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


October 2016[edit]


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

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

December 2016[edit]


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

This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by {{zh-pron}}, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No progress on this discussion. I don't want to act as a destroyer of Wuhan dialect terms but what should we do? The term is obviously unattestable, only used in special dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If Wuhan dialect is considered to be part of Chinese, then it would need three cites with usages, and then it might fail RFV. If Wuhan dialect would be treated like a separate language just like it's done with German dialects here (cp. Category:Alemannic German lemmas, Category:Bavarian lemmas, Category:Luxembourgish lemmas, Category:Central Franconian lemmas, Category:Rhine Franconian lemmas), then it could be different. - 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang, do you have any input on what should be done here? (Prisencolin created the entry.) - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm more in favour of deleting this. I don't think it is likely to pass verification. Wyang (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
RFV-failed, then. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]


Does not appear to be use in credible Japanese(-language) sources [1]. ばかFumikotalk 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

February 2017[edit]


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

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

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

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


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

It probably is. It is now cited, but lacks a definition. @Wyang, Tooironic, any ideas? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a variant traditional form of 病症, isn't it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't think so. 癥 is only read as zhēng, never as zhèng. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is the case, 古代汉语词典 and CEDICT are wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic My 古代汉语词典 (第二版) only gives zhēng for 癥 and only gives zhèng for 症. Dokurrat (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it:
zheng1, zing1
"(strictly) disease signs; (loosely) signs and symptoms"
among other non-medical meanings and the music zhi3, zi2 pronunciation
zheng4, zing3
"symptoms of disease; disease"
zheng1, zing1
"abdominal tumour; (fig.) sticking point"
(alt. form of 徵/征 - "signs and symptoms of disease")
(alt. form of 症/症 - "disease")
Wyang (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I agree, with one exception. If 癥/症 is read as zhēng, would it really be an alt. form of 症/症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Alt. term would be more appropriate (for example, at 病癥). Wyang (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The sense “signs and symptoms of disease” (alt. form of 病徵) is cited. We still need two more citations for “disease; illness”. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

punctus (genitive punctus, sense point)[edit]

From dictionaries:

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

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

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

March 2017[edit]


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

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

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

and 𫢙[edit]

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

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

chrȳsocarpus (adjective)[edit]

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

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

Latin texts:

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

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

  • It is in use as a specific epithet (chrysocarpus, -a, -um), ie, in New Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • chrysocarpus, -a, -um is not chrysocarpus, -us, -um.
  • Specific epithets are not necessarily Latin. It could very well be non-Latin, e.g. English or Translingual. Google books had no result for "Rhachidosorus chrysocarpus", several English and one German and one French result for "Rumex chrysocarpus", some English and one German result for "Juncus chrysocarpus", some French results for "Diospyros chrysocarpa", and some English results for "Archidendron chrysocarpum". I haven't searched for Rubus chrysocarpus, Styrax chrysocarpus, Crataegus chrysocarpa, Diospyros chrysocarpa, Duguetia chrysocarpa, Hedera chrysocarpa, Pyrausta chrysocarpa, Rollinia chrysocarpa, Myrceugenia chrysocarpa, Senna chrysocarpa, Geronema chrysocarpum as that are several terms and as I expect similar results. One can't attest a Latin term with non-Latin usages in non-Latin text, but just attest a Latin term with Latin texts. That's like one can't attest English terms with non-English texts (cf. anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms), but just attest an English term with English usages in English texts.
- 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've placed a number of citations of running Latin text at Citations:chrysocarpus, on Citations:chrysocarpo (one of which refers to R. chrysocarpus) and on Citations:chrysocarpa. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that the cites use the Translingual taxonomic term, namely in O. chrysocarpa (= Oxytropis chrysocarpa?; in Latin with ablative singular O. chrysocarpa), R. chrysocarpus (= Rubus chrysocarpus?; in Latin with dat. and abl. R. chrysocarpo), Juncus chrysocarpus (in Latin with dat. and abl. Junco supino), Hedera chrysocarpa (as edera chrysocarpos).
If these taxonomic results are accepted as cites for the Latin term, then Citations:chrysocarpa shows that the entry missed the feminine in -a. Moreover, a label like {{label|la|New Latin|botanical taxonomy}} should be added. In case of Translingual taxonomics, chrysocarpa is the common feminine while the feminine chrysocarpus is very rare (and seems like an error). - 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I now made it "chrysocarpus (-a, -um)" [instead of dubious "chrysocarpus (-us, -um)"] with the feminine of Citations:chrysocarpa and added a label. The "masculine-shaped feminine" ad Citations:chrysocarpo rather belongs to chrysocarpos [i.e. "chrysocarpos (-on)", or maybe for clarity "chrysocarpos (-os, -on)"].
Wiktionary:Translingual#Other languages does permit a Latin entry, and the provided sources are Latin (also by context).
So if there are no objections like regarding the label (i.e. older cites) or the feminine (i.e. something like "Hederam chrysocarpum" in Latin), it may be solved. - 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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

It is a variant of 𬊇 (U+2C287, ⿱炏乂): [2]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: any evidence though? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean 𤇾 was from 𬊇. 𤇾 is used only as a component, as you say. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: Then I think we should just have something like {{n-g|Only used as a character component.}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Three sites on which the component 𤇾 appears:

http://www.zdic.net/z/94/js/241FE.htm (a page exclusively devoted to 𤇾; definition: brilliant)

https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=𤇾 (another page exclusively devoted to 𤇾; definition: brilliant)

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=鎣 (which includes the sentence: 「鎣」從「金」,「𤇾」聲,表示一種長頸瓶。)

I am adamantly in support of retaining this page on wiktionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The definition "brilliant" is ultimately from the Unihan database, which is known to be unreliable for definitions. I think it can only merit inclusion as a character component. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yeah, I agree. I'm guessing 'brilliant' was an definition derived from 荧. My only question is- what is the ultimate source for the yìng (fourth tone) reading? Thanks for your numerous corrections to pages I have edited. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: The pronunciation also comes from the Unihan Database, but I'm not sure where they got it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&char=𤇾 says "康熙字典: 頁671第08" but I couldn't find anything on that page in Kangxi- maybe I don't understand the system there-- https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77415&page=0671#08 My real question is, if the Unihan people were really just making stuff up, why would they make this ying4 instead of ying2? (http://www.zdic.net/z/94/js/241FE.htm has ying4 too) There's got to be something behind "ying4"- maybe a typo? Seems strange that so many characters in this phonetic series would be pronounced ying1 or ying2 and then suddenly the phonetic component is pronounced ying4. If I were just making up pronunciations, I would say that 𤇾 should be pronounced ying2. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: Again, the Kangxi page number is from the Unihan database (0671.081). The 1 at the end indicates that it does not actually exist in the Kangxi Dictionary, but page 671, character 8 would be its hypothetical position in the dictionary if it were to be included in the Kangxi Dictionary. I don't think the people who made the database are making stuff up, but they may be using erroneous sources. I have no idea where yìng came from. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Is there a way to contact the people who complied the Unihan database and ask about the origin of the definition and pronunciation for 𤇾? Might be fun. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

illic and istic[edit]

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

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

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

April 2017[edit]

sophos, sophus[edit]

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

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

- 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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


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

It seems to be very rare, about as rare as its English gloss, but there are a few hits on Google Books, most of which are in scare quotes. You can find a few more usages by searching for inflected forms like werdbare and werdbaren. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
becomable failed RFV in 2011, by the way. Equinox 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Google Books results often are mentionings or OCR errors.
Usages: "erst eine werdbare Beziehung", Aber diese Realität hat es »in sich«, werdbar zu sein"
Doubtful usages: "habhaft werdbaren Selbstverständlichkeiten" which could be strange formation from "habhaft werden", and "Das »Werdbare«, das Sinnmögliche" which would be a noun Werdbares/Werdbare
OCR errors: "gleich ans werdbar ist" for "gleich an- | werdbar ist" = "gleich anwerdbar ist" and "dahin ver, werdbar behauptet" for "dahin ver- | werdbar behauptet = "dahin verwerdbar behauptet", "inne werdbare Gegenwart" for "innewerdbare Gegenwart", and "drehbar, werdbar" for "drehbar, wendbar"
Mentionings: "so bedeutet [Greek: genhto/n] hier so viel wie »werdbar«, »zum Entstehen befähigt«" and "Denn [Greek: genhto/s )estin] bedeutet ja nicht nur „er ist geworden“, sondern auch „er ist ‚werdbar‘, unterliegt den Bedingungen des Werdens, birgt in sich die Möglichkeit zu Werden und Veränderung“"
- 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Most hits are scannos or mentions, as the IP points out. Recreate if you can find enough uses. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Compounds with quis[edit]


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

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

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

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

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


RFV for:

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

Rationale and notes:

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


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

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

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

- 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam#Citations, mecum#Adverb, illic#Pronoun) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. - 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


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

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

This is what I've understood the CFI clause about "in common use" to refer to. Words that are hard to cite, but everyone is familiar with. I know the more common consensus is that it just refers to words that are easily citable, but I kind of wish that wasn't the case, as it keeps out a lot of informal language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm one of the people that understand the CFI clause about "in common use" as "words that are easily citable in three independent durably-archived sources". As you said, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But, naturally, feel free to disagree with me on the interpretation of the rule if you want. If the consensus about the "in common use" rule is unclear, it probably should be discussed further, eventually. Apparently, that rule was never even voted in the first place.
I believe probably all emojis fail that criterion, the way I see it. I oppose creating entries for emojis on the basis of the "in common use" rule without the need for citations.
Here are two existing emoji entries, with one citation each: 😀 and 😉.
Apparently, emojis are "internet slang". They may be used a lot on the internet, but if we created entries for some or all emoji just because they presumably exist online, without the need to check for attestation, then on the same basis we would have a precedent for creating entries for some or all internet abbreviations and informal internet speech with the same lack of standards. For a list of these items, see Appendix:English internet slang and Appendix:Portuguese internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Carrero -- I kind of wonder why you're even bothering to ask this, since your similar request on ⚤ eight months ago turned up plenty of information, but somehow none of it was acceptable to you... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, plenty of information? In the discussion about ⚤, you just linked to one Wikimedia Commons category and one Wikipedia article, and I linked to a non-durably-archived SMBC comic, right? As I pointed out in that discussion, just linking to other Wikimedia projects doesn't count, and the article had three sources which, apart from being on the internet and thus being non-durably-archived too, are mentions (lists of symbols and their meanings) instead of actual uses.
By contrast, and have a number of CFI-compliant citations for certain senses.
I intend to create a few more RFVs for symbols at some point, not only to see if they are actually attestable, but also to see to what extent our current CFI rules work for them.
I'm not saying I personally agree with all our current CFI rules (I agree with some rules, others I would rather propose to be changed). This is not simply a matter of I, personally, considering some information acceptable or not. Even if I really wanted to say "RFV passed, the symbol already appears in some internet lists!", that is not proper procedure to close an RFV.
Actually, I'd rather propose a few changes to our CFI rules to relax our criteria for symbol entries. But that's a matter for the BP. (I created this RFV as a result of this ongoing BP discussion: link) Also, hopefully past and future RFV results can be used as a precedent to be discussed there too, to revise the rules if needed.
For now, my question is naturally whether 😊 passes CFI under our current rules. That is an important question, whether the answer is yes or no. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the RFV still in progress? 😊 does exist and has no RFV tag. Category:Emoticons block and Category:Miscellaneous Symbols block have more emoticons and symbols which would be hard to cite. As an example, could be attested by commons? - 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectives[edit]

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

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


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

- 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


See A&G cited above.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

I don't know about Russian but in German something like " should be attestable. But I can't think of any good way to search for it on Google. Maybe one could attest Unterführungszeichen (compare de:w:Unterführungszeichen) and find reference works, and then claim that " is in "clearly widespread use" (WT:CFI). Maybe the same can be done for Russian?
" and do already exist and are Translingual. Maybe Russian uses one of these? - 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here (14:40) is an example of what I was talking about that I happened to stumble upon (searching for it is obviously impractical).__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've made Unsupported titles/Hyphen vertical line vertical line hyphen.__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


@Atitarev To verify:

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


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

Looks to me like a mistake, if Japanese people follow the western custom and refer to a ship as "kanojo", that would be pronoun sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
彼女 is used in this sense in Japanese. Japanese also has the expression, 処女航海 (maiden voyage). See http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/19kan/idacho.htm where you will find "彼女の処女航海". See also, http://whalingmuseum-arcticvisions.org/captain-john-bartlett-of-the-panther/?lang=ja . I also agree that this sense should be listed under Pronoun. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Move it to the pronoun section and mark it as rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If the sense is real, the definition should also change from "Western custom" to "English custom" (re treating ships as females). English is not the only "Western" language, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Nor is English the only language that does this.__Gamren (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

I can't find what source I might have used for the etymology. I fear there may not have been one. The derivation that Robert shows for églefin does not include any Greek or Latin. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The meaning is likely based on the presumed etymology, and the "usage" likely is the one in taxonomic names.
  • David H. McNicoll, Dictionary of Natural History Terms with their derivations, including the various orders, genera, and species, London, 1863, page 9 gives this etymology: "Ægle'finus (Ichth.) αἰγλοφανής [aiglophanḗs], brilliant, lustrous". It contains a change of ο to e and of a to e - and the only explanation for that that I can think of is English mispronunciation or French or English deformation. Alternatively, the given etymology could be incorrect.
  • Dictionaries and other books mention French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (by Frenchies) or eglefin (by non-Frenchies or in caps as EGLEFIN) and English eglefinus as names for haddock. The origin is once said to be Dutch (14th century, so likely Middle Dutch) eschlevis which is said to literally mean shell-fish (from Why is an Apple a Pomme? A Journey with Words by Denis Dunstone, 2014, e-books version at books.google, which also mentions Spanish eglefino, Portuguese eglefim, Italian eglefino). A German book mentioned a Dutch schelvis (which looks more like Schellfisch) and says there was a "Umbildung". In another context a French aigle fin with the meaning "clever person" (schlauer Mensch) and the literal meaning "fine eagle" (feiner Adler) was mentioned.
    So maybe the etymology is like this: some Dutch word, likely for the haddock -> French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (French caps, maybe in older typography, EGLEFIN), maybe by folketymological deforming of the Dutch to resemble aigle fin and then maybe to deform it as it's no eagle (aigle) -> maybe English or some other European language -> Translingual aeglefinus. Maybe one can find more and better references for this.
BTW: The long e (Wiktionary: "aeglēfīnus") is likely from one of the two presumed etymologies. So if the etymology is a guess, the length likely is too, and if it is a guess, then it shouldn't be "aeglēfīnus" without any note.
BTW 2: By connecting aeglefinus with the French noun aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin, aeglefinus could be a noun too (in taxonomics used in apposition), so it's almost like an alternative form of Aeglefinus except that modern taxonomic uses capitalisation in a special way.
- 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
In the sense "haddock", it's obviously from the French or some close relative thereof and is a noun. The waspfish, however, is in a different order, so aeglefinus may be an adjective in Neocentropogon aeglefinus. If so, it should be listed as two etymologies. PierreAbbat (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


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

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

May 2017[edit]


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

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

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam[edit]

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

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

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

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

deinde scriptum[edit]

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

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

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

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


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

It's in Morfix. Perhaps the definition needs to be clarified to "room with a bath". --WikiTiki89 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, a Google Image search turns up pictures of both bathtubs and bathrooms, usually with a bathtub in the frame (so perhaps those are still pictures of "bathtub"), but sometimes with only a shower, or only a toilet and sink, which suggests that the word sometimes refers to the room. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I see from those results that "חדר אמבטיה" is one of the terms for a home bathroom, and that the word "חדר" ("room") is omitted in most expressions such as "ריהוט אמבטיה" ("bath [room] furniture") and "ארונות אמבטיה" ("bath [room] cabinets"). I wonder if anyone ever says "באמבטיה" to mean "in the bathroom" rather than "in the bath". --WikiTiki89 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed? Or are the phrases mentioned above attestable? (If so, restore the sense...) - -sche (discuss) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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

- 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

Design by contract[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theere's no such word called as "sınalgı" in Turkish language. You can't find this unusual word in any remarkable dictionary. It should be deleted.-- 16:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. There are cites. -- 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I note that tr.Wikt has repeatedly deleted this entry on their site. This would appear to be attested as a very rare, very nonstandard, almost broken-Turkish word, but attested nonetheless. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


Tagged but presumably not listed. Worth comparing with Translingual Altica. DonnanZ (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The redirect to here from the entry doesn't work, so it may have been listed before. Works now. DonnanZ (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 has a thread entitled "haltica, altica". - 02:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this section so the discussion is in one place. - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Seems to be easily attestable ([3] [4] [5]). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed on the basis of Granger's linked citations. If these are inadequate or inaccurate, let me know / reopen the RFV... - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


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

There is a [wiki article] on that subject. 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

June 2017[edit]


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

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


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

It seems to be some sort of seafood sauce used in Western cuisine. In this menu, it is translated as crustacean sauce (salsa di crostacei). I did find some uses meaning hoisin sauce, like this (English version) and this. I'm just unsure if these uses are influenced by Wiktionary and/or sites that use Wiktionary info. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Atitarev, Wyang, any input? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it can refer to hoisin sauce or any sauce made from 海鮮, but it's a bit awkward (and pretentious)-sounding in Mandarin. I have never used or heard this term before. Wyang (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


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

"คทากร" is in wide use, as in "จุฬาฯ คทากร"; see further results from Google also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


JMdict-only term. Nibiko (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr Thanks for verifying it. I'm sorry, Google OCR didn't pick up the second character in Daijiten, and I've noticed that Google has trouble with rare characters in Japanese (see Talk:擂茶#Google_Books_OCR_failing_to_pick_up_the_alternative_forms). Nibiko (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Nibiko, just to be sure, it's 乾芻, not 乾蒭, right? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for belated reply, just saw the question... @justin(r)leung, google books:"乾芻" "は" does return what appear to be valid instances. Notably, none of the hits show proper preview -- only Google's broken "snippet view", which only shows Google's sometimes-faulty OCR results. So theoretically all of these hits for 乾芻 could actually be misrecognized hits for 乾蒭 instead, and we have no way of knowing, short of tracking down physical copies of the books.
I was incorrect earlier, thank you for confirming -- Shogakukan lists 乾蒭 with the radical, and has no listing for the 乾芻 spelling. That said, Shogakukan has other entries like 芻言, 蒭言 (sūgen, the words of a hay-cutting laborer; humble reference to one's own words) showing what appears to be free variation in spelling between and .
Meanwhile, Nelson's Japanese-English Character Dictionary lists 乾芻, but not the 乾蒭 spelling. Nelson's has no entry at all for the character, only for the character.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]


RFV for all inflected forms (except nominative).
Maybe note:

  • It has been pointed before elsewhere that the declension is wrong (e.g. WT:RFDO#Template:la-decl-4th-argo).
  • Dictionaries do give a genitive "Pȳthūs", but this could be unattested too.
  • If - is used for unattested forms like for example in Dīdō, then head and declension could look like this:

Pȳthō f
Third declension, Greek type

Number Singular
nominative Pȳthō
If other words are used for making up forms - which is common practice at wiktionary for "normal" Latin words -, it could look like this:

Pȳthō f (genitive Pȳthūs); third declension
Third declension, Greek type

Number Singular
nominative Pȳthō
genitive Pȳthūs
dative Pȳthō
accusative Pȳthō
ablative Pȳthō
vocative Pȳthō

- 21:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Would be RFV failed already, and the entry is improved now.
Luc./Lucan. 5, 134 and Tib./Tibull. 2, 3, 27 (older addition: Python, Müll.) are the only sources given by common dics, and Lucanus has "Python". That proofs that the old inflection was wrong or at least incomplete. Sappho from the same declension and with attested abl. "Sappho" shows that WT's "Pȳthuī" was more than doubtful. - 01:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Aello, Clio, Enyo, Manto[edit]

For dative, ablative and vocative in -oe. The forms likely were made up by wiktionary based on the Greek (changing Greek οι to Latin oe). But in Latin words, these cases have -o. E.g. for accusative and ablative this can be seen in Sappho which ablative is attested in Plinius' "ob hoc et Phaonem Lesbium dilectum a Sappho; multa circa hoc non Magorum solum vanitate, sed etiam Pythagoricorum.". - 21:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

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)


Google Nibiko (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Japanese given name. —suzukaze (tc) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

google:"実見子さん" produces more hits than 実見子の. Not many, but a few more. FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Dialect word, barely used nowadays. ганарэя is common. Comes from dictionaries from 1995 [6] and 2001 [7], but I think that it is not widespread. --Jarash (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be widespread, and it doesn't matter if it's dialect, but Belarusian is a WT:WDL, so it does need three uses (not dictionary mentions) from different authors over the space of more than a year. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Per utramque cavernam in this edit stated that RfV can be removed and in the description to this edit he provides a link to search on slounik.org with three hits. The first search hit is a dictionary from 1995 by editors С.Прыхожы, А.Стасевіч, А.Юркін, А.Сітнік, І.Каваленка (S. Prykhozhy, A. Stasevich, A. Yurkin, A. Sitnik and I. Kavalenka). The second and third search hits are Russian-to-Belarusian and Belarusian-to-Russian dictionaries from 2001 by the same editor Віктар Варанец (English: Victor Varanets). This makes the total count of independent sources only to 2. --Jarash (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It was a mistake of me to say that. As Mahagaja said above, dictionary mentions aren't enough; we need three real cites. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


Spanish. Or Portuguese? -WF

Our translations-section under adjective says that "adjectivo" is used in Portugal and "adjetivo" in Brazil. Spanish section looks more dubious. I could not find evidence of "adjectivo" meaning "procedural" in Spanish. Instead, a search for "regulaciones adjetivas" gives more than 300 hits. However, we don't have this sense listed under the Spanish entry for "adjetivo". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Portuguese entry is perfectly clear; "adjetivo" is now the proper term, and the historical explanation is spot-on. --Luisftd (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


According to De Vaan, this is not attested as an independent verb, but only in compounds. —CodeCat 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see WT:Tea room/2017/June#Latin clino and Talk:clino. According to that
  • it's attested as adjective/participle - which could attest the verb "via an inflected form"
  • it does appear in old editions - and some other words or forms which appear in old editions are also included in wiktionary like punctus (4th declension, sense point).
Of course both would require a note which ATM is missing. - 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaau[edit]

Proto-Southwestern Tai is revised by Pittayawat Pittayaporn (page 125-149 of the PDF), same author of Proto-Tai. But it does not include any word list. I believe *khaau (rice) should exist in new spelling. I also have some words here but the rice is not stated. However, this is only one word in PSWT right now. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

French demonyms[edit]

User @SemperBlotto has been mass-importing entries from French Wiktionary with, by his own admission, no checking of whether these words are actually verifiable. I decided to check a few of these, and (unsurprisingly) have been unable to verify the vast majority of them, particularly the demonyms for tiny communes, hence bringing them here. Note that these all have entries on fr.wikt, where the criteria for eligibility are far less stringent than ours. The (non-exhaustive) list is as follows; for brevity I have not written here the inflected (feminine/plural) forms, but I have also not been able to verify those so they are inlcuded too:

I've just started with the ones beginning with Y to see how this goes down. BigDom 06:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The history of this miniproject is as follows:- I noticed that a new user (Shiro1998 (talkcontribs)) was systematically added the plural forms of French nouns that we did not have (he seemed to be harvesting them from French Wiktionary). I didn't think this was very useful so started to add the missing singulars. While doing this I noticed that our French friends had very many French nouns (and adjectives &c) that we did not have - so started adding them. These included the above demonyms. My thinking went along the lines that, for a language such as French or Italian, we don't have to check the existance of all the conjugated forms of a verb, adjective etc., so I applied the same logic to the regularly-formed demonyms of French placenames. Some of these places are very small and the chances of the demonym appearing in print are slim - maybe in a local newspaper or a parish magazine, though these are unlikely to be archived. I assume that you are not complaining that any of these are actually incorrect, just that we can't prove that they are correct. My gut feeling is to keep them, and add any more that appear on the French Wiktionary or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much it. I'm not saying these don't exist, but that they aren't used (in durably archived media, at least), which does seem to preclude them from having entries as per our inclusion criteria. I personally think we would be better served tidying up and citing our existing entries than creating unverifiable new ones, but if there's a consensus that such entries are allowed to remain, I'm not going to kick up a fuss. BigDom 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
These should definitely not be kept if they are not attested sufficiently. You did the right thing.__Gamren (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete if not sufficiently attested. – Barytonesis

September 2017[edit]


@Mulder1982 Where did you encounter this?__Gamren (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember where I got it from originally but to confirm I googled it and found that it is the word for one hundred. A website called LearnGreenlandic even has hundredi as a synonym. Mulder1982 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Links please? I agree that hundredi exists ([8], [9]), but I cannot find untriti, in its bare form, in the Atuagagdliutit archives, nor in sermitsiaq.ag. Katersat gives untritilik ([10]), but that, I can also not find. However, there are lots of words like untritilinni, untritilippassuarni, untritilikkaat, untritilinnik etc. in the timarit.is archive, so it cannot be complete rubbish. When supplied with some of these words, the Oqaasileriffik word analyser suggests untriteq as root, but that word gives no useful results at all.__Gamren (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's one link: untriti I'm trying to find more but I'm having the same "issue" that you do: that seems to be mainly found in compounds. It makes me wonder if it's possibly an from an older batch of loanwords, but this is just me speculating. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Turkish word kodak, rfv-sense: family:

  • 2014, soc.culture.turkish
Erdoğan kodağı ticaretle uğraşıyor.
  • 1999, Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Sarıkamış'ta köy gezileri: halk kültürü alanında araştırma ve incelemeler
Kafile tarlanın sonuna vardığı zaman durdu; kodaklar yere atladı,
  • 1999, Bakış Basın Yayın Organizasyon Limited Şti., Haftaya bakış, 7. cilt, 32-43. sayılar
Yapılan şerinin başını kocaları açtığında mutlu olan kodakları var. -- 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled. Do these quotes support the sense "family"? @Sae1962, Shiro1998 Perhaps you two would verify that that is the meaning it takes, or even better, translate the quotes?__Gamren (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I never used kodak and read about this word here the first time. According to TDK, it means among others house, but never family.--Sae1962 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find any mention of the sense "family" in the turkish dictionary, and as for translating the quotes, my turkish is not that good yet. shiro1998 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Kodak in the first sentence has exactly this meaning (Erdogan family). The others are not clear but they possibly mean a family. Some dictionaries mention of the sense "family" (for example SesliSozluk and YeminliSozluk). According to an online Turkish synonym dictionary kodak is a synonym for aile --Berr.in (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    Since noone has confirmed that the quotes are using the word in this sense, RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


RFV of the reading of えうま. @Fumiko Takesuzukaze (tc) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Euma and enma are listed in Daijirin as independent entries.

え-うま ヱ― 【絵馬】


え-んま ヱ― 【絵馬】



→えま(絵馬) ばかFumikotalk 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What version of Daijirin are you using? I don't see euma at [11] (Daijirin + others) nor [12] (Daijirin 3 + Digital Daijisen + others).
Also, I kind of want to see citations of euma in real life, as per WT:ATTEST. —suzukaze (tc) 08:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


The creator is notorious for his carelessness. I couldn't find it (under the given spelling at least) in The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, but it could be that they don't give proper names. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who has enough interest in Assyrian to try hunting this down. @Mnemosientje? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I have very little experience with this language and even less time to look into it at the moment, I'm afraid. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This form (or, a form transliterated KUR ki-na-aḫ-na) is found in the Amarna Tablets, as documented by Anson F. Rainey's Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis (1995, ISBN 9004105034) and WP. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study says it was [also] spelt "ki-na-aḫ-nu(m) (Akkadian texts from Mari, Byblos, and Tyre), ki-in-a-nim (Akkadian text from Alalakh), māt ki-na-ḫi (Akkadian texts from Assyria and Ugarit), māt ki-in-na-aḫ-ḫi (Akkadian texts from Egypt, Mitanni, Bogazkoy/Hattusa, and Babylon)". - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vorziblix, what do you think? We should delete this unless we get positive confirmation that it's right. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I’d say so, if no one can confirm that the cuneiform spelling is correct; in any case, we don’t include determinatives in the names of Akkadian lemmas, so having this lemma at this entry name is certainly wrong. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    I cited a reference which says this form is found in the Amarna Tablets (EA 137 and apparently also EA 151), but if the determiner should be dropped from the pagename, please move the page. - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Right, thanks. I am far from an expert in Akkadian, so I couldn’t be sure that the cuneiform lines up with the transliteration (given the creator’s poor track record of reverse-transliterating other languages in the past); if the cuneiform looks right to you, then this is cited. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Well, these are the Unicode characters for those sound/transliteration values, in my understanding. As discussed in WT:Beer parlour#Cuneiform_and_Unicode, the shapes which fonts assign to them may or may not match the shapes found in the tablets, but that's basically a technical/font/display problem. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

Ancient Greek Ραμσής, Ραμέσης[edit]

Ancient Greek Ραμσής (Ramsḗs), Ραμέσης (Ramésēs) in Ramesses#Translations (where it was added together with some other translations in August 2015) and rꜥ-ms-sw (where it was added in May 2013‎).
I wouldn't doubt it if it were given as young Modern Greek (el:w:Ραμσής), and maybe it's just the language needing to be fixed.

By these sources the name seems to be, in a porly transcription ignoring accents and somewhat ignoring the correct spiritus, R[h]amessēs with three s, which doesn't fit together with Ραμσής (Ramsḗs), Ραμέσης (Ramésēs). - 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Flavius Josephus (edited by Benedictus Niese, Latin title De judaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem libri II.) indeed has Ῥαμέσσης (with acc. Ῥαμέσσην from 1st declension), and also τὸν Ῥαμεσσῆ (nom. *Ῥαμεσσῆς?) and "Ῥαμεσσήν," (nom. *Ῥαμεσσής?). Flavius Josephus (edited by Guilelmus Dindorfius = Wilhelm Dindorf, Latin title De antiquitate judaeorum, contra Apionem, 1847) has Ῥαμέσσης too, and Ῥαμέσσην instead of Ῥαμεσσῆ and Ῥαμεσσήν - and at one place it has Σέθωσις, Latin Sethosis, instead of Σέθως.
  • Georgius Syncellus (edited by Guilielmus Dindorfius = Wilhelm Dindorf, Latin title Chronographiae, 1829, p. 134 & 136), which is also based on Eusebius and Africanus, has Ῥαμεσσῆς (in the Latin text: Ammeses, Rammeses, Rameses). On p. 180 he also has Ῥαμεσές but this might be Middle Greek. Jacobus Goar's old edition from 1729 has Ραμεσῆς, Αμμεσῆς (defective without spiritus for capitals), but is quite old anyway.
  • Ammianus Marcellinus (rerum gestarum [...], lib. XVII, cap. IV.) has Ῥαμέστης (Rhaméstēs) (or "Ῥαμέϛης" with stigma ς for στ, or defective "Ραμέϛης" without spiritus for capitals). Sources/Editions: Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum [...] ab Jacobo Gronovio (1693, p. 176-178), ''Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum [...] ex recensione Valesio_Gronoviana. [...] adiecit Augustus Guil. Ernesti (1773, p. 108f.) and Ammianus Marcellinus with an English translation by John C. Rolfe (vol. I, 1935, p. 326-331 and 568). For easyness, not for correctness, there is: TLL and English translation at Gutenberg.
The name seems to be Ῥαμέσσης (Rhaméssēs), also Ῥαμέστης (Rhaméstēs), and maybe also Ῥαμεσσῆς (Rhamessês) and maybe Middle Greek Ῥαμεσές (Rhamesés); but it doesn't seem like Ραμσής, Ραμέσης are Greek or even Middle Greek. Anyhow, the doubtful names are long enough unattested. - 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Is it really a variant of 急需? Dokurrat (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

And the second etymology as well looks... interesting. Can we attest this meaning? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat, Tooironic -- Re: etym 2 for the Chinese term, I find that JA sources agree with the following from Daijirin as the source of the JA term of the same spelling:

(Apparently, originally a container used in China to warm alcoholic beverages, brought to Japan and used as a container for tea)

Perhaps etym 2 for the Chinese is for a term that is now obsolete? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, for the first etymology, there are usages of this word in the internet. And I believe that to analyse this word orthographically as 急("urgently") + 須("(v.) must; have to") is problematic if this word is followed by a noun, which does happen; It should be analysed phonetically as an alternative form of 急需. So I withdraw the rfv nomination for the first etymology of 急須. Dokurrat (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: DVD player
Rfv-sense: sieve, colander

Not found in a tiny sample of online Spanish-English dictionaries/translators. - Amgine/ t·e 04:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Sieve, colander is found in loads of dictionaries, so I removed the RFV form that. The sense for DVD player is something I couldn't find, but I did find "Pasador De Vhs A Dvd" for a kind of VHS-DVD converter. And added some more meanings while I was at it. I didn't realise Blotto was doing Spanish now. I see no reason why he shouldn't, but there was some minor cleanup to do afterward. --P5Nd2 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Rfv for senses "(Cantonese) to get wet by rain" and "(Cantonese) to drip" and pronunciation dap6. Dokurrat (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

dap6 is used for both these senses. The problem might be whether 溚 is used for dap6. The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters cites Parker Po-fei Huang's Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese for this. I also found it in 陈慧英's 广州话的“噉”和“咁”. Also see this discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]


Rfv for Cantonese. Dokurrat (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: The definitions come from the Unihan Database, which got their definitions from "The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters". Here are the sources cited in the article:
  • lan2 (variant of 𨶙): 洪興仔 #21 殺入筲箕灣
  • lang1 (used in 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4; 粵語書寫問題研究項目
  • lang3 (used in 半𠹌𠼰): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4 (I would pronounce this as lang1.)
  • nang3 (join, link, connect): A Study of Cantonese Words (Zeng Zifan), 粵語書寫問題研究項目
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: So, If my understanding is right, all pronunciations have passed rfv; sense "variant of 𨶙" has passed rfv. And sense "uncommon, rare" is not verified (yet). Dokurrat (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV is generally not used for pronunciations. "Variant of 𨶙" doesn't pass RFV technically; see WT:ATTEST. "Uncommon, rare" is the definition for 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌; it's not used by itself, so there should be a {{zh-only}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to do with this. It appears in Norwegian Wiktionary, yet it's not a recognised suffix in the Bokmålsordboka or Nynorskordboka [13]. DonnanZ (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think -verk can be considered a suffix in Norwegian; it rather appears to be the second component in a compound? The fact that "verk" exists as a simplex in the same meaning as the proposed suffix seems to make it a suffixoid at best. Interestingly though, Wiktionary does have an entry for English -work. Morgengave (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes -work is a recognised suffix, whereas -works isn't, which is why it's now an RFD. Norwegian Bokmål verk (and Norwegian Nynorsk verk) is a word with two meanings and two genders, and I prefer to list derived terms there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The senses given at verk already exist at verk. However, perhaps -verk has one or both of the senses of Danish -værk that DDO gives?
Also, DWDS gives, for German -werk: bezeichnet mehrere zusammengehörende oder gleichartige Gegenstände "denotes several objects that are similar or that belong together", which it calls "not productive".__Gamren (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I just looked up “-værk” in Den Danske Ordbog. That's interesting. I wonder is it's an error of omission by the Norwegian dictionaries, who knows? I quite often find words in the DDO which don't appear in the Norwegian ones, yet they are definitely used in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


google books:"繃床" -"棕绷床" -"棕繃床" yields very few results. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 84,000 hits on Baidu for simplified 绷床. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we should mark it as a misspelling of 蹦床. The latter is found in the basic dictionaries, such as 《现代汉语规范词典》, 《汉语大词典》, 《汉语大辞典》, 《现代汉语词典》, etc., and agrees with the colloquial synonym 蹦蹦床 (bèngbèngchuáng), whereas I can't find this in any Chinese-Chinese or reliable Chinese-English dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Have you checked the searching results of 绷床 in Baidu? It seems to me that many of them are not used in sense trampoline. Dokurrat (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some refer to trampoline, others seem to be referring to a type of bed. Not sure about this one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Although in its current form this is an obvious bot error, there seems to be usage out there under some other definition (for instance, here, here and here), so I changed this from a speedy delete to an rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[Edit: See erint#Further reading | Lachmann which should refer to Karl Lachmann would be missing.]
Dictionaries like L&S or Georges however do not seem to have this form. Maybe they rejected it as misspelling?
With more searching "erint" as some form of "erunt" should be attestable (cp. the refs given by the mentionings) and may it be only in a few inscriptions or manuscripts.
As for the sources given in OP's post: "sint et erint" in a Latin text from 1606 in an English book could mean "are and will be". The Latin text in the Romance dictionary has "... erint .. erunt ..." which looks somewhat strange, but maybe it's explainable by time (in older times spelling varied more often).
  • CIL 4, 7989
     [Notes:   1. Published in the part Supplementi pars III: Inscriptiones Pompeianae Herculanenses parietariae et vasorum fictilium from 1952-1970?   2. Maybe also cp.: [14] ([15] has ERUNT)]
    • [Edit: For cites based on it see erint]
  • CIL 5, 6693, line 12 (Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum. Voluminis quinti pars posterior. Adiectae sunt tabulae geographicae duae – Inscriptiones Galliae cisalpinae latinae. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae edidit Theodorus Mommsen. Pars posterior inscriptiones regionum Italiae undecimae et nonae comprehendens, Berlin, 1877, p. 740):
"POTERINT" (cp. poterint which isn't mentioned in possum) is cited and with the proper CIL 4 text "ERINT" should be cited too. Without the proper CIL 4 text, the texts based on it could be used and should attest "erint". As for the note "Sabbatini Tumolesi observes that erint is likely simply a misreading for erunt": Instead of misreading (which would mean the CIL editors made an error), it could be correct representation of the inscription but be a misspelling (which would mean some ancient guy made an error) or - maybe less likely - be a non-common alt form. - - 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC), 05:49-06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)




Both created by the same user. Caucă is mentioned in DEX as a variant of cauc: 1) a type of headwear used mainly by monks (from Turkish kavuk); or, 2) (archaic and regional) a wooden cup (from Latin *cau < cavus). Nowhere is the sense of "skull" mentioned. Scaucă is found only once on a nationalistic site trying to link the word scoică (< Slavic), through a regional form scaucă, to Dacian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat delayed discovery, but scălan is also incorrectly defined. I'm starting to smell the nationalistic linguistics oozing from these entries. Am I wrong @Redboywild, @Word dewd544? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I'm not even familiar with some of these to be honest. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
scaucă is definitely not citable. The other two get a few hits on Google Books, but I'm not sure if the definitions are correct. The etymologies are pretty fishy too, only mentioning PIE and Albanian. The words seem legitimate, but they're a bit too rare to be included by our standards. (To be fair, there are some other archaic/regional words on Wiktionary that don't seem citable, for example vierșun.) Redboywild (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. I'll take a look and see what I can do to correct the definitions that exist. I'm considering deleting scaucă, though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)



-- 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 [16][17]--Zcreator (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

湯桶読み & 重箱読み[edit]

湯桶読み lists three-kanji compounds, not just two like the definition claims. It's not an ideal source, so please provide with better ones. ばかFumikotalk 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Daijirin specifically defines these reading patterns as applying to two-character compounds (「漢字二字でできている熟語」 → "compounds formed of two characters"). C.f. Daijirin entry for 湯桶読み, Daijirin entry for 重箱読み. However, Shogakukan adds a note that these labels can be used more broadly for any single compound term (for 重箱読み: 「また、広く、一語の漢字熟語を音訓まぜて読むことにもいう。」 → "Also, broadly, used to describe readings of single-term kanji compounds read with a mixture of on-kun.").
Notably, the example terms with three kanji listed in the JA WP articles for ja:w:湯桶読み and ja:w:重箱読み all appear to be instances of an existing two-kanji compound read with on or kun and either prefixed or suffixed with another term with the opposite reading pattern. Some cases are what I would consider a multi-word term, like 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) or 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), and as multi-word terms, these would not be either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
(The 等幅 (tōhaba, fixed-width) portion of 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) is itself read with the 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) pattern, but the entire term 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) cannot be considered as either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) -- especially so given the inclusion of borrowed katakana term フォント (fonto, font), which by very definition cannot be either on or kun).
However, some of the example terms include rendaku, indicating that these three-kanji compounds could be considered as integral words and not multi-word terms, such as 冬景色 (fuyu-geshiki, winter view, winter scene) or 雪化粧 (yuki-geshō, snow covering; to be covered in snow), and as such, the reading patterns for these could be considered as 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
I will rework the 湯桶読み and 重箱読み entries to clarify the definitions and to add usage notes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • First, most sources you frequently cite also make faulty claims, such as a Portuguese term as *Olanda, so I would take them with a huge grain of salt, and if I spoke Japanese, I would seek something, well, more linguistic than some dictionaries that might favor prescriptiveness over descriptiveness, or be outdated and therefore not reflect the true current status of the language (which they do seem like they do and are). Second, the way you divide words into smaller parts seems arbitrary; I've read a romanization guideline that would do very differently based on kanji count, but then with various exceptions. It doesn't help that Japanese doesn't use spaces to separate words, so it's very tricky to determine whether a morpheme is free or bound, whether it should be separated from other parts with spaces or not. I've been following a way that more or less resembles that guideline I've read (based on kanji count), factoring word-medially only processes such as rendaku or renjo. ばかFumikotalk 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You asked for better sources than Wikipedia. I provided several widely published monolingual Japanese dictionaries: Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Daijirin, Daijisen, and Shinmeikai.
As you note, these sources sometimes include mistakes. Importantly, mistakes such as the derivation of Japanese オランダ (Oranda, Holland) arise from misunderstandings of non-Japanese languages. These sources are quite solid when it comes to describing the Japanese language itself.
By your own self-description, you don't read Japanese. I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to judge the quality of monolingual Japanese resources.
Regarding romanization and word chunking, you're correct that rendaku and renjō are both important factors to consider. However, in the absence of these, I'm not sure how kanji count would factor into things, unless one is combining a simple count of kanji with an awareness of the underlying vocabulary. Probably most kanji-spelled integral terms are two characters in length. However, some are three characters long (天婦羅 (tenpura, tempura)), and some are only one character long ( (me, eye)). In 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), for instance, it helps to know that (te, hand) is an independent term, and 榴弾 (ryūdan, explosive round, explosive shell) is an independent term, but that *手榴 (*teryū, literally hand + pomegranate) is not a term. With this knowledge, we can tell that this is a compound of (te) and 榴弾 (ryūdan). This compound exhibits no sandhi (rendaku or renjō), the two portions have different reading types, the two portions are also used as independent terms, and the semantics are also clear as the two concepts put together as “hand” + “explosive shell / grenade”. Given all of these factors, it makes sense to render this in romaji with the space as two separate terms.
If you have a link to that romanization guideline, I'd be interested in reading it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Eirikr (except for the romaji part, I think, but I'm not sure how romaji is relevant to this RFV discussion). —suzukaze (tc) 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

f-o, f-lo[edit]

f-ino is already falling out of use, but those male abbreviations have never really been used... I doubt they can be properly sourced. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they're not common. I suspect most speakers have always used sinjoro (s-ro) instead, due to influence from languages like English and Spanish. I think I've seen f-lo somewhere, but I don't remember where, and I can't find anything on Tekstaro or Google Books. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


For inflection/gender.
"Ex Bibliopolio Hafniensi" doesn't indicate inflection or gender, and the etymology would rather imply a neuter bibliopōlīon or bibliopōlīum (long i for Greek ει) instead of masculine bibliopōlius. Also it seems that in Classical Latin -εῖον (-eîon) more often becomes -ēum than -īum.

  • bibliopolium does exist, and does also occur in a few older dictionaries (just search with GB for "bibliopolium, i, n.") although dictionaries aren't sufficient for en.wt.
  • bibliopolion, though not sufficient for en.wt, is mentioned in Verba barbara Ex Calepini, Passeratii, Stephani, & Fabri Lexicis expulsa: "Bibliopolion, [Greek], locus ubi libi venduntur, [Romance]". It does also appear in other books, but rarely.
  • bibliopoleum does occur in dictionaries and rarely elsewhere too.

- 14:25, 21 November 2017

bibliopolium does now exist. - 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


see e.g.




simply entering 'bibliopolio' in google books will yield many examples of prints

@Luitist: Please see WT:RFVN#bibliopolius above. As it was pointed out there, dative or ablative bibliopolio alone doesn't attest a masculine bibliopolius. Maybe the entry should simple be moved (for which WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits might be helptful). - 10:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking on Google Books, I mostly find bibliopolius as a mention in bibliographies of a bibliopolius Hahnianus (in the nominative; note that nominative bibliopolium Hahnianum is also attested) and a handful of sporadic mentions elsewhere in the nominative. However, I find nothing in actual Latin text: all these mentions seem to be in English texts, mostly bibliographies. On the other hand, bibliopolium is exceedingly common in the nominative judging by Google Books hits, also in Latin texts. If bibliopolius is to be kept at all, and it is not clear to me that it should be, I think it should at most be an alt-form entry linking to bibliopolium, which seems to be the main form. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 03:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Luckily, mistakes in English bibliographies and books don't attest anything for Latin. - 07:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Short story shorter: The source (for which see talk) is (Middle) French and not Latin.
Short story more complete: The author, François Rabelais, was a French French author (he was from France and wrote in French, more precisely Middle French), and the source given at talk is from Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel (livre II, chapitre VII), which is a French work (maybe see w:François Rabelais, w:Gargantua and Pantagruel for more). So "antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes" in it is either (Middle) French or just a mentioning and no usage. Both is not sufficient for attesting a Latin term even for Latin being a LDL (WT:CFI, WT:About Latin#Attestation). By the context, it should be the title of a fictious book (context: "... libraire ... livres ... desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire", in a Germanic translation by Gottlob Regis: "Die Liberey ... mit etlichen Büchern ..., von denen hie das Befundregister folget ..."). Thus the requirements of WT:CFI#Fictional universes could apply.
Additionally, the cite in entry could be incorrect - at least in later editions it is "Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium" (2nd word's beginning with a lower-case m). - 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's long enough unattested and discussion has set long enough to get RFV failed. Now the language is changed and citations are properly given.
Some further editions and cites:
  • 16th century, François Rabelais.
    • In: Les œuures de M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine, contenans la vie, faicts & dicts Heroiques de Gargantua, & de sonfilz Panurge: Auecla Prognostication Pantagrueline, 1553, page 248 & 253 & 255 (in chapter VII of Le second livre des faicts et dicts Heroiques du bon Pantagruel, compose par M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine. Reueu & corrigé pour la seconde edition):
      Et touua la librairie de sainct Victor fort magnificque, mesmement d'aucuns liures qu'il y trouua, desquelz sensuit le repertoire, & primo. [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ia impriméz, & les autres l'on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.
    • In: Œuvres de Rabelais collationnées pour la première fois sur les éditions originales accompagnées d'n commentaire nouveau par MM. Burgaud des Marets et Rathery. Seconde édition. Tome premier, Paris, 1870, page 342 & 349 & 352 (in Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel, livre II, chapitre VII):
      Et touva la librairie de Saint Victor fort magnifique, mesmement d'aucuns livres qu'il y trouva, desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire, et primo : [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ja imprimés, et les autres on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.
    • The Works of Francis Rabelais, M. D. In Five Books. Vol. II. Now carefully revised, and compared throughout with the late new Edition of M. Le du Chat, By Mr. Ozell. Who has likewise added at the Bottom of the Pages, a Translation of the Notes, Historical, Critical, and Explanatory, of the said M. du Chat, and Others: In which Notes, never before printed in English, the Text is not only explained, but, in Multitudes of Places, amended, and made conformable to the first and best Editions of this learned and facetious Athor, Dublin, 1738, page 7337 & 55 & 67 (2nd book, chapter VII):
      In his Abode there he went to see the Library of St. Victor, very magnificent, especially in Books which were there, of which followeth the Catalogue. Et primò. [...] (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium. [...] Of which Library some Books are already printed and the rest are now at the Press, in this noble City of Tubinge.
      (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium.] It is in some Editions Merdicantium, which inclines M. D. C. to think our Author designates the Physicians by the barbarous Terms of their Profession.
    • Rabelais Gargantua and Pantagruel Translated into English by Sir Thomas Urquhart and Peter le Motteux annis 1653–1694 With an Introduction by Charles Whibley. Volume I, London, 1900, page 222 & 225 & 227 (2nd book, chapter VII):
      In his abode there he found the Library of St. Victor, a very stately and magnifick one, especially in some books which were there, of which followeth the Repertory and Catalogue, Et primò, [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribationes toordicantium. [...] Of which library some books are already printed and the rest are now at the presse, in this noble city of Tubinge.
    • Meister Franz Rabelais Gargantua und Pantagruel aus dem Französischen verdeutscht, mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen, den Variaten des zweyten Buchs von 1533, auch einem noch unbekannten Gargantua herausgegeben durch Gottlog Regis. Erster Theil, Leipzig, 1832, page 208 & 212 & 214 (2nd book, 7th chapter):
      Die Liberey zu Sanct Victor fand er sehr herrlich versehen, insonderheit mit etlichen Büchern so er da vorfand, von denen hie das Befundregister folget, et primo: [...] Antipericatametanaparbuzidiamphicribrationes mendicantium. [...] Von denen etliche bereits gedruckt sind, und die übrigen soeben unter der Preß befindlich zu Tübingen der guten Stadt.
Other older french editions are (16th ct.), (late 16th ct.), (17th ct.) and (18th ct.).
- 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This actually passed RFV before. The way I see it -- the word is part of a phrase that is obviously Latin, albeit inserted into a Middle French text, which should count well enough as a cite still imo: we count mentions of a Vandalic phrase in a Latin text as a proper source for a good part of Category:Vandalic lemmas, and I have no idea why we should be more nitpicky here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 03:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
As for "obviously Latin": IMO it's not "obviously Latin", cp. the etymology section's "where does the '-beuged-' part come from?". It could also be some pseudo-Latin French, some non-Latin Dog Latin. And considering pseudo-borrowings like pseudo-anglicisms it could also be a Middle French pseudo-latinism.
As for "passed RFV before": It can happen that a term incorrectly passes RFV, e.g. with some cited mentionings or doubtful cites which could be usages or mentionings. Also, maybe the WT:CFI rules were different back than. Nowdays at least the Middle French usage isn't enough to attest a non-Middle-French term. But I've no problem with having it as Middle French which it now is. Middle French is a LDL, the term is attested with a Middle French usage, and Latin-like words are nothing extraordinary (Category:English terms borrowed from Latin for example has some Latin-like words with proper Latin spelling and ending, and sometimes the terms did exist in Latin).
As for Vandalic: This is different from Latin and can't really be compared as Vandalic is an ancient Trümmersprache.
(Most terms in Category:Vandalic lemmas were sourced with a single mentioning in "De conviviis barbaris", and it seems there is no "list of materials deemed appropriate" (WT:CFI#Number of citations) for Vandalic. ATM these terms might fail an RFV if there were one, but alternatively the source could simple be added to a to-be-created list (similar to WT:About Latin#Attestation). With Vandalic being an ancient Trümmersprache, there pretty much are only two options: Accept mentions including the ones in "De conviviis barbaris", or remove Vandalic from Wiktionary (at least from the main namespace). The only non-reconstructed Vandalic entry not sourced with "De conviviis barbaris" is -riks. And problems regarding that entry were already pointed out at Talk:-riks (obviously, nobody cared...). Comparing en:w:Genseric ("reconstructed Vandalic: *Gaisarīks") and Reconstruction:Vandalic/Gaisareiks and also -riks some things seem contradicting. The Latin variant is said to be -ricus, also -rix. Ferdinand Wrede (1886) has -rîx and -rix, with the former probably being reconstructed but not marked as such and the later being a German form of the reconstruction (besides the Latin-German in -ricus and the German-German in -rich). Google results hint that Gaisareiks is (reconstructed) Gothic. My guess would be that Reconstruction:Vandalic/Gaisareiks and Reconstruction:Vandalic/Hildireiks might be wrong, and that -riks might be wrong/misleading/confusing, with Geiseric being an English name. Of course, -riks could be wrong too, and could be an unmarked reconstruction missing the * and |head=-rīks. Maybe these three should be RFVed.)
-07:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]


Rfv-sense: condom. Google seems to be giving something else. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This can refer to condoms, as well as other items/devices. Wyang (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


The conjugation tables make no sense: if it's only found in Late Latin, then why are we labelling one of the conjugations "Classical"? The fourth conjugation paradigm probably never existed anyway; the only one for which there is some limited evidence is the first conjugation one (chiefly indirect evidence, i.e. the Romance descendants). {{R:Gaffiot}} only has the form inodiatus; Du Cange doesn't have anything. Should we move it in the Reconstructed name space? --Barytonesis (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

L&S too only have "ĭnŏdĭātus, a, um, adj. [...] Not. Tir. p. 77." Georges however has "in-odio, ātus, āre [...], Vulg. exod. 5, 21 cod. Lugd. Carm. epigr. 1606, 14 Buecheler. Not Tir. 46, 89 (inodiatus). Vgl. Landgraf in Wölfflins Archiv 12, 150."
  • The "cod." (codex, manuscript) isn't a good source, but it is a source and the reading might also appear in some (old) printed editions. But of course this source would require a usage note.
  • Buecheler (Anthologia latina sive poesis latinae supplementum ediderunt Franciscus Buecheler et Alexander Riese. Pars posterior. Carmia epigraphica conlegit Franciscus Buecheler. Fasciculus II Lipsia, 1897, p. 772f., IA) has "inodiari". It could depend on reading or edition though, in which case a usage note would have to be added. In any case it should be sufficient to attest more than just the participle/adjective.
    PS: Buecheler gives "CIL. VIII suppl. 13134" as source and states "14 inodiari nooum, adduci in odium". CIL. VIII suppl. I, 13134 (1891, p. 1330) has "inodiari" too. Hence it should be attested (well, at least when giving the source and the text in the entry).
As for the CL/LL stuff: If the CL forms don't get attested, they should be removed. If the forms get attested as ML/NL, then the entry has to get changed. - 10:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: are you sure about the original conjugation you put there, and which is now labelled as "Classical Latin" since this edit? I think that's the most dubious part of the entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs, and that it didn’t matter how old or new a Latin term had to be to demand the classical conjugation. Remove whatever you want. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: "I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs": they do (maybe they shouldn't, but that's another issue). It's just that it has to be the right conjugation! And to be fair, it's not you but Aearthrise would added the qualifier "Classical"; thus it's his edit which doesn't make sense–even though he added the right conjugation table in the process. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(literally) a red wolf". —suzukaze (tc) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(literally) a black-feathered bird". —suzukaze (tc) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, C.f. Daijisen and Daijirin entries, stating 「羽毛の黒い鳥」/「羽の黒い鳥」. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


This passed in 2008 without a single citation being added. Per the entry itself, it seems that jousent is a deliberately nonstandard form of jouent (ils/elles jousent) but that it's from the verb jouer not jouser. Google Books does seem to find two dictionaries that have it, but no uses (and they should be putting it under jouer too). Though there does seem to be an English word jouser, possibly too rare to work out the meaning. 21:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


adjective: akimbo —suzukaze (tc) 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. google:"腕がアキンボ" gets one hit. google:"アキンボで" gets 2,070 ostensible hits, collapsing to 97 when paging through. However, the usage seems weird, and the meaning doesn't seem to be what our entry says. For example, one post is talking about a video game glitch, stating 「アキンボで走るときに」 (akinbo de hashiru toki ni, “when running akimbo”). That sounds super weird to me, and makes me think that this アキンボ is not just a borrowing from English akimbo. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This Yahoo answer pretty much explains it. It is apparently a borrowing from English akimbo, but its usage seems to be limited in the context of FPS games. Searching "アキンボ" on Japanese Wikipedia also confirms this. Nardog (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Nardog. The usage does appear to be more along the lines of "with pistols in both hands at the ready", similar to 二丁拳銃 (nichō kenjū, literally “two pistols”). For others here, the Yahoo link above describes how the term appears to be purely a gaming term, and pretty much exclusive to the Call of Duty first-person-shooter game. The poster there theorizes that the term came into vogue because of the game, and from a misunderstanding that "hands on one's hips" was more about gunslingers ready to draw their guns, and from there to having pistols in both hands.
It's clear the アキンボ (akinbo) entry needs reworking. I have other duties keeping me busy today, and possibly for the rest of the week, so I won't be tackling that soon. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


(not the "pond turtle" sense)

@Fumiko Take's edit on プリン (Purin) gave me some frustration.

The only reliable source for Squirtle (as in the Pokémon) is Daijisen Plus, in my opinion. The CFI says it is considered a person (the character sense), but this is another language, does it still apply and need the citations? --POKéTalker (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In terms of inclusion, maybe we could have Pokemon be derived terms, but without a wikilink. —suzukaze (tc) 05:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


Same as with sauren above: IMO, oxygen is the base form, oxygenen is one of the inflected forms, and the inflected forms of oxygenen are nonsense. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • But oxygen is English. It can't be an inflected form of Oxygen because of the capitalisation. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a basic German adjective entry for oxygen - don't know how it inflects. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


It seems to be only used as a prefix derived from German schwieger-, see sviger- (Bokmål) and sviger- (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sviger isn't listed as a separate word in the DDO either, but looking at “svigerbarn” in Den Danske Ordbog it can be seen that it is effectively a prefix in Danish too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not familiar with sviger being used as a stand-alone word in Danish. DDO not listing Danish sviger- is an error of omission; it's still being expanded, and as of the November 10 update they have less than 100 K lemmas (still way ahead of us, though).__Gamren (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gamren: Would svigerfamilie be used instead for in-laws? DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I don't know a word for a single relative by marriage, though, except maybe indgift.__Gamren (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought so, svigerfamilie is exactly the same in Norwegian, which is no great surprise. As for indgift, it also seems to mean intermarried (within the same family); that's how I interpret the verb indgifte too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


"Cantonese: virtuous". —suzukaze (tc) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This character has previously drawn my interest. The definition suggests this character may be - if it fits the attestation criteria - a (very unorthodox) variant of 賢. But I has little resources. Hope someone can investigate into this and figure out what's the story. Dokurrat (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The definition is based on 汉语方言大词典, which cites 木鱼书《蔡伯喈琵琶记》: “蔡公醒后长吁气,叫声~媳好伤心。” I wonder if there are any other 木鱼书 that has this character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


झ़ (ža) is a totally artificial letter that is never used. I doubt this can be cited. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)



"home page". —suzukaze (tc) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ホームページ often connotes something different than "home page" as it can mean "web page" or "website", but 主ページ is not such a word. SoP at best, delete both as far as Japanese is concerned. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)



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)


Dutch, RFV-sense of: (slang) use of the word to say someone is hot in an attractive way 1. Is this attested? 2. Is this really used as a noun? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

( Might be something like de:porno (adj., colloquial youth slang). - 20:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC) )
If it's attested, it probably wouldn't be a noun. But I've never heard of this, so it's likely not used in Randstad slang. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I've retracted the RFV, it seems attestable as an adjective in phrases like "echt porno" and "helemaal porno". Perhaps it's mostly internet slang? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Not a French word; always found italicised in historical discourse, as far as I can tell. A few examples: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I'm looking for non-italicised instances. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Per utramque cavernam Hmm, do we not count italicized instances? I'm inclined to say we should, for the simple reason that a user might come across the word in a French context and want to know what it means. Sometimes italicization is used like quotes (e.g. "An oriented curve is said to be simple if such and such"), but these authors seem to italicize compulsorily, but otherwise use the word normally (and mostly as part of fixed expressions like ager vectigalis and ager publicus, but that's a different story). Are you worried about extreme duplication?__Gamren (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gamren: I don't know; I think italicisation should count for something, but it's not necessarily prohibitive either. User:Sgconlaw has summed up my position pretty well here.
In the present case however, I've no doubt the French section should be deleted; and if non-italicised instances do exist (which remains to be seen), I'm not sure I would even want to count them as valid. The reader is reading a book about ancient Rome; don't you think he'll naturally assume there's some Latin in there? Won't he spontaneously look in a Latin dictionary rather than a French one? Imo, thinking otherwise is treating people like idiots, and it ultimately makes us look like fools. Per utramque cavernam 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Volapük: "Of or relating to a mole cricket or mole crickets." —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for female tiger cub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for male tiger cub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for female mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for male mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one has ever used Volapük to write about mole crickets, but it was deemed necessary to have things like this that spell out in detail exactly how many angels can dance on that specific pin. With a modular, completely regular constructed language like this, it almost seems like we should treat the derived forms as SOP, since anyone who knows one form can construct all the others by purely mechanical application of a known set of morphemes to a transparently-derived root. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Roots aren't completely transparently derivable in Esperanto, and I doubt so in Volapük. kolego is one example of a root word and another affixed root colliding. Jokes about financo(finance) being fi-(shameful) and *nanco abound, as well. I think Lojban and company are about the only languages that desired and achieved purity in that sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't completely transparent in Volapük either; compare jipul (girl, ji- + pul) and jipül (lamb, jip + -ül). And I think that the fact that a word with a gender prefix is attestable is noteworthy and useful lexical information for Volapük. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): “(Internet, Brazil) Abbreviation of o que.” — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]


Tagged but not listed. --Gente como tú (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for “multi-medal-winning”. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

cordon d'un nouvieau-né[edit]

"umbilical cord" in Norman; literally "cord of a newborn", SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's correct I'd keep it, in the same way as umbilical cord. DonnanZ (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Another thing: if French is anything to go by, this doesn't look/sound natural at all. It just looks like a clumsy neologism. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. All I can find is a mention here. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

societe-jersiaise.org ([23], [24]) has it. It's just a mentioning and not durably archived, but could be the source for the entry. More entries and listed terms might be based on similar sources. preunelle dé l'yi from societe-jersiaise.org ([25], [26]) too? Printed dictionaries from societe-jersiaise.org ([27], [28], [29]) might have the terms too and might be durably archived, but still would only be mentionings and no usages. - 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


If it exists, it it surely an alt-form of -nnaaq. I found two occurrences of ikinngutinnaara "my best friend", one in an Atuagagdliutit article and one in a Jørn Riel poem, but not with the -nnar- form. I also tried searching for "favourite musician/cake/town/country/cocktail", to no avail. What are some other words that people are likely to use in connection herewith?__Gamren (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(slang) cocaine". Can someone vouch for this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It probably doesn't exist with this sense. It normally means "thing" in slang, but I don't know if that is citable. @Mnemosientje What do you think? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Euphemistically it may be used to refer to coke or other drugs but that's definitely not its regular meaning. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


Turkish. —Rua (mew) 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Is this productive? The five examples provided are direct borrowings from Greek, not Latin coinages. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

German terms ending with -thek should be from Latin and Greek or be rather recent creations like Videothek and Spielothek. The entries in Category:French words suffixed with -thèque might be rather recent creations too (though zoothèque might be older). Similary, Latin terms in -theca might be borrowings or be very recent formations difficult to attest as contemporary Latin is a LDL. yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2013/05/24/nuntii-latini (Finish Nuntii Latini, not durably archived) doesn't have anything ending in -theca or -thēca. In scientific Latin zootheca ([30] - cp. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], Oxford Dictionaries: zootheca) can be found. Would this single word be enough to attest a Latin suffix? - 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW: -isma. - 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sha [edit]

No idea of what it means. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The word means Shawinigan; clipping means that something was cut off, in this case Sha = Sha(winigan) with the part in brackets being dropped. Usage could be similar to DEN and likewise the proper spelling could be SHA. - 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ĉefŝipo [edit]

Given the etymology, one would expect it to mean something like "main ship, flagship, commanding ship", but that also seems sparsely attested. From Google Books:

    • 2015, Frans Sammut (tr. by Carmel Mallia), La Malta Revo (romantraduko en Esperanto), Mondial (ISBN 9781595690647), page 202
      Kiam mi suriris la ĉefŝipon, la akompanantaj maristoj haltis ...
      As I went aboard the main ship, the accompanying sailors halted ...

__Gamren (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition given is definitely wrong. It would be, like you said, main ship, flagship, commanding ship; my first thought was mothership, etc.. Finsternish (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, the original definition is clearly wrong. I've added a second definition with two quotes where the word refers to a ship, but I can't find a third one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Methinks the second sense is now cited. @Gamren, פֿינצטערניש, Mx. Granger ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. RFV failed for the original sense.__Gamren (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ad loc[edit]

Latin. Because of no dot it appears to be the English term (ad loc, alt form of ad loc.) created as Latin. - 11:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "plagiarism". —suzukaze (tc) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's quite common to see コピペ in reference to a plagiarism that is literally copied from a source, and not uncommon in reference related phenomena such as Rogeting. Example: [36]. Cnilep (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

あき as reading of 商[edit]

I know that read as しょう can mean “a business, a seller of goods”, and that the verb 商う (あきなう) means “to deal in, to sell”. But is the character ever read as あき, and does it then mean “the trade of goods”? Cnilep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are 商人 (あきんど, あきうど, あきゅうど, あきびと, しょうにん; "merchant") and 商物 (あきもの, "goods"), but that's probably it.[37] In both words the character indeed seems to denote business or trade. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cnilep -- In 商う (akinau, to do business), the character covers the akina- portion. However, etymologically, the root is aki plus suffix -nau, and the root appears to be what is reflected in these other terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: son — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser: Admittedly, Dungan is a poorly documented language but I can't find this sense in my mini-dictionary. It has эрзы (erzь), though, which is a cognate of 兒子儿子 (érzi). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I doubt it's used on its own in Dungan. It's really not used in any Mandarin dialects by itself to mean "son". @Lo Ximiendo, I know it's a few years back, but do you remember where you got this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: No worries, I just wanted to advise that () has this reading: зы () in Dungan but the meaning can't be confirmed. Some translations seem weird and don't match the standard Chinese, which can also be expected, e.g. нүзы (nyzь) (cognate: 女子 (nǚzǐ, “woman”)) means "daughter", щүнди (xyndi) (cognate: 兄弟 (xiōngdì, “brothers”)) means "younger brother", вонзы (vonzь) (cognate: 王子 (wángzǐ, “prince”)) means "king", however it makes wonder if the dictionary makers made a mistake or Dungan deviated from Mandarin to acquire new senses. Hard to trust these dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: There's no doubt that has this reading in Dungan, but I doubt that it is an independent word in Dungan. It's either part of a fossilized compound or a suffix. I'm not sure if we should include non-affixal bound morphemes for Dungan. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 18:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For context: this is in reference to the w:Grey Cup in Canadian football.
While rare (as Japanese folks tend not to talk much about Canadian football), it's probably citable. C.f. google:"グレーカップ" "フットポール". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]


Rfv-sense of "(transitive) to destroy, to obliterate" and "(transitive) to knock off, to strike off". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? What made you look at a page with three senses, and nominate the one with a cite by the creator of the language?--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing. I looked at three uncited senses, checked Google Books for citations, noted that two senses seemed difficult to cite and then added a cite by Zamenhof. There are evidently multiple etymologies (debat vs. de + bati) involved and I thought it was a good idea to verify the senses before splitting the section. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It's easier to RFV stuff with a little simple information about why the nominator thought these needed to be nominated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What other motivation could one have for RFV'ing something than feeling unable to cite it? Also, how is being written by Zamenhof at all relevant?__Gamren (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of shit that's been RFVed that took no time at all to cite. I could blow through Chinese, RFVing stuff left and right because it has no cites and I feel unable to cite it. I could RFV 蘋果 (apple); it has no citations and I am completely unable to cite it. It would easy to force changes in Wiktionary, or just get blocked, by RFVing all the words I am unable to cite that don't have three citations.
Citing words with multiple senses in Esperanto, a language I'm marginally familiar with, is quite tedious to me. It's part of the way the game is played, but that doesn't stop it from being frustrating. It makes it less frustrating when a nominator explains why they think it's not a real citable word and shows what work they've done, so I don't have to do all that work all over again, and I can decide whether or not it's worth my time to try and cite them. Whenever you can't be bothered to give any explanation for what you've done to search for a citation for a word, you're wasting my time, or possibly getting a perfectly citable word deleted because I couldn't afford to waste time retreading your footsteps.
How is being written by a highly respected author whose writings formed the back-bone for all later literature in the language relevant? If Zamenhof used the word that way, I'm almost certain that failure to be citable is about our lack of sources and patience in searching them, not that there's actually not two more authors who followed his lead.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It is quite possible that there are several hapax legomena in Zamenhof's writings, even if any given sense initiated by him is quite likely to have been used by other writers. And my RFV wasn't intended to cause frustration; I tend to be cautious with RFVing.
Anyway, I have added another cite, so only one more is needed for "to strike off". "To destroy" seems very likely to fail. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't really directed at you; Gamren has nominated many words for RfV without any explanation at all.
If we delete six words, three of which are hapax legomena and three of which we failed to cite because a vast quantity of Esperanto texts between 1923 and now are unscanned or kept behind copyright walls, I don't think we've improved Wiktionary. But I understand the rules of the game.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I always check whether I can cite a word before RFV'ing it. I think the fact that the words I nominate rarely get cited should demonstrate that.__Gamren (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You do a partial computer-aided check on whether you can cite a word; it would be nice to know what you did check. I'm moderately offended that you can take the time to search, but not to write a sentence to your fellow collaborators, instead dumping them out on RFV with the written versions of a grunt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Gamren does an incredible amount on rfv, especially unglamorous chores on the back end. I, for one, am too appreciative of what he does do to criticize him for leaving out information that might be helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added several quotations for the "knock off, strike off" sense. The "destroy, obliterate" sense seems weird to me and I can't find any clear citations for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


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 ([38], [39]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

antaŭĉuro [edit]

__Gamren (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


First etymology. I find nothing about this even in WNT. —Rua (mew) 19:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Morgengave Do you remember where you found this word? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
R. Reinsma, Namen op de kaart: oorsprong van geografische namen in Nederland... (2009) mentions it as a "medieval word" found in placenames: "In de naam van de rivier de Merwede zitten de woorden meer (hier in de betekenis 'moerassig water') en wede, een middeleeuws woord voor 'bos' (verwant met woud). De Merwede moet dus lang geleden een kruising van een moeras en een bos zijn geweest, met de nadruk op bos." ("In the name of the river Merwede the words are meer (here in the meaning 'swampy water') and wede, a medieval word for 'forest' (akin to woud). The Merwede must have been a crossing of a swamp and a forest long ago, with the emphasis on forest."
I have not yet found any examples in running text. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


I managed to find one use in Kontakto (and also one for ŝtonroka in Katalana Esperantisto), but there doesn't seem to be much else in durable media. There's one mention on Usenet. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I found a mention in a recent book by Sten Johansson. Interested in the Usenet mention... Finsternish (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, clarifying: I found a usage example in a recent book by Sten Johansson. I forget the terminology sometimes. Finsternish (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Finsternish Here you go: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.esperanto/FWk4_SlDIds/-_et_78s390J ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Another one that needs citing and to be moved from its determinative form. @-sche, VorziblixΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ariel M. Bagg (Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit: Die Levante) sources this form to the Iran stele about Tiglath-Pileser. But Sa-me-ri-na (𒊓𒈨𒊑𒈾) might be more common (Edward Lipiński, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar). - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 19 February 2018 (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)


Is this, allegedly the West Frisian word for Volapük, attested anywhere besides the West Frisian Wikipedia? BGC got nothin' I can find. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the only spelling I can find in use is "Volapuk" (2 uses) and "Volapük" (BGC, citable), so this spelling adaptation, introduced by one Aliter based on Frisian phonology, is nonsense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Links, pls. :-) --PiefPafPier (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
[40] [41] (for Volapük). There seem to be more attestations now than a few months ago. Volapuk can be attested on Delpher. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting the links. All of these books are from the old days, when writing West Frisian wasn't that much standardized as it is today. Also we are a few spelling reforms further now: (fy)Fryske stavering. (The last one in 2015 not mentioned in that article yet.) Pre 1980 attestations are problematic for that reason. I'm pretty sure nobody would write 'Volapuk' nowadays. It's common practice to either use the original proper noun, or to create a 'Frisian looking' phonetic translation. --PiefPafPier (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't have Volapuk (the superseded spelling) yet, but I've added a usage note at Volapük. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's well handled this way. Thanks again. --PiefPafPier (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Frisian here. Please realize that West Frisian is a small language, and Volapük a rarity itself. You won't find much. Folapúk is the correct translation into West Frisian. West Frisian words never start with the letter 'v'. The 'ü' sound (like in German) is always 'ú' in closed syllables in West Frisian (see tút#West_Frisian). The 'u' with a diaeresis in West Frisian is only used to avoid ambiguity in word combinations, just like in Dutch. Further you can blindly trust all entries done by Aliter in my experience. Volapuk is wrong, and Volapük is not Frisian (although it's OK to use it in a Frisian sentence). --PiefPafPier (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A single durably archived usage would be sufficient for West Frisian as it's WT:LDL and not a WT:WDL (same for East Frisian and North Frisian). Thus ""Volapuk" (2 uses)" could be attestable.
  • Indeed (relating to "small language ... You won't find much"). But correctness is not sufficient for Englisch Wiktionary, see: WT:CFI#Attestation. - 11:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@PiefPafPier I'm well aware of all of these points, but they aren't relevant to a descriptive dictionary. Folapúk, unlike Volapuk and Volapük, isn't durably attestable and it also doesn't appear in any print dictionaries. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (military, aviation) a wing (an organizational level). Italian, tagged but not listed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

On Italian Wikipedia, there are many units listed as "stormo" (plural==stormi) in w:it:Categoria:Stormi, and lists the equivalent German term as "Jagdgeschwader" (wing (w:en:Jagdgeschwader)) -- 23:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Searching for stormo with a lot of military terms or some of the batallion names on Wikipedia gives many results. In my opinion this can be closed as obviously citable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Listed in WWWJDIC (c.f. http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MMC%E7%A1%87), but I cannot find any evidence of use in Japanese. The purported Google hits that I looked into at google:"硇は" all appeared to be scannos. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine that a query for "硇は" would bring up anything since it's not a stand-alone word... Daijisen includes 硇砂 (oddly, a search for "硇砂" doesn't bring it up). —suzukaze (tc) 04:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This webpage appears to be a digitalization of an old book that mentions 硇砂. —suzukaze (tc) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you suzukaze. I should have searched for google:"硇" "は" instead.
It appears that this character only shows up in Japanese in the term 硇砂 (dōsha, sal ammoniac, ammonium chloride), which appears to be an obsolete synonym for modern 塩化アンモニウム (enka anmoniumu).
I haven't seen any evidence for the nyō reading listed in WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC (see also https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%A1%87). Can anyone tell, is this a dictionary-only reading? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

mettre en boête[edit]

To emprison in Norman. Sounds like a "mention only" word. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like SoP. Move slang "prison" sense to boête. Ultimateria (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Dutch for "wedgie", by Verbo. This looks like a complete protologism to me. People do use it as "thong, G-string" and "butt lint", but none of that looks citable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


Is the sense "gay" correct? I have no idea. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick Ctrl+F through the first result for google:tokelauan dictionary suggests that it means "glad", "happy", "gay". —suzukaze (tc) 00:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The Irish word for gay in the sense "homosexual" is aerach, which is a semantic loan from English; in other words, they took a word that had the "old" meaning of gay and applied the "new" meaning to it. It's conceivable Tokelauan did that too, but I have no way of knowing that. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


All the results in Google News are about war simulation video games and "using peacekeepers". —suzukaze (tc) 18:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "peacework". The Google results seem to be about fabrics. —suzukaze (tc) 18:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure @Mnoyi didn't mean piece work? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
It is probably "piece" but the definition at piece work doesn't match. —suzukaze (tc) 20:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: a weapon. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The meaning is only supposed by someone, but Wikipedia even have an article about it.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator alt: What it supposedly represented doesn't mean that's how it was used. We probably need to find something from the oracle bones that would support this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


For the particular senses in the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


Old Wonderfool entry. I've never seen that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


Only found on Wiktionary. I can confirm this is used, but I don't have reliable sources to prove it, due to its nature being a physically handwritten abbreviation. ばかFumikotalk 03:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is extremely common... especially in handwritten name lists and notes. I would have taken plenty of pictures to show this usage if I knew this was to be nominated for RFV, but... Wyang (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
If there are difficulties in typesetting "g̃", finding cites might be hard.
It's not the same form, but I think this book uses "Ng.": Tên tác giả: Ng. [...]suzukaze (tc) 00:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
[...] của NG. VĂN TRUNGsuzukaze (tc) 00:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


Only 69 hits on Google, mostly dictionary sites. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]


As disscussed in Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#គូត, this gonna be some kind of slang. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Both User:Stephen G. Brown and myself confirmed that this term is in Tuttle Practical Cambodian Dictionary (page 14) but verifying this term seems difficult. Note the dictionary itself is not digitised. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if there are other words meaning bottom or relations that we could compare. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
ថ្ពាល់គូថ (thpŏəl kuut) (buttocks, backside), គូថ (kuut) (buttocks; excrement), គូធ (kuut) (buttocks; excrement), គូទ (kuut) (buttocks). Why do you ask about words that mean "relations"? There are various words that mean "relations", but nothing to do with "bottom". —Stephen (Talk) 06:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I said if there are other language relations. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Besides the above, there are also ខ្ទត (khtɔɔt) (to move the buttocks), ខ្ទីត (khtiit) (to have the buttocks protruding while walking), ខ្ទុត (khtut) (to move the buttocks), ខ្ទែត (khtɛɛt) (to have prominent buttocks), គគូទ (kɔkuut) (buttocks), ចំតិត (cɑmtət) (to stick the buttocks out), ចំទយ (châmtôy) (to stick the buttocks out), គ្រហីត (krɔhəyt) (face down with the bottom sticking up). —Stephen (Talk) 06:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added the etymology and alternative forms. Perhaps only one or two can be verified. According to Sealang dictionary, គូត (kuut), គូទ (kuut), គូធ (kuut) are all variants. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80, Stephen G. Brown: The term is derived from Pali gūtha or Sanskrit गूथ (gūtha, feces), which makes sense. គូទ (kuut) gives lots of "bum" related images, plain Google hits and three Google books hits. I think we can make គូទ (kuut) the main entry and mark the others as verified. @Stephen, apparently English is Octahedron80's second language but I understand what he means. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: You have created គូថ (kuut). It's yet another alternative form of the same word. We just need to decide, which one should be the main form and which ones are alternative spellings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
គូថ is the most correct spelling compared to Pali/Sanskrit consonant group [ត ទ ធ ន] = [t th d dh n]. Thai also has คูถ in one form only. You know that Khmer words from Pali/Sanskrit almost keep original consonants. Or else, គូត & គូថ may not relate each other; I have new theory that គូត may be borrowed from Thai ตูด but they don't like to pronounce t-. --Octahedron80 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


Really? Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

en:w:Carmen Saliare (en:w:Old Latin#Corpus). But the date, meaning and etc. might need sourcing in the entry. - 21:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Varro ed. A Spengel attests cozeulodorieso (or at least *cozeulodorieso as conjecture or construction based on manuscript readings). For other issues there is WT:RFC. - 01:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

qui custodiet ipsos custodes[edit]

Appears in English and other non-Latin texts, but is it also Latin? GBS for ""qui custodiet ipsos custodes" sunt" (the alleged proverb + the word for "(they) are") brings up no result; ""qui custodiet ipsos custodes" est" (the alleged proverb + the word for "(he/she/it) is") brings up an Italian misquotation of Juvenal's satire and some English and French stuff which is not sufficient for attesting a Latin term. - 07:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This could only be a relative clause, not a question, in Latin. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, Georges states that there is a substantivally used interrogative pronoun qui. Additionally, he mentions a difference in meaning between qui (substantival pronoun) and quis (substantival pronoun), but that would not necessarily be a problem in this case. L&S seems to mention the same although not so directly. Pons still mentions a substantivally used qui but doesn't give the difference in meaning. It instead mentions a difference in usage.
  • Georges: "quī, quae, quod, I) Pron. interrog. [...] (eig. adjektivisch, öfter aber auch substantivisch, jedoch so, daß qui nach Stand u. Charakter einer Person fragt, quis nach dem Namen)".
  • L&S: "qui, quae, quod [...] pron. I Interrog. [...] (adjectively; while quis, quid is used substantively; qui, [substantivally?] of persons, asks for the character, quis usu. [= usually] for the name)"
  • Pons: "quī, quae, quod [...] b. subst., selten u. fast nur im indir. Frages." [substantivally, rare and almost only in the indirect interrogative sentence]
But possible correctness is irrelevant for existence. - 03:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


This would-be word is sometimes said to be the longest Czech word. However, I wonder whether it is attested in use rather than via mere mentions, as required by WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Searches: google books:nejneobhospodařovávatelnější, google books:nejneobhospodařovávatelnějšími. There, I only find mentions, e.g. 'delší slovo v češtině je pouze „nejneobhospodařovávatelnějšími")'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried searching for PDFs on Google web search? Most of the hits don't look like durable archived sources at all though. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I checked that search, and I see mentions, not uses, like "nejneobhospodařovávatelnější za české slovo neuznají". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Neobhospodařovávatelný has a little use; it occurs, for example, several times here in some official document. Isn’t nejneobhospodařovávatelnější its regular superlative? Should the attestation criteria be applied to such forms? Guldrelokk (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a useful find. Nonetheless, my position is that comparatives and superlatives are subject to attestation. There certainly isn't anything in WT:CFI to say otherwise. My more stringent position that each inflected form has to be attested found considerable resistance, but there was support for attestation of segments of inflected forms, such as the segment of all plurals. Thus, we should not claim a noun is countable unless that is attested, and we should not claim an adjective is comparable (gradable) unless that is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


tuhil = quail?

tenir la route[edit]

Rfv-sense "to keep one's nose clean, to stick to the straight and narrow". I'm not familiar with that sense. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nix Olympica[edit]

Entered by an anon. No sources given. DonnanZ (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Google has English results, e.g. New Scientist 24 Feb 1972. There should be enough results for an English entry. Planeten Monde Ringsysteme (1984) has it in German which could make it Translingual. As for gender, if it were Latin it would be feminine (nix), but in German it might be feminine (nix) or masculine (Schnee, Berg, Vulkan). In the provided source, gender isn't visible but hidden in "Riesenvulkan Nix Olympica", "von Nix Olympica". For Translingual terms with Mons (Category:mul:Geography), it would be easier. Though, considering other languages as well (English pretty much not having gender, French only having masculine and feminine, Danish only having common (masculine and feminine merged into one) and neutrum), it might make more sense to not have such terms as Translingual, or to have some note somewhere... - 16:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Five references can be found in the Wikipedia article on Olympus Mons, which may be enough to verify this. DonnanZ (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. This is such a famous name and feature. If you don't recognize this name, I hazard to guess you don't recognize anything in astronomy.
-- 05:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Some of these sources might have mentionings (like "it was called X", "it was named X", "old name: X") and some might not be durably archived. Mentionings would be ok for Wikipedia and also for some Wiktionaries but not for the English one (WT:CFI). Nontheless it's attestable as Translingual, there are at least three English usages (google books, "Nix Olympica", "of Nix Olympica", ...) and three German usages (also see below).
[59]/[60], [61], [62], [63] have it as masculine; [64], [65] as feminine. google gives another masculine result for "der nix olympica" but I can't see it. This might lead to a gender problem, if it stays "Translingual"... - 00:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It's been used for over 100 years, and was originally coined in Italian by an Italian astronomer. If you look at maps of Mars from the 19th and 20th century, you'll find it on them (along with canals) Anything published before 1980 is clearly not an electronic-only document (such as the scans of 1800s sources listed in multiple languages) thus was published on paper. As it became obsolete before 1980, it will not be an ephemeral electronic source term. -- 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(military) javelin". I find the leap from (1) serpent and (2) lasso to javelin quite farfetched. The contributor provided no sources, no quotes and they didn’t even bother using correct formatting, which gives me a reason to question the validity of this new sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  • jăcŭlus in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press: "jăcùlus, i, m. [...] Jaculus (sc. funis or laqueus), a sling or noose which is thrown over the horns of oxen, a lasso, Col. 6, 2, 4 (al. laquei)"
  • jăcŭlum in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press: "jăcŭlum, i, n [...] a dart, javelin"
  • Georges: "iaculum, ī, n., 1) das Geworfene, der Wurf [...] insbes., a) das Wurfnetz [...] b) der Wurfspieß"
According to these the word meaning "javelin" is neuter not masculine, and the gender of the word meaning "lasso" might be neuter too or dubious. As L&S provides only a single dubious source for the lasso sense and Georges provides more, L&S might once again be wrong.
Just noticed: The javelin sense was added with this comment: "DBG [= De bello gallico, a work by G. J. Caesar] Book 5 Chapter 45: "Has ille in iaculo illigatas effert"—"he carries forth [the letter] having been bound on his javelin". If correct, the sense is attested, but the cite doesn't reveal gender, so it might be *iaculus or *iaculum. Without any other cite proving gender, it should be ad iaculo or iaculi with a note that nom. resp. gender is unknown.
- 15:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Caesar uses the neuter in lib. 5, vide iaculum. -20:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In Livy's Histories XXVII.27, he says that "Crispino consulo, duobus iaculis icto". This is in a military context and certainly shows that "iaculis" would be translated as a "javelin". This however does not show the gender (it could be masculine or neuter). -100zuma202 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

neu [edit]

Eleven years ago, Fulup left the following comment on the talk page: "The correct Breton spelling is neuñv, not 'neu' which is just the radical of the verb neuial, to swim." So if the noun is neuñv and the verb is neuial, does neu exist at all? I assume by "radical" s/he means something like "verb stem", which might not exist in isolation. But I don't know enough Breton to check (I don't know any Breton at all despite being a Celticist). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

salma [edit]

Rfv-sense "(archaic) burden". Any evidence? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(literally) a white fox". —Suzukaze-c 00:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


Please verify. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

German superkalifragilistikexpialigetisch & supercalifragilisticexpialigetisch which were removed out of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious without RFV might be (barely) attestable... - 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
84? sarri.greek (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I was refering to diff, as the German terms might be (barely) attestable and as a proper RFV process - or a semi-proper one with terms being removed while the RFV is in progress - might be better. Examples: with k [66], [67]/[68] (mentions the figure - or character - Mary Poppins, dunno if WT:FICTION would apply), with c [69] (mentions Richard Sherman and Mary Poppins (play, movie or whatever)), [70]. - 23:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


RFV for this in modern Persian either as a name or to mean 'knowledge'. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ, Irman Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Calak, Qehath Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The entry links to a disambig page on the Persian wikipedia which only lists place-names in California and Arizona, and a bunch of car models. There are other American place-names that come up in search that just aren't listed on that disambig. Seems not to mean any of the things our entry says it does, but I could be wrong. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 12:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No usage in Persian language (modern or classic) except as a female given name (in modern Persian). It is a learned borrowing from Avestan, see Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/witˢtás for more.--Calak (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "falafel". (@Tooironic) —Suzukaze-c 01:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the verification request? Is this not the Chinese name for falafel? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't think it is. Falafel is not usually made of tofu, so it would be weird that it's called 炸豆腐丸子. It might be something similar to it in Chinese cuisine. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I note on Baidu it is a Chinese snack from Shandong. It seems I was mislead by the dictionaries in this case, of which many list this as a legitimate translation of falafel. Unfortunately I haven't found any common translation for the term as of yet. Can anyone assist? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have found 炸鷹嘴豆泥球. It seems legit. Adding now. Thanks for finding this error (@Suzukaze-c). ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: 炸鷹嘴豆泥球 seems to be quite uncommon (only 1 hit in Google Books and 35 hits in Google Search). 法拉費 might be better. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes you're right. After a bit of searching on Baidu and Taobao, 鹰嘴豆泥球 seems to be the common term, as well as 法拉費. Making changes now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


It does seem to mean "fall" in Thanh Hoa dialect, although I haven't found reference to it doing so in Nghe Tinh dialects. ばかFumikotalk 08:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "stay, stop".__Gamren (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


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)


Spanish entry doubted by Otra cuenta105. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no cites for this or plúot. I say delete both. Ultimateria (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, exactly one cite for pluot. Ultimateria (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Spanish entry doubted by Otra cuenta105. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

don't English me, I'm not school[edit]

Is this actually Cebuano, or is it English? Is it attested as either? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Only 58 hits on Google. It is non-standard to use the prefix vir- for words that are not about animals. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I found a second quotation, but I can't find a third one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


One hit on Usenet,[71] nothing on Google Books, doesn't seem to be used in magazines. @Mx. Granger, who might be able to cite this. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No luck, I'm afraid. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Nothing in Google Books for the forms I searched for. Ultimateria (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good, but it's regional slang (El Salvador) and less likely to be found in books. Some examples of use can be found here. —Stephen (Talk) 04:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
paletón is citeable, but I still don't find any common verb forms for paletonear on this site. Ultimateria (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's odd. It's not used on that page. My eyes must be playing tricks on me. Here are a few places where I found paletonear:
termbank.com —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


The form mogool is in itself just a fairly rare misspelling/eye dialect spelling of mongool and I'm not sure it should be on here (it's not distinct from the latter in meaning), but this particular derivate seems positively impossible to attest. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this entry can be killed. Mogolisch might be attestable as an obsolete variant of Mongolisch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Seems to be a hypothetical connector between Latin and Spanish but unciteable. Ultimateria (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a Vulgar Latin or Old Spanish reconstruction?
  • google's preview for [72] gives: "Por analogía con algún sufijo, especialmente -ero < -ariu: stórea > storia > * estoira > * estuera".
  • [73]/[74]: "Stoja, it., sp. estera für estuera ..."
  • [75]: "Lat. storea (storia) wurde mit Umlaut und Syncope des e (i) estuera, daraus estera." -21:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, obsolete form of hambre. Ultimateria (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Variant form of 欺. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Spanish. Eye dialect of caballo. Ultimateria (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for watermelon. Only appears in a few lists of synonyms for watermelon in cookbooks. Ultimateria (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderfolly. delete --Genecioso (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Romanian. It's defined as a noun meaning a style of architecture, but all Google Books hits are forms of the adjective parametric and have nothing to do with architecture. See also the RFV discussion at Talk:parametricism. Redboywild (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a Pocket Monster". —Suzukaze-c 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, what's in question, this is clearly in widespread use. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

vive la différence[edit]

Not used idiomatically in French, AFAIK; see this, for example. Similar case to toujours perdrix. --Per utramque cavernam 23:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Hakka) will. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Taiwan) Used in personal names. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rfv failed. Dokurrat (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Taiwan) Used in personal names. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rfv failed. Dokurrat (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Chinese section. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Rfv failed. Dokurrat (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


RFV for reading utsuto. Included in ja.wiktionary. —Suzukaze-c 04:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I sure can't find any support for this reading.
I find this spelling in both Weblio (in various sources) and [https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%86%A8%E6%96%97-112174 Kotobank (also multiple sources), but other than the JA Wiktionary included in Weblio's hits, no one lists any reading except のし (noshi).
Weblio has nothing at all for うつと (utsuto), and only the unrelated adverb for うっと (utto). Likewise, Kotobank has nothing for うつと (utsuto) and only the adverb for うっと (utto).
The JA Wikipedia article only lists the のし (noshi) reading for Japanese, mentioning:


Note that this says 「熨斗」は, indicating that this is (the Japanese rendering of) the Chinese term. Compare modern Min Nan reading ut-táu. I suspect that the JA Wiktionary editor was confused by this, as also suggested by their apparent misspelling of the kana -- the JA WP says ウット (utto), whereas the JA WT says ウツト (utsuto), and the editor of our Japaneses entry must have followed suit.
If we can find any evidence for this term actually used in JA with the utto reading, we should clarify the sense, as this seems restricted to JA contexts talking about ZH culture and language, where this reading refers to the iron used to press clothing. Our senses for the noshi reading are lacking, both at the Japanese 熨斗 entry and at the linked English noshi entry. Modern JA noshi is either short for 火熨斗 (hinoshi, traditional clothing iron, literally fire + pressing, smoothing), or refers to a kind of origami, sometimes even just a printed picture or stamp of the origami pattern, or in extremely abbreviated instances even just the two hiragana spelling out のし (noshi), as explained in more detail at the JA WP article. The dried abalone is generally omitted in modern usage, which isn't clear from either our JA or EN entries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Entered by new user @Twinkymommy, replaced with {{d}} by @Suzukaze-c without a given reason.__Gamren (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Asdfqwertypkfynzsgj doesn't inspire confidence. —Suzukaze-c 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Entered by new user @Twinkymommy, replaced with {{d}} by @Suzukaze-c without a given reason.__Gamren (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Is attestable. books.google.com/books?id=_SRoAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA348 with a text from Tirol: "So löbt dönn wohl, öß griana Waada!" with translations öß = ihr, Waada = Weiden. However, this doesn't attest the label. BTW 1: Text also has önk = euch, mar = wir. BTW 2: "öß" does also mean "is" in some (other German) dialects. BTW 3: There are also mentionings like books.google.com/books?id=UK9TAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA75 , which, if refering to a Bavarian dialect, would be sufficient as Bavarian is an LDL. BTW 4: See also ös, es. -00:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, alt form of horchata. Ultimateria (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I can only find use on Google Books in Catalan. The creator only made a few entries, none of much quality. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]


Rfv-sense ‘saepe trans finem iaculo nobilis expedito’ Horace, 1.8.12 a noble (man) with the javelin (which he easily) dispatched across the finish

See the above discussion beginning on 27 April 2018. -23:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Senses 4 ("argumenative") and 5 ("pagan"). Benwing2 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC) BTW a couple of examples that appear to mean "pagan" (and this is how Google Translate renders it):

  1. [76]: "Национализм племенной язычен. Это не игра слов, напоминающая о том, что "язык" некогда значило народ, племя. Он язычен, как противухристианское понятие. Поэтому в христианской морали ему нет места, степени, графы".
  2. [77]: ... Владимир был язычнее самого Соломона из Ветхого завета. Следует согласиться, что число жен, а соответственно, и сыновей завышено, но пока неизвестно насколько. Мы считаем, что первая часть сообщения4 о посылке ...

Benwing2 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)



See Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/June#Abu_(ISO:ado)_lemmas: it seems that these are not in fact the words for "bird and "ear" in either of the two languages which are most commonly called Abu, and it's not clear what language, if any, they are words (for "bird" and "ear") in. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's almost right. The Abu language of Papua New Guinea (also called Adjora, Adjoria, Auwa, Azao, Sabu). See rosettaproject. I can't read most of the file types available, but I can read part of ado.txt:
bird: ungkara (uŋkara)
bone: gaar (gaːr)
breast: oncë (oncÉ™)
ear: kur
father: cas
he/she: më (mÉ™)
mouth: kamaŋka (kamangku)
thou: uɲi
tree: kɨ (kï) (kɨ = kɨ ?)
we: aɲi (a-nyi) (aɲi = aɲi ?)
you: u-nyi —Stephen (Talk) 06:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

café para todos[edit]

We had a RFD that said: 'This phrase is not defined properly. Its meaning is different in Spanish. Also, the definition is not very clear'

Is this attested in the given meaning? Entry created by Wonderool, tagged for RFD by Pkbwcgs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Literally, "coffee for all". There are plenty of attestations. It's a phrase used in Spain and it means that all regions of the country (Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country, Andalusia, Cantabria, Castile-Leon, Extremadura, Murcia, Valencia, Castile-La Mancha, Madrid, Aragon, La Rioja, Catalonia, Navarre, Balearic Islands, Ceuta, Melilla, and the Canary Islands) will be "served the same", i.e., that all nationalities and regions of Spain will accede to self-government in roughly the same degree. —Stephen (Talk) 05:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Catalan, alt form of síndria. Ultimateria (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: what. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've seen this use before. Found some on a quick search: [78][79][80][81]. Wyang (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)





英语 瓦特 什么意思? 什么

Also, used by a Chinese person in a wechat chat —This unsigned comment was added by Geographyinitiative (talkcontribs) at 06:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC).

@Wyang: Thanks for finding those, but I don't know if those can be considered durably archived. The "clearly widespread use" can't be applied here AFAICT. @Geographyinitiative:, please see WT:CFI... Baidu Zhidao is an unreliable source and anyhow, it would not help here in RFV, where we're looking for actual usage. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Volapük for "snake meat". It seems hyperspecific and nothing on BGC, Usenet or WS. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Spanish. Seems to appear only in dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

lafo kupolo[edit]

Esperanto compounds don't work like this. If the term exists, it would have to be lafa kupolo, lafokupolo, or lafkupolo, not "lafo kupolo". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, English and Scots are the only languages I know that allow this kind of compound noun (though I'm sure there are lots; can anyone make a list?). I previously found two such words added by the same editor.__Gamren (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Abeodan, Ablendan[edit]

Removed with the comment "unsourced nonsense". —This unsigned comment was added by DTLHS (talkcontribs) at 4:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC).

Problematic entries got UtherPendrogn banned so 🤷 —Suzukaze-c 09:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That and being confrontational, aggressive and unwilling to accept criticism... Knowing Uther, I'm sure it really is unsourced nonsense, but having someone we don't know come in and remove big chunks of entries without discussion beforehand isn't much better. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


initialism — 06:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Catalan for bachata. Ultimateria (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Aragonese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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)


Last time I RFVed this entry, it was Latin, and other editors decided to keep it, but as Translingual (see Talk:mume). I am now sending it back to RFV, because it has never been cited in any language. It is only used as a specific epithet for one species, Prunus mume. This is only one cite, so the best course of action would be to have Prunus mume no longer link to mume, and explain the etymology on that page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "flag, a symbol of a group such as a country". —Suzukaze-c 04:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That is フラッグ, not フラグ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Ditto Shinji's comment. I've only encountered short-form フラグ (furagu) in computing contexts. Long-form フラッグ (furaggu) with the gemination is what I'm used to seeing for the "national symbol" sense, but then the terms (hata) or 国旗 (kokki) are more common. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


It doesn't exist. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Rfv failed. @Wyang, Justinrleung: Would you like to delete this entry? Dokurrat (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Anatoli. Wyang (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for "model (person)", from English. Ultimateria (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: having a giant heart. I would say grandkora for this sense. In my experience korega means "heartfelt". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


Moved from RFD.__Gamren (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Spanish, to remove the lactose from. The participles exist and should be classified as adjectives, but the verb forms don't seem to. Ultimateria (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(as opposed to complex kanji) simple". —Suzukaze-c 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a sense, nor are Obunsha, Kenkyusha, or Shogakukan dictionaries. Possibly a misunderstanding of (something like) this from 大辞泉: 「ひらがな(平仮名)。仮名の一。漢字の草体から作られた草仮名(そうがな)をさらに簡略化したもの。」 (Hiragana. A type of kana. Derived from sōgana cursive-style kanji and further simplified.) Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The strange thing is that it was added here by @Bendono, who seems to have made a lot of great edits. —Suzukaze-c 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I wrote that. No offense intended, but you need better dictionaries. Those single volume dictionaries are aimed at everyday life and leave out far more than they actually include. You can confirm this sense in 日本国語大辞典--which even includes citations--that I will quote:
*洒落本・金錦三調伝(1783)「いやならいやとひらかなで」 Bendono (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the quotes and usage, I might suggest an edit to the gloss given of just “simple”: perhaps “simple terms” would better convey the sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]



  1. Frai, usage of using French word mixed with Thai word.

I've also rfved Frai- neither seems to exist, and the IP who created this is notorious for edits with no basis in reality. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

hileon, hileonül, jileon, jileonül[edit]

Volapük words for male and female lions and cubs. Nothing useful on WikiSource and BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Volapük words for unusual meats[edit]

leonamit, lepamit, mevamit, mugamit, piakamit, räkunamit, ratamit, sebradamit, stägülamit, strutamit, strutülamit, svanamit, svinülamit, tigridamit, yatamit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


Because while the IP is not formatting the edits correctly at all, there is a point here. I cannot find any uses of this form. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


I came across this page as part of a long-term project to get rid of a lot of unidiomatic and incorrect Esperanto example sentences added by one user about ten years ago. But when I started looking online to figure out what to replace the existing example sentences with, I couldn't find any durably archived uses of the word. The entry was created by the same user as aĉjaro (see discussion), so it could well be something they made up. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Can't find anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. If it fails, the content should be moved to the alternative form rajdsoldato, which looks like it might be barely attestable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: racket (Esperanto). —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Esperanto for airman. I don't see anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


The sense "command". I suspect @AugPi meant the sense of a ruling? Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I expect they meant tot (iemands) beschikking staan, "to be at (someone's) command". MuDavid (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@MuDavid: I see.. Thanks, I clarified it, it's good now. It kind of blends with "access", but the same seems to be true in English. (I have access to a computer, a computer is at my disposal) Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


@Refulgir questions this word's existence. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Esperanto for "bivalve". Nothing on Usenet and BGC, it does have some non-durable use. Using the person suffix for a bivalve also seems a little odd, making this a notable word if it can be attested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's sense #2 of -ulo. It seems like a perfectly reasonable word to me, but whether it can be attested is another question. There's nothing on Tekstaro. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "adverb: weekly" —Suzukaze-c 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm stuck on the opposite thought -- how is this a "noun"? Same for マンスリー (mansurī). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a noun, it often refers to a periodical published once a week: 朝日ウィークリー, 日経ウィークリー, 毎日ウィークリー (oxymoron notwithstanding) etc. I think it's also used as a truncated form of ウィークリー・マンション, a room rented by the week.
"Adverb" is such a heterodox category that I'm having trouble thinking of a clear test for Japanese adverb-ness. Some sources that use standard European labels (e.g. Breen) call ウィークリー an adverb, but I'm not sure if that's because it's borrowed from an English adverb, or based on some analysis of Japanese.
I did find this, which feels adverb-y:
ウィークリーにするという (ぜん) (てい)でスタートせよと。
Wīkurī ni suru toiu zentei de sutāto seyo to.
We should start with the assumption that it is weekly.
I'm not 100% convinced it's an adverb, but neither am I convinced it is not. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't an adverb in Japanese mean that it's used independently without a particle, like 結局? Nardog (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly it is only a noun in Japanese. You can say ウィークリー行う but never *ウィークリー行う. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I see some usage as a -na adjective. It looks like the grammar for this term may currently be in flux. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for Chinese: 10-15. @A garbage person Dokurrat (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the KDJ lists the same sense for Japanese, and the ZH WP article also mentions it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Chinese and Japanese are different languages. And Wikipedia itself is not a primary source. Dokurrat (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat -- Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Japanese terms such as this are primarily borrowings from Chinese, which is why that might be relevant. And I listed the WP link within that same "FWIW" context, i.e. for reference in case it provides any useful leads, and not as a definitive source. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm relying primarily on Wiki entries and unsourced Chinese blogs. I used w:Chinese_numerals#Small_numbers as my starting point. I've also found blog, which has very loose sourcing on its claims. I'll work on getting some backup from the internet. In the meantime, I found a that "Fleeting Footsteps" by Lam Lay Yong is English translation of some of the old Chinese Buddhist texts that use these very small numbers. I'll work on getting a copy to trace the source. -- A garbage person (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Only 46 hits on Google. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's rare, but it exists. I've added three quotations. It's probably dated or archaic. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It surprises me that it is even a word used by Zamenhof. I thought it was a modern neologism, because the Fundamento only has "karaktero". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
There are some early Esperanto words with ĥ that were later replaced by similar words, often with k, leaving the old terms like monarĥo and ĥina dated or archaic. I think this is because some speakers find it difficult to distinguish the sound from h. More information is at w:eo:Ĥ. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I know that that is a tendency in modern Esperanto, but this word is special, because Zamenhof himself replaced it very early on by "karaktero" in the Fundamento. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

More Volapük words for meat[edit]

beramit, berülamit, bubamitaloet, bubülamit, dindunamit, dogamit, dogülamit, dökamit, frogamit, ganamit, gokamit, gokülamit, hojipamit, jipülamit, kanguramit, kaparamit, katamit, katülamitGranger (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one attestation on Wikisource for dökamit and ganamit, the others are completely unattested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male pupil". I see one mention on Usenet, but nothing else on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Potentially amusing moment of derpitude: I glanced across this thread and idly wondered how it was that part of one's eyeball would be male, or how it was that a language would bother with a specific word just for the parts of males' eyeballs. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

hacer los pies[edit]

I think WF was high when (s)he made this. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't see anything to support this. Delete. -Ultimateria (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, "(San Antonio) cowardly". There's one reference, but I don't think there will be two others. Ultimateria (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for Chinese: "not dependable; now yes, now no; always changing". Dokurrat (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rfv failed. Dokurrat (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


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)


Rfv-sense: Esperanto for male goat. I see uses of the other sense, and several of what seem to be typos or misspellings of kaprico, but only one use of this sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, to remove palm trees from. Ultimateria (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, to call with a smartphone. Ultimateria (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Not sure this is WT:ATTESTed.

It has mentions here and here, which seem to be pulled from books. —Suzukaze-c 06:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "glacial island".__Gamren (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


It's in Katersat (which refers to Erik Fleischer and Ordbogeraq), and in this, but not in DAKA, and I can't find usages. However, DAKA has nassuk, which I can attest here (DAKA defines it as gevir, which means "pair of antlers" as well as tak, but the news article clearly uses it in the "single antler" sense). I have refrained from relying on the first two sources exclusively, because there seem to be many unattested words, like these words for different variants of red. I'm not confident they're reliable, even though they come from respectable sources.__Gamren (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this probably doesn't matter, but this book talks of an Inupiaq word aaġiaq (valley, pass), and this book refers to someone named Aagiaq.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a just or proper reason".

Apparently this rfv tag was added by User:Poketalker in May 2018, but discussion was not started here. (Apologies if I missed the discussion or misread the history.) I'm not familiar with such a sense, and couldn't readily find it in a quick skim of my dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up; it's exclusive to Daijirin:
Roughly "the correct/right method or reason". Do you or anyone else have a better translation? ~ POKéTalker) 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The KDJ has the following two senses under the kyō reading, from which I could see the development of the sense in Daijirin:

3 一般的に、教訓、教化など教えを記した書。また、単に書物。

Generally, a text describing a moral, enlightenment, or teaching. Or, any document.

4 (経文を読む意から)仏事を行なうこと。経供養をすること。

(From the sense of reading the sutras) Holding a Buddhist service. Performing Buddhist rites.

Under the kei reading then, the KDJ lists a very similar sense to the one in Daijirin:

1 正しいすじみち。正しい道理。のり。つね。

Correct logic. Correct reasoning. Rule. Custom.

Sense 4.1 at Chinese isn't too far off. And considering the underlying original sense of this character, warp threads, as in something that runs consistently and regularly through, the "correct reason" sense is not unreasonable (ha!). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:40, 20 July 2018 (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)


Rfv-sense: Short for 芝士蛋糕 (cheesecake). @Tooironic — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen it twice in menus for cafes in mainland China, but I don't have any citations for this usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Do you remember if they had some qualifier in front of it, and could you give an example of how it's used? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I just remember them being listed as [某某]芝士 without the 蛋糕 after it. Sorry I don't have anything concrete. I won't object if it gets deleted. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the first result for "芝士" in Google News is 颠覆北海道双层芝士的新晋网红 (for me at least). —Suzukaze-c 05:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

nanoplanedo, nanplanedo, planedoido, preskaŭplanedo[edit]

Those 4 words have very low amount of hits on Google. They can probably not be attested in the actual language usage. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I see some mentions, but no durably archived uses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, "Chinese" as a noun. A person or the language? Ultimateria (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

glacio planto[edit]

Esperanto. As far as I can tell this is completely unattested, and compounds don't work this way in Esperanto. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "coy" (Dutch). Not meaning "shy, timid", but the intended sense is unclear. Senses 2-5 of coy all seem unlikely though. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)



Google Books and Google Scholar hits suggest that it is a mere transcription of Mandarin putonghua into the Katakana script, and is not used *in Japanese* to *mean* Mandarin. —Suzukaze-c 06:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe http://www.kouiki-kansai.jp/material/files/group/3/1489641496.pdf
http://www.interq.or.jp/white/ishiyama/news201603.html —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
  • With the possible exception of the PDF (and maybe even there too), those are all cases where the term is being used as a distinctly foreign term that Japanese readers are not expected to know -- they all include glosses immediately afterwards, a clear indication that the authors do not consider this to be a Japanese term understood by their readers. It's as if I described this situation as a clear instance of Wörterzusammenplatzierungsmissverständniss (a confusion of formatting and term use, erroneously viewed as evidence of lexicality [made up just now for purposes of illustration]). Without the gloss, the readership would not be expected to know the term, and even with the gloss, the term is not necessarily viewed as a lexical term belonging to the main language of the text.
Iff (if and only if) we can find at least three instances of プートンホワ (pūtonhowa) in use in running Japanese text, without glosses, and clearly used to mean Mandarin Chinese, this term does not meet our criteria for inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

toujours perdrix[edit]

Doesn't seem to be used in French; pseudo-French used in German. Per utramque cavernam 11:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My entry. Admittedly I learned the term from a multilingual appendix of "famous sayings" (or something) in Chambers Dictionary — mostly Ancient Greek and Latin. So what language is it? Equinox 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Entry converted to German, along the lines of vox populi vox bovi. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
By google books this could be English or German. Considering the source ("Chambers Dictionary"), the created entry might rather be English than German. Furthermore:
  • duden.de and dwds.de don't have this, while www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toujours%20perdrix and www.dictionary.com/browse/toujours-perdrix do
  • German could have two types of wordings, a phrase and a substantive (as in: "das toujours perdrix", "dem Toujours perdrix")
  • Here's a Frenchy text, though with "toûjours perdrix".
-19:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I wonder, could the anecdote recounted in that 17th-century French book be the source of the German saying?  --Lambiam 20:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
zeno.org - Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon: "angeblicher Ausspruch eines Beichtvaters Heinrichs IV. von Frankreich" - "alleged saying of a confessor of Henry IV. of France [to Henry IV. (1553-1610)?]". Wouldn't be unlikely that this (alleged) saying is the source.
Notes and Queries (1869, p. 336f.) gives this as the source for the English saying: "...a saying which I see in italics in every novel and newspaper in England ... it is unknown in France" and "... we read the story on which it is founded in English. ... The confessor of one of the French kings ... he complained: "Mais toujours perdrix!" ...". -21:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

for favor[edit]

Spanish, eye dialect of "por favor". Ultimateria (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, obsolete form of pájaro. It's a "salvaged" redirect to the correct page from years ago. Ultimateria (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Chinese. Wyang (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

pour faveur[edit]

Rfv-sense: "fortunately". I've never heard nor seen this. Per utramque cavernam 12:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For the usage of "fortunately", I took it from a book, the Rio Sangre. It's the only source that I have seen with the meaning. Aearthrise (𓂀) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing the criteria of inclusion, I don't believe the one source I found merits inclusion. Aearthrise (𓂀) 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Only dictionary cites on Google Books. Ultimateria (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ultimateria These don't seem to exactly fit the current definition, but here:

  1. 1785, Gaspar de Molina y Saldívar, Reflexiones sobre la arquitectura, ornato y musica del templo, page 326:
    Llaman acastillar colocar la cañonería de modo, que los cañones mas largos ocupen el medio, y disminuyan hácia los extremos.
  2. 1839, Félix González de León, Noticia historica del origen de los nombres de las calles de esta M.N.M.L.Y.M.H. ciudad de Sevilla:
    En esta época cada familia se acastillaba en sus casas y aun en los templos (como ya he referido en otros lugares de esta obra) ó cuyo fin fabricaban estas torres, y las guarnecian de armas.
  3. 1942, Luis Enrique Azarola Gil, Apellidos de la patria vieja, page 176:
    Se acastilló en las virtudes y costumbres tradicionales, y fundó su hogar en unión de doña Pilar Carro, hija del capitán Juan Carro y de doña Rosa Costales, con descendencia: []

DTLHS (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the cites under a new line with {{rfdef}} for now. Ultimateria (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido. A very specific term of which I can't find uses on BGC or regular Google. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido. This doesn't seem citable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Dutch for "female prophet". I only know profetes (singular) in this sense, and the results on Google Books look like they are about male prophets. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I found a single cite here, which seems to be a one-off invention. This may be a second cite, but Google doesn't give enough of a preview to be able to tell from the context. I doubt another cite can be found; this is all I could find in the 3 pages of results the query "profete" gets on Google Books; the rest seems to be archaic spellings of profeet and scannos. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido, nothing on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)













Ido. For most of these I couldn't find three cites. It is possible to find multiple cites for cindrigar, but these were not independent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


"to say: aa". Note that Karelian is a LDL. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido, it doesn't seem to be used anywhere. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

centomiliardi [edit]

Needs cites. 2600:1000:B11F:1C16:C40D:8147:E49A:3C5C 17:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: an "A" grade in school. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: an "B" grade in school. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: a "C" grade in school. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

侶魚蝦而友麋鹿, 侣鱼虾而友麋鹿[edit]

I know this entry has been included in 教育部重編國語詞典. But has anyone seen actual, non-quotation usages of it? Dokurrat (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: alternative form of 那. It's found in the Unihan database. It's also found in 中文大辭典, citing 字彙 and 正字通. However, 字彙 only says it is pronounced as 那, and 正字通 only says it is a 俗字 (unorthodox character) but doesn't say of which character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Portuguese, alt form of beringela. Ultimateria (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Calavera entered the word and he's Portuguese, so.... There is also an entry for pt:brinjela on the Portuguese Wiktionary. There is a Portuguese-English dictionary at brinjela that shows it. There appear to be numerous sources at Google Books. —Stephen (Talk) 06:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Ido. No usage on Google Books or even on regular Google Search. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for "fetish". Ultimateria (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, alt form of utopía. The Google Books results are names of works that are accentless because they were scanned in all caps. Ultimateria (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

アイポッド, モジラ, イーマック, アイブック[edit]

Suzukaze-c 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Only Google Books search results I get which give 0 usages:

  • [84] (as maskuline "der Lehrer-Schwa")
  • [85] (a low-quality English-German dictionary)
  • [86] (a mentioning in » «)

Only Google Groups results I get which give 0 usages:

- 11:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t ever heard this either. I’d classify it as private language of some phonetics teachers and give here my vote for its Deletion already. Fay Freak (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The German Wiktionary has in its lemma a-Schwa the example, actually a quotation, „Sie würde allerdings als Vokal a-Schwa bzw. Lehrer-Schwa notiert.“ The given link is dead but archived here. This is course material from a 2003 proseminar at the Institut für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation of the University of Munich, not just some "private language".  --Lambiam 22:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The text has "Sie würde allerdings als Vokal "a-Schwa" bzw. "Lehrer-Schwa" notiert.", i.e. it has quotation marks and de.wikt is misquoting it. The example "[e] ['le:.re] Lehrer: <er> am Wortende wird als sog. a-Schwa realisiert" is misquoted too, and in a way which makes the quote nonsense. Original has: "[ɐ] ['le:.rɐ] Le̱hrer: <er> am Wortende wird als sog. a-Schwa realisiert". - 04:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Spanish, rfv-sense "mobility scooter". Ultimateria (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

On these webpages (and many more) the term is used in that sense
However, since the term is often qualified, like “vespa de la movilidad” or “vespa eléctrica de la movilidad”, I am strongly inclined to think that here Spanish vespa is simply a generic term for “scooter”. Look at all the uses on this page. These are not mobility scooters, and I doubt they are all of the Vespa brand.  --Lambiam 22:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: solitaire. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: playing card. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: long-distance coach. Does this actually refer specifically to this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


(Scottish) I don't see the sense in having a Scottish entry. Even the brief Wikipedia article is mostly in standard English. DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, because we don't delete entries just because you don't like them. You can send it to RFV if you don't think it's attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. We treat Scots as a language, not as a subset of English. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)