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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{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 and Chinese/Japanese/Korean. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. For CJK-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Tagged RFVs

July 2017[edit]

The Slavic Latin contributions of[edit]

Latin. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [1] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]


Tagalog. @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)[reply]


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)[reply]

July 2019[edit]


Latin manuculus: Attested or not?[edit]

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

Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this should have a star, as it isn't directly attested, but emended from mamaculus in an ancient glossary and it can be inferred from manuciolus (small handfull). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, it's not really attested and only a correction.
On the other hand, there are similar issues with:
1) manuscripts and editions – editions can contain corrections as well (compare e.g. Northus);
2) ancient inscriptions – often people have to guess about word divisions, spellings and meanings (see e.g. Bergakker inscription, Old Latin#Fragments and inscriptions).
So I guess all three is possible: Have mamaculus, manuculus or *manuculus - of course, with label, explanation and source (Heraeus mentioning a gloss). --Myrelia (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of auctorō". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [3], [4]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: So move to *auctoricō, because it's unattested, but a necessary preform of Spanish? Is that the gist of what you're saying? Or could it have been derived later within Spanish? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So FEW states that the word is attested, citing various source texts but giving no quotes. But we need quotes, and in the past 3 years nobody here has been able to identify any. Does FEW have an index of source texts? Where does one search for digitised Medieval Latin source texts (other than Brepolis, which mainly has religious texts and turns up nothing for this word)? This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019[edit]

Latin odeō, odīre; podeō[edit]

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

Also podeō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete odeō. As for podeō, this is supposed to be a variant of pudeō rather than possum. BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to escaiō, a macaronic spelling of excido. For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as odiātus and escaio, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a Dachsprache tradition.
Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with Medieval Latin werra. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:
"Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identified thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-defined social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be defined, as hopelessly vague."
The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: What's the status on podeō? I can't find anything. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • odeō X mark.svg RFV-Failed
  • podeō ???

September 2019[edit]

Old French plaigne and descendants[edit]

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

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

October 2019[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Old Prussian lemmas[edit]

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

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

RFV for the following:

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

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

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (town) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (town), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (village) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (village).
If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (water) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (water).
One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [5] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


Arabic. -- 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([6], [7]) as well as elsewhere ([8], [9] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([10], [11]).  --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]


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

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

octavius, octarius[edit]

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


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

This string of letters, with some meaning, is mentioned as a Nahuatl word in a number of texts, one of which asserts it as a word in Sinaloa:
  • 2010, Daniel F. Austin, Baboquivari Mountain Plants: Identification, Ecology, and Ethnobotany, University of Arizona Press (→ISBN), page 30:
    SPANISH: lechuguilla (little lettuce), maguey (see A. parviflora for derivation), zapalote (from Náhuatl zapalotl, the name for A. tequilana farther south, Sinaloa);
And others place it as a word in Honduras, if that helps narrow down what varieties of Nahuatl to search in:
  • 1907, Alberto Membreño, Aztequismos de Honduras:
    Zapalotl, plátano. Color moreno de una clase de maíz. / Zapoyolo. Tzapoyollotl, centro del zapote. El hueso del mamey mexicano y del zapotillo.
  • 1982, Alberto Membreño, Hondureñismos:
    En azteca, zapalotl significa banano, plátano.
  • 1989, Alessandra Foletti-Castegnaro, Alfarería lenca contemporánea de Honduras:
    [] zapote, y "yolotl", corazón. maíz de color oscuro, negro veteado con rojo. Del nahua "zapalotl", plátano.
I can only find one string of running text, and the bibliographic details of it are unclear:
  • (on Google Books as "1958, Proceedings":)
    Sen tonali icuac notscaltili hueyi oquili nantzin nejua nicnequi nicmatis catlejua onquinosa tlacal tecuanantli oquili tlacal cuy hueyi san zapalotl quinopialia miec mañas Totecuiyo Dios mispiali. oquito tecuanconetl nejua niau nictetemos nana  ...
- -sche (discuss) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lvovmauro do any of the books above (narrowing down where it's supposedly used), or your own knowledge, help identify what Nahuan lect the one citation above might be in? (Is it just someone's late "conlang Nahuatl" like neo-Gothic?) - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking; it was detagged in October 2021 and there's a citation of use, which no-one has deigned to assert is any other Nahuan language. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologisms[edit]

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

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

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

New reference.

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


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

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


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

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

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

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

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

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

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

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

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

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

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

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2019[edit]

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

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

I found this [[13]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[14]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[15]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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

I created Schembeis and I just wanted to mention that some Sondersprachen are not very well documented in general for obvious reasons as they function as secret languages. In the entry I have referenced the word with the “Illustrated Lexicon of German Colloquialisms/Slang” and quoted from a book about a distinct variety of Sondersprache. If this does not meet the attestation criteria then that’s the way it is. It’d be a pity though. I wonder how documenting these kind of cants should be done then? — Best regards, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[16], [17], [18].  --Lambiam 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should count as one usage (WT:CFI#Independent) as the sources are: Klaus Siewert (editor), Textbuch Masematte & Textbuch Masematte II & Textbuch Masematte III. --B-Fahrer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Siewert only selected these stories from the archives of the Masematte project group, which collects them to make sure this endangered lect is archived from original speakers before it dies out. The sources of these stories are independent people.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the evidence for this: "The sources of these stories are independent people."? As far as I can see, the texts start with the title and end - there's no author given next to the title or at the end. The contents don't give an author either. As an additional note, the text of the 2nd book states that proper Masematte was never written and that written Masematte is younger, less authentic. --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

chó hoang châu Phi[edit]

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

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

Here are some uses on what look to me like news sites: [19], [20], [21], [22]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived.  --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]


Arabic. -- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Arabic. -- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

February 2020[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwu[edit]

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

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


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

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

March 2020[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjan[edit]

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/būti[edit]

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fellō[edit]

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

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

centiampère (Dutch)[edit]




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

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

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

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

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


Arabic. — 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

April 2020[edit]


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

Untagged by @Mnemosientje here. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

What makes you say it is inaccurate? 01:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ентусиастъ Is there any reason to doubt this reconstruction and meaning? This, that and the other (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other Per me, it should be something more like *. I doubt that there is any need of <ś> and there definitely has to be a final /*ъ/ in order for the word to correspond properly to the Lithuanian and the BPSl ending. It's very rare for a Proto-Balto-Slavic *-as to give Proto-Slavic *-ь. An example is Proto-Balto-Slavic *-āˀjas (whence Lithuanian *-ojas, Latvian -ājs) which gave Proto-Slavic *-ajь. There is no need of <ś> in the reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic *wiśas too, as this would have given a Lithuanian *višas, but it's Lithuanian visas instead. Both this and the Balto-Slavic reconstructions are wrong in this regard, esp. the former. Ентусиастъ (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ентусиастъ: West Slavic data clearly points towards *vьśь (Polish wszystko, wszelki, Czech všechno, Slovak všetok) and I don’t see how they could derive from **vьsъ, OCS вьсь, вьсꙗ / вьсѣ (vĭsĭ, vĭsja / vĭsě) (cf. gorazd), Russian весь (vesʹ) too points at least towards the final soft yer. It comes from older *vix- by progressive palatalization. This unpalatalized *x is actually attested in Old Novgorod forms like вхоу. Derksen in Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon also reconstructs *vьśь and explains the -śь as originally locative plural ending (*-xъ in Slavic, generalized from PBSl *-šu < PIE *-su in ruKi contexts) and Lithuanian lack of š by levelling from forms to which ruKi did not apply:

The origin of this etymon may be a Lpl. *uiṣu. In Lithuanian, the š < *ṣ may have been replaced with s when the variant -su of the Lpl. was generalized (F. Kortlandt, p.c.). Slavic generalized the ending -xъ < *-ṣu in the Lpl., which is why the pronoun has < *x as a result of the progressive palatalization. In North Russian, we still find forms with x (cf. Vermeer 2000: passim).

// Silmeth @talk 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Silmethule I know about the West Slavic analogues. Also cope:-) Ентусиастъ (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, how does a hard stem explain them? Asking honestly. Vininn126 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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





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

It is shorthand used by ophthalmologists in eyeglass prescriptions.[24] I am not sure if this qualifies as Latin; we classify per os found in medical prescriptions as translingual. For the rest, now we have to find three durably archived eyeglass prescriptions :).  --Lambiam 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three book uses: [25], [26], [27].  --Lambiam 08:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
per os does occur in English and German, so technically it's used translingually. In Latin however, it's SOP (per os).
As for the uses, they are English OS/O.S. & OD/O.D.. And here are mentions of German OS/O. S. & OD/O. D. as well as of German LA & RA: [28], [29]. So there might indeed be Translingual OS & OD. However, that does not make it a Latin term and does not attest a Latin term.
BTW: Latin O.S. & O.D. have an RFV-sense too.
--Marontyan (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

And none of the alleged Germanic descendants is in Wiktionary! The Finnic loan is present, though. RichardW57 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kluge reconstructs a z-stem as the ancestor to the OHG and ON. --{{victar|talk}} 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be deleted in favour of more recent reconstructions. Just let me make sure we don't lose and descendants or break any links first. Leasnam (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KBC / ABC[edit]

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

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

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

@Rua: I've chased why this wesan (to feast) is in some dictionaries. It's only used once—maybe—in Old English (and possibly again in Middle English? I haven't gone after that one yet), but it's fairly doubtful. I've added the info at the entry. —caoimhinoc (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kanker (Dutch)[edit]

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

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


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

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

May 2020[edit]


Arabic. Rfv-sense: “politeness” — 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]


Latin. Because of the lack of space and partly the small g it looks modern English.
Latin usages: "cod. Urb. Gr.", "codicibus Urb. gr." & "Cod. Urbinas graecus", "codices Urb. gr.", "cod. urb. gr.".
BTW English with spaces: [30]. --Marontyan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, moved to the spaced form. This, that and the other (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

German "Suffixes"[edit]

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

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


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

There are lot of senses in this word. But of course it also has the sexual connotations associated with dogs, actually more than the English bitch which often refers to the pesky behaviour of dogs (→ bitchy), so translation is not one to one. Maybe all those senses you find for как суку in pornographic sites on the web are examples for this gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say not necessarily promiscuous, but a slut in some quasi-positive sense, more like a sexually attractive sophisticated woman. --GareginRA (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Arabic. — 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

New Saxon Spellings[edit]

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


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

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

inflection table for Gaulish entry[edit]

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


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

Google doesn't index emojis and neither does Issuu, so this means it's impossible to attest emojis, even when they're used in books, magazines, and other durably-archived media. This has been in use since at least 2019 (it's inspired by the 2018 "Crab Rave" video), and appears easily citable off Twitter. It's doesn't seem reasonable that a whole area of language would be precluded from inclusion simply because the technical limitations of Google mean we cannot find "durable" citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter citations added here, spanning 2018 to this year. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn about this. Surely there are books or magazines with extensive use of emojis that could be collated and scanned by eye, but it's undeniable that the burden of attesting emojis is vastly higher for purely nonlinguistic reasons. That said, we can't just switch to using Twitter to attest things, in part because tweets are easily deleted or removed, and in part because that would be a conscious choice to attest emoji usage on Twitter, which is often rather distinct from its usage elsewhere. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citing this the old-fashioned way would require someone to manually read through every book and magazine printed in the last two years in the vain hope they can find three instances of the crab emoji being used. (I think I've happened upon the eggplant emoji in print once in all my deep-diving through Issuu). There's no way to cite emojis except through platforms that index emojis, and Twitter is currently the largest, most active platform that does. The "durably archived media, except Usenet" thing is unnecessarily hamstringing our ability to document emojis, and possibly other Internet slang as well. Seriously, it was a weird policy ten years ago. Now it's just silly. Almost no one is having conversations on Usenet in 2020. Google has nerfed Groups to the point it's basically useless. I can't find things anymore unless I know exactly which newsgroups to search. And you couldn't find emojis on Groups, even if Usenet was still being widely used.
Of course there needs to be standards. I'm not suggesting the one-year citation span be thrown out. I still think emojis should have to meet that threshold. But it's silly that emojis should be excluded simply because Google Books, Google Groups, Google Scholar, and Issuu don't let you search for them. Technical limitations imposed by the services we use to find citations should not limit how we document language. This isn't an impassable roadblock -- it's a problem in need of a solution. And that's where Twitter comes in. It's widely used. It's easy to search. It's freely viewable for almost everyone. Sure, tweets sometimes get deleted. But "durably archived" has never meant "freely accessible for everyone in perpetuity." Books go out of print. Libraries take titles out of general circulation. Books moulder or are destroyed in fires. Old newspapers get converted to microfiche, which can then become damaged and unreadable. New newspapers end up filed away behind paywalls. The good thing about Twitter is that there's generally a fresh supply of new tweets to replaces ones that may get deleted. It's not perfect, certainly, but it's the only reliable way to cite emojis, as it stands. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge Would tweets archived by the Internet Archive constitute a "permanently recorded" medium? cc: WordyAndNerdy Graham11 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: No. As it stands, there is no consensus to treat webpages archived by the IA as durably archived. However, that consensus may change. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge Apologies if this might be tangential to this RFV, but is there somewhere that documents the current consensus of what "permanently recorded media" and "durably archived" mean? As far as I can see, WT:CFI doesn't seem to expand on the meaning of those terms except to implicitly suggest that Usenet and "print media such as books and magazines" qualify.
And is there something about the way that Google archives Usenet that would lead it to be regarded differently to the Internet Archive? Or was Usenet's inclusion in WT:CFI a compromise measure of sorts rather than the result of a kind of consistent definition of these terms? Graham11 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11: The status quo is neither ideal nor clear. In short, "durably archived" is limited to things that were physically published at some point (including songs and movies!), or are on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Usenet. These were originally supposed to be sources where only the destruction of civilisation as we know it could cause them to become completely inaccessible, although they have also served as a way to limit what the dictionary must include. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that disjunctive? Is a quotation from Google Books that only exists in digital form usable? 06:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My practice for creating slang entries is to tolerate fewer durable citations if the word is mentioned in a reputable slang dictionary. People sometimes write about twitter words. Are there any less ephemeral mentions to add to the citations page? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is also found a lot on e.g. Reddit [35] [36] [37] [38] – quotes: "🦀 Hey a good thing happened! 🦀", "🦀Little man is gone🦀", "🦀🦀London is gone🦀🦀", "🦀 no authenticator delay 🦀". – Nixinova [‌T|C] 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Gulf Arabic. فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

August 2020[edit]

буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллів[edit]

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

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


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


Latin: Used to mark abbreviations. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 4 August 2020 with also the RFC template (“for more information as . is the usual abbreviation mark - although · does occur in inscriptions as word separator and abbreviation mark too (as in [39], [40])”), not listed.

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

cheveux blancs[edit]

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

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [41], [42], [43], [44] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [45].  --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian згра[edit]

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

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

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

fake news[edit]

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

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

* O, wait, that one was actual news. But here is a bonus made-up story.
I'm not sure if the "news I don't want to be true" sense is the same as "fabricated news", or if we want to add a sense "2. false news." Certainly there are news stories I don't consider "fake news" that have been called such, but you have to get into the speaker's head to know the intended meaning. If I call evolution or quantum field theory or N-rays pseudoscience, have I created a new sense of pseudoscience or used the existing sense in a way some people disagree with? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps we can think about like this: Would it make sense for a politician to outright tell her constituency "this may be true, but if it were found to be true, it would undermine my policies, therefore we should agree to disregard it"? Certainly they would not take her seriously! Alternatively, I found an article claiming to debunk Trump's accusations of fake news. The authors of this article clearly understand those accusations to regard veracity rather than political usefulness. I definitely think the intent behind describing something as fake news is that it contains information known to be untrue. I wouldn't mind if a usage note was added explaining that the term has a history of being misapplied by politicians to demonstrably true information.__Gamren (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If use in Dutch is like use in English I would add a usage note rather than a definition. It functions as an emphatic denial like calling something a lie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, this term pops up in relation to a number of populists who use it as a generic buzzword to discredit unflattering news. This sense is encountered often if you follow Dutch-language news and it genuinely seems distinct from sense 1. Politicians who use it generally seem uninterested in actually demonstrating falsehoods in news, for one. I also think it is poor form to speculate about the political motivations of other editors. Anyway, here are some hits, though some are less than ideal (mentions/mentionlike, only used in titles): [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] It is a sense you hear relatively frequently on broadcast media. Searching on Google is hampered because the results also include nepnieuws, even if you use quotation marks. Perhaps the definition is too narrow, because the term is also used in this way by the Chinese communists. "[P]opulists and autocrats", perchance? But that will likely attract more outrage and vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Do Chinese politicians really use this word, while speaking Chinese, or do they use some Chinese wording that gets translated as "fake news" by Anglophone media?__Gamren (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

, , , ,

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

September 2020[edit]


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

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


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


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


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

The existing quotation is unverifiable – to which edition of Comenius’ enormous œuvre does the page number correspond? Moreover, the “64b”, “31b” and “32b” are strange; is the quote not taken from running text but from an Index? Three uses: [53], [54], [55] – the last one not authored by "Jezuité", as Google Books would have us believe, but by Georg Widmanstad.  --Lambiam 12:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: I received the index here. Aearthrise (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise Quoting from the index is usually a bad idea, since indexes aren't really part of the work and are often added later by an editor. Also, "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus, imperator 64b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 31b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 32b." is terrible formatting. In English, items in a list should be separated by commas or semicolons, not periods. If you want to use separate lines instead, you need something like <br> to force a new line. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, it's also a matter of RfC: Which sense of Habsburg is meant (proper noun: castle; proper noun: family; common noun: family-member)? In "Rudolphus Habsburgus" and "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus" it looks to me like the common noun. -- 06:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

denk (Afrikaans)[edit]

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

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: "maar hy hat het iets in hom gehad wat buite die denk van ons volk gereik het" "maar vir die denk moet ons onderskei - en altyd onthou dat dit ons is wat die onderskeiding gemaak het.". I suppose the translation "thinking" may be better, but there is definitely a noun in this form. Thadh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]


Latin. Tagged by on 19 October 2016, not listed:

“RFV for dat. and abl. "Caphāreī" and voc. "Caphāree". L&S has "voc. Caphareu", and Caphāreī and Caphāree seem to be incorrect.
BTW: There might also be a genitive Caphareos (based on Greek), and the archaic form "Capereus" (with p instead of ph) in "Pacuv. [Marcus Pacuvius] tr. 136".” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brepols Library of Latin Texts has, for caphare*:
Caphare (1), Capharei (1), Caphareo (4), Caphareum (2), Caphareus (2), Capharea (4)
for caphere*:
Capherea (7), Caphereis (2), Caphereos (1), Caphereum (3), Caphereus (12), Capherei (3), Caphereo (1), Caphereu (1)
(note, it normalises everything to lowercase so I manually uppercased these). For capere* one only gets forms of capiō and Caperei (1 - Pacuvius). So the IP seems to be correct, noting that the declension of Caphareus would match that of Caphereus. This, that and the other (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. Tagged by Greenismean2016 on 4 November 2018, not listed:

“it looks like this should be coccum + fero” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, the suffix is -fer – I don’t know the rules of formation of taxonomic rules in all fields of biology but this is incorrect Latin, so the page should be coccifer probably for both Latin and Translingual, ignoring now the distinction between Latin and translingual. So the taxonomic names with that form seem to be illegally formed. Scyphophorus cocciferus is one of the cases where a word is only attested in miswriting. Pinging @SemperBlotto as the author. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DCDuring, SemperBlotto: L&S is pretty careless about manuscripts. As with the ghostword zirbus, Georges has it differently and right as Georges lacks both these two forms and lists infrūctifer and deifer with the same two singular quotes as in L&S. The two 2 -ferus forms seem ghost words and their manuscript appearance, as well as their appearing in nominative singular in those singular quotes, is doubtful. We read in Rosén, Hannah (2000), “Grammaticalization in Latin? Two Case Studies”, in Glotta, volume 76, DOI:10.2307/40267100, page 105. »The inventory of these nouns up to the 6th century comprises ca. 190 -fer words (of which 60 are Late Latin, 4th to mid-6th century) and ca. 80 -ger words (of which 35 are Late Latin). […] Apart from variant forms there are 2 isolated (exclusively) -ferus words: Late Latin infructiferus and hybrid theoferus.« He goes on about some being calques of Greek terms with -αγρος (-agros) or -φόρος (-phóros), which explains deiferus which is however also deifer. You do find some New Latin quotes for infructiferus but mostly mentions and infructifer is rather in use. equiferus mentioned by Rosén is also a ghost word, one reads that we have “equifer als echte Nominativform durch die Glossen erwiesen”. The occurrences are all so rarified in attestation that they can be considered non-existing in native speakers’ Latin. In any case Wiktionary needs to have are coccifer, infructifer, deifer etc. as main forms, the others can only be had as dubious forms. @PUC, Brutal Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DCDuring Hey, thanks for the ping. I think it makes sense to distinguish between the ancient and the new latin usage. In Latin as a living language, at least for some speakers, these syncopated/non-syncopated, or more likely restored pairs were definitely alloforms. There are parallel pairs for -ger(us), and some words only exist with the full ending (mōrigerus). The situation can be further complicated by the reinterpretation of some of these as 3d declension forms, at least in some varieties (no examples come to mind there are some for sure, even if only detectable through Romance). There also exist forms like mascel, sicel for the regular masculus, siculus, albeit it's often suspected these are Sabellicisms (note the final vowel that escaped the regular u-colouring by the velar L, meaning the L had to have been geminate - or the word had to be borrowed). These then would be legitimate, native-speaker Latin. — Another thing altogether is New Latin, in our case used as a polite term for the Latin of the people who don't know Latin but make use of it in coining nomenclature. Their authority is a typical school grammar, and when their word-formation disagrees with the prescriptions of a school grammar, it's to be treated as a simple mistake on their part (this fine creation comes to mind) instead of referring them to any process characteristic of a living language. Now, these scientists' mistakes often coincide with attested non-literary Late Latin or reconstructed forms - no big surprise there - but I imagine they themselves would admit to simply having made an oversight in coining the term, and would hardly try defending their creation by appealing to attested non-literary Latin or any such whataboutisms. It's not a peculiarity of their idiolect of Latin or a specimen of ongoing grammatical change, it's a simple mistake coining a word in a language that you don't speak. — Ultimately, however, if a name is used, and isn't blatantly ungrammatical, I don't see what we can do about it other than list it as it is. Would anyone propose marking it as mistakenly formed and redirecting to coccifer? I hesitate to call that prescriptivism any more than I'd call it that when a teacher corrects a student. Even so, if a name is in use, we certainly need to have the entry - but what if the schoolgrammatically-correct name isn't used at all? Retroactively "correcting" what the editor perceives as "bad Latin" is hardly the task of a dictionary editor (imagine the task they'd have on their hands with Mideval Latin! xD). Brutal Russian (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. Sense: “(Vulgar Latin) he, she, it (third-person personal pronoun)”. Tagged by Brain-Dwain on 18 June, not listed:

“at least a cleanup is needed (pronouns, determiners and articles are different parts of speech), the RFV is reasonable as well (sometimes unattested Vulgar Latin is given as if it were attested)”, “cp. Talk:illeJ3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ille legalem paternitatem Iesu accipere non timuit
Francisco (2020). Patris Corde. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.pdf —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ego baptizavi vos aqua, ille vero baptizabit vos Spiritu Sancto" Mark 1 8
I baptized you all in water, he in fact will baptize you all with the holy spirit. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 16:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Moved from unnecessary new section. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. Tagged by GuitarDudeness on 24 January 2018, not listed:

“If not from -lus added to nouns ending in -ius or -eus, is there proof of free use of this suffix?” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that -olus is an allomorph of -ulus, and not a distinct suffix: their distribution is predictable and comeplementary aside from the variation between o and u after u/v (as in aquula~aquola~acula, servulus~servolus) which is not specific to this suffix (it's the same phenomenon as the variation between vulgus~volgus) and which does not indicate any difference in meaning. We presumably should still have a page at -olus, but whether or not it should just redirect to -ulus with a full explanation on that page is a question of preference.--Urszag (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. Tagged by Marontyan on 3 November 2019, not listed:

“I only saw Physalis”, “If attested in Latin: The usage note doesn't apply to Latin, cp. the quotes in ruderalis, Physalis.” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I meticulously tried to find Latin uses, and I came to the conclusion that it has not been used in Latin texts, because obviously its Greek and in Latin one can use vēsīca or bulla or else; for literal and transferred senses there are enough native words, so this is, meseems, really ever only a component of translingual species names. Fay Freak (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Searching even for the inflected forms, the only cites I've spotted so far that are in Latin, not capitalized, and not scannos, are of it as part of taxonomic names, as Fay Freak says, but it does give me pause that a few of those cites are in Latin works and fully inflect the taxonomic name as if using it as a sequence of 'regular' Latin descriptive words, like:
  • 1800, Philippe Petit-Radel, De amoribus Pancharitis et Zoroae poema eroticon idalio stylo exaratum, vita auctoris, pages lxxxviij - lxxxix:
    Mitto quæ haberem dicenda de holothuriis physalibus, de medusis velellis et argonautis argo, tum loliginibus et scolopendra phosphorea (1) in quibus incidimus dum viam versus insulam de l'Ascension carperemus, []
    (1) Holothuria physalis, medusa velella et Argonauta Argo dum placidum est mar, ex imis emergunt fluctibus et natantes, []
- -sche (discuss) 06:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Latin. Tagged by Bakunla on 5 May, not listed. J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

dur comme fer[edit]

French. Is it ever used with other verbs than croire? 20:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat ironically, although the usex at dur comme fer, actually a quote from a book, contains a form of the verb croire, the verb governing dur comme fer in the example is vouloir. Its use, other than in the fixed collocution croire dur comme fer, is defined in a 19th-century dictionary (by an example in which it is a predicative adjective) as meaning “having a very great hardiness“.[56] Here are some book uses: a 16th-century use; an 18-th century use; a 19-th century use (rather SOP here); and a 21th-century use. Here are some stand-alone uses in news sources: [57]; [58]; [59].  --Lambiam 10:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Arabic. Rfv-sense: narrator -- 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thai. Is หน้าม้า really used to refer the Hindu god? Does someone have example? If so, can Krishna be called หน้าช้าง too? --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dada (Dutch)[edit]

Childish for "bye-bye; away". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be Flemish: Het Vlaams woordenboek (sense 2); schrijvenonline.org; Agreed, not the best sources, but still mentions. Better one: Het Dialectenboek (page 193) Thadh (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

daven (Dutch)[edit]

Base form for the frequentative daveren, but I am not convinced that this is attested in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1881 1820 1629 1618 I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Haag[edit]

Dutch, area form of Den Haag. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic Dutch: [60] [61] Haags Dutch: [62] [63] ([64]) [65] Thadh (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]


Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:371b:bd88:f550:e41e:6251:c0db today, not listed:

“no derived terms” J3133 (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spot a few instances of Medical Latin counterparts of the words in Category:English words prefixed with omo- embedded in English, German, and other-language works, namely google books:"omoclavicularis", google books:"omohyoides", and (using the other etymology} google books:"omophagus", google books:"omophagis", but I didn't spot any but the last one in fully Latin texts and it's questionable whether they should be viewed as establishing a Latin prefix vs deriving from Greek. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


German. Tagged by Malpadam on 8 October 2019, not listed. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added one use with that spelling. There are more in Google books. I have a hard time reading those old German fonts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [66], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [67] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[68][69], but maybe this is only a rare misspelling under the influence of reading ſz as sz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In older texts I wouldn't call it a misspelling. There was a time when sz, ss, and ß were sort of competing ways of rendering ſz in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Modern Philology (inside the entry) is English and [70] is Dutch. That aren't good examples for German spellings. --Schläsinger X (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          The proceedings are mainly in Dutch, but the context around Eszwaren obviously isn't Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Italian. Tagged by Embryomystic on 12 December 2019, not listed: “Is this a typo for intermediaria?” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Italian. Sense: “movie theater, cinema”. Tagged by on 24 February, not listed: “These senses may not exist, need verification”, “My sense verification request for Italian was removed, presumably because the definition was 'theatre (all senses)'. So I have broken down the definition and added the rfv-sense to the specific sense that requires verification.” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

di traverso[edit]

Italian. Sense: “across, sideways, sidelong”. Tagged by Imetsia on 12 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dutch, diminutive of deeltjesversneller. Unlikely to be attestable, most particle accelerators are enormous facilities. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teilchenbeschleunigerchen. Beautiful. – Jberkel 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me: @Soap, this may be one for your list ("little particle accelerator"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly however, very small particle accelerators are being investigated. See for example these two newspaper articles which are using the diminutive: [71], [72]. Morgengave (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, for once, reality catching up with the dictionary? – Jberkel 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that when I looked for attestations of the diminutive; unfortunately they do not use the diminutive for it yet and Wiktionary is for describing language as it is currently attested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A suitable term to dub or subtitle the movie Ghostbusters (1984), original quotation "Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our back." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]



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

About its author, จำปี ซื่อสัตย์, I don't know if he is still alive. He must be 90 years old now.
Anyway, you should copy my another dictionary too พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย.pdf (1984).
And if you can open sqlite database, also take this too Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite. I extracted from this mobile app.
--Octahedron80 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80 Thank you for your explanation. I have difficulty understanding Thai, so it would be harder without you. OK, some combinations of the components are indeed attested. Then, is there any source that shows each of the spellings from beginning to end? Even some parts of them are attested, it would be another matter whether these two combinations are documented as they are. The variants listed at the current version of ကောန်ၚာ် (kon ṅāk) are of course OK, but when it comes to the forms seen at ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ, things are quite uncertain. Your attitudes gives the impression that you could create an entry *徒葩 as a spelling variant for Japanese 徒花(あだばな) (adabana, a flower that blooms but never bears fruit) since both (quite uncommon) and (quite common) are read as hana and have the sense “flower, blossom” in common, therefore they are always freely interchangeable—no, no, actually it is not! We cannot do such a horrific deed without complete evidence —otherwise, what we do will be perfect invention! --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@エリック・キィ About the whole word "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ", I was not the one who created it at first, I renamed to another form and, after 咽頭べさ was mad, then I reverted back. (I cannot rename same page twice so I edited it instead.) I can only verify ကောန်ၚာ် and တြုံ solely. You may ask him about "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is some evidence either. (It should be documented somewhere / or it is just SOP?) I could remove alternative forms of "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is no evidence, even their parts have.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80 I agree with you on this point. I asked him about this topic (it seems something other than IPA, then what is it?) before, but he has made no reply so far...--Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations: First, the self-assessment by this editor as "en-2" is rather generous. Figuring out how much they understand our policies is likely to be a challenge, and explaining anything doubly so.
Second, it's easier to take the word of a native speaker as to the existence of something in their language than its non-existence. Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
Also, in an environment where their language is actively discouraged, one would expect a certain prescriptivism that sees variation from what they're battling to defend as an attack (that environment would increase isolation between speakers, as well, which reinforces my second point).
Of course, I have no direct knowledge, so I could be completely off base. I would rather bend over backward and walk on eggshells than risk piling on with those around them who don't want to hear their language. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80, Chuck Entz Please don't worry, I have no doubt about the existence of the term ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ itself, since I am able to find its records through Google Search. What he (yes he, judging from the audio records) and I regard as a problem is which combination is allowed to spell and which is not. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz >Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
Of course, I understand this point. That's why I have made this edit. Mon language has numerous dialects but no official standard variety is seen while something similar to it exists (Bauer 1982: xvii; Jenny 2005: 30; Jenny 2015: 555). Thus, even if a certain word itself is attested in a material in terms of pronunciation and spelling, there is NO guarantee that we can apply it directly to other dialects. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju terms for modern concepts[edit]

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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




"Biosphere" in the modern scientific sense.


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


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


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


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


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


"Wind power plant".







Dutch. Theoretically possible but apparently unattested SI units. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Dutch. These seem unattestable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how chemical CFI works, but compounds with decyl: N,N'-bis(10-(p- methoxyfenoxy)-decyl)-p-diaminobenzeen, di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat decyl-trimethylammonium, plain decyl: [74]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a systematic name but has Dutch spelling of components, benzeen instead of benzene, etc. A paper from 2009 talks about chemistry translation: doi:10.1021/ci800243w. I think di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat appearing in a Dutch paper can be used to support decyl, octyl, and ftalaat (= phthalate, I assume). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deel en heers[edit]

Dutch, many scannos on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be archaic or obsolete: [75], [76], [77].  --Lambiam 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly an obsolete spelling, but I agree they are all valid uses. If this spelling isn't attested, it can be moved to that spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dutch. RFV-sense of "firm, impressive", distinct from "fashionable, flashy". Not found in the dictionaries I checked. Most results on Google Books are clearly in the latter sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not found, but I see the term used as a noun in the expression – presumably idiom – de blits maken: [78], [79], [80] In the last cite it translates English (to carry as) a badge (for one’s peers).  --Lambiam 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it exists as a noun; it relates to the uncontested adjective sense "fashionable". De blits maken means "to be fashionable, to make a fashionable impression", there are also the expressions de blits uithangen and colloquially de blits zijn (maybe not durably attested) that are more or less synonyms. I'm not sure how it should be lemmatised. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

schalk (Dutch)[edit]

RFV-sense of "(Outdated) A knave, servant.". Not in the WNT, etymological dictionaries suggest this didn't outlast Middle Dutch. The definition is unclear, too. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed here [[81]], and I can find uses in Google Books [[82]] (search "een schalk" "nederlands"). Leasnam (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly archaic, but in early modern Dutch it seemed to have been used in at least some religious texts, in phrases such as "Heer, ik ben uw schalk" (Lord, I am thy servant) and in compounds such as Godschalk (God's servant = priest) [83] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's certainly a valid use. But I'm curious where those 19th-century writers got it from. The Vorstermann-, Deux-Aes- and Statenvertaling all use "knecht" [84] [85] [86] and it seems "schalk" was very pejorative in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. So my guess is that is was from an eighteenth-century (maybe late seventeenth-century) Psalm translation that had been published separately. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book Antiquitates Germanicæ linked to above is an 18th-century text; possibly later writers, who do not quote more than this single phrase, copied it from that text. It has somewhat the nature of a mention; in particular, how can we be sure that the unidentified (rhyming?) translation of the Book of Psalms was Dutch and not Middle Dutch? If the term schalk came from a Middle Dutch psalter it was not the 1360 translation, which has O Heere, ic ben dijn knech, ic ben cnecht, dijnre dierne sone.[87], and also not the 1483 psalter linked to from Middelnederlandse psalters, which has O hee want ic dijn knecht bin Ick bin dijn knecht eñ ſone dijnre diernen.[88]  --Lambiam 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without exception each use of schalck(en) in this Bible concordance from 1645 has a sense of depravity, extending to priests (Want beyde Propheten ende Priesters zijn ſchalken). I find it hard to imagine a contemporaneous sense of pious submission. Interestingly, the word is also used as an adjective (Exempelen eeniger ſchalke menſchen).  --Lambiam 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also noticed the adjective, it seems quite common from the 16th up to the 19th century. I have personally never seen or heard the adjective schalk before this month, but the more clearly marked adjective schalks is still a very current word. However, it does seem like the meaning of schalk (adj.) was rather more negative. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]