Syracusæ did not speak Ancient Greek of the Doric dialect, rather he spoke an inferior "Doric forms" of REAL Greek which is only Attic.
Other than such historical bias, there is no reason why distinct words and forms of Ancient Greek in Doric or Aeolic should just link to the Attic form as REAL Ancient Greek. Attic has more unique local noveltiies diverging from standard Ancient Greek than Doric/Aeolic. In their time Doric and Aeolic Greek were of equal if not greater significance, and spoken by far more people than the novel local dialect of Athens, which again only became looked at as the "model"
Doric Greek is different from Attic Greek, different enough that Doric/Aeolic forms deserve their own entry (at least a West Doric/Aeolic separate from Attic/Ionic). Different but an equally valid form of Ancient Greek in its own right and merits inclusion of Doric/Aeolic forms that stand on their own, not just (mis)represented as inferior variant forms of Attic. The language is called "Ancient Greek", NOT "Attic Greek". Doric/Aeolic Greek words and forms should be added/provided whenever possible-and as their own entries, not links to Attic, 'tis biased historical revisionism to imply Doric and Aeolic Greek are just variant forms of REAL (Attic) Greek, when in fact the dialects developed independently and were of equal standing and signifcance in the time when they were actually spoken and used as living languages (and Doric was actually closer to the original, Attic was the odd local provincial dialect that diverged most from Proto-Hellenic). As a reference source for all languages including ancient languages no longer spoken (some of which far more speculative like e.g. Phoenician/Punic), Wiktionary (and Wiktionarians) should seek to provide Doric Greek entries no less so than Attic entries. The biases of the recent past against any form of Greek except 5th century BC Athens dialect should be left on the ash heap of history. Rather, for a fair, unbiased and thorough modern reference source on Ancient Greek, the dialects should be treated equally as their own forms of Ancient Greek language with their own unique morphology.
Reducing Doric/Aeolic Greek words to mere dialectal variants of Athens just linking to the Attic variant is akin to having Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Occitan, even Portuguese, all just have links to the (Castilian) Spanish entry e.g. Catalan joventut entry should say just "Catalan form of juventud" with a link to the Castilian Spanish juventud entry. After all, like Attic among Greek dialects, Castilian Spanish is the clear historical winner of the Ibero-Romance languages, the other Ibero-Romance languages are historical losers, just inferior imitation dialect forms of Spanish language not worth recordng and preserviing in their own right, like Doric and Aeolic are just inferior imitation dialects of Attic REAL Greek...
Respectfully, I would suggest perhaps re-examining your potential ingrained Athenocentric biases that have plagued Greek classrooms and textbooks and lexicons for the past few centuries which conflate Attic Greek with Ancient Greek, and which ignore or disparage other dialects as irrelevant inferior imitations of Attic at best, missing the forest through the trees; try to zoom out and get a new bigger picture perspective conscious of these insidious deeply ingrained...some of us have actually studied and are actually interested in researching and preserving Doric and Aeolic Greek for their own sake as equally valid and historically and linguistically significant forms of Ancient Greek, not as mere trivial inferior variant subdialects of Attic. Someone who wants to research Doric Greek forms should not have to click through every entry to go see the Attic variant as the "real" form. Attic is the spin-off from the original, not Doric! And at the very least Doric and Aeolic Greek entries deserve to exist! Especially such simple forms conforming to basic paradigms of what we know about the standard morphology and usage of Doric and Aeolic Greek dialects. Wiktionary cannot claim to have comprehensive coverage of Ancient Greek as a reference source if it neglects the other equally significant, equally legitimate, equally valid, equally deserving divergent dialects. Wiktionarians should seek to add Doric Greek entries just like they add Catalan and Galician or Asturian despite being varians of far more well-known and widely used Castilian Spanish which like Attic Greek just happened to win the historical winners-and-losers lottery...
And this is the case with Doric-Aeolic ἅρπα, ἅρπᾱς, an equally valid independent Western Greek form deserving of its own entry distinct from the Eastern Greek Attic-Ionic variant ἅρπη, ἅρπης...across many other languages there are many far more redundant forms of words in closely related languages (often forms identical or nearly identical, more closely related than the rainbow of diverse Western Ancient Greek and Eastern Ancient Greek dialects) that may not be so commonlyused much but are considered worthwhile to preserve as a comprehensive linguistic reference source database.

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D13 Smyth grammar 2.13.13 FIRST DECLENSION (STEMS IN α_)

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

[*] 214 D. 1. For η, Doric and Aeolic have original α_; thus, νί_κα_, ϝί_κα_ς, ϝί_κᾳ, νί_κα_ν; πολί_τα_ς, κριτά_ς, Ἀτρείδα_ς.

2. Ionic has η for the α_ of Attic even after ε, ι, and ρ; thus, γενεή, οἰκίη, ἀγορή, μοίρης, μοίρῃ (nom. μοῖρα^), νεηνίης. Thus, ἀγορή, -ῆς, -ῇ, -ήν; νεηνίης, -ου, -ῃ, -ην. But Hom. has θεά_ goddess, Ἑρμεία_ς Hermes.

3. The dialects admit -α^ in the nom. sing. less often than does Attic. Thus, Ionic πρύμνη stern, κνί_ση savour (Att. πρύμνα, κνῖσα), Dor. τόλμα_ daring. Ionic has η for α^ in the abstracts in -είη, -οίη (ἀληθείη truth, εὐνοίη good-will). Hom. has νύμφα^ oh maiden from νύμφη.

8. Gen. plur.—(a) -ά_ων, the original form, occurs in Hom. (μουσά_ων, ἀγορά_ων). In Aeolic and Doric -ά_ων contracts to (b) -ᾶν (ἀγορᾶν). The Doric -ᾶν is found also in the choral songs of the drama (πετρᾶν rocks). (c) -έων, the Ionic form, appears in Homer, who usually makes it a single syllable by synizesis (60) as in βουλέωνν, from βουλή plan. -έων is from -ήων, Ionic for -ά_ων. (d) -ῶν in Hom. generally after vowels (κλισιῶν, from κλισίη hut).

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpa&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpas&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπας noun sg fem gen doric aeolic

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

Nominative: https://morphological_el.academic.ru/687234/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%82#sel=10:3,10:3 ἅρπας

   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc pl
   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem gen sg (doric aeolic)

Accusative: https://morphological_el.enacademic.com/687226/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD ἅρπαν

   ἅρπᾱν , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc sg (doric aeolic)

Inqvisitor (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not studied Doric and Aeolic in depth, but I am aware of several of the dialectal differences, including the retention of long alpha. Yes, ἅρπᾱ (hárpā) would be the likely Doric form, but I'm asking for an attestation (see WT:ATTEST) because lexica such as LSJ often mention a Doric form if it is used, but they don't for this word. We don't add hypothetical Doric forms for all Attic words. I don't know if the morphological tools that you linked to are restricted to attested forms (though I suspect not).
As for the rest of your post, I don't have the brain power to write a point-by-point response. I'll just say I'm in favor of marking dialects in Ancient Greek entries, as you did in ἅρπη (hárpē).
Putting most of the content in one entry is simply so that we do not have to synchronize two or more identical entries. (There are not a huge number of Ancient Greek editors and I suspect that many of us don't feel that synchronizing entries is a worthwhile use of our time when there are lots of lemmas and inflected forms missing.) The Attic or Koine entry is typically a good landing place for most of the content. The phrasing of the non-Attic or non-Koine entry ("Doric form of" the Attic form in this case) is perhaps misleading but is not meant to imply incorrect notions, such as that Attic is the ideal form while the others are distorted reflections (or that Attic is the parent and others developed from it). If this is not enough and you still want to drum up enthusiasm for changing editing practices for Ancient Greek, a better place to discuss it would be WT:BP. — Eru·tuon 09:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


—⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"[edit]

@Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine User:Stardsen created these entries several years ago. andwyrdan definitely means "to answer", but I can find no dictionary that verifies the meaning "to present". The derivation from andweard makes total sense semantically and phonetically, but just doesn't seem to exist. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I found this [[65]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[66]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[67]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


"reference book"s don't attest anything for Well-Documented Languages (WT:CFI, WT:WDL), and too few results at Google Books. --B-Fahrer (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I created Schembeis and I just wanted to mention that some Sondersprachen are not very well documented in general for obvious reasons as they function as secret languages. In the entry I have referenced the word with the “Illustrated Lexicon of German Colloquialisms/Slang” and quoted from a book about a distinct variety of Sondersprache. If this does not meet the attestation criteria then that’s the way it is. It’d be a pity though. I wonder how documenting these kind of cants should be done then? — Best regards, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
[68], [69], [70].  --Lambiam 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
That should count as one usage (WT:CFI#Independent) as the sources are: Klaus Siewert (editor), Textbuch Masematte & Textbuch Masematte II & Textbuch Masematte III. --B-Fahrer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Siewert only selected these stories from the archives of the Masematte project group, which collects them to make sure this endangered lect is archived from original speakers before it dies out. The sources of these stories are independent people.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
What's the evidence for this: "The sources of these stories are independent people."? As far as I can see, the texts start with the title and end - there's no author given next to the title or at the end. The contents don't give an author either. As an additional note, the text of the 2nd book states that proper Masematte was never written and that written Masematte is younger, less authentic. --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Because of the gender change in the entry, also RFV for the gender, if the term itself is attested. 1st and 2nd book have "im Schembeis" (m. or n.), 3rd book has "son Schembeis" (should be m. or n.) and "noch innen Schembeis" (should be m.). --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yiddish בית‎(beys) can be both m. and f., and you’d expect the gender to be retained in borrowing Germanic languages that have grammatical gender, possibly frozen on one of the two possibilities. Rotwelsch Beiz is reported here as m., but the Dutch cant bajes as f.. The Hebrew etymon בַּיִת‎ is m. In view of this all, neuter gender looks somewhat improbable.  --Lambiam 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The gender change was due to a typo of mine. My bad. In the reference book by Küpper the gender is neuter. Compare Rotwelsch Bajes (and its various alternative forms such as Bais, Baiß, Baiz etc.) which is neuter as well and also from Yiddish בית‎(beys). (Source: Siegmund A. Wolf: Wörterbuch des Rotwelschen: Deutsche Gaunersprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1987, p. 40.) — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


German, rfv-sense of "German casual game franchise for PCs". Unlikely to pass WT:Brand. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Likely to pass, must pass. It’s a thing that only German 1980s kids know. You can’t imagine how much it was on everyone's lips in the decade around 2000, being on “every” office computer, hence giving rise to many legal cases. Search for Moorhuhn and Arbeit or something like that. I see it genericized together with Solitär, minesweeper and the like. Fay Freak (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the first umpteen GBS hits I checked, I did not notice ostensible genericity; the term appeared to be used as a proper noun in reference to the original grouse-shooting game. Can you dig up some indisputably generic uses?  --Lambiam 10:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
So what you're saying is "gimme more Huhn"? (trigger warning for terrible, terrible music). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, if you're so sure, add some quotes, else it will be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this example sufficient for WT:BRAND? [71]: "Er sah die Menschen Pause machen, [...], sah sie Moorhuhn spielen, [...]"
BTW related terms:
-- 02:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


The Lithuanian form has a short vowel rather than the long one that this form predicts. The Slavic noun is an o-stem according to Derksen, not a u-stem. Too many discrepancies to reconstruct a PBS form if you ask me. —Rua (mew) 21:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Slavic noun is an u-stem according to Nikolaev, not a o-stem. Gnosandes (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
So which of them is correct? —Rua (mew) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikolaev is looking at the data of the dialects. Derksen had apparently(?) never worked with them. I don't know.
*vȃrъ, gen, varũ. -ũ, with old traces of the dominant valence [+]. Proto-Balto-Slavic *wā̂ru-, the (AP) 2 Proto-Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (mobile accent). -ũ > -u with late recessive valence [-], also as in Wiktionary.
See also: Dybo (2012) Proto-Balto-Slavic accentology system, and the results of the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accentological system.
Zaliznjak, A. A. (2014), “Drevnerusskoje udarenije. Obščije svedenija i slovarʹ”, in Languages of Slavic Culture (in Russian), Moscow: Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gnosandes (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


Only one descendant, and no PIE cognates. Therefore, there is no evidence that this word is of PBS date rather than formed between PBS and PS. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The PIE root page gives slaids as a cognate. --Tropylium (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

chó hoang châu Phi[edit]

Plenty of hits online but only one Google Books hit, namely this, which appears to be a children's picture book teaching them English words + Vietnamese translation. (The book is seen here, not a context where the word would be in running text.)

As Vietnamese is a WDL, we need 3 durably archived occurences in running text. Another of my own created entries that I'm reporting. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are some uses on what look to me like news sites: [74], [75], [76], [77]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived.  --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


Defined as "(Japan) girl". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The entry has a reference. If you are looking for usage in a text, does such literature exist? —Suzukaze-c 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Google News Search gives several hits, also in articles that are not Japan-related. I cannot judge if any of this is durably archived.  --Lambiam 10:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What does this mean?? Do we know? Is this used by Koreans living in Japan? It looks like they just added a third character into the existing word for girl , 여자. Soap 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Soap: I'm confused by your question? Look at the entry. It explains right there what this means:

Calque of Japanese 女の子, from (, yeo, woman, female) +‎ (ui, -possessive particle) +‎ (, ja, child)

Was there something else that you wanted to know about? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean, is this a word used by Koreans living in Japan only? Or is it a term used by Koreans everywhere for girls living in Japan (presumably with a set of matching words for boys, men, and women)? Is the extra morpheme in the middle part of a wider trend? Soap 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Soap -- Thanks for clarifying. I'm not first-hand familiar with the Korean term, but "the extra morpheme in the middle", (ui), is the possessive particle, mirroring the Japanese (no) possessive particle in the source term that the Korean term is copying. It would be interesting and relevant, and arguably useful, to indicate if there are similar calques, perhaps standard Korean 남자 (namja, “boy”) shifting to 남의자 (namuija) to mirror the Japanese 男の子 (otoko no ko, boy), etc. I suspect the "Japan" label indicates that this is used primarily by speakers of Korean living in Japan, but I agree that this could be explained more clearly.
It might be useful to ping the editors who have worked on this entry: @Suzukaze-c, 幻光尘, Atitarev, do you all have any further information or insights? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The label is still not clear. The way I read it, it's the term used by Koreans living in Japan but I'm not certain. I asked for an RFV in hope it would clarify or at least, demonstrate that the term is actually used. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The book named in the references section is called Language of Koreans in Japan. —Suzukaze-c 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


Chinese, added by User:Atitarev in 2014. —Suzukaze-c 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in the 漢語詞典, which includes a quotation by Lu Xun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Also in ABC English-Chinese/Chinese-English Dictionary, which is integrated into Wenlin Software. My original definition was a single noun arrangement, which is in the dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2020[edit]


-- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


-- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples (to exclude the homographic passive participles) can be found searching "على المقلى". Example from some recipe that goes around:

نضع الزيت في المقلى على النار ثم نضع البيض على المقلى دون خلط البيض
We put the oil in the frying pan on the fire then put the egg into the frying pan without mixing the egg.

Unless this is misunderstanding the occurrences and they actually all mean “fried thing” مَقْلِيّ(maqliyy), passive participle of قَلَى(qalā), since the same recipe has the مقلى as مقلي on some places, and such occurrences is where the dictionaries have the word مِقْلًى(miqlan) from, but this is dubious because I wouldn’t know that مَقْلِيّ(maqliyy) can be used as a noun. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "poor". Pinging @Dine2016 who added it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Justinrleung: I think we can safely remove this definition or at least put it as a subitem under the first, namely alt form of (, “to not have; to lack; to not be; no; none; etc.”). The gloss "poor" seems to be based on a single commentary in the 毛詩毛诗 (Máoshī), under the 4th verse of 《邶風·谷風》:

[Classical Chinese, trad.]
[Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: The Classic of Poetry, circa 11th – 7th centuries BCE, translated based on James Legge's version
Hé yǒu hé , mǐn miǎn qiú zhī. [Pinyin]
Whether we had plenty or not,
I exerted myself to be getting.

The Mao annotation (, pages 71–72, scanned copy) reads: 「有」謂富也;「亡」謂貧也。 I suspect this is where the spurious sense "poor" came from.

However I don't think the Mao annotation were meant to be definition-giving. It simply explains the words' connotation in the particular context of the poem rather than giving an alternative gloss of the words. The meaning "poor", etc. is not a separate sense; it is already covered under the first sense. Zheng Xuan's parallel annotation () did so in a slightly different manner, and so did the 正義 (sub-annotation) by Tang-era scholars. --Frigoris (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

February 2020[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwu[edit]

Gothic: [Term?] (lēw), Gothic: [Term?] (lēwjan), Old English: lǣwan, Old High German: gi-lāwen, Ukrainian: лïви́ти (lïvýty), Czech: leviti.

It might help if you explained why you're throwing all these redlinks at us that aren't mentioned in the entry. The Old English reflexes in the entry look like they're from Old English lǣwan, but you would have been better off linking to Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan and its parent Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną than dumping a random-looking heap of their descendants in front of us. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Thanks to these examples, you provided help. However, the reconstruction of Proto-West Germanic *lauwu is unconvincing; I suggest removing this reconstruction. It is likely that the Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną and Proto-Germanic *lēwą dates back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₁w-. The Old English lǣwan probably dates back to the Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan.
Unconvincing reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European *leh₁wéh₂; it must be changed to Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ < *leh₂w- (watch the discussion above). The Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (with Hirt's law), as well as the Proto-Germanic *lawwō (with Holtzmann's law and Dybo's law), date back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂. At the same time, it is a big mistake to associate the Proto-Germanic *lawwō with Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (to cut), with incorrectly specified semantics by the user @Holodwig21 (how to output this?). But Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (louse) ≠ Proto-Indo-European *lawh₁- (to cut, to slice)? Emphasis paradigms should be taken into account. And do not unite the roots, as is customary.
*leh₁w- (a revision of the semantics) (to let (go)?) *leh₂w- (berth?, bed?)
*lawh₁- (to cut off; to cut, to slice) *lewH- (louse)
Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Your PIE *leh₁wéh₂ should be deleted. At best, any connection between the two words is only worth mentioning in an etymology. Otherwise, PWG *lauwu is just fine. --{{victar|talk}} 03:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: to make cross95.185.32.82 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition is ambiguous: "cross" is probably a verb here, in which case it would be better as "to cause to cross". That's at least halfway plausible as the literal counterpart to this etymology's figurative senses. I sincerely doubt it's an adjective, which would mean "to cause to be annoyed; to annoy". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
That’s what Lane, Edward William (1863) , “عبر”, in Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate, page 1937a writes about this sense: عبّرهُ بِالمَآءِ, (Lh, K,) inf. n. تَعْبِيرٌ; (TA;) and بِهِ المَآءَ ↓ عَبَرَ, (Lh, K,) and النَّهْرَ; (TA;) He made him to cross, go across, or pass over, or he conveyed him across, the water, (Lh, K, TA,) and the river. (TA.). Yes, a ditransitive verb is meant. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, this عَبَّرَ(ʿabbara) is “to get across” in the literal meaning and in the figurative meaning (but only the latter is notorious nowadays and perhaps already in the 7th century). I do not see in what distinct sense “to interpret” is meant here which the IP added. In the example quote for the base stem it is not much different, it is just “to express to make something known with the other party”, and interpretation is always part of the process of expressing something. Probably one should change the definitions of both verbs to “to get across”, because that’s what it basically is, adding that it is normally or by now only used in the figurative sense of expressing or interpreting (to be safe in case somebody ever comes across a literal use so he might be incited by it to add his quote; now there is no hope for us to find the literal meaning by systematic search because occurrences of عبر‎ in any form are most likely to be the base stem and the very common sense of expressing and the very common preposition “across”) Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "everlasting peace". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a translation of one of the literary senses in the 漢語詞典. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I think either sense there should be a verb, not a noun. What do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would make sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Justinrleung: The term is also in ABC English-Chinese/Chinese-English Dictionary used in Wenlin Software. The entry is a noun: "永安 yǒng'ān* n. perpetual peace"
If I remember correctly, @Tooironic also had the Wenlin editor. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2020[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjan[edit]

Doesn't have any native reflexes, only borrowings. How can we be sure that this term existed? —Rua (mew) 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Move: Should be a moved to a Vulgar Latin entry. --{{victar|talk}} 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/būti[edit]

Only has reflexes in one descendant, and an uncertain borrowing. This could easily have been formed within the separate history of Dutch. —Rua (mew) 10:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The etymology is so widely circulated that even if it is wrong, which is hard to say (though I do prefer a direct Gaulish etymology for the Latin), it should just have an entry anyhow. --{{victar|talk}} 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
But should that be a Proto-West Germanic entry? The term is literally has only one descendant, that's not enough evidence to claim it's of PWG date. —Rua (mew) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's mostly reconstructed as PG, so PWG is even safer, no? --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
A term with only a Dutch descendant (which is doubtful, as Etymologiebank says the term is Low German in origin) can't even be reconstructed for PWG, let alone PG. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
And others the opposite, and others still both inherited. --{{victar|talk}} 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Related to this a Frankish label could be handy for PWG with only Dutch and Latin descendants. --{{victar|talk}} 20:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fellō[edit]

Same as *dubbjan above. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: OHG added. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You're aware that this is RFV, right? There's no keep/delete votes. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep: --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
...kay. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rua: So does that resolve this? --{{victar|talk}} 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if having only an OHG descendant is enough either. But I'll leave that to third parties to decide. @Mnemosientje, Mahagaja, DerRudymeisterRua (mew) 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If there really aren't any other West Germanic reflexes, then I'd be inclined to delete and just say the Latin is a loanword from OHG. It's not clear where OHG fello comes from, though, since Proto-Germanic *faluz doesn't have an OHG reflex. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on the context of the Latin attestations, it looks to have originated from Frankish, not OHG, and if we were to say it didn't exist in PWG, we have to somehow explain how it was novelly constructed in OHG. --{{victar|talk}} 08:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Could it possibly be from Proto-Germanic *faljô, a derivative of *faluz ? Leasnam (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


--Marontyan (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

centiampère (Dutch)[edit]




Unattested units. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

@Lambiam, Rua, DrJos, Thadh, Morgengave, Mnemosientje, MuDavid Do any of you object to the deletion of those entries? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

[78]: I know this isn't a durably archived source, but I think this is prove that centiseconde is in use. Thadh (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a durably archived use of the plural centiseconden. One use is not enough for our CFI. I’m afraid I do not really care. On one hand, if no three cites can be found now, it is predictable that more uses of these SI units will eventually appear in books and journals. On the other hand, these compounds are completely transparent; as long as we do not even have entries for much more common compounds such as stormwaarschuwing, why care?  --Lambiam 21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is another one, so centiseconde at least looks promising. This article might have a third independent use, but it is paywalled. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not necessary to check the paywalled article, there are other cites here, on file page 31, original page 49. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree: just like "yottaseconde" it is a unit that could be used. Otherwise you should strictly adhere to the three cites rule for every lemma. Yottaseconde has a French lemma so why not a Dutch? --DrJos (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That reasoning could justify thousands of unattested derived SI units. It clearly is not a workable standard for an empirical, descriptive dictionary. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
My opinion: these units (and the ones with zepto/zetta/yocto/yotta above) obviously exist: they are SoP and can therefore be used whenever the need arises. Most of them probably see little to no use though, and as they are SoP I won't lose any sleep over their deletion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Centiseconde has been cited. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


France. Some hits on Google, but may not be durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Only two good hits in Usenet groups from the same user. One of them is added to Citations:乏國. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Appears in the Daijirin. I want to see quotations anyway. @Britannic124Suzukaze-c 03:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears as parts of names, but this is arguably transliterated Spanish.
  • Chunichi Shimbun, June 8, 2017:
    Supein saiōte no santandēru ginkō wa nanoka, dōkoku ōte no popuraru esupanyōru ginkō o baishū shita to happyō shita.
    Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, announced on the 7th that it will acquire the major Banco Popular Español in the same country.
  • Tokyo Shimbun, June 15, 2020:
    欧州(おうしゅう)サッカー []  エスパニョール2-0アラベス
    Ōshū sakkā [] Esupanyōru 2-0 Arabesu
    European soccer [] Español 2-0 Alavés
I don't find it used productively in Japanese, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for Chinese: Is (qià) a common misspelling of ()? -- 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Voidvector, who added this. Which sense of 卡 did you mean? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
卡 as in 髮卡, more commonly pronounced qiǎ. Example of 恰 being used instead.
This came out of my researching the article Kirgizjangal Pass where the common Chinese name has these variations. (黑卡达坂 and 黑恰达坂).
IANA lexicographer, if 恰子 is correct usage for hairpin, then feel free to replace.
I have added gloss and specific transliteration. --voidvector (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


On behalf of @Crom daba, who says that it "seems suspect, reconstructed for a single descendant and the reflex isn't regular". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is quite possible, though I am against this page as a single-descendant reconstruction that gives us no convenience (not always I am against single-descendant reconstructions for Proto-Slavic, since the reconstructed state is not more than half a millenium before the first writings of the individual languages, it depends on the other relations or we can say justification grounds, e.g. the derived terms make *lopъ (leaf) bulletproof though it is only present in Bulgarian and Macedonian (which latter is arguably an Ausbausprache of Bulgarian) and we even have some cases of alternative forms or reconstructions in Proto-Germanic with one ancient descendant where the form reflected less is preferred by some author(s); but this is all not here). One can find this, but it is too uncertain, so delete. But who taught you to put reconstructed terms to RFV, @Metaknowledge? I think it is a bad habit of Gnosandes, who infected Rua with it and now you do it too. I hereby disclaim its guise of acceptability. If no thread fits denying reconstructed terms we should create another category of requests, though it be that Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium and the requests for deletion could suffice. Perhaps we need a page “requests for substantiation of reconstructed terms” (you name it) because people are unsure where to put it, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English because it is not non-English in so far as it is about imagined languages, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others because it is not other, and requests for verification is asking for occurrence evidence, whereas Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium is too wishy-washy, so understandably you want to suggest more aggressively deletion under the condition that no evidence is proferred, which is however not the condition normally stipulated under the verification requests, therefore all the oddity. Fay Freak (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I considered sending it to RFD, which is what I believe I used to do, but considered that as I was seeking evidence rather than opinion-based votes, RFV might be the right place after all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is either a trick, expecting that the page can be deleted if nothing is done, as opposed to a RFD which would require a majority or something like that, or it neither works here because this kind of pages keeps clogging up the request threads (for the same reason, I think, as for minor languages, the fact that nothing is expected to be done if there are only few editors dealing with these languages only rarely, and everyone is absent doing more important things than trying to attest such trifles 😐, but also because one would not know what is “enough” to fulfill the request, it is always the greyzone when such an inquiry appears: some varyingly credulous or lightheaded fellow deemed the material enough and skeptics harangue it). I would be for deleting such pages right away because of being of little discernable use and uncertain, but this hope crushed at the vote against Proto-Albanian already. Wiktionary is doomed (and that is, I think, probably because not enough people are devoted). Fay Freak (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No need to be so gloomy. This is simple: if two regular, independent reflexes are found, the entry can be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe we originally took these to RFDO, but I think the Etymology scriptorium is a better venue. After all, the reconstructions are an extension of the etymologies, and the criteria being weighed are of an etymological nature. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The ES is a terrible venue for this, because when discussions there grow old, nobody deals with them. I want a decisive outcome, and (in theory) everything that enters RFV or RFD leaves it having been dealt with one way or the other. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I was able to find a Belarusian reflex дзярэ́ўня (dzjaréŭnja). It's hard to confirm a Ukrainian one (which would be spelled the same way as the Russian дере́вня (derévnja)), most likely displaced everywhere with село́ (seló) and if used дере́вня (derévnja) were used, it would be considered a Russianism in Ukrainian or Surzhik. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Chuck Entz: A quick update: a Ukrainian reflex also found, on top of the Belarusian one. So we have two reflexes, which should be sufficient, right? Some proof of my findings:
  1. Belarusian: http://www.slounik.org/search?dict=&search=дзярэўня&x=0&y=0
  2. Ukrainian: https://goroh.pp.ua/Тлумачення/деревня --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There are also non-Slavic cognates as well, notably Lithuanian dirvónas or dirvõnas. The former is mentioned by Vasmer. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

دعش[edit] 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: There are quotes in the entry, but the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Could you sort this one out? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Fixed. The quotes provided did not have it reflexive as labelled, and such usage is not expected of form II. The Saudi IP was of course affronted by the example:
لِمَاذَا يُدَعِّشُ السُعُودِيُّون؟‎‎
li-māḏā yudaʿʿišu s-suʿūdiyyūn?
*Why do Saudis join Da'esh?
as it does not work this way, it would mean “Why do Saudi make [missing object] Dāʿiš”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Thank you, although these don't seem to be durably archived, unless I'm mistaken. Can you assess this and rustle up cites sufficient to pass CFI? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No. Libraries are closed. Not that I would have one in my vicinity anyway, or would go to one if there were one. Or know a considerable searchable corpus or archive of Arabic content produced since the prominence of Dāʿiš. Maybe Wiktionary should stop balling with formal requirements that nobody can fulfil to turn a blind eye on material reasons of inclusion. Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

homem sanctvm[edit]

Converted from a speedy added by an IP, no rationale given. — surjection?⟩ 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems more a like a case for RFV than RFD. Pinging @Ubizias, who created it. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


There is no variant "urroj" for urrej and I've looked for it. This is reasoned by earlier Latin loans often being suffixed with "-ej" instead of "-oj" or another verbal ending. HeliosX (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Albanian never has [ð] as a variant for [d] within the consonantal cluster [dɹ] or [dɽ]. The terms are unable to be encountered anywhere. HeliosX (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


The consonant [θ] is never confounded in variants with [f], hence the entry should not be kept. HeliosX (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Dutch protologism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is attested here and also in the subtitle of an article about Heleen van Royen (so NSFW) here. Perhaps someone could check Usenet? Should at least be tagged as rare if it passes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Also used as a title here, but whether that should qualify as a use is rather arguable. As an aside, it turns out that it was also the title of a column about car photos in the 70s. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


Sounds like a "dictionary-only" word. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And is that really one word? This looks like a long descriptive phrase with all the whitespace deleted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that this is a polysynthetic language. It's not a long phrase, it's a compound of compounds, with affixes filling the role of particles instead of separately. Here's a page showing the morphology and related words. You can even hear it pronounced. Given Ojibwe's LDL status, that might even suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chuck Entz, my comment was actually inspired by my study of a different highly agglutinating polysynthetic language, Navajo, where we find things like chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí (tank, as in an armored fighting vehicle) -- a long descriptive phrase, literally parsing out to "the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it". So when I see super long words like the one above, and then I see it broken down, I find myself wondering if this is really just a typography problem where someone decided to remove the whitespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The key question is whether the University of Minnesota's webpage counts as durably archived (I'm on the fence here). Secondarily, they spell it with a bunch of hyphens separating morphemes, so if we do keep it, we probably ought to move it to match their spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that the UMN website has a shorter word, lacking the badagwiingweshigani component (see also badagwiingweshin) in the entry taken here from the Anishinaabemowin website.  --Lambiam 11:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

They may be putting the hyphens in solely as an aid to the reader, the way Russian dictionaries put accents on that aren't used in normal writing. There are other examples of this such as biinji-gizhaabikizigan, though I cant say for sure that hyphens are never used in ordinary writing in Ojibwe either. Soap 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Okay I see native speakers using hyphens, but it still could be that one dictionary is using them to show the morpheme boundaries as an aid to the reader when they would not be used in ordinary writing. Soap 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long delay, but I forgot about this. user:CJLippert replied to me on Wikipedia and the answer is here. Soap 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


Nothing in Google. -- 03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koenfoo, 巋然不動 could you please help me find some quotations? -- 03:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@沈澄心 Sure, but how do I attach links? --Koenfoo
If it is, for example, a link to the page https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379, the easiest is to use [https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379]. This will display as “[79]” (the number may vary). It can be made more readable by adding the title of the article after the url, separated by a space, thus: [https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2744379 習下韓上?扮韓國瑜、拿習維尼立牌 男子熱烈招呼中國遊客]. This will display as “習下韓上?扮韓國瑜、拿習維尼立牌 男子熱烈招呼中國遊客”. Even better is to use one of the quotation templates, in this case {{quote-journal}}. Instructions for use are found in its documentation.  --Lambiam 07:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
There are <20 results in DuckDuckGo. -- 09:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@沈澄心 There are more hits on Google. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung You're right. Perhaps my browser filtered out some results:( -- 03:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Koenfoo You've removed the rfv notice, but it's still not solved. Please see WT:CFI (especially WT:ATTEST). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No hits on Google Books or Usenet. Some hits on Google News, but it's unclear if they are durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]


Cebuano. Removed by an IP; originally added by User:Carl Francis. — surjection?⟩ 11:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Citations:Vladimir 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “to meet with one's wish accidentally“ and “(modern) to request” -- 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


Google News results are exclusively from Falun Gong-related sources (soundofhope, epochtimes, ntdtv). Also probably missing a context label regarding connotation? —Suzukaze-c 08:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

中共肺炎#Chinese, #Japanese[edit]

Ditto. —Suzukaze-c 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The terms were coined, likely partly in condemnation of the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the epidemic in Wuhan. --Apisite (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
If all cites are coming from Falun Gong-related sources as suggested by Suzukaze-c, we probably shouldn't consider them independent sources. We need to look outside of Falun Gong sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? There's 40,000 to millions of Falun Gong followers out there; that's more than speakers of many languages we document here. If three leftist German newspapers used a term, we wouldn't consider them not independent sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Maybe I was mistaken about the extent of association of these media outlets to a single organization. I'm not 100% sure how the organization of Falun Gong practitioners works. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems like it can be traced back to even earlier sources that use 中共病毒 not to refer to COVID-19, but other viruses that have been associated with China, like H5N1 (I think), as in this article. But again, it comes from Epoch Times. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I put four instances in Japanese at Citations:中共肺炎. One is from Epoch Times, one from Nico Nico and cited to Epoch Times, but one is in Mainichi Shimbun (quoting a Japanese politician), and one on a surfing blog. They don't span more than one year, but they seem to be more or less independent (discounting the two Epoch-sourced quotes). Cnilep (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I added another from this past week, so now they span nearly one year (about a week short). It's from 'G-News'; I don't know if that is Falun Gong-related, but the story certainly seems anti-PRC. I've also added "sometimes offensive" to the entry, as the usage is exclusionary and in at least one case has been called "hate speech". Cnilep (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


{{pi-alt}} automatically generated this form (with tall AA) as the Tai Tham script form of papphāsa (lungs), and the entry that should have gone under ᨷᨷ᩠ᨹᩣᩈ (with round AA) was entered under this form, although the quotation unambiguously shows round AA. The form with round AA has been created.

I am using a RFV rather than a RFD in case someone can show that the Pali orthographic syllable pphā does get written with tall AA in the Tai Tham script - tall AA is the expected form in the Burmese script. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 may have some relevant evidence. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Latin "medior" as comparative form of adjective "medius"[edit]

The page for medius says "comparative medior" (there is no separate entry for medior as an adjective form, and no citations are given for this form). This is contradicted by the Wikipedia article Latin declension which says "Comparatives and superlatives of -eus/-ius adjectives: First and second declension adjectives that end in -eus or -ius are unusual in that they do not form the comparative and superlative by taking endings at all. Instead, magis ('more') and maximē ('most'), the comparative and superlative degrees of magnoperē ('much, greatly'), respectively, are used." Which is correct?--Urszag (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This online tool for Latin conjugations and declensions agrees with Wikipedia. Semantically, the comparative is rare (what is the comparative of the adjective half?), but I see magis medius used by Aquinas in his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. That does not mean much, though, as the Doctor Angelicus liked to form comparatives with magis.  --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Kölsch: Bajore, Belljie, Brandeborsch, Bulljaarije, Finnlandt, Frankrish, Hamborsch, Heßße, Italije, Jrußbrittannije, Liechtensteen, Littaue, Luxembursh, Meckleborsch-Vüürpommere, Nederläng, Needersachse, Noodrhing-Wäßßfaale, Norrveeje, Ößtrish, Rhingland-Pallz, Sachse[edit]

Bajore, Belljie [now Beljie at ksh.wp], Brandeborsch, Bulljaarije, Finnlandt, Frankrish, Hamborsch, Heßße, Italije, Jrußbrittannije, Liechtensteen, Littaue, Luxembursh [now Luxemburch in the wp article, though the other form still occors elsewhere], Meckleborsch-Vüürpommere, Nederläng, Needersachse, Noodrhing-Wäßßfaale, Norrveeje, Ößtrish, Rhingland-Pallz, Sachse, Schwäjz, Shvede, Thüringe, Tshäshäij.
See Talk:Bälliin. --Marontyan (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:jannowaa it was already pointed out years ago, that these are uncommon Wikipedia-invented spellings...
(ksh.wp has [80], in which history it reads "de user losse sich nit von einem admin de Schrievwies vürschrieve" lol.) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371C:3D30:4890:BC59:6F39:B6EE (talk) at 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC).


Inaccurate reconstruction and meaning. -- Gnosandes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

accecini as perfect form of Latin verb accano[edit]

As far as I can see, no sources list a perfect of the form "accecini", and I'm suspicious of it because reduplicated perfects generally don't show up with prefixed verbs. I can't find any genuine uses of "accecini" or "accecinit" from an online search.--Urszag (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Attested uses of accanui, accanuit or accanuerunt would settle the matter, but an (admittedly somewhat cursory) search did not yield any of these either. More research is needed.  --Lambiam 16:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The grammars I've looked at seem to only mention accano as a collateral form for the present-tense forms of accino, which is listed with a perfect form accinui (which I've seen attestations of). So if we do list a perfect form for accano, accinui currently seems the least bad option to me.--Urszag (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(dialectal) lie; falsehood". I think it may be used as a noun in literary Chinese, not in modern dialects. Pinging @Nyarukoseijin, who added this. There is another dialectal sense in Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (用言语或行动逗引人以取乐) that we're missing - was this what this was referring to? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-senses: "good friend" and "religious mentor". Tagged by @Tooironic, but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Good friend" is given in Guoyu Cidian as 善友, and it lists one quote from 《石點頭·卷七·感恩鬼三古傳題旨》. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


Very strange un-Italian spelling, very few hits. Misspelling of alchechengi? ping @GianWikiJberkel 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Or a misspelling of alkekengi (seen used here, here and here)?
We do have English alkekengi, which, by the way, is a different species than the cape gooseberry.  --Lambiam 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jberkel None of the Italian reference templates seems to contain the lemma, but a Google search seems to suggest a (somewhat marginal) use of the term. I can't really say where it comes from, though. Could be listed as a synonym of alchechengio peruviano (“cape gooseberry”, the plant Physalis peruviana), even though it'd lack etymological info. — GianWiki (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The term occurs in the 1915 book Nella terra dei Negus: Pagine raccolte in Abissinia, volume 2, p. 65 (US access only), also here in GBS snippet view: “Altre fruttifere furono importate e crescono quali l’ananas, il nespolo, i cocomeri, gli alkikinger, le fragole.” The fact that it is considered a fruit suggests the cape gooseberry, not the ornamental alkekengi. The etymological origin, Arabic كَاكَنْج(kākanj), is nevertheless undoubtedly the same. Perhaps – this is pure speculation – the author picked up this spelling while visiting Ethiopia.  --Lambiam 11:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


Japanese - Rfv-sense: Alternative spelling of 菜の花. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this verifies it, or if anything could. It asserts that they refer to the same thing, but that's not the same as saying they are alternate spellings of the same word. For that, maybe you would need something like (ナノ)(ハナ).
Also, I'm pretty sure I added the sense, maybe paraphrasing a work that I have forgotten. Sorry. Cnilep (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking at w:ja:菜の花, it seems that the spelling with the medial (no) particle as 菜の花 (nanohana) indicates Brassica flowers in general, while the spelling without the particle as 菜花 (nabana) refers more specifically to those Brassica flowers that are edible.
There's also a Chinese-derived reading saika, but so far I've only encountered that in a single compound, 菜花糖 (saikatō, literally rapeseed flower sugar), a kind of traditional sweet in the former Echizen Province of Japan, modern-day Fukui Prefecture. See also google:"菜花糖".
A search on Jim Breen's dictionary site suggests that the 菜花 spelling without the medial (no) particle does appear with the nanohana reading as a feminine given name. Perhaps that might be where @Cnilep picked up on that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: omen. Added by an anon IP. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I have also rfv-sensed the other definitions added by said IP: essence. Mechanism. Hinge; crux. These are not in any dictionaries I have access to, and are certainly not used in the vernacular. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: These seem to be from Hanyu Da Cidian. I think "omen" = "征兆,端倪", "essence" = "奥妙;真谛;底细", "mechanism" = "机关,发动机械装置的枢机", and "hinge; crux" = "引申指起决定性作用的事物"? I think the definitions could definitely be refined. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: state of mind; thoughts. Not in any dictionaries I have access to. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Guoyu Cidian: 比喻意緒、心緒. Hanyu Da Cidian: 比喻心思意緒. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Beautiful woman. Not in any dictionaries I can access. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic: You probably missed 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本 and 漢語大詞典, which both list 美人 as its first definition. The problem is that the quote from Shijing used to exemplify the definition is not always interpreted as such. Legge translates it as "a wealthy man". 漢語大詞典 has an additional quote, which seems to be clearer. @Frigoris, do you agree with these two dictionaries or Legge? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)





Tagged in diff. Also add OD. --Mittsloo (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It is shorthand used by ophthalmologists in eyeglass prescriptions.[81] I am not sure if this qualifies as Latin; we classify per os found in medical prescriptions as translingual. For the rest, now we have to find three durably archived eyeglass prescriptions :).  --Lambiam 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are three book uses: [82], [83], [84].  --Lambiam 08:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
per os does occur in English and German, so technically it's used translingually. In Latin however, it's SOP (per os).
As for the uses, they are English OS/O.S. & OD/O.D.. And here are mentions of German OS/O. S. & OD/O. D. as well as of German LA & RA: [85], [86]. So there might indeed be Translingual OS & OD. However, that does not make it a Latin term and does not attest a Latin term.
BTW: Latin O.S. & O.D. have an RFV-sense too.
--Marontyan (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


This is said to be a neuter i-stem, but such nouns have a lemma in *-i, while *-iz is reserved for non-neuters. Either the gender or the inflection is wrong. —Rua (mew) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And none of the alleged Germanic descendants is in Wiktionary! The Finnic loan is present, though. RichardW57 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Kluge reconstructs a z-stem as the ancestor to the OHG and ON. --{{victar|talk}} 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

KBC / ABC[edit]

Probably only used in terms like KBC-Waffen / ABC-Waffen, in which at best there is a pseudo-prefix KBC- / ABC-. --Bakunla (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Old English wesan (to feast, consume)[edit]

This is listed in the descendants of *wesaną, but it's not listed in Bosworth-Toller. Köbler does have it, but with a question mark. It also lists the derived forwesan without a question mark, while BT is missing that too. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

kanker (Dutch)[edit]

RFV-sense of "Something incredibly bad, poor or annoying", noun. I only know this intensifying usage as a prefix, not as a noun. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The following moved here from #kanker.  --Lambiam 13:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The 2nd definition is also correct. In dutch, flemish and german (among others), one can use nearly any disease, vulgar term or otherwise negative word as a prefix to the noun or adjective as an offensive intensifier. It's also possible to use kanker or other diseases as a prefix to a positive adjective to put emphasis on it. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:02, February 16, 2021‎ (UTC).
That usage is not the disputed one. The prefix already exists at kanker-, but the definition and the part of speech of the contested sense clearly is that of a noun. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


Greek for León, Spain. According to Wikipedia it's Λεόν. Ultimateria (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión.  --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes @Metaknowledge, it is as Lambiam explains. Many cities have both variants: phonetic unadapted simplified spelling and -usually older style:- adapted with declension. But The female's name is only Λεώνη, not Λεόν, @Ultimateria. ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

May 2020[edit]

NMSL, NM$L, 你🐴死了[edit]

Is this really Chinese? see Revision History of 你媽死了. Abbreviation and emoji as Chinese word. Seems like wiktionary is slowly turning into urban dictionary. if this rfv is passed, i will go ahead and create more entries for urban slang such as NMD, TMD, TNND, CNM, 748, based on whatever criteria make NMSL, NM$L, 你🐴死了valid entry. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Iambluemon (talkcontribs) at 00:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC).

@Iambluemon: If they're attestable per WT:ATTEST, then they're valid entries. However, I don't think it was necessary for you to create these entries in the first place if you doubted their existence. You could have just brought this to WT:TR for discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed the links from 你媽死了, but it was quickly reverted. I check the internet and they seem to be legit. I'm just not sure whether they can be cited properly. Does weibo, twitter, blog posts, forum posts count as citations? User:Iambluemon 01:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not direct citations but...
NMSL: Chinese Wikipedia has a page on a April 2020 Chinese-Thai Twitter battle that made NMSL known to Thai Twitter users. w:zh:中泰網絡罵戰 Google News also finds mentions of NMSL in Western media, such as [87].
NM$L: Wikimedia Commons has a NM$L graphic. w:zh:孙笑川#影响.
Suzukaze-c (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, would this count as an attestation? It's not technically used by the user, but it's in the title of the link that the user shared. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It's from the part of Google Groups that isn't Usenet, so it's not durably archived. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Ah, I see. How can we tell if a group is in Usenet again? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Usenet is completely separate from Google (and decades older), but Google provides access to it as part of their service to Google Groups members. The structure of a Usenet address starts with one of a small set of top-level domain names followed by subdomains and sub-subdomains in descending order, all separated by periods/full stops. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “politeness” — 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Sue" and "Mary Sue". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

example (may not be widely used enough to keep; not sure) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


I see that there is a hip-hop group called レペゼン地球, but I'm not sure if this term is used generally to mean "a representation". It does remind me of the African American English use of Represent!, so the hip-hop connection makes sense. Cnilep (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Web dictionary says: A phrase often used as an abbreviation for the English verb "represent". Mainly used in hip-hop lyrics. "represent" means 代表する (to represent). For example, "レペゼン大阪" is reffered in the meanings like "I came on behalf of Osaka" or "I'm taking charge of Osaka".--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This is weird to me (but of course, I'm an old): it seems to be used mainly in names of rappers, groups, etc., and sometimes in lyrics. That said, I did manage to find three apparently independent attestations. FWIW, none 'represent' a hometown (unless you count 地球(ちきゅう) (chikyū, Earth)). Cnilep (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

レペゼン is a pretty common hip-hop term to mean “represent (the hometown)”: [88]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2020[edit]


Because of the lack of space and partly the small g it looks modern English.
Latin usages: "cod. Urb. Gr.", "codicibus Urb. gr." & "Cod. Urbinas graecus", "codices Urb. gr.", "cod. urb. gr.".
BTW English with spaces: [89]. --Marontyan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Can we verify the figurative sense (i.e., outside board gaming) of "stalemate; a dead-end situation, etc."? --Frigoris (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


"diaper" —Suzukaze-c 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Google Books hits, I see a lot of scannos for ダイバー (daibā, diver), ダイバージェンス (daibājensu, divergence), that kind of thing.
Seems like it's probably cromulent, but also rare. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've seen this on a diaper changing station in a bathroom. Searching for the expanded form ダイパーチェンジ "diaper change" turns up a lot of use examples for brand name products. Soap 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I added two uses of 'diaper cake' (which is apparently a thing, originally from the US and now popular in Japan?) and one of 'diaper pot'. I also labeled it as uncommon and used in compounds. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


All I can find is one use on soc.culture.esperanto, where it seems more likely to mean Malaysia (maybe a typo for Malajzio?). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I found it in the Nanyang Siang Pau: [90]. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Google Books:
Saman supersimplan sistemigon oni trovas ankoraŭ nun ĉe kelkaj SAT - anoj , kiuj alkroĉas sian sufikson - i al ĉia landnomo kaj maltimas skribi : Koreio , Malajio , Urugvio , Kanadio ktp . Kiam la cirkonstancoj kaj la kritikoj invitis al pli funda ...
Lingvo kaj vivo
( 9 ) Oceanio : ( 91 ) Malajio . ( 91 . 4 ) Filipina insulo . ( 93 ) Australazio . ( 9 . 31 ) Nova Zelando . ( 9 . 32 ) Nova Kaledonio . ( 94 ) Aŭstralio . ( 95 ) Nova Gvineo . ( 96 ) Polinezio . Tabelo 3a – Helpaj nombroj de lingvoj aŭ idiomoj . La nombroj de​ ...
Internacia scienca revuo
Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC))
Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find. The Lingvo kaj vivo quote is a mention. The Internacia scienca revuo quote may be a mention, but I can't see enough context to tell for sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Internacia scienca revuo, full text: [91]Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Not thrilling, but I think it's more than a mention; it's saying that (91) in their book system will cover books about Malaya.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we sure about what it means in that context? It seems to include the Philippines as part of 91. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps it's one of those cases where we have several cites but no one clear meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I did some searching, and was only able to come up with the above examples provided by the person offering this up for RFV. All of the sources that I've found are definitely referencing this as a historical term, but I feel as though there is not enough documentation with either of the sources provided to be able to verify this term at this point in time. Please keep in mind that I did spend about 20-30 minutes looking around for sources, and most of the sources that I found, I could trace back to the sources provided above. Razorflame 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • From what I can tell, the mention in «Lingvo kaj vivo» by G. Waringhien appears to be in the context of country names that are erroneous and should be avoided (note that «Malajio» is listed alongside «Kanadio» and «Urugvio» which are flatly wrong). So I would hesitate to list that as a legitimate citation. The context for the mention Internacia scienca revuo is unclear, as mentioned above, complicated by the fact that in 1909 (year of publication) some geographical names may still not have been standardized. Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find, but (in my opinion) is the only legitimate mention of those three.
  • I could find only two other mentions of the term:
  • [92] (may not be durable) - SAT Esperanto. Nur Ĉinio kaj Malajio eskapis el tio, malpermesante la eliron de la kapitaloj.
  • [93] La Pacdefendanto, no. 51, March 1956: aŭstralaj kaj novzelandaj trupoj en Malajio siajn militajn operaciojnkontraŭ la anoj de la nacia liberiga movado
  • If these two mentions are kosher, that should make three. If do end up keeping this entry, though, I would definitely flag it as {{obsolete form of}} and/or {{nonstandard form of}}. Audrey (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Chinese, Etymology 2)[edit]

The reading and definition looks suspiciously like a ghost entry inherited from earlier lexicographers. The source seems to be the 《觀象玩占》, an astrology book attributed to Li Chunfeng. A passage from the book reads 辰星…一曰免星 link, where the character could have been a misprint of something including or . The 《古今圖書集成》, quoting from the passage, corrects this character as link to the page. 《集韻》 has an entry 毚兔【辰星別名,或省】 link to page, which in the Jiyun formula seems to say these two characters and were considered variants to each other without specifying the linguistic context or referring to attestable literature. Overall the textual quality of these appearances has been subpar, and the reading, especially the tonal value in modern Mandarin, is not well-supported.

--Frigoris (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


Created by @Corsicanwarrah, who certainly got it from Wikipedia (considering past discussions :p).

Google Books has two mentions (Jing ji bu gong bao, Volume 35, Issues 22-24; 臺北市政府公報, Part 1 / Taiwan sheng zheng fu gong bao, Part 1).

Google Scholar has 0 results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Usually used in lists from the Taiwanese government. I'm not sure if these count as mentions or uses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I managed to fine two uses for this so far. If we count one of the instances in the lists from the Taiwanese government documents as a use, this should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

厄瓜多爾胡狼, 厄瓜多尔胡狼[edit]

One Google Books mention (破坏环境资源保护罪的定罪与量刑).

0 Google Scholar results. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Appears in legislation by the Hong Kong government regarding endangered animals (google:"厄瓜多爾胡狼" site:.gov.hk), a mention. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese government uses 厄瓜多尔狐狼 in its CITES appendix.[94][95] Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Nothing in G.Books / G.Scholar for "山狐" "Lycalopex" (scientific name to narrow down the results from "mountain" + "fox") —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Suzukaze-c I created those entries quite early in my time here, when I wasn't aware that I couldn't take terms from Wikipedia... Funnily enough, I had thought of sending these terms to RFV earlier, but then I saw that they had hits on QQ. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


This seems to be a morpheme, not a word. I'm not sure how to clean up the entry, or whether it should remain when fixed. According to the (Thai) Royal Institute Dictionary (RID), the independent word is อุตส่าห์ (note the tone mark and cancellation mark), yielding the unbound pronunciation shown, while อุตสาห is a trisyllabic prefix, notated อุตสาห- in the RID. (The Thai of the RID does use hyphens.) The RID also reports a trisyllabic stand-alone form, อุตสาหะ. Before one spelling reform, if the word existed (evidence?), the trisyllabic unbound form would have been spelt the same as the challenged lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You will find lots of อุตสาหกรรม (อุตสาห + กรรม) in search results, and some rare compounds like อุตสาหการ (อุตสาห + การ). In Wiktionary, every form of a word can have its own page, that is, we can have อุตสาห, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุษาหะ, อุสสาหะ, and อุสส่าห์. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The compounds you cited are evidence for อุตสาห-, are they not? I'm not sure how to link all these forms. Linked they should be. Is the etymology of อุตสาหกรรม {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตส่าห์|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|กรรม}} or even {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|-กรรม}}? Or {{prefix|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}? And why doesn't the latter link to a form with a hyphen? Amusingly, อุตสาหกรรม gets broken between lines with a hyphen (at the morpheme join) in the 1999 edition of the RID.--RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If อุตสาห is now only the combining form (the disyllabic nonocombining form has vanished since I raised this RfV), why is its part of speech 'adjective' as opposed to 'prefix'? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I added {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}. Thai lemmas here do not have hyphen for prefix/suffix because they have same meaning of its full word so prefix/suffix will be written on the same page, unless they are spelled different. And Thai lemmas can always attach to another word even they are not prefix/suffix (a noun can modify another noun, etc), like Chinese and other languages in the SEA region. In case of อุตสาห, the dictionary said:
อุตสาห-, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ น. ความบากบั่น, ความพยายาม, ความขยัน, ความอดทน, ใช้ว่า อุษาหะ อุสสาหะ หรือ อุสส่าห์ ก็มี. ก. บากบั่น, พยายาม, ขยัน, อดทน.


อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ น. อุตสาหะ. ก. อุตส่าห์.
that means the entry อุตสาห should be noun (น.), since morpheme cannot be verb (ก.). อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ, and unmentioned อุษาหะ are full words. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it means the preceding combining form is written in words as "อุตสาห", while as a whole word it is อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) or อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). The rest means that the word forms are both nouns and verbs, and that there are yet other spellings in use. Taking the RID as a whole, it's not clear to me what the status of อุษาหะ is; unlike the other forms, it has no entry of its own in the RID. Note there is no entry อุตสาห in the RID; the entry is อุตสาห-. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two main modes of noun compounding in Thai. Indic words are combined in the order (modifier, head), and the first element usually sprouts a linking vowel and the restoration in speech of the silent final vowels, and often clarification of the phonation of a final stop. There may also be spelling changes. This the old Indo-European order, still seen in English compounds like coalmine. The native order is (head, modifier), and it is often not clear whether this is syntax or word derivation. The first element may be modified, e.g. by the vowel shortening, but this is not visible in writing. There are then a few anomalous compounds, like ผลไม้ (pǒn-lá-máai, fruit), with native ordering but still a link vowel. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that in this case that the noun and its compounding form are written differently. I believe there is no big problem with giving the etymology of the compound as {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}; what is uncertain is whether it is a compound of the 2- or 3-syllable form. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I notice that Octahedron80 has sneakily changed the part of speech to 'noun'. With that change, the entry is clearly a candidate for deletion, as there is no noun อุตสาห in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I have originally created it as a noun, since the PoS distinction in a language such as Thai is blurred, especially for compound words. I was guided by its meaning and my Thai is below average.
It's was reasonable to change it to noun. The term is present in Sanook dictionary. There are so many derivations. Please keep the word. อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) should be the alt or the main spelling, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not a word in modern Thai! The Sanook dictionary is a compilation of other dictionaries. Which one are you citing? The headword from the RID looks corrupt, but perhaps it's from so old a version that the hyphen wasn't there. A 1950's book teaching Thai laments that the spelling นม represented both of what are now written as นมะ (námá, homage) and นม (nom, milk)). --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's the link. What are you suggesting? I don't think it's very typical to have Thai entries with hyphens. Another solution, like having a component as SoP may be required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm stating that as a copy of a recent RID dictionary, the headwords in the Sanook dictionary are corrupt. I have one other big Thai dictionary, and that also shows combining forms with a hyphen. It seems that the correct way forward is to:
  1. Mark this entry as a 'noun form', the combining form of อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) and อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). (I have jocularly referred to Thai as having a genitive case.) --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. On those two pages, say, in the usage notes, how compounds are formed and handled. Display this entry with a hyphen, which is the expectation of readers who have used a good Thai dictionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A longer term solution is to change {{prefix}} so that it expects Thai prefixes to have hyphens, and rename this entry to the hyphenated form, as seen in good dictionaries. Special handling will be needed if we can find evidence of the use of the challenged word's form as a noun. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Michell's 1892 dictionary has อุสสาห, but curiously indicates a disyllabic pronunciation. If that had been entered as a noun, it would be right to keep it as an obsolete spelling. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of words are in the same case like this. For example แพทย/แพทย์, อินทร/อินทร์, ศาสตร/ศาสตร์, ธุร/ธุระ, etc, if you want to look into it. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. They need to be dealt with. I intend to create a template for noting the existence of a combining form. I think I'll call it {{th-combining}}. Its expansion may need rework, as head-initial and head-final compounding are different, but I couldn't think of a snappy way of saying that to non-linguists. For แพทย์ (pɛ̂ɛt, physician), แพทย์หญิง (pɛ̂ɛt-yǐng, female doctor) versus แพทยศาสตร์ (pɛ̂ɛt-tá-yá-sàat, medicine (the disicipline)) exemplifies the difference. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

German "Suffixes"[edit]

  • -beck, -büren/-bühren, -broich in place-names: Instead of being formed with the suffix, rather the place-names are borrowed, e.g. German Lübeck from Low German or Middle Low German.
  • -vitz/-witz in surnames: Rather from place-names, e.g. Horowitz from the German place Horowitz, influenced by Slavic.

--Marontyan (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


I can find no online source for this entry. It could be a mash up of two morphemes waabik (dollar) and minik (how many), but even that would be the product of a unique morphology. Or perhaps it comes from a printed glossary somewhere. SteveGat (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


I can find no online source for this suffix. It might be a participle, or maybe a medial+final combination that may appear together. SteveGat (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "tree". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This sense is not found in any major dictionaries, including Hanyu Da Zidian, Hanyu Da Cidian, Guoyu Cidian, Liang'an Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian and Xinhua Zidian. Only found in Unihan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Also not found in 王力古漢語字典, Zhongwen Da Cidian, Kangxi Zidian, Zhengzitong, Guangyun, Jiyun, Zihui, Yupian, Leipian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Japanese surname senses under Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @沈澄心, who added these. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[96][97] -- 05:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Cited. -- 05:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@沈澄心: Hmm, the first one is 大坂 rather than 大阪, and the rest are referring to the same person. I think we need to have three different people for this to pass the independence criterion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


There are multiple hits on QQ, but my knowledge of Chinese is not good enough to determine if they are talking about fanorona.

Searching "迂棋" "fanorona" turns up nothing on Google Books.

Searching just these characters on Google turns up mainly guides to Assassin's Creed III, which features fanorona. But would these mentions count as durably archived sources?

--Corsicanwarrah (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit history of the Wikipedia page suggests that it is an original creation by @Outlookxp. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Corsicanwarrah:"迂棋" is from Mass media in China, like Beijing Media Network[98]. All media companies of China must accord to 新華社譯名室 to use transcription into Chinese characters.--Outlookxp (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(vulgar, offensive) promiscuous slut". Originally added by an IP (with the wrong template) with the reasoning: "Reliable source needed for that use of the word" in diff. — surjection??⟩ 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There are lot of senses in this word. But of course it also has the sexual connotations associated with dogs, actually more than the English bitch which often refers to the pesky behaviour of dogs (→ bitchy), so translation is not one to one. Maybe all those senses you find for как суку in pornographic sites on the web are examples for this gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

دائمي[edit] 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


The thematic vowel points to these being secondary. Probably should be deleted. @Ariamihr, AryamanA, JohnC5 --{{victar|talk}} 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: We would be keeping the Proto-Iranian entry? The Sanskrit does seem derived regularly rather than inherited. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@AryamanA: Yeah, the Iranian would also be secondary, but it's possible that Iranian would have thrown in a thematic vowel. I'll have to look more into that. Certainly wouldn't've been IIr. --{{victar|talk}} 01:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The PIIr entry and the reconstruction are both valid in my opinion. Even {{R:inc:IAIL}} reconstructs it. Moreover, Sanskrit yajata can't have a convincing synchronic derivation from the root yaj, be it formally or semantically. Going back to PIIr is what best explains its structure and meaning. I believe that it's an innovation for sure but at the IIR stage. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 15:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta, AryamanA, Victar: Maybe de-tag the entry then? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2020[edit]

New Saxon Spellings[edit]

See the search results. The Wikipedia article was deleted. --B-Fahrer (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "single-handed; by oneself". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Added by Wyang in 2016: [99]Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


Anon added Ancient Greek to this entry, but I'm wondering if it actually was a prefix in that language. Anyone care to shed some light? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's something to start with: πρωτ- and πρωθ- Chuck Entz (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean that it's a variant of πρωτ- and πρωθ- or the main prefix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd say πρωτο- (prōto-) is the primary form and πρωτ- (prōt-) and πρωθ- (prōth-) are alternative forms. I'd also say it's a real prefix, though I'm not sure how to test that hypothesis against the alternative, namely that words beginning with it are compounds of πρῶτος (prôtos). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Because the test is either impossible or impracticable, for Old Armenian I put the derivatives under the primary form and add a usage note, as in պէս (pēs) and բան (ban). --Vahag (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


Second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


Another second-round simplified. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I can only find it here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(In case the link goes down: it's a film called "铁辺沋击队". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

inflection table for Gaulish entry[edit]

The entry given has a declension table for the Gaulish pronoun "tu". I highly doubt even half of these forms are actually attested. RubixLang (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Used to convey joy, excitement, or celebration. As an experiment to see what kind of citations would satisfy this. DTLHS (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Google doesn't index emojis and neither does Issuu, so this means it's impossible to attest emojis, even when they're used in books, magazines, and other durably-archived media. This has been in use since at least 2019 (it's inspired by the 2018 "Crab Rave" video), and appears easily citable off Twitter. It's doesn't seem reasonable that a whole area of language would be precluded from inclusion simply because the technical limitations of Google mean we cannot find "durable" citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Twitter citations added here, spanning 2018 to this year. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm torn about this. Surely there are books or magazines with extensive use of emojis that could be collated and scanned by eye, but it's undeniable that the burden of attesting emojis is vastly higher for purely nonlinguistic reasons. That said, we can't just switch to using Twitter to attest things, in part because tweets are easily deleted or removed, and in part because that would be a conscious choice to attest emoji usage on Twitter, which is often rather distinct from its usage elsewhere. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Citing this the old-fashioned way would require someone to manually read through every book and magazine printed in the last two years in the vain hope they can find three instances of the crab emoji being used. (I think I've happened upon the eggplant emoji in print once in all my deep-diving through Issuu). There's no way to cite emojis except through platforms that index emojis, and Twitter is currently the largest, most active platform that does. The "durably archived media, except Usenet" thing is unnecessarily hamstringing our ability to document emojis, and possibly other Internet slang as well. Seriously, it was a weird policy ten years ago. Now it's just silly. Almost no one is having conversations on Usenet in 2020. Google has nerfed Groups to the point it's basically useless. I can't find things anymore unless I know exactly which newsgroups to search. And you couldn't find emojis on Groups, even if Usenet was still being widely used.
Of course there needs to be standards. I'm not suggesting the one-year citation span be thrown out. I still think emojis should have to meet that threshold. But it's silly that emojis should be excluded simply because Google Books, Google Groups, Google Scholar, and Issuu don't let you search for them. Technical limitations imposed by the services we use to find citations should not limit how we document language. This isn't an impassable roadblock -- it's a problem in need of a solution. And that's where Twitter comes in. It's widely used. It's easy to search. It's freely viewable for almost everyone. Sure, tweets sometimes get deleted. But "durably archived" has never meant "freely accessible for everyone in perpetuity." Books go out of print. Libraries take titles out of general circulation. Books moulder or are destroyed in fires. Old newspapers get converted to microfiche, which can then become damaged and unreadable. New newspapers end up filed away behind paywalls. The good thing about Twitter is that there's generally a fresh supply of new tweets to replaces ones that may get deleted. It's not perfect, certainly, but it's the only reliable way to cite emojis, as it stands. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
My practice for creating slang entries is to tolerate fewer durable citations if the word is mentioned in a reputable slang dictionary. People sometimes write about twitter words. Are there any less ephemeral mentions to add to the citations page? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This is also found a lot on e.g. Reddit [100] [101] [102] [103] – quotes: "🦀 Hey a good thing happened! 🦀", "🦀Little man is gone🦀", "🦀🦀London is gone🦀🦀", "🦀 no authenticator delay 🦀". – Nixinova [‌T|C] 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


The meaning of wood for mitig is attested as an inanimate noun. I can't find a source for it as an animate noun. SteveGat (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Ukrainian: (Canada) Diminutive of ґара; car, little car. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Ukrainian: --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)(Canada) car, automobile. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This usage was once widespread in Western Canada. It's still used as slang but now the literary Canadian-Ukrainian word is "авто". The word is most notable in many older Canadian-Ukrainian songs sung at dances. It's tough to find written examples of this but here are a few:
--Danielcentore (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Verified (?), just barely, considering Ukrainian is a well-documented language. --03:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Danielcentore: Could these quotes be added to the entry? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, Danielcentore, Kevlar67: I have checked again. I can't use any of the links, even long Youtube videos don't have a correct timings and examples above look dubious and grammatically incorrect. I won't insist on deletion of the entry, since this is a dialectal word and may not require the same verification. What shall we do? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: Canadian Ukrainian is spoken by people multiple generations away from those who came from Ukraine, and declensions and other parts of grammar are often misused when compared with a more "pure" form of the language. I don't think that makes the dialect and its vocabulary any less real or less deserving of being documented thoroughly. The timing in the D-Drifters-5 video is at 29:05. The quotes in the Freddie Chetyrbok song take place at 0:28 and 2:00. I personally think the word belongs here - it is fairly common slang in the Canadian Ukainian dialect and it is used in at least two very popular songs sung in the Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora. Danielcentore (talk)
I have also found a fourth example: "...while those who say hochu vs khocho; rowbyty vs robyty; pejlo vs vidro; gara vs avto identify themselves as North American speakers of [Ukrainian]". Between Ukish and Oblivion: The Ukrainian Language in Canada Today - Danylo H. Struk on page 1. Danielcentore (talk)
@Danielcentore, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: I don't want by any means, suppress dialectal terms but we are following WT:CFI. If terms are not attested, they are not kept (deleted). The rules may not be the same for well-documented and poorly documented languages (there's a category for the latter but I don't remember where it is). Ukrainian belongs to the first group but it's hard to attest dialectal (mostly spoken) terms even for the first category. So maybe dialects shouldn't fall into the first category?. I also don't know think we should be adding any Ukrainian citations in Latin script or obvious misspellings from Internet (e.g. роз'їхав as розїхав). @Danielcentore, are you able to prepare three citations? We can review later. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the citation "Часто сміємося зі слів 'до штору', 'ґара'" is a mention, not an actual use. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: I've updated the entry with 4 quotations, please take a look if you think they're satisfactory. I found an additional 1965 entry which was phonetic but I transliterated it to Cyrillic using the table provided at the beginning of the book, as the book is supposed to use 1:1 Latin:Cyrillic correspondence. I personally see no reason phonetic Latin entries should not be admissible - it is somewhat common to write Canadian Ukrainian in Latin (I have an entire book from the 1970s which is Cyrillic on the left pages and Latin on the right, for example), and if we don't have any better alternative I think it suffices. The "розїхав" entry is not just a random quote from the internet, it is in a PhD thesis paper, and I'm reproducing it faithfully, with the typo. I did not include the mention, thank you for calling out the inadmissibility of that. Danielcentore (talk)
@Danielcentore: Thanks for your efforts. The quote from Struk (1998) is a mention as well, so it's probably no good if Canadian Ukrainian is to be treated the same as Standard Ukrainian (as in being stricter with attestation per WT:ATTEST and WT:WDL). I'm not sure what Ukrainian editors think, but I don't know if we should be converting Latin script into Cyrillic if the original source is in Latin script. Perhaps both Latin and Cyrillic should be listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: I've included the Latin script in parentheses after "original text:", hope that seems like a satisfactory solution. I'm not sure I agree that we should be as strict with Ukrainian-Canadian given how few speakers it has compared to standard Ukrainian and the fact that most written materials still used some form of literary Ukrainian, but I'm okay with removing the entry in this case given that we'll still have 3 entries. Danielcentore (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore: Also, "Gusting Winds" seems to be in Cherwick (1999: 136). The way you've cited it makes it look like it was Daniel Centore (you) who wrote the song. It should be attributed to the actual songwriters, not to you. I guess there's an issue of independence if this song and the song by D-Drifters-5 are recorded in Cherwick (1999), and we're citing the same source for the written lyrics. They are technically independent if it weren't for Cherwick, so I think it'd be fine. We just need to give the songs the right credits. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: The Gusting Winds lyrics in the WikiSpiv book were independently researched from before I was aware of the Cherwick source (and the Cherwick one has a few mistakes where WikiSpiv does not, though this particular quote is identical in both). "Розїхав ґаром, скидав черевики" is from the song "Гандзя" by the "D-Drifters-5" on their album "D-Drifters 5 – Sing and play traditional and original Ukrainian songs" and "Залетіла в ґару муха" is from the song "Gusting Winds" by Freddie Chetyrbok in the album "Pub with no beer". I found that there's a quote-song template and switched to using that, no longer referencing Cherwick or WikiSpiv anymore at all. How does that look? Danielcentore (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore: I think it looks great now. @Atitarev, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore, Justinrleung: Thank you both. I am OK to pass it and I agree that maybe some regional dialects could use less strict rules but we don't have these rules in place yet. For example, an Israeli Russian word мазга́н (mazgán) is not known in Russian but since satisfactory citations have been provided, we are keeping it. Relaxing CFI rules would allow an influx of made up words, which should be prevented.
@Danielcentore, you may also try searching for spellings like "гара" (or its inflected form), since letter "ґ" is still considered rather marginal in Ukrainian and is often replaced with "г" with or without affect on pronunciation. For example газе́та (hazéta) may be pronounced ґазе́та (gazéta) in the diaspora (only) but can be spelled "газета" regardless of the pronunciation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Various Ukrainian senses. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020[edit]

буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллів[edit]

@Atitarev This has no hits outside of Wiktionary, and the grammar of галичан віллів seems questionable; галичан is genitive plural, which doesn't fit, and віллів cannot be found in any dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Entry created by User:Kevlar67, apparently from hearsay, used by some narrow community in Canada. I don't understand the grammar and most of the vocab in the phrase. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Benwing2 "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers. http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67 So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: Obsolete is a bit strong; it's in decline, sure, but so are thousands of languages and dialects around the world. The research was done the [[w:Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village]|Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including Klymasz] Robert Klymasz the preeminent Ukrainian-Canadian folklorist and expert on the local dialect. The link I provided is a summary comprised of the glossaries of several published works of oral history research, most notably Robert B. Klymasz, Sviéto: Celebrating Ukrainian-Canadian ritual in East Central Alberta through the Generations, Edmonton, 1992. Notice that the title is even in dialect, the standard being Sviato. Yes, indeed the phrase it should be given context labels. I have no issue with that, in fact I can do it now. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
About the transcription: it is a modified version of the Library of Congress system that the research staff at the Ukrainian Village adopted for their first published report in 1976, Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta by John Lehr, when access to word processors that could make diacritical marks in Canada was limited. Further, the materials were meant to be read by non-linguists, mainly museum employees, historians, folklorists, etc. I don't see this as an issue in any way. Works about the dialect were also published in Cyrillic, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Rudnyckyj Jaroslav Rudnyckyj's multi-volume Ukrainian-Canadian Folklore and Dermatological Texts (Winnipeg, 1956, 1958, and 1962-63). Kevlar67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67: The phrase has no value and should be deleted. It was poorly transliterated (the page just uses phonetic Anglicisation, not any specific standard) and poorly translated or rather described. Now I understand what it meant:
At play is a variation of two verbs with similar meaning:
си́пати/насипа́ти (наси́пати)/висипа́ти (ви́сипати) vs ли́ти/налива́ти (нали́ти)/вилива́ти (ви́лити)
"sýpav" refers to си́пав (from си́пати-impf) and "výlliv" is ви́лив (from ви́лити-pf, to pour out).
There is a mix-up in East Slavic languages, not unique to Ukrainian about си́пати (to pour friable/solid objects, such as sand, sugar, salt, etc) and ли́ти (to pour (liquid). Using си́пати (*sỳpati) is normally considered incorrect in standard Ukrainian, ли́ти (*liti) should be used for liquids. This incorrect usage is ascribed to a Galician speaker and it's supposed to be funny in how one person from Bukovina pours water in, the other from Galicia pours it out but they just use different verbs to describe their action.
The sentence uses inconsistent aspects - the first part is imperfective and the second is perfective.
It's grammatically incorrect. It can be rewritten as "букови́нець си́пав во́ду, а галича́нин вилива́в" (imperfective) or "букови́нець naси́пав во́ду, а галича́нин ви́лив" (perfective). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along. It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language. Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke. This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused. Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity. In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


Gichi- is one of the ways to say right (not left). It is not clear whether it should be considered a preverb (see here) or an initial (initials are written without a hyphen), as in gichinik, or whether it can be analyzed as a separate lemma at all. SteveGat (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Latin: Used to mark abbreviations. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 4 August 2020 with also the RFC template (“for more information as . is the usual abbreviation mark - although · does occur in inscriptions as word separator and abbreviation mark too (as in [104], [105])”), not listed.

I created this entry because I found it used in a painting and on a British coin but uses that meet the CFI better, to add as quotations, could probably be found easily. J3133 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

cheveux blancs[edit]

Not familiar with this. PUC – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [106], [107], [108], [109] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [110].  --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian згра[edit]

Per User:Atitarev, a dictionary-only word found in Dal with a ? by it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The entry in Vladimir Dal's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (in that time "Great Russian"=Russian, as opposed to Ukrainian or Belarusian) dictionary looks like this:
ЗГРА? донск. искра (зга?).
Question marks are preserved. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I've added reference to Dahl. If it's kept, the inlfections should be removed as unknown. зга (zga) exists in modern Russian but preserved only in expressions. Also diminutive зги́нка (zgínka). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont get it .... why arent we just assuming the etymology is that it's a variant of искра? thanks, Soap 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


Spanish. Removed by IP in diff. For such a common word, you'd expect entries in other dictionaries, but I can't find any, but I can find some results, so it might not be a complete hoax. — surjection??⟩ 16:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • FailThe only "good quotes" were by the same author, found below. MM0898 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • 1998, Andrés Trapiello, Una caña que piensa
      orinales en los que han mingido tres generaciones de viejos prostáticos
    • 2000, Andrés Trapiello, Las inclemencias del tiempo
      estaba uno en los mingitorios de la planta baja, mingiendo, se me apareció

fake news[edit]

Rfv-sense "any news considered insufficiently flattering by populists [from 2016 or 2017]". Very specific definition, and the wording makes me suspect it's a jab at a particular politician that some editor doesn't like.__Gamren (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the sense in which populist politicians generally use the term; just read the Wikipedia article Fake news. Dutch politicians are no exception. So there is no strong reason to think the editor had any specific politician in mind. Instead of “insufficiently flattering” I think the term denotes, rather, news for which it is more convenient for the speaker if it can be discarded as not being true. I am not sure why we do not have an English entry, but as used in the sense of “it's all lies, folks — so dishonest....” it is not the more usual sense of a hoax news item (“NASA: Mysterious UFO appears to 'sit and watch' Hubble telescope”; “Mother-of-ten (aged 77) pregnant with triplets – doctors are baffled”; “VP Shoots Fellow Hunter: Cheney peppers Texas lawyer with birdshot during quail hunt”*)  --Lambiam 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

* O, wait, that one was actual news. But here is a bonus made-up story.
I'm not sure if the "news I don't want to be true" sense is the same as "fabricated news", or if we want to add a sense "2. false news." Certainly there are news stories I don't consider "fake news" that have been called such, but you have to get into the speaker's head to know the intended meaning. If I call evolution or quantum field theory or N-rays pseudoscience, have I created a new sense of pseudoscience or used the existing sense in a way some people disagree with? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we can think about like this: Would it make sense for a politician to outright tell her constituency "this may be true, but if it were found to be true, it would undermine my policies, therefore we should agree to disregard it"? Certainly they would not take her seriously! Alternatively, I found an article claiming to debunk Trump's accusations of fake news. The authors of this article clearly understand those accusations to regard veracity rather than political usefulness. I definitely think the intent behind describing something as fake news is that it contains information known to be untrue. I wouldn't mind if a usage note was added explaining that the term has a history of being misapplied by politicians to demonstrably true information.__Gamren (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If use in Dutch is like use in English I would add a usage note rather than a definition. It functions as an emphatic denial like calling something a lie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Not true, this term pops up in relation to a number of populists who use it as a generic buzzword to discredit unflattering news. This sense is encountered often if you follow Dutch-language news and it genuinely seems distinct from sense 1. Politicians who use it generally seem uninterested in actually demonstrating falsehoods in news, for one. I also think it is poor form to speculate about the political motivations of other editors. Anyway, here are some hits, though some are less than ideal (mentions/mentionlike, only used in titles): [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] It is a sense you hear relatively frequently on broadcast media. Searching on Google is hampered because the results also include nepnieuws, even if you use quotation marks. Perhaps the definition is too narrow, because the term is also used in this way by the Chinese communists. "[P]opulists and autocrats", perchance? But that will likely attract more outrage and vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Alt. form of デュース. LittleWholeSuzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

google books:"ヅース" finds 242 ostensible hits, collapsing to 30 when paging through.
Of those 30 hits, most of them appear to be scannos of uncertain original form. As an example of how wacky scannos can get, at least one of these is actually a French manuscript, and Google misparsed the cursive script as Japanese somehow. More tamely, at least five of these were misparsings of ソース (sōsu), a borrowing of either source (as in "source code") or sauce.
The only one instance that might actually be ヅース (zūsu) seems to be a transliteration of a Hungarian name.
I'd say delete as unconfirmable.


Alt. form of デュアル. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can find this some word-lists for language learners, and few online shopping sites (none seemingly durably archived), but not in newspapers, magazines, or books. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for astable. Never came across it, can't find any reference for it. --Droigheann (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


Literally "white-painted large building", as opposed to "the White House".

空色の季節Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is this estate listing, but arguably this is a proper name. The accompanying photo is of a large white building:
白堊館(はくあかん)は、東京都狛江市岩戸北4丁目(とうきょうとこまえしいわときた4ちょうめ)にあるマンションです。最寄(もよ)(えき)は、小田急小田原線喜多見駅(おだきゅうおだわらせんきたみえき)徒歩5分(とほ 5ふん)場所(ばしょ)にあります。
Hakuakan wa, Tōkyō-to Komae-shi Iwato kita 4-chō-me ni aru manshon desu. Moyori eki wa, Odakyū Odawara sen Kitami eki de toho 5-fun no basho ni arimasu.
Hakuakan is an apartment building at #4 North Iwado in Komae city, Tokyo. The nearest train station is Kitami station on the Odakyu Odawara line, a five minute walk.


Rfv-sense: "centralized". -- 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well there's the example usage: 多民族中央集權國家 (multiethnic, centralized state). ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Isn't "centralized" a translation of "中央集權" rather than just 中央? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Theoretically you could say 集權是中央的 or 權利是中央的. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


Hot word in Danish from 2016. Can it be kept? DTLHS (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Same situation with nihonium and moscovium. These new elements are kind of translingual, but not entirely because they can have language-specific inflection. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Danish Wikipedia article suggests that the word is no longer in use in Danish. I think that may have been the point of the RFV. Thadh (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not. The form with -e at the end never really made sense, it's very "un-Danish". The form promoted by Dansk Kemisk Nomenklatur is tennessin, which also has a short entry on Den Store Danske (an online Encyclopedia). I've added three cites for that which I found on Infomedia, but they're one month short of spanning a year.__Gamren (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English.

大馬哈 is cited for all the senses in the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Cited except for the "spanning at least a year" condition. The first citation for now is from the end of February, so we could wait it out and see if we can find anything in February/March. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


Cited except for the "spanning at least a year" condition. The first citation (for now) is from April 27. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


There are some hits that refer to SARS-CoV-1. In this case, would it be better to send to RFD because it may just be SoP? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)



See [118] for Hokkien, [119] for Teochew, [120] for Cantonese and [121] for Mandarin. These are all videos published by the Singaporean government, so it does show that these terms are used. I'm not sure if they count as evidence though. The dog2 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

They're not evidence for rfv since we're not sure if they're durably archived, but they can be used as evidence for pronunciation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Cited except for the "spanning at least a year" condition. The first citation is from February 17, 2020. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Cited. -- 04:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


All created by (talk). --TheDarkKnightLi(STAY HAPPY) 14:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thedarkknightli: I have undone massive text edits by (talk) in defence of 大馬哈大马哈 (dàmǎhā) (you can see the edit history). If anything is worth keeping as a citation, it can be added to the entry itself. It was an inappropriate for the IP to post so much text in this discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Atitarev: It was good evidence, so it's not entirely inappropriate to post all of that. Not everything is durably archived, but it does show a good amount of usage out there. Anyway, here's the diff for ease of access and archiving purposes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: Thanks, maybe the citations could be restored in a collapsed mode, if you know how? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If the quotations look good, I suggest copying them as-is to the appropriate citations pages where they will be found more easily. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thedarkknightli: I don't know why you're doubting the IP, who seems to know what they're doing. The reason of RFV is kind of weak, but of course, if you still have doubts, you could continue with the requests. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It would be good to add another quotation for 大馬哈大马哈 (dàmǎhā) because the one that is there only evidences the transformation of the suffix from to 幼魚. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Cited based on Justinrleung's statement above that the evidence is good. I take no position on the quality of the evidence. I copied all the quotations from the old revision of this page to the appropriate citations pages and linked them using {{seeCites|zh}}. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum: It's only cited if we check to make sure the sources are durably archived. Many of them come from news sites, but that doesn't mean they were actually published in newspapers. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ainu: kamuy kar put ya mosir, カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ[edit]

Seeking verification. I cannot confirm that this exists as Ainu, and even assuming validity, the spelling is off.

  • Provenance:
Granted, Ainu is an WT:LDL. However, I cannot find this term in Ainu-language materials. It appears in the Japanese Wikipedia article about Karafuto (i.e. the island of Sakhalin) in the section about the name, at w:ja:樺太#名称:

「からふと」の名は、一説にはアイヌ語でこの島を「カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ 」(kamuy kar put ya mosir) と呼んだ事に由来すると言う。これはアイヌ語で「神が河口に造った島」を意味し、...
The name Karafuto, in one theory, may have derived from the island being called 「カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ 」(kamuy kar put ya mosir) in Ainu. In Ainu, this means "island made by the gods at the river mouth", ...

Meanwhile, Ainu-language materials apparently call Sakhalin by the name Karapto / カラㇷ゚ト:
Googling seems to find mentions on Japanese-language sites, but not Ainu-language sites: google:"カムイ・カラ・プト・ヤ・モシリ" -wiki -chiebukuro -yahoo
  • Spelling:
Assuming the gloss in the JA WP article is correct, a few of the words are misspelled.
  • カムィ (kamuy, god) as in our entry is spelled with a small (-y). This is used academically to show that the -muy on the end is the one-mora diphthong /ui/ and not the two-mora dipthong /u.i/. However, outside of academia, this notation seems less common, with カムイ with a regular-sized instead: the Ainu Times has zero instances of カムィ, but plenty of カムイ. Likewise, the intermediate Chitose-dialect materials list カムイ but not カムィ (page 91 in the PDF), the Bihoro materials too (also page 91), and the Karafuto-dialect word list (page 4).
  • カㇻ (kar, to make, to create) with the small is listed instead as カラ (kara) in the Karafuto-dialect word list (page 4). Looking at other dialectal materials, I can't find any geographically close dialects for comparison; however, the presence of the second /-a-/ in the borrowed Japanese term Karafuto suggests that the source Ainu dialect was either Karafuto or something close by, with カラ (kara) instead of the カㇻ (kar) found further south.
  • プト (*put, river mouth) with the final small does not conform to Ainu katakana orthography, where coda consonants are (usually) spelled with the miniature kana from the same vowel series as the preceding voiced vowel. Thus, we'd expect this term to be spelled プッ instead with a final small -- which is indeed how we find this spelled in the Ainu Museum dictionary.

@幻光尘, Alves9, you've both edited the entries -- do either of you have any Ainu-language materials that include this name? If so, can you find any further information about whether anyone still uses this name? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You could probably move that to カラㇷ゚ト/Karapto and keep "カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ" as an etymology. The spelling's fine, though. Alves9 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Alves9: Keeping カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ as an etymology for カラㇷ゚ト / Karapto is an idea, but if we cannot confirm that this was actually used in Ainu, it might be only a folk etymology invented by Japanese speakers. In addition, the required shifts within Ainu are a bit odd -- why would kara put become karapto? Ainu has coda consonants, so the appearance of this final -o is unexpected and not explained by Ainu phonological patterns. This seems more like either 1) the etymology described in Japanese-language materials is incorrect, and the modern Ainu Karapto derives from something else entirely, or 2) the etymology described in Japanese-language materials is correct, and the modern Ainu Karapto may be a reborrowing from the Japanese. Either way, we need more detail.
Regarding the spelling, we seek to record what's actually in use. If there are multiple forms with differences in usage frequency, we lemmatize (create the main entry) at the most common form.
  • I have only seen small-ィ カムィ (kamuy) in academic writings, while big-イ カムイ (kamuy) is used in teaching materials and the Ainu Times, the only publication I know of in the Ainu language.
→ We should lemmatize at the カムイ spelling and clarify that カムィ is an alternative form used in academia.
  • Southern カㇻ (kar) is unlikely to be the source etymon for this compound term, while Sakhalin Ainu カラ (kara) fits both the phonology and the geography, and is much more likely to be the source term.
→ We should create an entry at カラ (kara) for the Sakhalin Ainu variant of this term.
  • I cannot find プㇳ (*put) in any of the Ainu materials I currently have access to, only プッ (put).
→ We should lemmatize at プッ, and only create any entry at プㇳ if we can confirm that this spelling has actually been used by Ainu speakers / writers.
(For that matter, we never really discussed Ainu lemma forms -- should we lemmatize at the katakana spellings, or the romanized spellings? Duplicating content in both places is bad practice. However, that's a matter for another thread.)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you assume "Karapto" is a native word. It's only logical to think of it as a reborrowing from Japanese 樺太 which in it itself probably came from a corruption of "カムィ カㇻ プ[ㇳ/ッ] ヤ モシㇼ". It's the same processes with Sapporo: Ainu "sat poro pet", corrupted to Japanese "Sapporobetsu", then corrupted again to "Sapporo", and then finally reborrowed into Ainu as "Sapporo".
I will mention for correction's sake that Ainu has a tendency to delete syllable-final vowels, especially before consonants. There's nothing strange about "kamuy-kara-putu-ya-mosiri" becoming "kamuy-kar-put-ya-mosir", especially when thinking about toponyms. Alves9 (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I confess I find your reply confusing and off-topic. I will respond to each point separately in an attempt at clarity.
  • "I'm not sure why you assume "Karapto" is a native word." → I don't make any such assumption. I'm confused that you think I did? Logically, the Ainu term must be either native or borrowed. I present both hypotheses.
  • "It's only logical to think of it as a reborrowing from Japanese" → Why? It might be a native term. It might be a borrowed term, not necessarily even from Japanese -- Orok and Nivkh are also spoken on Sakhalin.
  • "Ainu has a tendency to delete syllable-final vowels" → This is largely irrelevant to anything I've mentioned above. If anything, the opposite is more the problem -- unlike Japanese, Ainu has no tendency to insert filler vowels, so there is no clear mechanism within Ainu for kar put to become Karapto.
Even as a reborrowing, the phonology is problematic. Ainu has no /f/ phoneme, but it does have initial /h/, and Sakhalin Ainu even has coda /h/, so Japanese Karafuto would likely have been borrowed as Karahuto or Karahto. However, I find no evidence for either form in Ainu.
  • "There's nothing strange about "kamuy-kara-putu-ya-mosiri" becoming "kamuy-kar-put-ya-mosir"" → That was never in question. We still have zero Ainu-language evidence that either version even existed. All we have is Japanese-language sources supposing that this might have existed.
Additionally, we have no modern reference listing any term putu. Batchelor has that as his version of modern プッ (put), shown in the right-hand column of page 358 here, but it is hard to tell if that was the actual realization of this term, or if that's an artifact of interpreting the Ainu of the time through the lens of Japanese orthography and phonology. That said, the Ainu Museum dictionary lists this term as プッ (put), and the other modern materials I have to hand don't include this term at all.
Getting back to the main point of this thread, it sounds like we don't yet have any Ainu-language evidence for the existence of kamuy kar put ya mosir / カムィ カㇻ プㇳ ヤ モシㇼ. I'll see what additional information I can find online, and hopefully @幻光尘 will reply with further details. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A bit of philological research will reveal that 樺太 was originally pronounced からぷと. If we assume that the Ainu term was reborrowed relatively recently into Japanese colonisation, there's no need to justify a "Karahto" (also because a "ht" cluster is illegal).
Overall it seems to me you need to research more about this rather than pretend you know more than scholars who fluently read and speak Ainu (scholars whose material you haven't even read!) Alves9 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Per the Nipponica encyclopedia section on the history of Sakhalin (in Japanese), the island was first definitively visited by a Japanese person in 1635, when the island was called various things including Karafuto and Kita Ezo-chi ("North Ainu-land").
At no point in the sources I have access to is the Japanese term ever recorded as Karaputo. With an appearance date of the 1630s-1640s, this term is far too young to undergo the /p//f/ lenition we see in the shift from Old Japanese to Early Middle Japanese.
I have made no argument against any purported "scholars who fluently read and speak Ainu". Part of the problem here is that we have nothing from any such scholar, unless you claim yourself to be one. So far, you've made various contentions, but with no backing evidence. I have only your say-so that you've done any research at all. If you have other sources that state differently than what I've outlined here, please provide links. I would welcome the opportunity to learn more. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More symbols from Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B block without any clearly meaningful definitions[edit]

I first posted three of these at RFD, but now it seems to me that RFV might be the appropriate place. The problem here is that supposedly mathematical symbols have been entered, but instead of a definition they have a description of the symbol itself.

, , , ,

__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


"(mathematics) Three consecutive equal signs." __Gamren (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess this may be an alternative form of ===, which has a definition. We currently define as an alternative form of := , and ... (three dots) as an alternative form of (U+2026) – where I wonder if the other way around wouldn’t be preferable for the latter.  --Lambiam 15:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that anyone would make a programming language using a character that no keyboard is able to produce. Likewise, ≔ probably isn't used for the programming sense of :=. As for the ellipsis... in LaTeX, at least, inputting three periods in an equation usually looks very ugly. In natural-language contexts, I doubt anyone would go out of their way to typeset an ellipsis character, but some text editors by default make that substitution, just as they may replace -- (two regular dashes) with — (one em dash) -- which naturally makes it seem as though many people use it when they actually don't make a conscious decision to do so.__Gamren (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The documents under w:Supplemental_Mathematical_Operators#History suggest that it shouldn't be made up ("This proposal is the culmination of a several-year process of collation and review of mathematical symbols, cooperation between the Unicode Technical Committee and the STIX Project, involving extensive expertise"). Maybe there is a trail of documents that can be followed. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
In the first document it says that "a very large collection of source citations has been collected by the STIX Project group of STIPUB". I went to their website and found the address stix@aip.org, and so I wrote to them. Wonder if I'll get a response.__Gamren (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
It's unlikely w:APL exists?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
APL (programming language)surjection??⟩ 20:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have used systems with APL keyboards, so I think of it as a typeable language. Perhaps not readable, but typeable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)





Larger than, smaller than. Are we talking about physical size, or are they synonyms of the common symbols < and >? Or is this a whole different sense of "smaller" and "larger"?__Gamren (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)



"Double precedes" and "double succeeds". What does it mean for something to "double proceed" something? If it's analogous to the difference between > and ≫ I might guess it means "succeeds by a lot; occurs much later in some sequence".__Gamren (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're parsing these wrong is written double, and is written double. In other words, there's less to the definitions than meets the eye. The definitions were obviously copied directly from the Unicode character names, and those tend to describe the glyphs rather than their meaning (e.g. å is "small letter a with ring above"). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that. That's the problem. A description of the glyph is not a definition.__Gamren (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: grammatical particle for perfective aspect (in Wu language). The quotation does not seem to match the sense: the translation given there is an imperative sentence. --Frigoris (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Frigoris: 蘇州方言詞典 defines it as “句末助詞,表示變化或新情况,相當于北京話句末助詞‘了’” and lists these examples: “吾吃仔飯~|大家來吧,吃飯~|落雨~|天要好~|再等等,俚馬上來~|吾一走,屋裏嘸不人燒飯~|俚葛閑話好相信,太陽要從西天出來~!”. 上海方言詞典 is a little more vague and defines it as “語氣詞,表時態,用於句子末尾,相當於北京話的‘了’” and lists these examples: “落雨~|好~,𧟰吵~|我明朝就要回屋裏去~|儂再稍爲等一歇,我已經辣着鞋子~,就要好快~”. 上海话大词典 divides it into several definitions:
  • (旧)表示过去叙事情况下的语气:过一歇,伊又出去~|后来我去睏~。
  • (旧)表示事件的现在状态:生病~|钟停~|苹果熟~|三点钟~|天晴~。
  • 与进行体助词“辣辣/辣海”一起,表示现在进行时态:伊辣辣读书~|大楼辣海造~|伊辣来~。
  • 与存继承助词“辣海/辣辣”一起表示现在完成时态:奶妈请辣海~|我家生买辣辣~。
  • 与表示即行的“快”一起用时,表示现在即行时态:水开快~|苹果熟快~。
The only definition that seems to fit "perfective aspect" is the 4th sense in 上海话大词典, but it seems to not be contributing to that meaning without 辣海/辣辣. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: thank you for checking the rfsense. So indeed the quotation was misleading by not matching the definition it appears under. This really can use some cleanup. --Frigoris (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020[edit]


Rfv-sense "a set of song and dance originating from banquet performances". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that sense was added in 2015 by C933103 (talkcontribs) who only has three edits to their credit. Jim Breen's doesn't have it, none of the resources at Kotobank have it, and none of the resources at Weblio have it. The closest is Weblio's mirror of the JA WP article at ja:w:野球拳, which at least mentions dancing, but just as part of the game of strip-janken.
Seems bogus to me, perhaps added out of confusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no memory of me performing this edit 5.5 years ago and I cannot explain why such edit was performed. Currently, I am not aware of such sense for the term either. C933103 (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
You were not wrong, I believe you just added the same thing. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "kick scooter". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I added three quotations from 2016-2020. Each includes images of the kick-scooter if you click through, and I think the context of the quotes makes it clear, too. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "someone who has passed away". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

See [122]. -- 04:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@沈澄心: Thanks for the link! I'm just checking Shijing, and Legge translates 古人 as "the ancients", which would be sense 1. Do you think Legge's translation is right? Pinging @Frigoris as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, 沈澄心, as far as I know, on the textual (訓詁) level Legge followed both "the common sense" and the traditional 毛詩 school of interpretations fairly closely. On the textual level, "the ancients", as in 我思古人 from 《邶風·綠衣》 looks like SOP enough (= 古 + 人, persons of the past). --Frigoris (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


Is Central Bai written in Chinese characters, and if so, is this the actual character used for /ɕy³³/? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Bai was written in chinese characters in a system called 僰文, using the characters to represent Bai words and written in a Bai syntax. As for the character itself, it appears in 山花碑/词记山花·咏苍洱境碑, which is written in 僰文, in the line:煴煊茶水(口㱔)𪢂呼 (translation into Chinese:热煮茶水相对饮)[123],due to the fact that it is written in a Bai syntax, it would be fair to assume it was probably composed in Bai, therefore be pronounced in Bai --Henry Wonh (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Henry Wonh: Thanks! This looks like good evidence. I'll try to incorporate this into the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I've checked 赵橹's book and it seems like the text is slightly different from the blog post, and it's translated slightly differently as well. Either way, I've incorporated it into the entry, so this should be cited. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Henry Wonh: Actually, one more question. Is it actually Central Bai we're dealing with, or some other variety of Bai? The poem was written many centuries ago, but I'm not sure how much we actually know about the Bai languages at that time. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: Well, even though the stella was found in Dali city, it southern Bai territory, most sources claim central and southern Bai are mutually intelligible and are essentially dialects of each other, so I wouldn’t think it would pose a big problem, maybe merge the multiple Bai subsections?—-Henry Wonh (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Henry Wonh: If it's in Southern Bai territory, one way we could go about this is to assume that it's Southern Bai, which would mean it's not cited for Central Bai. However, since this was written long ago, I wonder how much the Bai varieties have diverged then. Are there 僰文 texts from elsewhere? Merging Bai varieties is a bigger discussion to be had since it'll affect all other Bai entries we have. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Lama Bai [edit]

Southern Bai [edit]

Also in these Bai varieties. Given the cited text above, we need to determine which variety the text belongs to. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@幻光尘Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Added in diff, by the user pinged above.) - -sche (discuss) 16:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

mutatis mutandis[edit]

--Der Zeitmeister (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  • «malmanĝi» and «maltrinki» are fairly common children's euphemisms, which should be well-attested. However, I cannot specifically find the compound «malmanĝejo» seriously attested anywhere. Audrey (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @J3133: Of this word, there exists an article on Wikipedia, as well as an entry on Wiktionary, not to mention its consistent and concise etymology, which is given. Is there any reason as to why you doubt this word's existence? Jackchango (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jackchango: See WT:CFI: “We do not quote other Wikimedia sites”. A “consistent and concise etymology” is not relevant because it does not replace citations. J3133 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @J3133: While I disagree with this consensus as well as its representativity, (years ago and from few users) does a bab.la entry suffice? There also appear to be a few others, too. (from dict.cc, Glosbe, and OpenTran) This word is no doubt accepted by the Esperanto community. Jackchango (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Jackchango: I already saw those dictionary entries, which are mentions, not uses. J3133 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
          • @J3133: The difference being? Why are waiting for someone to use a word in a creative work when we there is already wide consensus of its existence? Jackchango (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
            • @Jackchango: The difference being Wiktionary’s CFI policy. J3133 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • @J3133: OK, so this is what I'm picking up from this. Despite there being unanimous consensus of the word existing, the sole reason it won't be listed on this site is because of sources consisting of "lone definitions" due to this CFI policy? What is the reasoning behind this? Jackchango (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                • There is “unanimous consensus” of this word being mentioned by dictionaries, not of it being used. WT:RFV is the place for “prov[ing] that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion”, not for changing the CFI. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • @J3133: I now understand the difference, and I never brought up changing it. I just asked for reasoning, and since you are enforcing this rule so strongly, I think it would be safe to assume you know why it is put in place. Why are we dismissing dictionary entries as mentions when the clearly provide meanings? Jackchango (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                    • English dictionaries have lots of terms that someone made up for a word list, a dictionary added based on the word list, and other dictionaries copied from that dictionary. Constructed languages have the added problem that everything is so regular that it's possible to predict the exact spelling of a term that no one has even made up yet. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. You can't describe something as existing that numerous sources agree theoretically ought to exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                      • @Chuck Entz: I still don't see the issue here, I never coined the term. Is your argument a lack of standardization? What on Earth other than spliff could "cannabis cigarette" possibly translate to? Seven sources (two of which aren't allowed for reasons unbeknownst to me) point toward the word existing, exact spelling and all. How many more do we need for it to stop being "theoretical?" Is it just three people to use it in creative work? Where do you think they will get the word from, if not these sources? Jackchango (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • @J3133, @Jackchango: I don't speak Esperanto, but does this suffice as a quote? Also, definitely a reference. Thadh (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                • The WordPress blog is not durably archived and the dictionary entry is a mention. Note that Esperanto terms need three citations, not one. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • Here's another mention: [124]; More quotes from WordPress: [125] (maybe we should archive these?) I furthermore think one can't really expect to find enough mentions of this particular word because of its and the language's context. Thadh (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I get one result for kanabcigaredon (dum e[sic] tri monatoj, nur pro tio, ke tiu fumis kanabcigaredon!) from this issue of Kontakto, but there is no usable preview; the Google preview probably contains a scanno. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I just added that quote the the article. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are three webpages where the term felano is used:

  1. https://eo.wikifur.com/wiki/Felano (created 27 September 2011, last edited 2 September 2015)
  2. https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felanaro (created 16 April 2006, last edited 23 August 2020)
  3. https://medium.com/@Vanege/most-common-esperanto-words-plej-oftaj-vortoj-en-esperanto-b56422d13a7f (written 27 December 2016)

Fußmatte (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fußmatte: We do not quote Wikimedia sites. The others are not durably archived. See WT:CFI and WT:QUOTE. J3133 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked through 43 pages of a search for the word on books.google.com and all I came up with were lots of Italian, Latin, and Spanish/Portuguese sources for this word, and no citations for this word in Esperanto. Razorflame 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • While this term is indeed used in online contexts, I am (surprisingly) not able to find any citations. This seems like the sort of term that would be easily attestable in ~10 years' time, but certainly not today. Audrey (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I suspect we'll have to host this on WikiFur for now, along with lesser-used furry terms in other languages. We're getting to grips with Wikibase and it should be possible to add lexeme support, which is in our prototype on WBStack already. GreenReaper (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    I put it on WBStack for now. Our first lexeme! Would be nice if e.g. "derives from" -> wikidata:L12345 (felo) was possible. (Also, if it showed the references without editing.) GreenReaper (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Only found 2 times in regular books (not dictionary or glossary) in Google Books (other used as person name). First book used "rain" sense. Second book is not clear. Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The word is listed with the given meanings in the KBBI, the official dictionary of the Indonesian language. While Indonesian is not an LDL and this is a mention, not a use, it is a strong indication that the term exists.  --Lambiam 22:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
LDL? Many foreign words forced listed in KBBI to enrich KBBI (to encourage people to use these words) while ignoring attestation in Indonesian. See Wiktionary:About Indonesian#Detailed considerationRex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If I understand what is written there, such entries of foreign words are labelled with a code indicating which language they are from, like Jw for Javanese. The entry for abulhayat has no such label.  --Lambiam 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but not all loaned words required a etymology (language label) according their policy. According a KBBI Daring editor: language labels are not required for common words. Almost all words which used language label is part of 'forced borrowing' what i said in earlier comment. So, it's not weird for KBBI do such partice. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: foresight. -- 01:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

In Japanese, I see it has a sense of precociousness, or the knowledge gained through precociousness. Not quite the same meaning though. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Added by @Tooironic. Reminds me of Cantonese 有早知冇乞衣. Anyway, not found in major monolingual dictionaries. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in the 漢語詞典: 對未來事件能超常預知的現象 ("phenomenon of being able to predict the future"). See here. Also on Baidu Baike with the same definition: see here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Baidu Baike is unreliable. -- 13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well it's probably copying the definition from the 漢語詞典. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Tooironic: 1. These are not print dictionaries AFAICT. 2. These aren't really valid for RFV. We need actual uses of the word. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "knit".

Rfv-sense "nit".

Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • ニット (nitto, knit) -- See various entries at Kotobank, Weblio. Seems to be a pretty well established loanword. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ニット (nitto, nit) -- Much less common. I do find this listed in my JA ↔ EN medical dictionary alongside alternative form ニト (nito), and also in a scientific jargon glossary with a separate sense of "candela per square meter". Confirming this one in the wild is much more difficult, however. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Checking knit#Noun (which I probably should have done beforehand: I actually wasn't aware that knit was usable as a noun, and believed the entry to be a suspicious mess created by equating etymology with definition, "ニット is from English knit and therefore means knit"), I see that it means (1 of 2 definitions) "knitter garment".
I also added a sense "knitwear" to ニット, so I suppose the RFV for this sense is essentially pointless, and I've removed the sense (maintaining that knit as a noun is not an intelligible definition) and the tag from ニット.
Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding ニット (nitto, nit): I found several mentions of a product called ニットピッカー (nit-picker), either on shopping sites (which tend not to be durably archived) or mommy blogs such as this. I wonder if that is just transliteration of a product name originally in English, though. I also found a 2019 translation of Victorian Lady's Guide etc., which uses ruby in a way that suggests readers would not recognize the katakana word.
I associate that style of ruby in film subtitles, where they want to include the (transliterated) non-Japanese word and also a translation. Cnilep (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

ニット as “[nit]” is pretty common: [126], although specialists always write it as nit. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


Isn't on INFCOR (where apa / aba is given) and the plural seemed suspicious (should have been "abbe" instead of *abbi). Couldn't find any non-wiki usages. Would be nice to have a verification. Thadh (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-senses: "solution" and "result; outcome". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tooironic Seems like you added these in this diff. Dr. Eye Chinese English Bilingual Dictionary gives "the solution to a problem" as one of the definitions. "Solution" is also given in mdbg (not that this is necessarily right). "Result; outcome" might be mergeable with "place to settle", I think, which seems to be a little bit inaccurate without something like "result" since Guoyu Cidian and Liang'an Cidian define that sense with 歸宿 and 結果/結局. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-senses: "mate; partner" and "master". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Added a quote for "mate; partner" and two for "master" (which I've added "someone to rely on" to). These senses are found in Guoyu Cidian, and "mate; partner" is also found in Hanyu Da Cidian. I've labelled them as archaic now, which might mean they are not in the scope of "Standard Written Chinese". If this is the case, we can possibly say it's cited; otherwise, I'll try to find more quotes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
"Master" should be cited now, but I'm not sure if it belongs to this sense or "way of doing something". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to decorate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


A supposed loanword from English meaning "giraffe." Never heard of this word before, and cannot find any relevant common noun result on Google, Naver, or Daum.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Karaeng Matoaya It's included in less common dictionaries, that's why I didn't delete when I edited the entry in 2014 but labelled as "rare". Created by a user no longer active. I am okay to speedy the entry but perhaps Google books should be checked. It may be attestable (just barely) in the sense of "giraffe" or other senses. Naver has 지라프 마이크 (jirapeu maikeu) and Daum has 지라프 프린트 (jirapeu peurinteu). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to find anything on Google Books.--Tibidibi (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


Seems suspicious, especially given the ending -r, which isn't normally present in Corsican verbs, both from the northern and southern dialects. Is in any case a form of avè, with which it apparently shares most verb forms. Isn't on INFCOR and isn't recognized by AIACCINU as a verb. Thadh (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


I added the Latin definition "Habsburgus." Anonymous "" added the verify sense rfv. Anonymous failed to create a verification post here. Aearthrise (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The existing quotation is unverifiable – to which edition of Comenius’ enormous œuvre does the page number correspond? Moreover, the “64b”, “31b” and “32b” are strange; is the quote not taken from running text but from an Index? Three uses: [127], [128], [129] – the last one not authored by "Jezuité", as Google Books would have us believe, but by Georg Widmanstad.  --Lambiam 12:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam: I received the index here. Aearthrise (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aearthrise Quoting from the index is usually a bad idea, since indexes aren't really part of the work and are often added later by an editor. Also, "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus, imperator 64b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 31b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 32b." is terrible formatting. In English, items in a list should be separated by commas or semicolons, not periods. If you want to use separate lines instead, you need something like <br> to force a new line. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess, it's also a matter of RfC: Which sense of Habsburg is meant (proper noun: castle; proper noun: family; common noun: family-member)? In "Rudolphus Habsburgus" and "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus" it looks to me like the common noun. -- 06:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: some kind of alternative/variant form of 麼. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

RFV failed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "hedge thorn". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

denk (Afrikaans)[edit]

Rfv-sense of "thought", all I find are old-fashioned verb forms or parts of compounds. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


--07:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 07:43, September 28, 2020‎ (UTC).

Note that this RfV is for the Swabian entry.  --Lambiam 12:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

harpastum Americanum[edit]

0 results at b.g.c.
If it fails add: basipila, capitilavium (NL sense). --23:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


# [[seltzer]]

Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I added three uses from 2015-2020, as "seltzer", "hard seltzer", and "seltzer water". (added:) Two are from a US-related sources, so probably translating an English original. The third is a Japanese story about the Coca-Cola company. Cnilep (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The first one does not particularly convince me since they felt the need to gloss it as "炭酸水", and the webpage of the third one is 90% カタカナ語 near-gibberish.
I note that all uses in Google Scholar seem to refer to foreigners of last name "Seltzer". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, books are also mostly the family name. Uses in recent news, though, are mostly "hard seltzer", which I gather must be an emerging product/business sector. Cnilep (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The entry now contains three independent instances from permanently recorded media, spanning more than five years, plus an additional three on Citations:セルツァー. In my opinion, at least the three in the article, and arguably all six of these, convey the meaning of the term. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


"sneakerhead". Not convinced that this is a part of the Japanese lexicon. Few Google hits.

Just 9 results in Google News, better than nothing but perhaps not good, and it's unclear these are durably archived:

  1. [130]
    • translation of an interview with an English speaker
  2. [131]
    • translation of an English interview
  3. [132]
    • translation of an interview with an English speaker
  4. [133]
    • very mention-y and with an explanation: ストックXは2016年、スニーカーマニアを意味する「スニーカーヘッド」を自称するルーバーと、グレッグ・シュウォルツ、住宅ローン大手クイックン・ローンズ(Quicken Loans)の創業者で富豪のダン・ギルバートが創業した。
  5. [134]
    • very mention-y and with an explanation: ナイキに関する熱狂を呼び起こすことにおいて、大きな役割を担うのが熱狂的なスニーカーコレクター、「スニーカーヘッド」たちであることは間違いない。
  6. [135]
    • with an explanation in parentheses: eBayはいまもスニーカーヘッド(熱狂的なスニーカーコレクター)たちに広く利用されている
  7. [136]
    • perhaps OK: パートナーのRyan Sweeney自身もスニーカーヘッドで、GOATのビジネスを本質的に理解しているということだ。
  8. [137]
    • perhaps OK: 歌手でファッション好き、スニーカーヘッドでもあるジョン・メイヤー。
  9. [138]
    • probably OK: tells us about a feature in a magazine named SHOES MASTER Magazine: スニーカーカルチャー論 ―日本人スニーカーヘッドの消費活動における社会学的分析―

Evidently highly rare at any rate. Needs better evidence.

Suzukaze-c (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The preponderance of these results is indicative of code-switching.  --Lambiam 04:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Doesn't appear to be a lexical term in Japanese, but rather an otherwise English term used in Japanese text: codeswitching, not borrowing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Spanish, doesn't follow normal suffixing. Plausibly borrowed from Italian, but seems unlikely to be used in this form. Ultimateria (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Term is extremely well-documented, I'm not even gonna bother citing this. Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Reopened. BGC doesn't appear to give a lot of Spanish results. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]


Originally RFD'ed with the text "not exist", belongs in RFV.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


RFD'ed with the reason "not exist (both entry and etymo)", the (purported) etymon in this case being Sanskrit सोढि (soḍhi).__Gamren (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Initially RFV'ed with no reasoning by @Білгіш Шежіреші, created by @幻光尘.__Gamren (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren: RFV doesn't require reasoning. The term may be citable but barely. It's very rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, I meant it was RFD'ed.__Gamren (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


--2003:DE:3729:1760:ED26:A4B3:E529:5D 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "effort". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "fashion". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "cave, old Taino word from Puerto Rico". Ultimateria (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Some leads:
A book[139] gives a different meaning from Puerto Rico:
Guácara ... for Puerto Rico the only meaning given (termed 'rare') is campesino, but it appears likely that the guácara of the saying also refers to the long-outmoded article of clothing.
A snippet[140] has
Las Guácaras son cuatro grutas existentes en la Loma Sierra Priete. Guácara viene de la voz nahua "auazcara" que se traduce "mansión santa".
So there is a connection to a cave. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


An IP tagged this, saying: "Form not listed in GPC or GyrA; is this a typo for pabïau, plural of pabi?".__Gamren (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


@萌百娘 Rfv-sense: all senses under sense 2. RcAlex36 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "lame person; cripple" (noun). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


Three different translations. Are they really all correct? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That does indeed seem improbable, but let's give @Enigmatic persona a chance to provide some proof for this. Persona, also see the three words below.__Gamren (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Five different translations. Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The horse, camel and village senses are all present on Malayalam Wiktionary. Google Translate translates "അത്തിരി സന്തോഷം" as "very happy". A strange word indeed. 05:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


Four different translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


Two more-or-less opposite translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Does 鹿角蟲 refer to stag beetles in general, or just the species Rhaetulus crenatus? RcAlex36 (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


@The dog2 — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)