Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Shortcut:
WT:RFVN

This page is for verification of entries in any language for which there is no specialised RFV page according to this list:

English, Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian → Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English
Chinese, Japanese, Korean → Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK
Italic (Latin or Romance languages) → Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic
Reconstructed languages → Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction
All other languages → this page

Scope of this request page:

In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

March 2020

otofoto

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dutch protologism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

miinibaashkiminasiganibiitoosijiganibadagwiingweshiganibakwezhigan

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

So to sum up, the current spelling we have for this word is fine. Some linguistic dictionaries will add hyphens, which would make the word miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-badagwiingweshigani-bakwezhigan, a policy which we seem to follow at least some of the time. But it is still definitely a single word and should not be written with spaces. Is it a dictionary-only word? I think not, because it's quite easy to find this word being used online on sites that aren't dictionaries. I would say that nearly all people using this word are specifically choosing it because of how long it is, but that hasn't stopped us from including other very long words. (Also, we never said this was the longest word in Ojibwe, since after all the part that means blueberry is just miini ... a blackberry pie would be a few syllables longer.)

I note, as said above, that this word also seems to be in circulation without the fourth morpheme, producing the slightly shorter miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan. —Soap— 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @-sche, who knows more about this language than we do. A lot depends on the context: if it's not accompanied with the normal morphology associated with similar words in similar contexts, it might be more like a mention or an example sentence than an actual use. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Am I correct in understanding that the remaining question is only whether the term should be spelled with or without hyphens, since its existence as a word (with no spaces, despite the length) is demonstrated by the Ojibwe People's Dictionary? Unfortunately, I don't speak much Ojibwe at all and haven't read enough literature in it to have a sense of whether this would most often be written with or without hyphens. Online, I find various mentions of the hyphenated word, vs only a few unhyphenated examples (often low-quality or embedded in Russian); based on that and the Ojibwe People's Dictionary, it seems it should be moved to the form with hyphens. As to why it's not spelled with spaces... as Chuck said in an early comment, some languages prefer strings like this, parsed as words (with or without hyphens: e.g. Nuxalk has some rather long strings with no spaces or hyphens, nor even vowels or syllable breaks), where other languages (like Navajo) might prefer to use several separate words parsed as forming a long descriptive term. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@-sche: This isn't in the Ojibwe People's Dictionary. Rather, a form with fewer components is: miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan, which I've just created. AFAICT, we generally hyphenate Ojibwe compounds, as does OPD. Compare akiiwe-wiigiwaam, aabita-niibino-giizis, gichi-manidoo-giizis, etc. I can't comment as to whether the hyphens are used in actual texts written in the language, because almost all hits I've found while searching for the preceding three terms on Google are mentions embedded in other language (usually English) text. Exceptions include this tribal constitution and this journal article, both of which use the hyphens.

As an LDL, one source suffices for Ojibwe. However, WT:CFI still says that "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Wiktionary:About Ojibwe is silent on that (as it is about hyphenation), but based on actual practice, OPD would undoubtedly be in that list. Would the current source pass muster? IDK. There may be others. Almost all the Google hits are just sites about long words, though.

Btw, I strongly suspect that the more normal word for blueberry pie would be miini-biitoosijigan, but ironically that isn't in OPD and barely registers on Google. OPD does have miskomini-biitoosijigan (raspberry pie), though. 70.172.194.25 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2020

KBC / ABC

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

German. 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)Reply

Cited ABC, will look for KBC later. Used in a variety of hyphenated compounds. It's clearly a common initialism, and being a "pseudo-prefix" isn't really an argument to delete it, since by definition it implies it is really some other POS, presumably that of its constituents (i.e. adjective in this case). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

ABC isn't cited yet, only some examples for terms like ABC-Krieg and ABC-Vollschutz were provided. It's comparable to terms with Langzeit- (Langzeit doesn't exists). Maybe compare with:

wissen.de which has it as Langzeit... It says: "in Zus." = in compounds, which is true like: Langzeitversuch = lang +‎ Zeit +‎ Versuch.
de:Langzeit- calls it a bound lexeme ("gebundenes Lexem") which they distinguish from affixes and also from "affixoids" (like de:tod- which they call prefixoid ("Präfixoid")). In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes.
duden.de while having some terms with Langzeit- has nothing like Langzeit, Langzeit-, Langzeit... but it lacks some affixes, affixoids or bound lexemes. (tod- is an example which they have and they call it prefix.)

--2003:DE:372E:DA74:2560:4D6F:A0D6:B2F5 15:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

"In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes"—not really, Wiktionary has things like {{only used in}} precisely for bound lexemes and generally those entries are not formatted as affixes. As for Langzeit-, in all but one of the existing entries in Langzeit- the term is straightforwardly broken down to lang + Zeit, the "affixoid" category with one entry you linked is not the standard practice. If we're following de.wikt, de:ABC has its own entry and is simply noted as "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich", which is comparable to the standard practice to en.wikt. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

If de.wt's "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich" (meist = mostly, not only) is factually correct, then it deserves an entry at ABC. Question is, is it correct? --2003:DE:372E:DAD0:B169:E28F:1253:8DB8 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Λεώνη

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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

That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión. --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@Sarri.greek: In this edit summary, you stated a willingness to add quotations. When you have the free time, it would be nice if you could do that, so we can close this RfV. (You can even just send me links to Google Books or similar and I'll do the rest, if desired.) 70.172.194.25 08:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year. No need for quotation. A google search for "Λεώνη" "Ισπανία" (Spain) gives numerous examples with snippets and titles for given name and placename (of no other interest). I verify that both definitions exist. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 11:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2020

อุตสาห

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Thai. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

and

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 (utasāha) in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:

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)Reply
Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

German "Suffixes"

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

-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)Reply

Did @Marontyan mean that these should not be listed as German suffixes? If so, I'm inclined to agree, on the basis that I doubt German speakers would either attach a meaning to them or use them for new placenames. On the other hand, they are clearly recognisable components of German words and there are precedents for this such as -wick and -by from Norse placenames borrowed into English. I don't know how to resolve this. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Two possibilities:

Delete as not German and German terms being borrowed (Horowitz from Slavic, cp. Hořovice).
Add label and note, "not productive", "only occuring in borrowings".

--09:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

сука

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Russian. 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. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I would say not necessarily promiscuous, but a slut in some quasi-positive sense, more like a sexually attractive sophisticated woman. --GareginRA (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

July 2020

New Saxon Spellings

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

September 2020

denk (Afrikaans)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Afrikaans. 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)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: "maar hy hat het iets in hom gehad wat buite die denk van ons volk gereik het" "maar vir die denk moet ons onderskei - en altyd onthou dat dit ons is wat die onderskeiding gemaak het.". I suppose the translation "thinking" may be better, but there is definitely a noun in this form. Thadh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2020

ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

ကောန်ညာ်တြုံ

According to a complaint of a native Mon speaker (Special:PermaLink/61255799/#Mon_Vocabulary_problem_explanation_(ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ); File:You stop hurt my language.jpg), these two spelling variants for ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ (“boy”) are non-existent. I googled these two and failed to obtain favorable results though some of their components (ကောန် (kon) / ကွေန် (“child”), တြုံ (truˀ, “male”)) are attested. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

For ကွေန်ၚါ် , go to [3] to look for "ကွေန် ၚါ် ". (That site uses space between compound).
For ကောန်ညာ် , here is my evidence พจนานุกรมไทย-มอญ สำเนียงมอญลพบุรี(p122lost).pdf (2007) look at page 70. It is intentionally spelled like that.
တြုံ is a word that can be added any noun expressing male.

About its author, จำปี ซื่อสัตย์, I don't know if he is still alive. He must be 90 years old now.

Anyway, you should copy my another dictionary too พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย.pdf (1984).

And if you can open sqlite database, also take this too Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite. I extracted from this mobile app.

--Octahedron80 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 Thank you for your explanation. I have difficulty understanding Thai, so it would be harder without you. OK, some combinations of the components are indeed attested. Then, is there any source that shows each of the spellings from beginning to end? Even some parts of them are attested, it would be another matter whether these two combinations are documented as they are. The variants listed at the current version of ကောန်ၚာ် (kon ṅāk) are of course OK, but when it comes to the forms seen at ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ, things are quite uncertain. Your attitudes gives the impression that you could create an entry *徒葩 as a spelling variant for Japanese 徒花(あだばな) (adabana, “a flower that blooms but never bears fruit”) since both 葩 (quite uncommon) and 花 (quite common) are read as hana and have the sense “flower, blossom” in common, therefore they are always freely interchangeable—no, no, actually it is not! We cannot do such a horrific deed without complete evidence —otherwise, what we do will be perfect invention! --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@エリック・キィ About the whole word "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ", I was not the one who created it at first, I renamed to another form and, after 咽頭べさ was mad, then I reverted back. (I cannot rename same page twice so I edited it instead.) I can only verify ကောန်ၚာ် and တြုံ solely. You may ask him about "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is some evidence either. (It should be documented somewhere / or it is just SOP?) I could remove alternative forms of "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is no evidence, even their parts have.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80 I agree with you on this point. I asked him about this topic (it seems something other than IPA, then what is it?) before, but he has made no reply so far...--Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

A few observations: First, the self-assessment by this editor as "en-2" is rather generous. Figuring out how much they understand our policies is likely to be a challenge, and explaining anything doubly so.

Second, it's easier to take the word of a native speaker as to the existence of something in their language than its non-existence. Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.

Also, in an environment where their language is actively discouraged, one would expect a certain prescriptivism that sees variation from what they're battling to defend as an attack (that environment would increase isolation between speakers, as well, which reinforces my second point).

Of course, I have no direct knowledge, so I could be completely off base. I would rather bend over backward and walk on eggshells than risk piling on with those around them who don't want to hear their language. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80, Chuck Entz Please don't worry, I have no doubt about the existence of the term ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ itself, since I am able to find its records through Google Search. What he (yes he, judging from the audio records) and I regard as a problem is which combination is allowed to spell and which is not. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz >Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.

Of course, I understand this point. That's why I have made this edit. Mon language has numerous dialects but no official standard variety is seen while something similar to it exists (Bauer 1982: xvii; Jenny 2005: 30; Jenny 2015: 555). Thus, even if a certain word itself is attested in a material in terms of pronunciation and spelling, there is NO guarantee that we can apply it directly to other dialects. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jeju terms for modern concepts

Latest comment: 10 months ago15 comments3 people in discussion

As categorized by UNESCO and as discussed in Wikipedia, fluent speakers of the actual Jeju language were all born in the 1940s or earlier. The following terms relating to modern concepts are not likely to be found in traditional Jeju, which was spoken solely by impoverished peasants. As what is now spoken in Jeju Island—an indubitably Korean dialect—is not what we mean by Jeju in Wiktionary, I believe these entries should all be deleted unless someone can provide an actual early attestation (preferably from the very first academic studies of the dialect, in the 1960s). The Digital Museum for Endangered Languages and Cultures or the NIKL dictionaries ported at Urimalsaem is not necessarily reliable in this regard, since they do not really make this distinction.

Making the distinction between traditional, soon-to-be-extinct Jeju and Category:Jeju Korean is crucial for maintaining some integrity in Category:Jeju lemmas. The most credible dictionary of Jeju, 개정증보제주어사전, does not bother with these modernisms and I believe we should follow their lead. — This unsigned comment was added by Karaeng Matoaya (talk • contribs) at 19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC).Reply

To anyone who's going through these, please do not delete them for now, as I'm finding cites and am planning on making a complete update soon, but have been behind recently. Thanks! AG202 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know that your opinions have changed a lot since this comment and that we've been able to find a TON of material made in Jeju, so I don't fault you at all for making them at the time. Since the start of the revitalization efforts, there have been more materials being made in native Jeju by Jeju natives (and not in 제주 사투리) and more lexicons being made, so I don't necessarily agree with saying that everything must be from pre-1960, as even if the only Jeju speakers were born in the 1940s or earlier (there are younger Jeju natives but they're more rare), they'd still be able to make up new terms for things that have come into play since then. However, I have deleted the senses that I am completely unable to find and don't think that I will find, per the RFV guidelines. Additionally, the cites that I have found have been written by-and-large in native Jeju and not Jeju-tinged Korean, by or the with consultation of native Jeju speakers and have been published either by the Jeju Preservation Society, the Jeju Provincial Government, or in related Jeju studies. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

ᄉᆞ훼

Wasei kango for "society", not a traditional word. I think it should be deleted entirely because the actual form in modern Jeju speech is likely to be 사훼 (sahwe) (due to the loss of /ɔ/), which is pronounced identically to Standard Korean 사회 (sahoe). The word ᄉᆞ훼 (sawhwe) represents an intermediary stage between "true" Jeju and the modern Jeju-tinged Korean, and I do not think we should categorize this stage as Jeju.

FYI, the historical Korean reading for 社 was 샤, not ᄉᆞ. So it cannot start with ᄉᆞ in Jeju. --172.58.16.111 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed and I've moved the sense to 사훼 (sahwe). However, I have added the other ᄉᆞ훼(司會) (sawhwe, “moderator”), as that is cited in 개정 증보 제주어 사전. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

ᄌᆞ영거

How many bicycles existed in Jeju before South Korean industrialization? This form is a dialectal pronunciation of 自行車, a term which was definitely used in many mainland dialects in 1945, so it could well be a post-1940s introduction into the island. Should be changed to 자영거 (jayeonggeo) under the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.

On the other hand, the historical Korean reading for 自 was ᄌᆞ. So it can start with ᄌᆞ in Jeju. --172.58.16.111 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed. AG202 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

관광객

This word is not attested in Korean in the "tourist" sense before the 1910s, and is a Japanese import. How many tourists were in Jeju before South Korean industrialization?

Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed. AG202 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

기념관

"Memorial hall" in the modern sense. Also likely to be a modernism.

RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in one source, and it doesn't seem like an actual usage, but just in a name. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

냉장고

"Refrigerator". Refrigerators were not common in South Korea until the 1970s.

Cited. AG202 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

브랜드

English loan meaning "brand" (as in a perfume brand, etc.). Highly unlikely to be found in traditional Jeju.

RFV-failed. I don't think we need this entry anyways. AG202 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

사진끼

"Camera".

생물권

"Biosphere" in the modern scientific sense.

RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in the name of something, not an actual usage. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

선풍기

"Electric fan". Electric fans were not common in South Korea until the 1980s.

악매

"Demon, Devil". Has Christian connotations to me as a native speaker of Korean, and not found in 제주도무속자료사전 or other sources on Jeju religion; the very concept is alien to Jeju religious practice. Likely a late Christian introduction; the date is unknown, but Christianity was very marginal in Jeju until the 1950s and is still not particularly important there. If it fails RFV, should be changed to the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.

조선시대

A modern historiographical term that could not have existed before the 1950s.

주인공

"Main character; protagonist" in the modern literary sense, probably from Japanese.

텔레비전

"Television". Did not exist in Korea before the 1950s.

RFV-failed. Most common translation is 테레비 (terebi). AG202 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

풍력단지

"Wind power plant".

decyl

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

decyn

Dutch. These seem unattestable. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how chemical CFI works, but compounds with decyl: N,N'-bis(10-(p- methoxyfenoxy)-decyl)-p-diaminobenzeen, di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat decyl-trimethylammonium, plain decyl: [4]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is a systematic name but has Dutch spelling of components, benzeen instead of benzene, etc. A paper from 2009 talks about chemistry translation: doi:10.1021/ci800243w. I think di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat appearing in a Dutch paper can be used to support decyl, octyl, and ftalaat (= phthalate, I assume). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

رست

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Persian. I can't find this term in any reputable dictionary. --{{victar|talk}} 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: [5] --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Repeating the call. Do you still insist on the verifications? I won't be able to add citations in Persian, I am afraid, need native speakers. I have found the term in another dictionary English-Persian Persian-English (it requires registration and this dictionary can be borrowed for an hour). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ZxxZxxZ, Dijan, Qehath Anyone? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I found it only in Amid dictionary. It's a relatively smaller Persian dictioary containing words found in the late Persian literature. The Amid dictionary of the Vajehyab website has cited a couplet (I guess it is based on the revised edition of the Amid Dictionary). --Z 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Imme f

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

German. Sense: a swarm of bees. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

幽霊四: If you just looked into the darn standard references instead of the Duden which covers only the last century you wouldn’t need to request. Especially impudent if the sense is explicitly labelled obsolete. Here a selection of attestation-based dictionaries: FNHDWB, DRW, Grimm. Etc.. With varying spellings of course, but we wouldn’t want to have the word under Yme etc. either and as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know. Case closed, newb without user page? Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Grimm: It's "imme, m.". Different gender (and also different capitalisation). Also Grimme covers more than New High German.

DRW:

Examples have "ein immen", "ain imp", "ein unverfolgter impen", "ein imme", so often have other forms and where the gender is revealed without any doubts [i.e. in "ein unverfolgter impen"], it's masculine.
Meaning: "Bienenstock und -schwarm" (bee-hive and bee-swarm), that's different from the entry. (Is it even both bee-hive and bee-swarm (a single sense) or either bee-hive or bee-swarm (two senses, though sometimes/often hard to distinguish?)
DRW's quotes are incorrect as can be seen by the 1709 Mutach quote for Impen at Talk:Imme#Citations. ("Normalization" in a quote makes the quote incorrect - a correct quote keeps spelling including capitalisation of the original work. In case of Impen also the page-number is wrong: It's 41 and not 40.)
"I Bienenstock und -schwarm" with "den hochflugk der impen lassen wir" looks like it could be wrong too: It could be a feminine singular genitive der impen of imp/impe/impen = "swarm of bees", but also a plural genitive with the second sense "bee".
DRW also includes OHG, MHG and MLG, so many quotes are insufficient for German.

FWB (= Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, this is the abbreviation used there and not "FNHDWB"):

Sense "1. Bienenschwarm, Bienenstock" with "sehet an die immen, die machen das honig aus der edelsten manna aller blumen" looks like it could be wrong too: it's immen pl. = bees, so rather an example for sense "2. Biene".

"Etc.":

Adelung doesn't have this sense. "Im Friesischen Ihme, in andern gegenden Ympe, wo es auch einen Bienenstock bedeutet" refers to Frisian (East Frisian Low German or Frisian Frisian?).
BMZ and Lexer are for Middle High German.
ElsWB, PfWB are for dialects which aren't part of German in Wiktionary.

-幽霊四 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) & 幽霊四 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because of the grammar of the Early New High German texts, in many cases it is not clear which gender the quotes have – you do not seem to understand the grammar, “ein imme” can also be feminine back then; especially in Bavarian areas also “ein immen” –; in addition to what FNHDWB says that in many attestations it is not clear if a swarm of bees or bees as individuals are meant. However I see from some quotes there clearly that the meaning of an individual bee has also been masculine. So a solution is to change to masculine and have a feminine POS as alternative form because the feminine is only a modern perversion of some poets and it does not matter whether it has recently been used more often as feminine since it is not often at all; or give m in the head and then f immediately after. In any case the way you requested here is to be reprehended since someone dealing with it and not knowing where to search German could have, because of nobody answering, just deleted the sense while at most a gender switch would have been appropriate. And no, capitalisation is irrelevant, New High German nouns get added capitalized even if they died out before capitalisation of nouns was a thing, and those liberal writers who do not follow the capitalization rules in modern times are treated as if they have written their texts capitalized regularly, because otherwise it’s confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to the rule that says we unify? I was under the impression it was a contentious thing, done on a language-by-language basis. And WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings", so as a rule, we don't unify German. Perhaps instead of harassing the "newb without a user page" you should check what the rules actually are?

Just verify the damn thing, Fay Freak. The general rules say that we need cites for any words, not cribbing from dictionaries. We can quibble about stuff after we have a suitable number of citations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prosfilaes: Can you point me to the rule that says we do not unify and have to find every sense in every spelling in every gender three times? No, because it’s not true. The word is not “spelling”, hence unifying. I have proven it also on various places, as for example by the fact that one can attest from audio, or texts written scriptio continua, etc., e.g. above under Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#baußen, also on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#Huang-ch'i I noted that “we cannot derive from the mere entry layout practice that for alternative spelling pages entries are cloned the requirement that each such sense or even only part of speech needs three citations”. The fact that one needs to argue for certain interpretations of the law does not speak against the stance of him who argues.

I have shown attestations above; the dictionaries give quotes. Can you demonstrate me a rule that we need cites typed off into the page and that referring to dictionaries quoting the senses or spellings, e.g. even other Wiktionaries, wouldn’t suffice? The fact that we constantly have too little personnel and are underpaid suggests otherwise, as well as the fact that blind quotes of quotes given in other sources are avoided in science.

You don’t seriously suggest we should have this word under Ymme or Yme or perhaps ymme or yme because of not being quoted in the modern spelling and the particular gender and particular sense? Because “we operate under the tyranny of entry titles”?

I have presented multiple ways of representing the word. You speak of harrassing but it is perfectly legimitate to point out that his request was unclear in concerning the particular gender so it could have lead to excessive deletion of a known sense, and a fact that one is negatively disposed towards users who do not state their language levels on their user pages, and I do not forgo to notify particularly newbs of uncomfortable truths, because they in particular have to get to know things. If “newb” is an offensive then one shall forgive me because I am not responsible for every neutral word’s meaning being ousted by connotations to an extent that we cannot communicate without a nimb of aggression. Language hasn’t been made for the internet. Fay Freak (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Again, WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings". You shouldn't say "as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know" to a newb, if there are established users who would argue against it. There's a difference between arguing for a position, and informing someone that a position is the rule.

Nice change in standards of evidence, if you make a claim, you don't have to provide evidence. If I make a claim, I have to demonstrate an exact rule. Have I been wasting my time on RFV when I could have just responded by "check out Google Books"? When I added cites to Uno, people disagreed that some of those cites were appropriate cites: see the archived discussion on Talk:Uno. It would have been a lot harder to have that discussion had I and other people not copied the text into the article. In this case, the user has disagreed with your cites; it would be much easier to work with if the cites were here where we could read them, instead of just handwaves at dictionaries.

Yes, I seriously suggest we should have this word under the spellings it's used under. As you quote a vote, you know that this is not an uncontentious issue at Wiktionary--Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns closed 9-4--and the vote you quote is very limited, as wynn can be replaced one for one with w in all cases in Old English. We shouldn't have to map from a spelling used in real life to some arbitrary spelling invented by a dictionary writer, us or someone else.

You don't distinguish "uncomfortable truths" from "Fay Freak's opinions", and this is not the first time I've seen you do this. Here's an uncomfortable truth; you'd be running a chance of getting blocked on some other English Wikis, and acting like it's other people's fault and "Language hasn’t been made for the internet." is absurd when many other people manage to follow these rules and newb says "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory)", so yes, it's made for the Internet, and it's always had that negative meaning. And while "newb" may be somewhat problematic, the fact you're asserting Fay Freak's opinions as "uncomfortable truths" that they obviously should have known (despite the fact you can't cite any place on the Wiki where they could have learned those "truths") is much more problematic. As is saying "the way you requested here is to be reprehended", which condemns the person instead of focusing on the action, say, "an RFV on a word could cause it to be incorrectly deleted." Which is itself garbage; if someone feels a word needs RFV, they should feel free to RFV it. There are points someone RFVing a bunch of words that are going to be kept could be a problem, but I'd say that's never the case for words that might get deleted; nominating words for RFV should get cites added, making them clearly attested words, and in many cases get definitions refined and separated out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Prosfilaes I have added a few cites, though it is advisable that a native speaker looks it over. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dievoet

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dievoort

Dutch, two senses: "(chiefly Belgium) A place name" and "(chiefly Belgium) A surname with the prefix van". The second sense exists at Vandievoet or Van Dievoet because that is how Flemish names work, the first sense does not seem attestable in use; although there are mentions of a hamlet in Ukkel (Uccle). ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave What is your view on this? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't know the place myself, but Dievoort seems to be a place near Breda: [[w:Dievoort].|The place in Ukkel is indeed called Dievoet, not Dietvoort. Morgengave] (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cleaned up, but don't have access to Buiks (1999) or (1992) where Dievoort is apparently mentioned. I did find this though: https://erfgoed.breda.nl/upload/downloads/4_7_buiks_Hout_low.pdf (pp. 991-92), where the place near Breda is only called Dietvoort, but there was a place near Meerhout called Dievoort. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

February 2021

angiosperms

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Translingual. Looks English, cp. angiosperm, sperm, -s. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Depending on the outcome, possibly to add: magnoliids, monocots, core eudicots (also cp. core), superasterids, asterids, superrosids, rosids, fabids, malvids. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Clades are tricky, because many of them don't have an accepted conventional taxonomic name. The taxonomists working on them give them an informal English name, and other taxonomists use them like the conventional Latin-based taxonomic names- which we treat as Translingual(language code mul) because they're used in a great many languages without being a part of the languages. These English-based names for plants are technically invalid according to the taxonomic code, but they're definitely used in taxonomic contexts.

This particular one is odd because the clade has a normal taxonomic name, Angiospermae, and there's nothing about the formation of that name that precludes it from being validly given any rank above superfamily. It doesn't seem necessary to use an English-based name in non-English usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

And yet it is so used. DCDuring (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

IMO, none of these are Translingual. They were all created by DCDuring, who has no training in relevant fields and seems opposed to the distinction betwen taxonomic and common names used by workers in the actual field. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is angiosperms (and are the others) used in multiple languages?
google books:"angiosperms" "das" (with German das n (“the”)), google books:"angiosperms" "le" (with French le m (“the”)) and similar searches (with other articles, with forms of translations of be, excluding the) brought up:

French "les Angiospermes"
German "Angiospermen (angiosperms): Bedecktsamer; Pflanzen, deren ..." which is only a mentioning of the English

My search wasn't exhaustive, but I didn't see any non-English usage. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it is then it still does not mean it is translingual. In other languages there is still in principle a distinction between the native language and Translingual even if the terms look the same 100% (which they don’t, due to capitalization). Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just move to English. It is formally clear here what is translingual and what English. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not a vote. That might be appropriate in RfM or RfD. There is attestation in scholarly journals for the terms being used in a manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names. There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms. DCDuring (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agreed that this shouldn't be a vote. It's how it's used that should determine what language header it goes under, not a prescriptive standard. Our Translingual section should be just as descriptive as the rest of the dictionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re "There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms": Is there? Google Books is not case sensitive, so searching for angiosperms and Angiosperms brings up the same results. As I searched, I didn't see more for the capitalised variant. --幽霊四 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I found abundant attestation for Angiosperm in use parallel to Latinate taxa at Google Scholar. I searched for "clade Angiosperms". DCDuring (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

“manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names”. Cannot nachvollziehen such reasoning. It’s not only the manner, i.e. the context in which it is used which indicates which language something is. This is the same irrational approach that declares long Latin or Greek bonmots “Danish”. The Verkehrsanschauung is unambiguous about which language it is (and one can hardly with more quotes show that something is more translingual or more English; “eudicots” will not look less English because there are quotes in some other language that has the same pluralization practice, so it is true it is more RfM matter and not RfV matter – though even better, somebody who is able to sharply distinguish can just move/transform such entries for he can rationally defend it). Fay Freak (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The only use in a work not in English is a section of an unpublished Czech thesis which quotes from the English language product of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group adding a few Czech words in. Elsewhere in the thesis the word is treated as Czech, for example "angiospermní: krytosemenné rostliny, jednoděloţné a dvouděloţné" (angiosperms, plants with hidden seeds...). This supports a borrowing or parallel formation, not a multilingual word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's very hard to find usage, because of the huge number of false positives due to English titles in their cited references. It's also true that there are taxonomists who don't view APG clade names as valid for taxonomic use and therefore don't use them translingually. Also, this term seems to be much less common than those for which there is no validly published conventional alternative. I was able to find a few that I would argue show translingual usage. I could probably find a few more, if necessary. Most of these are in tables rather than in running text, but I would contend that such is how taxonomic names are often used. Here (on page 10 of the pdf) is one of several where the APG names are contrasted with the standard classifications, but they are both treated as the same sort of thing. This pdf has it at the beginning, while this pdf follows a common Chinese practice of a mixture of translingual and English glosses in parentheses throughout the text, but has a table on the 5th page (numbered 524) where the clade names are in a context that has everything else in either taxonomic Latin or Chinese.

As for whether these are durably archived: the taxonomic codes, until fairly recently, explicitly required what basically amounts to durable archiving for anything taxonomic to be validly published. As far as I know, it's still very much the practice, with some online journals going so far as to print a limited number of hard copies that are placed in selected libraries to satisfy such requirements. As far as I know, theses for academic credit are all archived with the educational institution, and government publications are archived as well. I can't guarantee that all of these specific articles are durably archived, but there's a high probability that they are. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Here (on page 10 of the pdf)" - page 19 of the PDF, page 3 of the actual work, where it begins with Según APG IV (“According to APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] IV”) and which also has core eudicots? That looks like a mentioning of APG – English? In the bibliography sections, it mentions Catálogo de las Angiospermas y Gimnospermas del Perú.
"This pdf":
- It doesn't look durably archived.
- It's mentioning English wikipedia, FAO with APG in URL. It could copy English stuff. "United Emirats arabes unis (Arab Emirates) (Arabe, Arabic)" also looks strange regarding the language.

--幽霊四 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

eudicots

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Translingual. Looks English, see also -s, also as there are non-English translations. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

幽霊四: If it “looks English” then spare us such requests and move to English. Nothing would get lost. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's an English plural noun. The taxonomic clade is Eudicots. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.

[6] has "der Eudicots" (gen. pl., gender not revealed) and "die core eudicots" (pl., same; with italics), but it's just one source, not sufficent.
[7] has "Der Name Eudicotyledonae (engl. eudicots)", giving two reasons why it doesn't look translingual: 1. It's English. 2. There's an alternative.
[8] has it in French, but with quotation marks and also "higher hamamelids" (with quotation marks as well) which is even more English.
[9] has "Les Eudicotylédones (Eudicots)", "des Eudicots", "Les Rosidées". Could also be regular French (-s), or not?

--幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It intuitively doesn't feel like a translingual taxonomic name, since it's not Latin. But maybe there are exceptions. I don't know enough to say for sure. @Chuck Entz and @DCDuring, experts on taxonomy. 70.172.194.25 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an expert, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It's tricky, because it isn't part of the standard Latin-based Linnaean nomenclature. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group uses English in the names for their taxonomic entities rather than Latin, and they're more interested in the tree structure than in assigning standard names for every rank- but they're describing things that don't have a name otherwise. I would call the result a parallel, unofficial naming system, but it's used in multiple languages, which makes it translingual. It's not the system for taxonomic nomenclature, but it has its role. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It functions just the way the officially (ICZN, ICTV, LPSN, etc) sanctioned taxa do, as lamiids, rosids, eurosids, and a score or more of other APG clade names. It is neither here nor there, but I "feel" it to be a formal taxonomic name, as much as, say, the names of species of viruses (eg, Human alphaherpesvirus 1, which looks like a normal English NP, with an English adjective preceding the head). DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

kakilima beratap

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Indonesian. Sent from RFD. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 10:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#kakilima beratap (2). I am not sure about the orthographies of various terms, but Indonesian kaki lima, literally “five foot”, short for ”five-foot way”, can by itself mean the walkway under an arcade, usually housing shops. It is to be expected then that such an arcade is called a kaki-lima beratap. At least one dictionary lists the term;^[10] and the term is used here. The issue seems to be more whether this is not a good old SOP. (Aside: we also have an entry kaki-lima, whose status seems dubious to me, just like “the shop on the corner” may often be a convenience store, but does not necessarily mean that.) --Lambiam 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Translingual Symbol sense 5

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A system of paper sizes with similar proportions, as A0, A1, A2, etc.

Is the letter "A" used alone (in any language, since this is Translingual) to refer to a paper size system? I would make a claim that uses like "the A paper size system" do not support the inclusion of this term. Please argue with me on this though! This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Attributively at least: A paper sizes. Fay Freak (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Still a strange thing to include in such a place in a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Translingual Symbol sense 6

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

An academic grade lower than A+ but greater than A-.

I dispute that this is used translingually, even if the definition were to be worded more generally. I contend that letter grades are only or largely confined in the Anglosphere. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some (if not many) Dutch primary schools use letter grades (E-D-C-B-A) interchangeably with digits (1-10). Cito also uses these. Thadh (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think few primary schools actually use those as the actual marks rather than as a mere secondary encoding of onvoldoende, voldoende, goed, etc. In any case, its marginal use by Dutch schools seems not much of an argument for its translingual status. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is kind of likely that in some Pacific islands and African colonies this system has been taken over, without school education taking place in English. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo This is something I've noticed actually. Is "Translingual" supposed to be a catch-all for a lot of languages or all languages? Because I've seen it heavily lean Western European, especially with punctuation marks, while many other languages would not use them as such. It's truly confusing to me. AG202 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@AG202 I've always treated it as "a lot of languages" - "all languages" would be a literally impossible bar to pass. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

baykuş sineği

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Turkish. Literally "owl fly". The definition is inconsistent, assigning the supposed insect to two distinct orders (Neuroptera and Diptera). I was unable to verify either meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vox Sciurorum: People are saying this on the internet, example 1 and example 2, with pictures and descriptions leaving now doubt about the identification. The uses postdate the 2009 creation of the Wiktionary entry though, and there is a possibility people on the internet coined it after the English. On the other hand I do not believe the original editor had a need to make up names for all flies and he had to take the names from somewhere, though his name be literally Sinek. A Turkish Wikipedia article on the animal, a frequent source of such coinages, never existed. Is it possible that entomology works a badly indexed? In particular I am skeptical about Google Books providing even a sketch of the Near East’s zoology. By now it is proven Google systematically skews the portrayal of science in favour of the American hegemon.

A question has always to be posited: What else is it called? We have learned that even the caperberry in Finnish struggles with the CFI. And we are repulsed by an untrue statement in a translation table that there is no name at all in so bulky a language, for so unexotic an organism. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: I have no problem holding Turkish to lesser standards than English. (By precedent, if not rule, as nominator I can withdraw the RFV if I am satisfied and nobody objects.) I am not counting durable citations on my fingers, but looking for sufficient evidence of use. For some other derivatives of sinek I found that evidence. For the ones I nominated, I did not. There are many species that in ordinary English are simply "bugs". And there are people trying to prescribe names contrary to common use. Somebody who lives in Turkey and has taken an entomology course there will have much better insight than I could get reading literature from 8,000 km away. (Perhaps I will look up some entomologists and email them about common names.) The dominance of English and German in entomological literature gives those languages an advantage in popularizing vocabulary, whatever Google's prejudices may be. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’m a bit unclear as to what the issue of relative standards is. Compare English sandfly, used for various fly species in different families. There is no lack of mentions that establish the several identifications with taxonomic groups, but in uses the specific identification is generally impossible to establish. Even if someone files a durably archived report of having been bitten by a sandfly in New Zealand, how can we be sure it was not a biting midge, with the reporter being a visiting Australian? Do we truly hold English common names for critters to the high standards of CFI? --Lambiam 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This definitely a problem (to figure out which sense of a word is meant, in many cases), compare klaviform, which has been RFC-tagged as needing to have separate definitions matching claviform, but ... good luck figuring out which of the meanings is meant from any particular use! - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, it was always conceit to require that not only occurrences convey meaning, but they also convey all of the meaning and prove it alone. The nature of a use is that it does not convey meaning. Paradox, paradox, but evident; uses at large presuppose meanings having already been conveyed, though it occur that they add to them by their impressions. People employ the metric system without outlining what a metre or a gramme is. The more exact you want to be the more you have to look around. Paradox in discerning language, a holistic scheme!

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning is only superficially an essential distinction and inherently irrational, it is a private language of analytic philosophers and you play a language game pretending that you conform, instead of owning it is fashionable nonsense. Fay Freak (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

kara sinek

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Turkish. Rfv-sense stable fly. Might also be spelled karasinek. The house fly sense is well attested. The stable fly is generally similar in appearance (except it bites) so you could easily have one word meaning both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

In English the designation black fly is used for various flies in the genus Simulium. Likewise, in Turkish the term kara sinek may be used for them, like here and here (as a search key) for the genus, and here for S. erythrocephalum. After all, they are flies, and they are black. The same cannot be said of the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans). Both are blood suckers, and they are often mentioned together as being biting flies, so I wonder if there has been some generic confusion. --Lambiam 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The name is used in English for the whole family Simuliidae. Simulium is the most common genus. When I looked I didn't have the sense that kara sinek in this sense was citable or common. It was used, but not often. It may meet CFI or be in regular use by entomologists. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stomoxys calcitrans is rather black in this photograph, though, so this may simply occur in a description as a SOP. --Lambiam 00:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would not be surprised to learn that Turkish kara sinek is used like English house fly, by ordinary people to refer to large flies found around the house and in formal writing to refer to Musca domestica. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Rather in general, in informal contexts people commonly use terms that do not respect recognized taxonomical categories. I’ve heard bit (“louse”) used to mean “flea”, and fare (“mouse“) for “rat”. The use is even looser for fish names and botanical names, which I think is the case for many other languages too. The use in written texts generally has a better correspondence, though, between the intended sense and that of taxonomists. --Lambiam 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Serbo-Croatian entries by Lumbardhia

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

~~barzilo~~
~~brdoka~~
~~dročka~~
kaluša
~~lakora~~
~~diza~~ (etymology 2)
struga
~~hira~~
šotka
~~dreteza~~
~~teša~~
karpa
frus

See Talk:štaljba, Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#štaljba. — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 13:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection:
bàrzilo is already said in the first volume of {{R:sh:RJA}} to occur only in Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, it is an occasional formation along with barzeša, barzica, barzulijca, and should be deleted. I have added the better-used base adjectives to bardhë which should suffice.
brdoka as well as bardoka have allegedly been used in Kosovo, but it is too specific to be found.
kàluša is used here and there defined: Kaluša redovno ima veću pegu i na telu, najčešće na grudima, na trbuhu, na sapima u blizini korena repa, tamne noge do kolena i skočnog zgloba ili su noge poprskane pegama kao i kod ostalih domaćih pramenki. The bibliographic information and digitization status of these works is insufficient for me to format quotes.
lakora I do not find at all.
kȃrpa are hard to search but are attested, given quotes in Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика, in the ends, where it is continued in better known Macedonian карпа (karpa) and Bulgarian карпа (karpa). The etymology is more doubtful than its existence.
strȕga has many attestations, e.g. quoted in {{R:sh:RSHKJ|page=37a|volume=6}}.
diza, dročka, hira are too hard, specific cheese manufacturing terms it seems, with much homonymy, so one can’t try too much. tȇša I see related by mentions in Vanja Stanišić’s book Serbo-Albanian language relations page 106 as a rather recent word but used by Albanians only in few places, so it is not worth it.
drȅteza only in works discussing Albanian words in Serbo-Croatian, and again from Vuk Karadžić.
šȍtka was the normal word for duck in some spots of Serbia, a whole isogloss but rural enough to escape the purview of the written language, however surely attested; I have added one quote from a Croatian who wrote a lot and probably picked it up there.
frȗs is mostly known from Vuk Karadžić’s dictionary, where it is given as Montenegrin – from a time when Montenegro was a bunch of mountain shepherds barely anybody of whom could read and write; however you find фрус in brackets after добрац (“measles”), which looks like some Serbian doctors knew that it is called so in Montenegro. With the advancement of medicine, a lot of disease names have vanished, as is a common experience if you deal with them in any language. Evidently, the word must be labelled “obsolete”.
So, after four hours for this list, I am positive about the nature of šȍtka, kàluša, kȃrpa, frȗs, strȕga, the rest falls through the sieve for this decade. Fay Freak (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Here, on the other hand, I repeat my opinion of one year ago: I don’t think Lumbardhia made anything up, or intended to do so—while Surjection’s general suspicion of agents of the Albanian cause introducing fakes seems to be true, as there must be the liars somewhere and Albanians are known as deranged due to their recent history—, but these words are all traceable to dialectological literature, and to the extent I have outlined that one day one year ago the words are found in literature. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

After many years, deleted the ones not considered likely. The others still need quotes. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

March 2021

تهلوك

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. --37.42.165.198 18:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: Arabic Wikisource has a work by Ibn Khalawayh called "Kitāb laysa fī kalām al-ʻArab", s:ar:ليس في كلام العرب, and a naive search brought it up. Can you check whether this word is used there in the right sense? If not, do you know where else to find attestation for this? 70.172.194.25 05:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is given an example of maṣdar with a quote also found in Lisān al-ʕarab the further context of which I see not. Too bad we only know it as a kind of a copypasta. Fay Freak (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

While Modern Standard Arabic is a well-documented language and therefore subject to stricter attestation rules, according to my understanding Classical Arabic is exempt. So, under the more lenient standards, this could probably pass, but that would require someone to actually add the quote from Ibn Manzur and/or Ibn Khalawayh to the entry, and maybe to label the term as classical/archaic/rare if applicable. 70.172.194.25 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

abaissement, abaissere (Norwegian)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Moved from RFD.Gamren (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think these are actual words used in Norwegian, there are no hits for either one in the Bokmål Dictionary nor the Norwegian Academy dictionary, also nothing on Wikipedia or the Norwegian Lexicon. Google searches didn't give me anything for a Norwegian use of these words, only French. Supevan (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It mostly seems to occur in the phrase abaissement du niveau mental.__Gamren (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

صخم

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arabic. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 08:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay [11], Steingass and Hava have this, and Lane apparently cites "صَخَمَتْهُ الشَّمْسُ" (the sun burnt him) to al-Qamus al-Muhit. 70.172.194.25 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2021

eetpiraatje

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Dutch. Another unattested diminutive. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

This one is attestable, but only in a few tweets, which are not durably archived. 70.172.194.25 05:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

eeuwwendetje

And another one. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that this seems unattestable, even online. 70.172.194.25 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

eeuwwisselingetje

And another one. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that this seems unattestable, even online. 70.172.194.25 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi LBD, as there's no Wiktionary policy on regular diminutives in Dutch (should we always include them as they help users form the diminutive, or should we only include them if they have three durable attestations?). I would honestly not pursue a verification & deletion campaign. I don't see any value in this at all, and it may siphon time away from real things to improve. Morgengave (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI -> 3 cites. Diminutives aren't even inflected forms, but derived terms. Also, for dubious inflected forms there could be RFVs as well, e.g. for plurals when the term is (thought to be) singular only, uncountable. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:371c:3d29:91e2:2f43:c6bd:d627 (talk) at 15:19, 3 April 2021.

The point is that any Dutch user at any time can apply such a regular diminutive - usage would be considered correct and unremarkable. These are not dubious grammatically - there are just so many nouns in Dutch that not for every noun, you can find durable attestations of their regular diminutives. This also means that at any moment in time such an unattested diminutive can "appear" in newspapers and books, making these deletions likely temporary anyway. This is not the case for uncountable words - a plural here would just sound wrong. I won't oppose the verification-to-deletion process of these diminutives btw; I just find it a waste of time. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave What I like about the English Wiktionary is that it is a very empirical dictionary. Removing entries for unattested diminutives would make our Dutch coverage more empirical and prevent shitty mirror sites from spreading misinformation. Moreover, the view that unattested diminutives qualify for inclusion is not uncontroversial outside the Dutch-language editor base, though I do not presume to know what the majority view is. I can agree to displaying unattested diminutives, but woudl rather not agree to linking to them. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I respect that pov. I never create unattested diminutives myself, and generally (following our chat) even follow your way of working of not even displaying unattested diminutives in new lemmas (so that no red link appears). But deleting existing entries just seems pointless. These diminutives are not wrong in any shape or form. Morgengave (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, why aren’t diminutives inflected forms? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

entrecôtetje

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. Unattested, seemingly erroneous diminutive of a superseded spelling. The Woordenlijst gives entrecoteje as the accepted spelling and although that one is also a rare beast, it may actually be durably citable. Anyway, that would suggest that the diminutive of the superseded spelling is entrecôteje. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it entrecootje? Durable attestations: [12], [13], [14] Morgengave (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave That is not on the Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal, so it is probably superseded, but I certainly do not mind its inclusion if it is durably attested. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, the attestations seem durably archived - and recent (2016, 2021) so likely only "superseded" in the eyes of linguists. Using a Google Search, that spelling also seems more frequent than "entrecotetje" which sounds a bit awkward and stilted. I can't imagine a native speaker (at least in Belgium) seriously use it in speech. It does raise an interesting point, which the Woordenlijst may not cover, namely that dimunitives that lead to a "-tetje"-ending (if a schwa) do rarely occur and are (in Belgium) often shortened in a regular way to a "-tje"-ending (at least this seems to be the case in Belgium). Besides entrecootje, I am immediately thinking of gedeeltje (from gedeelte), gemeentje (from gemeente), brochetje (from brochette; this diminutive recognized by the VRT: [15]), camionnetje (from camionette; the stress differs and hence not pronounced the same as camionnetje, the diminutive of camion), and groentje (from groente). Morgengave (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Morgengave "Superseded" and "unofficial" (perhaps more appropriate here) only makes a claim about the official status of a form, it does not suggest that it is out of use. I should also clarify that entrecotetje is not the official spelling either; the prescribed form is entrecoteje, which looks awkward but whose pronunciation is equivalent to entrecootje... or so I presume. I agree that sequences with <tetje> containing two schwas are awkward to pronounce. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

ثمر

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Arabic. Rfv-sense: "(collective) the typically sweet- or (less commonly) sour-tasting produce of plants, fruit, fruitage" --5.245.69.225 02:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Searching on Google appears to yield many results of modern-style writings (that is, ones that might be dismissed as solecisms). There are, nevertheless, a few medieval-style results like this one that seem to capture the meaning of "fleshy plant products". Modern Standard Arabic occurrences though are far more frequent in this sense. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Roger.M.Williams: Fix your link! I abstain from this issue, dealing with so microscopic a sense distinction. If you see such senses then it is perhaps you who could … ehm add at least one clear quotation. If it’s from the web maybe an occurrence by an image makes it clear. Fay Freak (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

May 2021

kamelåså

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Norwegian Bokmål. Does anyone actually use this word in writing? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think these are two examples: [16], [17]. BTW, I don’t see how this demonstrates a difficulty with the understandability of Danish; to me it seems an issue of lack of knowledge of the specialized vocabulary for hardware items. If I was working as a newbie clerk in an English hardware store, and a customer asked for something I’d never heard of, such as a spiglet, I too might not understand they were using a made-up term. — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) at 09:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

Does anyone actually use this word in writing? Yes. I've provided three citations. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

etveen

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Dutch, "a peatland repurposed as a pasture", uncommon indeed. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mnemosientje, Morgengave, Thadh, 030BeterHe, Lambiam Do you have any insights on this? ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is said to come from etten (WNT, also in MNW) + veen; see entry etveen in De Zaansche volkstaal. --Lambiam 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Lambiam I managed to find one clear use. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This use supports the notion it is a Zaans term. --Lambiam 13:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does seem that way. Do you think we can use the citations from De Zaansche volkstaal? Because I don't think we're going to find those sources online and I'm not going to go to the Assendelft archives. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2021

geweer

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch, RFV-sense of "resistance, opposition, defense". Is this citable outside in het geweer komen? The WNT does not have a separate sense "resistance, etc." ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Earlier the lemma had a sense “(absolute use only: het geweer) A defensive attitude or position”, which I removed in December 2020 by this edit. --Lambiam 00:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

cunta

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Old High German: “female genitalia”. Tagged by 88.64.225.1 on 26 June 2021, not listed:

“It's possible, but the form would obviously be irregular in High German. As of now it is not given in the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. The source is not scientific and it doesn't strictly say that the word is High German. It only says that it was found by a contributor to the Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, which doesn't rule out that the gloss may be Old Saxon or Low Franconian.”

J3133 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, the word is given as an example of a German word and attestation in an Old Dutch work is particularly unlikely, so the real problems are the apparently irregular form and the fact that this is a rather unusual source. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Source has:

"Zahlreiche deutsche Wörter aus dem achten bis zehnten Jahrhundert sind nur als Anmerkungen und Übersetzungshilfen am Rand oder zwischen den Zeilen lateinischer Texte überliefert. Tausende dieser sogenannten Glossen wurden erst in letzter Zeit entdeckt und untersucht. Zu ihnen gehört „cunta“, eine vulgäre Bezeichnung für das weibliche Sexualorgan, die als Übersetzung von „pudenda“ am Rand einer kirchengeschichtlichen Handschrift des neunten Jahrhunderts auftauchte."

It's only saying "German", and doesn't clarify whether it's "High German" or "High and Low German". And if it's the latter, it's open whether Low German would be "Old Saxon" or "Low Franconian and Old Saxon". Also as it's only a gloss: If there are no other glosses near to it with clear Low or High German features, who knows what language the gloss is in? --16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

jahoor

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dutch. Typically written as two words, it turned out harder to cite than I thought it would be. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

[18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (some of these might not be durably archived) Thadh (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

apragod

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Scottish Gaelic. Per a comment on the talk page. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

2003, Colin Mark, The Gaelic-English Dictionary: "apragod, -oid, -an nm [noun masculine] apricot"

As it isn't a WT:WDL (maybe 'member {{LDL}}), this could be sufficient for attesting. (It's also older than the WT entry, hence not stupiditly copied from bere.)

Additionally:

1883, John Cameron, Gaelic names of plants (Scottish and Irish): "P. [Prunus] armeniaca—Apricot. Gaelic: apricoc. Welsh: bricyllen."
1825, R. A. Armstrong, A Gaelic dictionary, in two parts: "Apricot, s. [substantive?] Seorsa meas." [= kind of fruit?]
1780, William Shaw, A Galic and English Dictionary. Containing All the Words in the Scotch and Irish Dialects of the Celtic, that ...: "Crann-apricoc. Apricot-tree." & "Apricot. Seorsa meas, ubhal apricoit." [= kind of fruit, apricot apple?]

There seem to be several spellings around: both Am Faclair Beag and LearnGaelic.scot give both apracot and apricoc, while Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (which doesn't count as durably archived, I know) gives both abragod and apragot. Three paper dictionaries on my bookshelf all give only apracot. Overall, it looks like most modern dictionaries prefer the spelling apracot, so I'd suggest making that the primary entry and making apragod an {{alt form of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Attested with Colin Mark 2003 as Scots is a WT:WDL, so RFV-passed, but changed in diff into a RFD. --05:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

net (Dutch)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RFV-sense of "television network"; I only know this in either the specific sense "television channel" and the general sense "network", especially used for the Internet. ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Net meaning tv network in not in my VanDale Nederlands Als Tweede Taal (NT2) dictionary.

BUT in both the Netherlands and Belgium there are nationwide tv channels so tv networks are not necessary and do not really exist.

However the American sense of a tv network is sort of applicable to these nationwide channels. — This unsigned comment was added by 72.83.123.223 (talk) at 01:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

August 2021

erbieden

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dutch. Tagged by User:Lingo Bingo Dingo, but not listed — sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 08:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}