Wiktionary:Tea room

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:TEA)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For Translation requests, see Wiktionary:Translation requests. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations
Tea house party in Japan (not tea ceremony)-J. M. W. Silver.jpg

A place to ask for help on finding quotations, etymologies, or other information about particular words. The Tea room is named to accompany the Beer parlour.

For questions about the technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Tea room archives edit

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

Oldest tagged RFTs


December 2017


The pallium in Neuroanatomy is not the same as the cortex, but more like its embryonary origin. Thus, I don't think the definition should redirect to the cortex (and neither the translations section). --Pablussky (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


This entry is not created. Is this a SoP? Dokurrat (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so; English rat poison exists. Wyang (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Every time I try to write something in a talk page two messages are proposing to not write there. The talk pages of a wiki project are specific pages for discussion about problems in the page so that future editors can see them. By not writing there we "hide" from future editors of that page all these problems. Consider also that some new editors may understand these messages not as hints but as a community request and will not edit the talk page, leaving future editors without clues about problems in that page. We should somehow inform future editors about all other discussions made throughout the years for that specific page. Either by poking an automatic notice that discussions exist, there and there, or by some other idea. The message about the fact that "general questions" should be asked in another place is ok. --Xoristzatziki (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That's why I try to make it a personal habit to put a link to the community pages on the specific talk pages: Talk:paradis fiscal, Talk:tax haven, for example. It's been useful on at least one occasion: Talk:about that life (see the last discussion). But it's rather tedious, and going back to old Tea room/Etymology Scriptorium discussions would be even more. I wish we had some sort of archiver. There's one for RfV and RfD requests, but it removes the discussion from the community page; here we'd want to leave it there. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Old-fashioned window[edit]

Hello! How do we call this type of window? Is there a (specific) term for it? Casement? Thank you very much! --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

awning window. See Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Window on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

older brother and older sister[edit]

What's going on in the translation tables here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/42846770 and Special:Diff/42846768 by -sche. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


In my observation, this word has been increasingly and steadily associated with internet pornography diffusion. Should we update this entry to reflect such usage? Dokurrat (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It has a whole range of usages. I think it would be misleading to single out any particular one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that ## {{lb|zh|specifically}} would be harmless. —suzukaze (tc) 02:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this more comes under the heading of Usage notes. But if you added that connotation you'd have to add all the other ones as well, otherwise it would look like that is the most common usage (which it isn't). ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Script for Cham words[edit]

បែក#Etymology, egg/translations, and Đà_Nẵng#Etymology_2 all use different scripts for cja: Cham, Arab, Latn. Is this right? —suzukaze (tc) 02:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, do you happen to know? —suzukaze (tc) 04:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
There are two dialects of Cham, Western and Eastern (not mutually intelligible). Western Cham (cja) is spoken principally in Cambodia, although there are a few in a small area of Vietnam. Eastern Cham (cjm) is spoken in Vietnam. Eastern Cham of Vietnam uses both Latn script and the Eastern version of the Cham alphabet. The more numerous Western Cham are mostly Muslim, and they use both Arab script and the Western version of the Cham alphabet. —Stephen (Talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Đà_Nẵng#Etymology_2 has Latin-script cja text that is automatically trying to use the Arabic script. Is it the wrong language code? —suzukaze (tc) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why it would be trying to use Arabic script. When I have used the cja code, I entered the Western Cham alphabet. I think Đà_Nẵng#Etymology_2 should be referring to Eastern Cham (cjm), and it should be Latn script or the Eastern version of the Cham alphabet (Eastern Cham fonts). —Stephen (Talk) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Would gangan be i-umlauted in 2nd and 3rd person present to give something like geng(e)st and geng(e)þ? I couldn't find these conjugations on B&T but Old Engli.sh has gengþ. May or may not be right, just don't know. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, initially I would say yes, and I would think the forms would be *gæng-. Even though we don't have an Old English attestation of it, there is an early Middle English attestation of gengþ from 1275: Þe hare..gengþ wel suiþe a waywart which suggests that it may have been inherited from Old English. Some consider gengþ to be derived from another verb, however, OE gengan, so it's difficult to say for sure. The presence of gengan may have led to the substitution of non-mutated forms in gangan to avoid confusion, but I am just guessing on that. Otherwise, gangan is a strong verb, and is expected to typically have i-mutation in the stem. But I think the way you show it in the Conj table is fine as is Leasnam (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Many thanks for the help! Anglish4699 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


@Wyang, Justinrleung, Dokurrat Can this also be pronounced as "mo" or "m" in words like 什麼/怎麼? If so, should they be included in the entry? —suzukaze (tc) 05:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: According to 漢語方言詞彙, in Beijing, 什麼 can be shénm; 這麼, zènm; 那麼, nènm; 怎麼, zěnm. As a side note, I've also heard of 什麼 read as shě(n)mé. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Well... I think I pronounce this syllable as a m+schwa (unstressed), i.e. /-mə/ in my daily life. If I intentially pronounced this syllable stressed (e.g. giving a speech, singing a song), I think I would speak something like /-m(ɯ̽)ʌ/. I think "/-m/" is a more weak form that can be heard in colloquial speech. Not "*mo", at least not me. Disclaimer: personal experience. Dokurrat (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: But "*mo" do looks promising... Maybe we can find verification somewhere in very conservative dictionaries? Dokurrat (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
(Teresa Teng uses 怎麼 "zenmo" here. —suzukaze (tc) 06:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC))
@Suzukaze-c: It's probably the same situation as 了 liao and 的 di, where the "original" pronunciation of the character is used. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I did not think to compare it to those cases 😅. 的#Etymology_2 includes di; should 了#Etymology_1 and 麼#Etymology_1 include liao and mo? —suzukaze (tc) 06:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, mo is an alt reading used in certain registers and is worthy of inclusion. I think m would be better handled as an |m_note=. Wyang (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


This term can be used outside of mathematics, figuratively, right? Could someone add this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 20:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


We've an adverb section for precious, where we're glossing it as "very". However, I'm not aware of it being used in other phrases than "precious few" and "precious little". Should I add a note at precious, and create those? (which other dictionaries have) --Barytonesis (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought there must be other words it goes with, but can't think of any. Equinox 20:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
"it is of the two-dimensional variety, length and breadth, but precious scant depth" [1].
"The interest on these being deducted, amounting to $600,000, it being doubtful whether they will ever pay the cost of maintenance, and there remains but a precious small sum for defraying the interest on the cost of the enlargement" [2].
"but that is a mere trifle to your facility for building up a formidable theory on precious slight foundations". [3] Mihia (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mihia: Thanks for this. I still think that "precious few" and "precious little" might deserve an entry, and that at the very least, a note to the effect of "this adverb is chiefly/overwhelmingly used with "few" and "little"" should be added to precious. Do you agree? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
And in any case, this only works with adjectives belonging to the semantic field of "little, small, scarce, few". --Barytonesis (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a note seems a good idea. My suggestion would be something like "used with words that express smallness of quantity, especially in the phrases 'precious few' and 'precious little'". Mihia (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

out of doors[edit]

Is it simply an alt form of outdoors? Shouldn't it be labeled as "rare"? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you’re right that it’s an alt form. I can’t think of any circumstance where they wouldn’t be interchangeable (and out of doors is also used in the noun senses of outdoors, which are currently absent from the former entry). On the other hand, it’s far from rare; maybe “dated” would be a better label, since it doesn’t turn up often in works since the 1950s or so. Google Ngrams confirms that it’s falling out of use, and that it was once as common as outdoors is now. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For a bot?[edit]

In Category:English words prefixed with anti- some pages anti-+ROOT are collated as beginning with anti- and others with the ROOT. Can a bot fix this easily?

Curious, as I'm not native. Why is anti- pronunciation given as /i/ or /aɪ/ and later in antibiotic as /ə/? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As the British and American pronunciations for anti- differ, it may depend on where the contributor is from. DonnanZ (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Many Americans have them in free variation, fixed only in common lexical items. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Presumably the /ə/ here should in any case be notated as diaphonemic /ɨ/, as the reduced realization of this vowel is like the one in roses, varying by speaker from [ɪ] to [ɪ̈] to [ə]. Although we notate this vowel as /ɪ/ at enough and the second syllable of mistress, so it seems we’re being inconsistent anyway. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Would someone know how the Latin superstitio (which comes from supersto (to stand over/upon; to survive)) came to mean what it means? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

According to etymonline, "There are many theories to explain the Latin sense development, but none has yet been generally accepted; de Vaan suggests the sense is "cause to remain in existence." Originally in English especially of religion; sense of "unreasonable notion" is from 1794.". DTLHS (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Lewis and Short's entry has: "sŭperstĭtĭo , ōnis, f. super-sto; orig a standing still over or by a thing; hence, amazement, wonder, dread, esp. of the divine or supernatural." DCDuring (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It is because you imagine things being above your head when you have a godly world in mind. Note that it does mean “religion” in general first. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 18:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ᚦᚢᚱ, ᚱᛅᛁᛋᛅ[edit]

These two are listed as Old Norse, but should they be Proto-Norse (gmq-pro)? If so, there may be more included in Old Norse [4] DonnanZ (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, "[Proto-Norse] evolved into the dialects of Old Norse at the beginning of the Viking Age in about 800", so theoretically, a 10th/11th century inscription wouldn't qualify. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, anything that's attested in younger Futhark is not likely to be considered Proto-Norse. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

point of inquiry[edit]

Why was my entry of Point of Inquiry reverted? (The process of finding answers and seeking new knowledge) Would 'An entryway into idealization on a specific topic' be a more apt description? —This unsigned comment was added by AaronEJ (talkcontribs) at 18:42, 2017 December 6.

I don't know the specifics, but I would probably revert it myself. At the very least I would RfV it to determine whether there really is any attestation that unambiguously supports the definition provided, especially as a cursory review of other dictionaries (“point of inquiry” at OneLook Dictionary Search) suggests that none of the included dictionaries find it entryworthy with any definition. That w:Point of Inquiry is for a podcast makes me suspicious that the entry was intended to promote the podcast. (That the entity may be non-commercial does not negate the possibility of promotion.) DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Is point of inquiry in politics really anything different than the SoP term? Is it defined anywhere in a parliamentary authority, eg, in Robert's Rules of Order or Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, or somewhere in Hansard? DCDuring (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oil-press (or machine) parts[edit]

Can someone help me identify the parts to this in English? I'll list the names in clockwise order spiralling inwards starting from the top:

Outer parts: માકડો, કૂકરી, ફાડ, વાંકેલી, નાડવેલો, માંચ, પૈયું - wheel, ધીંસરું, ઝોળો, કૂકરી - a wooden wedge?, ડાબિયાર, કસવાટ - a wooden frame?, કોઠો, ???, લાઠ, ચૂડી;
Inner parts: ગધેલું, ફાચેરો, કૂંડી, ગજ, જાંગી, થડ, ફીસણ, ઠોઠિયું, નાળવું
Please help. DerekWinters (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Was the deleted image of an olive-oil press? There is a commons category of such images. DCDuring (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The deleted image seems to have been this one. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The stones are a counterweight to allow the operator(s) to lift the pestle(?). All the stuff at the top of the lever that raises and lowers the pestle looks like some lashing to link the curved bit (metal?) to the compound-curved arm (wood?). It looks like the curved bit is not fixed to the lever but attached with rope that has substantial play. Perhaps the chain and the other lever arms also serve to impart circular motion to the pestle, but I don't get the principle. At the bottom of the mortar or drum is a basin to catch leakage and spillage from the opening at the bottom of the mortar. The L-shaped bit must be a latch to hold the door over the opening shut. The ring seems to be intended to hold the short arm the goes through the big lever and the horn-shaped arm to the big lever arm.
I don't understand the full role of the horn-shaped piece that bears on the mortar/drum. Nor do understand the role of the chain
I wonder whether the oar-shaped arm is where the power is applied by men or oxen to impart circular motion to the counterweighted pestle through the heavy horizontal arm.
Alternatively, is the linkage mechanism between the "oar" and the heavy arm intended to impart some limited up-and-down motion to the pestle to press the oil? If we understand how it is supposed to work we could probably find names for the components.
Commons has some pictures of rustic olive-oil presses that might help. DCDuring (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

to the effect[edit]

I don't know how to do this entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

in twain[edit]

Archaic, rare, humorous? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

archaic Leasnam (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

at your service[edit]

Our definition is strangely restrictive. Doesn't it simply mean "[I'm] at your disposal"? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think our definition is wrong. The ones included under References are different. DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


For the verb, this entry previously existed:

To drive around leisurely in a motorised vehicle.

In the UK, at least, there is a dated meaning of "travel by motor car", which does not necessarily imply "around" or "leisurely", so I added:

(Britain, dated) To make a journey by motor vehicle.

But are these actually distinct meanings? Does anyone recognise the first one as modern usage? What is AmE usage here? (And, by the way, is anyone else unhappy, like me, about using "leisurely" as an adverb?) Mihia (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it intentionally and it shouldn't be in a definiens, IMO. We could use three citations of its use. The one we have might be a way of indicating low-social-status/education of a Chandler hard-boiled detective. I am also chagrined by [[leisurelily]], which I can't imagine anyone actually saying out loud. DCDuring (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I found about as many mentions of leisurelily as uses, some possibly jesting. One work said leisurely#Adverb derives from leisurelily by haplology. Other works mention others adjectives whose -ly form adverbs follow the same pattern: kindly, friendly, lonely, lovely, holy, homely, weekly, deadly, sickly, jolly. DCDuring (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't buy that "leisurely" derives from "leisurelily", in the sense that people tried out "leisurelily" first and then decided to simplify it. I think that "leisurelily" most probably was hardly attempted in the first place. For me, many (not all) of those other words sound equally wrong as adverbs. Mihia (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/October#likely and Category:English words suffixed with -ly (adjectival). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sense 1 seems to me to not be a distinct sense. Also, sense 4 seems a particular application of sense 3. Other dictionaries, including my back-straining MW2, don't have these, but do have other senses that are dated and not common, but seem real. DCDuring (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have merged them. If anyone disagrees, please restore. Mihia (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't drive but to describe car travel as "motoring" in Britain definitely has a dated ring to it. (P.S. The "leisurely" argument has got long enough that it should be moved elsewhere.) Equinox 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

son (German)[edit]

Should son include the meanings "1. (colloquial; singular only) contraction of so ein, alternative form of so'n; 2. (colloquial; in plural) such", that is should the second sense from sone be moved? And should there be an inflection table like this (based on the one from so'n)?

Case Singular Plural
m f n
Nominative son sone son sone
Genitive sones soner sones soner
Dative sonem soner sonem sonen
Accusative sonen, son sone son sone


  • If certain forms (like genitive) are doubtful, there could be an RFV and either doubtful forms get attested, or replaced by — or marked as not attested (e.g. if the unattested forms are at least mentioned in linguistic papers).
  • It could be that so'n has the plural so'ne (and "so 'n" might have "so 'ne"), but for the plural pronoun meaning such that spelling seems to be inferior as the plural pronoun is no proper contraction.

- 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

en (French)[edit]

This entry is listed under "Pronoun":

  1. Adverbial preposition indicating movement away from a place already mentioned.
    Est-ce qu'elle vient de Barcelone ? Oui, elle en vient.
    Does she come from Barcelona? Yes, she does.

I don't see how an "Adverbial preposition" can be a pronoun, but I leave it up to those whose French is better than mine to determine what, if anything, should be done with this. Mihia (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a preposition at all, but it is adverbial. I'd just call it an adverb rather than a pronoun. It does have a certain pronominalness about it, but then so do adverbs like here and then. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, they are all pro-forms (hence, I’d guess, the ‘pronominalness’); it’s just that they’re pro-adverbs rather than pronouns, and pro-adverbs usually don’t get analyzed as constituting a separate part of speech from other adverbs. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If a pronoun is a pro-form that stands in for a noun phrase and a pro-verb is a pro-form that stands in for a verb phrase, then en and y are "pro-prepositions" since they stand in for prepositional phrases. I would say that the usual term for "pro-preposition" is adverb; in other words, adverbs are nothing more than pro-forms that stand in for prepositional phrases. This is true even of adverbs that don't feel "pronominal" such as computationally, which is just a substitute for the prepositional phrase "in a computational manner". At any rate, while I understand that y and en are called pronouns in French-language pedagogy, I don't think that's linguistically accurate. What they are is adverbs. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
en can usually be translated 'thereof' or 'therefrom'; what do we call those words? —Tamfang (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding 毆打 to tbe "compounds" section of [edit]

I am afraid I do not how to do it properly, but I think 毆打 should be a "Derived word" of . --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The entry has been expanded now. Wyang (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

motor (again)[edit]

At motor:


motor (not comparable)

  1. (biology) describing neurons that create the ability to move
    She has excellent motor skills.

Is this an adjective? Mihia (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so:
  • "Those are very motor neurons you've got there."
  • "Those neurons are motor."
  • "Those are the most motor (motorest) neurons I've ever seen."
It would be wonderful if we could get someone to clean up all of the similarly erroneous adjective sections. DCDuring (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
OTOH some dictionaries have several adjective definitions for motor, apparently based on adjective usage that does not correspond semantically to any noun usage. See “motor” at OneLook Dictionary Search, eg, MWOnline. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, MWOnline has "1c : of, relating to, concerned with, or involving muscular movement" motor areas of the brain". The also have an entry for motor neuron. DCDuring (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough Oxford (listed in the refs under One Look) treats motor as an adjective, albeit attributive and not comparable.
1British [attributive] Driven by a motor.
‘a motor van’
1.1 Relating to motor vehicles.
‘motor insurance’
2 [attributive] Giving or producing motion or action.
‘demand is the principle motor force governing economic activity’
2.1 Physiology: Relating to muscular movement or the nerves activating it.
‘the motor functions of each hand’
What else can I say? DonnanZ (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
To me the "motor" in "motor skills" is an adjective, even though it's not comparable etc., just because I can't imagine a realistic sentence where it would stand alone as a noun. Equinox 17:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, French moteur in that sense is an adjective as well (definitely not a noun!), even though it's not comparable, etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that it is an adjective. But the definition is wrong - "motor insurance" has nothing to do with neurons. I'll see if I can improve it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries notwithstanding, I cannot agree that "motor" is an adjective in "motor insurance". Mihia (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I can see Oxford's angle, motor trade is another one which may be a contraction of "motor vehicle trade". It doesn't actually have a motor, but handles the sale and repair of motor vehicles and sale of parts. Equally, motor insurance could be a contraction of "motor vehicle insurance". DonnanZ (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
In (neuro)physiological contexts, motor *is* an attributive adjective formed from a specific sense of motor borrowed directly from Latin, i.e. 'that which causes to move; mover' (agent noun of moto#Latin, frequentative of moveo#Latin). So, motor function, motor disease, motor pathway, motor neuron, "excellent motor functions" are all intended in this sense. As for automobiles, it might need some tweaking. Moogsi (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


I do not know how exactly to write the entry for "lyrata". I have come to understand the meaning of "lyrata" (please read this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_leaf_morphology&oldid=814744686#lyrata); I would appreciate it if someone would write and create the page for "lyrata". --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence on Google Books for use in English. I have created the entry for the Latin inflected form. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Lyrate and lyreleaf are corresponding English words. DCDuring (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Anyone want to deal with this trainwreck? [5] Equinox 19:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: Mahagaja posted about it in the GP. As it's a technical issue, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the TR. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I had always assumed that it was a verb. But is it used outside of the one (quite famous) book? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you look at the entry and see? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
In Watership Down itself I think it is a verb, but in the other works that use it without reference to WD it always seems to be a noun. In all the quotes, it's preceded by a preposition, either on silflay, at silflay, or to silflay (in the 2011 quote it could theoretically be a verb, I suppose, but not in the other three quotes). At any rate, none of this solves the problem that {{der}} seems to think that art-lap is simultaneously both a language and not a language. (Schrödinger's language?) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

beat to[edit]

Shouldn't this be moved to beat to it? Cf. [6], [7], [8]. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

But you can have a full noun in place of it, e.g. "John beat me to the restaurant". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Should this entry exist? Isn't this the same word as đại, but capitalized because it's in a proper noun? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Wyang (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

big toe[edit]

Is this informal, slightly informal, totally standard? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that the abundant use of the term found at Google Scholar suggests that it is standard. This Google N-gram search shows that it is at present more common than its synonyms great toe (formerly much more common) and hallux. DCDuring (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that the frequency shift comes from L2 speakers. These are more likely to use “big” and not to use “great” in the size sense (but learners learn to use “great” as “awesome”, “dope”). And yeah, maybe the same applies to children, so it would be slightly informal. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 06:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to say thaat applies mainly to learners.... I'm pretty sure most native speakers would typically opt for "big" over "great", and this has been the case for several decades, if not the last three quarters of a century at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
In the UK this is totally standard. I have never heard any other form of the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
In the US, I'd never heard "great toe". I suspect that it lingers in book-based frequency data because of reprints of earlier works. DCDuring (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Could someone check if the recent IP contributions make sense? @Lirafafrod? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Nah, it's crap. Good revert, BT --Lirafafrod (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


The plurals are much too distracting. Any idea for improvement? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could remove those that are identical to the top one, adding perhaps "unless otherwise specified" to the already present "plural media or mediums" on the quote-unquote title before sense 1. Note that I suggest removing "media or mediums", not "mediums or media", because the order, I guess, suggests which one is more commonly employed for each sense. MGorrone (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


The second quotation uses hinstellen instead of hinsetzen. Matt Zjack (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"An Ancient translation"?[edit]

I just looked for ἀνία and noticed that the "no results" window displayed "ἀνία is an Ancient translation of the word boredom ("state of being bored").". Err, what? "an Ancient translation"? Surely you mean "Ancient Greek" right? What can be done about this? MGorrone (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I don't think it's going to be easy to fix, because it's a feature of MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js. It's somehow related to the problem above. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was easy to fix. The translation table at boredom was using the label "Ancient:" instead of "Ancient Greek:", that's all. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yes, but you'll have to fix that manually everytime. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Ancient Greek should not be listed under Greek in translations. What are we saying by doing this? This behavior is controlled in MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder-Data.js by the way. DTLHS (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
People call both Ancient Greek and Modern Greek Greek. If someone wants to find an Ancient Greek translation in the Translations section, he looks for Greek in the alphabetical order. By doing this, we are acknowledging that people call Greek of any epoch Greek. —Stephen (Talk) 06:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If we would really acknowledge that, we wouldn't name any specific type of Greek simply Greek but we would sort it like this:
  • Greek:
    • Ancient Greek: {{t|grc|}}
    • Modern Greek: {{t|el|}}
To be more informative and (in some ways) more user-friendly, there could be other types of Greek like this:
  • Greek:
    • Mycenaean Greek: {{t|gmy|}}
    • Ancient Greek:
      • Homeric: {{t|grc|}}
      • Attic: {{t|grc|}}
      • Koine: {{t|grc|}}
      • [other dialects]
    • Middle Greek: {{t|grc|}}
    • Modern Greek:
      • Katharevousa: {{t|el|}}
      • Demotic: {{t|el|}}
Tsakonian (tsd) and other modern Greek languages might be listed under Greek too. - 01:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the above-mentioned message in the search results is generated by? Maybe the script or whatever it is could automatically determine that the language name is "Ancient Greek". — Eru·tuon 07:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Wondering if þrīfeald should be moved to þrifeald since B&T does not show þrī, but it shows þri. Should this ī to i worry us? Anglish4699 (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Old English really didn't use macrons, macrons are added today to indicate probable vowel lengths. As such, there would be no need to "move" the entry, as the entry title would remain the same. I think that there is sufficient reason to keep the vowel long though, since the word is made up of þrī + -feald. We could show one or the other as an alternative form though Leasnam (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
B&T also shows the OFS and OHG with a short vowel, which should be long...my experience with B&T (and don't get me wrong, I love em !) is that you have to be careful about the many typos and other "mistakes" they have :\ Leasnam (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
From a PIE standpoint, there's three possible grades, *trey-, *troy- and *tri-. The first and third of these would become *þrī- and *þri- respectively. —Rua (mew) 17:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rua, do you think this word was likely formed in PIE ? and, would it have to be to show a reflex of *tri- ? Leasnam (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ancient Greek and Latin diphthongs[edit]

In Ancient Greek does the pronunciation of "ai" in "-ái̯.os" differ from that of "ai" in "-aí̯.aː" or are they "áios" "áiā" (or "áj.jos" "áj.jā"?)?

And how differs it from Latin "-ae̯.us"? In sound examples here I hear "aius" (or "aj.jus"?)...

As in Latin [-ae̯.ʊs] Ancient Greek pronunciation should show this kind of spelling (some say [-aĵ.jos]) and in both languages there should be pronunciation for all genders...

Thank you. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Which sound examples? Many of the Latin sound files are by @EncycloPetey, and reflect a heavy American accent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources I relied upon claim [aɪ.jʊs] or [aɪ.jus], which is what I attempted to record. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
But particularly "-ái̯.os" and "-aí̯.aː" should thus differ? One falling, other rising?
And, @EncycloPetey, whence did you get that eʁupajjus?? So saying [aɪ.jʊs] or [aɪ.jus] you are not even pronouncing what is spelled on the page, [ae̯.ʊs]... -GuitarDudeness (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history, you will see that someone changed the IPA after the audio was recorded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In Ancient Greek does the pronunciation of "ai" in "-ái̯.os" differ from that of "ai" in "-aí̯.aː" or are they "áios" "áiā" (or "áj.jos" "áj.jā"?)? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, yes, there was a difference, -αῖος should have a high pitch from the onset which falls back to the baseline, while -αία starts with a low pitch that rises reaches its peak somewhere around [i], perhaps lingering on α for a bit, IIRC some classical author described the pitch difference as a perfect fifth. If you want to play around with this stuff I suggest downloading Praat, recording yourself and studying the pitch contours.
Latin had dynamic stress which means that -ae- should have greater loudness than other syllables, you can check this in Praat too, but you probably don't need to since it's the same as accenting a syllable in English which you probably can do already.
There was probably some heightened loudness following a Greek accent and maybe some pitch changes on Latin stressed syllables, but you shouldn't worry too much about these, the important distinction was pitch and loudness respectively.
I am incredulous of the acoustical or the articulatory reality of the [j/i/i̯] distinction as well as syllabification, these seem like phonemic (rather than phonetic) constructs, so I'm not sure what exactly is claimed about the sound files here.
Crom daba (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That would be rational... Thank you and for those links. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary - Personnel[edit]

I see that the Wiktionary entry for 'personnel' indicates that it is not a countable noun. Other dictionaries in some of their examples use 'personnel' as a countable noun. Eg., Miriam-Webster's examples include; "They've reduced the number of personnel working on the project".

Would be interested to hear others' views/opinions. Neils51 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not an example of it being countable. Please read Wikipedia's entry count noun so you understand what is going on. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
But you can say "two personnel" where you can't say "two furniture" or "two rice". Equinox 23:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you (UK) can, but I (US) can't. DCDuring (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You're NY, aren't you? Crappy wikitext breaks my links. But search Google for "many personnel" site:.ny.us. Equinox 01:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
My personnel opinion is that "many personnel" is ugly as sin. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:E0CA:478D:C52:F196 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I speak neither Bureaucrat nor HR, though some argue that these and English are mutually intelligible. DCDuring (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be speaking No True Scottish... Equinox 03:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Och, aye!   (Sorry, couldn't resist! :) ) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm just skeptical about the breadth of the usage in the US. It's definitely not much used in my idiolect.
Here is some discussion of the grammatical number of personnel.
Personnel does seem to require a plural verb in English, at least in American English. How do we show that? (It wouldn't seem to be covered by how we use {{en-plural noun}}.) DCDuring (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point -- personnel does appear to be a default-plural noun that has no singular form. Phrases like “a personnel” or “the personnel goes” just sound wrong. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


Does this need cleanup? The definitions for artificial geysers seem dated or tendentious to me. Ie, what about electric geysers and solar geysers. (I'd never heard of [pleonasm alert] "hot-water heaters" being called geysers, so I have no intuition to work on the entry myself.) DCDuring (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It looks OK to me. In the UK it is a very old-fashioned word for device that produces hot water on demand in a bathroom. I haven't heard it used since the 1960s or before. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I remember the term, and I can picture one in my mind. I don't think they would pass present gas safety laws as they didn't have a flue. DonnanZ (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Third definition: are we talking of a water boiler or a water heater? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is a water heater for bathing, showering etc.
A geyser wouldn't seem to be inherently dangerous, unless we are limiting discussion to unflued, badly plumbed installations. Using solar geyser and electric geyser via Google, I can find current commercial sites, but many of the top hits are in Africa and Asia. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


We currently have translation tables to two senses of sign that obviously have been deleted from the definitions:

  1. meaningful gesture
  2. any of several specialized non-alphabetic symbols

Should we re-enter these definitions or delete the translations? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


There is a usage note at -en which states: Currently not very productive (in fact, it is restricted to monosyllabic bases which end in an obstruent). This tends to give it a humorous effect in recent coinages, such as embiggen. First off, what do we mean when we label something as "humorous". Does it imply that the effect is to make one laugh (showing humour) ? Or is it merely a way to disparage an item because one has a bias to it, and they want to ear-mark it negatively so that it doesn't get used seriously ? As far as productivity, I disagree. Words like roughen are not, in my opinion, "humorous" or to be taken lightly at all. Leasnam (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this "humorous" label belongs at embiggen (--clearly tri-syllabic, and a word you will probably never hear me use !), not at the very serious suffix -en Leasnam (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I just don't think any of the usage note, as is, is useful to the use of the suffix. The meanings already provided by the definitions are fitting, valid, and really all that are needed. Leasnam (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"Roughen" is clearly not humorous, but is that really a very new coinage? What "-en" verb that doesn't exist could we make up today, that wouldn't sound silly? Equinox 16:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter though if it's an existing -en word or new ? The usage applies to all -en words, not only recently created ones. Still, if one said: I removed it from the heat to coolen it before I serve it. that doesn't sound silly to me. ("embiggen" though does sound silly, because embig sounds funny. biggen though, sounds alright.) (btw, coolen is not an English word AFAICT, but maybe should be ?) Leasnam (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm just trying to think of recent/new adjectives to English...all I'm coming up with are slang adjectives, like wack > wacken; hype > hypen, and maybe a noun bling > blingen; but those sound informal not due to the suffix but due to the root. The stem determines the label, not the suffix. There's nothing "informal" or "humorous" about -en, a word suffixed with -en inherits the status of whatever word it's appended to Leasnam (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, here's one: the slang adjective boss (excellent, cool, of high quality). If we say: I gave him an edgier haircut to bossen his new look, does that sound at all weird ? Leasnam (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, strike that if you will, I found a real one: the adjective crass. To crassen would mean "to make (one) crass". What's wrong with that ? Leasnam (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there is an actual isolated use of crassened in John Dos Passos 1921 Three Soldiers: "In the deserted tea room, among the dismal upturned chairs, his crassened fingers moved stiffly over the keys.", but I cannot find enough of this verb to warrant entry creation :( ...not yet! ;) Leasnam (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
And here is a real world example: densen (to make/become dense), which we do not have, but which I will shortly be adding. Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I've added densen, basen, cruden, truthen, tarten, spicen, and also bleaken (to become bleak). There is also ruden, nicen, and laten. This suffix is still productive, and not at all humorous. I motion we remove the usage note as incorrect, being based solely on a single lone (ridiculous) example: embiggen, which is not at all indicative of the suffix as a whole. Leasnam (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mark these with (rare) or something? They sound pretty weird to me, although as a L2 speaker maybe I don't get a say in this. But if I was teaching foreigners English, I would certainly correct densen or ruden as mistakes.
They're rare because most of them are rather new. They can also probably be considered non-standard at this point (except for maybe densen due to a lot of hits I got for densening)...but the call-out above was to supply recent creations that didn't evoke the same cringing that embiggen does. Leasnam (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Humor is of course context sensitive but the idea here is to portray the dearth of eloquence in which a person cannot remember enlarge or strengthen and so has to resort to building new words (these exist, but they're new to me and probably most other speakers) such as embiggen or strongen to express themselves. Think Buffy the Vampire slayer or Homer Simpson. I guess it's also the same effect as newspeak from 1984, only used for humorous purposes.
Of course you could do this with any suffix like hardity or strongness, but since these are more productive it doesn't sound as funny. Crom daba (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Crom daba, Thank you for that expanation ! embiggen and strongen definitely deserve those labels in that case. However, I do not feel that -en does. I hope I have adequately demonstrated that the label "humorous" should be applied on a term by term basis, and not to this suffix as a whole; with which the vast majority of words (soften, gladden, madden, whiten, brighten, smarten, etc.) would be in appropriate for... Leasnam (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess, it should be noted that it can be odd and non-standard though. Crom daba (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Crom daba, but why ? That's true of all words derived from affixes...why single this one out ? Does super- need a label because you can derive supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from it ?, which, btw, isn't labelled humouros and perhaps should be ? Leasnam (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd say "for didactic purposes" but I guess teaching language learners is not our responsibility. Crom daba (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that -en is humorous or non-serious at all in the majority of words where it is found. It certainly does not change a serious-sounding word into a humorous sounding one, simply by being added to it. You can't get more didactic than that. Leasnam (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make, exactly? Nobody's trying to "disparage" the suffix -en; the only purpose of that usage note is to say that words formed with this suffix sound rather weird/funny (as in "funny smell"). Are you seriously arguing that densen, basen, cruden, truthen, tarten and spicen is perfectly standard English? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:E0CA:478D:C52:F196 22:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
No, I am arguing that soften, harden, lighten, flatten, steepen, blacken, heighten, lengthen, loosen, tighten, etc, etc, etc are perfectly standard English and DON'T sound funny at all. I'm not comfortable having a usage note on an entry just because ONE or FEW words with it may sound "funny". Leasnam (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Leasnam I think the IP has a point, the fact is it's no longer productive except humorously. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That isn't true. It's already used for almost all monosyllabic adjectives that it CAN'T be productive anymore...our language is saturated already with this suffix. Leasnam (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a regularly productive suffix anymore, and I think it's hard to imagine someone seriously saying something like "Shutten the door, please" or "I don't like to hurten people" or "these memes need to be dankened." In the first two examples, at least, the root words are certainly not themselves humourous. I think it's worth including something in the usage note along the lines of "given that this suffix is no longer very productive, it can have a humorous effect when affixed to certain adjectives." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Or better yet, maybe just use the "humorous" note on those words which actually have it and are used that way ? Why spoil the barrel for a few rotten apples ? Leasnam (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
With all respect, Andrew Sheedy, I think you're confusing the suffix in question. This is the specific suffix used to convert Adjectives into verbs with the sense of "to make or give a specific quality to", as in soft > soften "to make soft". It can also sometime be used with nouns with the same force: strength > strengthen Leasnam (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That is exactly the sense I am referring to, and I even followed the rule of using monosyllabic adjectives ending in obstruents as a base. See hurt, shut, and dank, all of which have adjective forms, and all of which end in obstruents (unless I've got my terminology mixed up). The point is that it's an unusal suffix which can often be used to humorous effect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
But all suffixes can be used to humorous effect, can't they ? And all words too...are we to add usage examples for everything ? Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not normally (if ever) appended to past participle adjective like hurt and shut. Never has been Leasnam (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: and danken is a word. I will add it too Leasnam (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. It should still be noted that the suffix has limited productivity. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I have to say I'm finding this fascinating. "Bleaken" and "densen" wouldn't raise my eyebrow in literature (maybe in conversation); some of the others ("truthen"?) seem bizarre. But it's hard to separate neophobia from genuine weirdness. Equinox 18:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox, I never meant to imply that truthen wasn't a little odd; but as you say, it may just be that we're not used to hearing it. Structurally though, it's no different from strengthen, which might sound just as "funny" if we weren't already so accustomed to it. blonden (to make or turn blond) doesn't strike me as weird though, just somewhat unfamiliar. Leasnam (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO though, embiggen is rather "weird"...maybe because it's not a natural/organic creation, but rather a forced/conscious creation aimed at ousting or displacing another word or words ;) For the record, I am not necessarily a huge fan of these types of creations, unless they're exceptionally outstanding (which most are not) Leasnam (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see some recent (say, post 1980) coinages applying -en in the phonetically limited range of stems for which there are older coinages. Are they humorous? "Embiggen" is a poor example, as it also requires a prefix.
I found some discussion of 19th century coinages (densen/densening and danken/dankening) that didn't find them humorous. safen/safening is fairly common in the discussion of agricultural biocides, where it is seems specialized to mean "to protect against the bad effects of biocides, usually on economic crops". I don't find that humorous, except in the context of this particular discussion. DCDuring (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It does seem like the suffix is still at least somewhat productive, even if other suffixes are (possibly even considerably) more common. There are cases where using -en rather than another suffix might strike me as nonstandard, like "chromen the hubcap" would sound wrong, vs "chromify the hubcap" — and "platinumen the hubcap" would sound very wrong, vs "platinumify the hubcap" which would just sound silly. I'm not sure that the suffix -en is humourous, though, as opposed to there simply being words which it is humourous to "verbify" with any suffix ("verben" sounds nonstandard), which—as Leasnam suggests—might be better labelled individually. I don't know, this is a hard case! Aside from the fact that "embiggen" should be removed because it also requires a prefix and isn't just an example of this suffix, is the wording that's in the entry now acceptable, or not? - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Southwestern Fars additions[edit]

I'm not sure whether this should be here or under vandalism, but Eeranee (talkcontribs) has been adding Southwestern Fars entries recently, including many adjectives using {{fay-adj}}, a template generating a module error as it tries to reference the nonexistent module MOD:fay-adj. I have not the capacity to judge these entries on their merit, but someone should definitely clean up or delete them. Whatever the choice, these entries should be checked and the module error fixed. Thanks! —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 03:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. DTLHS (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Thanks! Anything on the actual entries? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 03:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits § Renaming fay. Seems to be a careful user. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 04:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


RDA has "(rare, Avatar) Resources Development Administration; a large corporation from 2009 movie Avatar." as one sense, shouldn't Avatar's RDA need to be referenced in a non-avatar context? --Rasptr (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Navajo names for (West) Virginia[edit]

@Stephen G. Brown and anyone else in a position to chime in: we have entries for Navajo Eʼeʼaahjí Bijiniyah hahoodzo (West Viriginia) (without an acute accent on the second vowel of the second word) and Bijíniyah hahoodzo (Virginia) (with an acute accent on the second vowel of the first word). Is that actually right, or should the two words for "Virginia" be the same? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that's just the placing of pitch accent on the whole phrase. Eʼeʼaahjí has the accent for the first one. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Corrected, Navajo Eʼeʼaahjí Bijíniyah Hahoodzo and Bijíniyah Hahoodzo. In Marvin Yellowhair's The New Oxford Picture Dictionary, Yellowhair spells the translations for Virginia and West Virginia with different tones. Both should have the same tones. —Stephen (Talk) 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


The page shows a Cantonese pronunciation. Is this word used in Cantonese? @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Wyang. Dokurrat (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Pretty sure @Mar vin kaiser got it from Pleco, which has Cantonese for all entries in the Pleco Basic Chinese-English Dictionary. It's definitely not used in the vernacular, and I don't think it's used in 書面語书面语 (shūmiànyǔ). I'm not sure if we should keep the Cantonese pronunciation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this is too colloquial Mandarin to be literary Cantonese. Wyang (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I agree. Erhua-ed words are generally to colloquial. The exception might be some really common erhua-ed words like 那兒 and 一點兒. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

AFChick, AFCness, AFCdom[edit]

More from the incel obsessive. But is incel a true synonym for "AFC" (average frustrated chump)? Equinox 19:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be less extreme than incel, here's the definition from "The Mystery method":
"An armchair pickup artist who is actually just a nice guy with a tendency to place women on a pedestal, only to have them walk all over him. Rarely closes his targets."
Crom daba (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't answer your question, but I don't think I've ever seen "incel" used outside the manosphere, while "AFC" is standard pick-up community jargon. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought manosphere is a catch-all for any sexual "red-pilling" community including PUA. Crom daba (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Crom daba: Mh, the two communities are obviously related, but I wouldn't really make either a subset of the other. If anything, I'd say a manosphere guy will be familiar with all the PUA lingo (I'm not entirely sure, though), while the reverse is not true. PUA seems more "mainstream" to me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
"Closing targets", ewww. Social relationships shouldn't be marketing (says an old man who doesn't use Twitter). Anyway, yeah, my understanding was that incel never got any sex in his life, but AFC just didn't get as much as he wanted. Equinox 19:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

keep abreast[edit]

Can you "keep someone (else) abreast" (i.e. "keep informed"), or can you only "keep <yourself> abreast"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You normally just "keep abreast": "I kept abreast of developments". But yes, "kept him abreast" has enormous numbers of hits in GBooks. Equinox 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Ok, thanks. Do you think I could create keep abreast? Other dictionaries have it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
In my experience it is very rare to hear abreast outside of keep abreast, so probably, yeah. Equinox 23:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I do hear it in "three abreast", "four abreast", etc. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
In both the figurative and more literal/concrete senses be, stay, get, and bring are used with abreast. I'd still say that keep abreast warrants a full entry. The others might warrant redirects to [[abreast]] unless there are other references that have full entries for them, in which case I'd favor full entries. DCDuring (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinyin needed[edit]

The last point in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%9A%84#Usage_notes needs pinyin for the terms 白勺的, 雙人得, 土也地. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

on the telephone[edit]

I've added an entry for on the telephone something that Merriam-Webster has an entry for https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20the%20telephone. I'd say that sense 2 "Connected to a telephone system." "the percentage of households on the telephone" is definitely not SOP and it is apparently specific to British English. Voortle (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

main page[edit]

I know this might be radically opposed by some, but couldn't this term merit an entry rather than a mainspace redirect to Wiktionary:Main Page? I think main page in this case could be at least a borderline case of non-SOP, but see how home page also lists start page as a synonym, which looks sort of SOP-ish to me (though I can see why one would say it's not). The main reason I think it could be dictionary material is because it is a set phrase, especially in the sense of wikis. Almost all wikis I've seen call their home page a "main page" rather than a home page or a front page. I also find it strange how it's usually capitalized.

Anyway, here's what an entry could look like:

: ''For Wiktionary's main page, see [[Wiktionary:Main Page]].''




# {{lb|en|especially|wiki}} {{synonym of|home page|lang=en}}


# {{lb|en|Internet}} {{def|The [[home page]] of a [[wiki]].}}


# {{lb|en|Internet}} {{def|A [[home page]], especially of a [[wiki]].}}

The whole concept of how it's called a "main page" always confused me. That's particularly why an entry for main page would interest me. I mean "home page" is a magnitude more common; how come they invented "main page"? It might help to include an etymology section to explain when the term was first used and why, rather than something else like home page. Anyway, this seems almost exclusive to wikis, so in that sense it might not be SOP. What do you guys think? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. Let's delete main page and recreate it again as a normal entry. --Gente como tú (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's called "main page" because it's possible to configure a wiki so that the front/main page isn't the actual "home page" (i.e. not the one at the root of the site)...? Still SoP, don't see point of an entry. Equinox 14:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mustard (British slang)[edit]

I draw your attention to the discussion page for mustard regarding British slang usage and my very limited exposure to it as a Canadian. I was seeking more information here. I only add where I have certainty, but I don't. Thanks for your attention. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

pot pie[edit]

In my dialect at least, Midwestern American English, a pot pie refers almost exclusively to a savory pie, with the word 'pot' distinguishing it from a sweet pie. Is this just my dialect, or should the definition be altered? It would be interesting to hear from some British or Australian speakers. Nemoanon (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

In discussion with British friends, I've discovered that the word "pie" unmodified is generally assumed by Brits to refer to a savory pie and by Americans to refer to a sweet pie. It's therefore unlikely that they would use pot pie to mean any savory pie of any size, since pie alone already means that to them. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Canadian usage, which is often similar to that of Midwestern America, follows what you describe. I would never call a sweet pie a "pot pie." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but not every savory pie would be a pot pie. It has to be very liquidy (like gravy or something brothy). It can't just be a meat pie. --WikiTiki89 18:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with that. In fact, "pot pie" is how I have always thought that sort of thing was distinguished from tourtière (which, incidentally, is usually made with beef in my experience, possibly because beef is more popular than pork in Alberta). I have never associated it with size. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

circle of violence[edit]

I'm not sure whether it's worth an entry, it seems to be different from a vicious circle, although I find references to a "vicious circle of violence". I assume it involves tit for tat, one violent action is replied to with another. DonnanZ (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more about a person who suffered violence as a child becoming violent as an adult; see Cycle of violence. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, so "cycle of violence" and "circle of violence" are synonyms, more or less. What about a circle (or cycle) of violence in a not-too-peaceful neighbourhood? These don't always happen within families (thinking of Belfast and other trouble spots). DonnanZ (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Not every cliche is an entryworthy idiom. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether it's entry-worthy or not it's still worth asking. Funnily enough there is a novel named Cycle of Violence. DonnanZ (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's entry-worthy. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Not a user I recognise. DonnanZ (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Anyway, seeing that English isn't my mother tongue, you can ignore my above statement; I'm not really in a position to judge. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


I've always pronounced this with stress on the first syllable, like in Irish. My pronunciation is inherited from my father, who is from Dublin. —Rua (mew) 20:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you pronounce the first vowel? --WikiTiki89 20:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
[ɒ] as far as I can tell. —Rua (mew) 20:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The Irish pronunciation depends on the dialect. In Munster, poitín is stressed on the second syllable. As for the English word, all the dictionaries I've consulted put the stress on the second syllable. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
In other dictionaries, I see — in addition to the pronunciations we give — /-ˈθin/ and /-ˈtjin/ as possibilities for the second syllable and /poʊ-/ and /pɒ-/ as (unstressed) possibilities for the first syllable. However, the narrator does seem to stress the first syllable in this RTE documentary (10 seconds in). I wouldn't normally consider a single video sufficient proof of a pronunciation (and if anyone wants to peruse YouTube for more evidence, please do), but I'd like to trust that the national broadcaster of Ireland would pronounce the word authentically in a documentary about the very topic, heh. - -sche (discuss) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The pronunciation with stress on the second syllable as in the US/UK also seems to be found, of course. I have added both. - -sche (discuss) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


The verb to wife#Verb is used in modern slang, it means to marry a girl: "I would totally wife her". Do you think it should be added? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

@ Yes. Please have a go at it. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
It helps to have citations for the term in use, for example, on UseNet. Showing that another dictionary or glossary would work if you can find one. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that there are citations in durably archived sources for this, especially for any particular meaning, even the one given above. Urban dictionary had a few verb definitions, which didn't agree with each other not with the definition above. I'd RfV this. DCDuring (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: this looks easily citable to me: [9], [10], [11], [12] (a mention, though). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't see your first cite. The fourth is a mention, but the usage examples given may, by being in a durably cited work, count. None of the uses correspond to the definition given above. The term would seem to merit {{lb|en|AAVE}}. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
At Google Books, searching for "to wife her" gets perhaps five hits that support the definition above, though I didn't check the entire context. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, sorry. I must admit I'm more concerned with having a POS header "verb" at all than with giving said verb an accurate definition; another instance of me putting the cart before the horse. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

maidenhead, virginity[edit]

I was going to redirect the translation table of maidenhead and maidenhood to virginity, when I figured that the first two terms mean specifically "female virginity". But am I right to think that, or does it work for both sexes (that's what happened with virgo/virginitas, after all)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I would have thought that, as it refers to the hymen, it means female virginity only. SemperBlotto (talk)
    • @Per utramque cavernam: Maybe it's justified and would make sense to have two senses for virginity and also for virgin: 1. (originally/strictly) female person who never had sexual intercourse -- the state of a female person being a virgin; 2. (by extension, colloquially[?]) person who never had sexual intercourse -- the state of a person being a virgin. Then virginity (1) could be synonym to maidenhood and virginity (2) could be a hyperonym to maidenhood. - 01:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought that maidenhead referred strictly to female virginity, however, I've just added a few cites that seem to point to the fact that (at least in earlier times, maybe still...) a man's virginity could also be referred to as "maidenhead" Leasnam (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of the pronunciation of why're[edit]

I cannot find a reliable source for the pronunciation of why're --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's an homophone of wire. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:7430:B56:175A:9A0 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Or just a rhyme of it, for those of us who still resist the wine-whine merger. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I pronounce it /ʍaɪɚ/, /hwaɪɚ/. —Stephen (Talk) 01:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

retard DANGER section[edit]

The entry for the derogatory term retard contains a subheading labeled "DANGER". This seems both non-standard (since it's not employed on pages for other slurs) and editorialized. While I appreciate the sentiment, this section should probably be removed by someone with editing powers. --Twentyfists (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed. DTLHS (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Is there no relation between yiddish "verkakte" and german "verkacken"? None is mentioned on Wiktionary.--345Kai (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Our entry for פֿאַרקאַקט (farkakt) does say it's cognate with German verkackt. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


We don't have an entry for the adverb socking (very) (e.g. "socking great jewels", but before I start one, I have some questions:

  1. Is it British English only, or is it also found in American English?
  2. Is it (dated), or is it still used?
  3. Does it modify anything other than great, and if not, should we have an entry for socking great with an {{only used in}} at [[socking]]?

Any other issues? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

At OneLook I found only Oxford to have it. They say it is UK. I'd be surprised if it weren't used with many adjectives, but I didn't look at Google Books to confirm. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Socking big" occasionally. Equinox 14:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Socking good", too. Appears in recent fiction, but might be dated. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Socking enormous". Amazing what a little time looking at authorities and usage can reveal. DCDuring (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
A single instance of "socking huge" on GB. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
A single instance of "socking fat" on GB. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
A single instance of "socking enormous" on GB. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, everyone. I've added it tagged {{lb|en|UK}} but not "dated". Feel free to fine-tune as necessary. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It sounds a wee bit like the F-word f*****g which is also used as an adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Do you think you could have a look at this? I've tagged a few words as "dubious":

  • either because they seem so rare they might not meet the CFI;
  • or because I'm not sure they mean "irrefutable": inattackable/unattackable. I can see a few figurative uses on GB, but I'm not sure;
  • or because they don't mean exactly "irrefutable" ("absolutely certain, positively true" in a good sense): unfalsifiable ("that cannot be disproved, but is not necessarily true". cf. the theory of falsifiability in epistemology).

@AdamBMorgan might be interested. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In the case of "unfalsifiable," it just captures a different nuance. It's still worth including in the thesaurus. And "unshakeable" as in "unshakeable logic" is a perfectly valid synonym (see sense #3). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the unfalsifiable set to hypernyms as they are a weaker and (in my mind) more general sense than irrefutable. If there are enough synonyms, they could be a separate page in their own right. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean? Is there a reference for Chinese food words?[edit]

This should be the name of a packaged food 五香卤块. It may be 5 spice flavor block, or something like that.

I have all kinds of questions now regarding food words:

Is there a compendium of food words where I can match characters to English words? What are good tools for helping to identify characters by drawing them? What are other ways to input characters right now if we don't know their pronunciation? Does anyone know of discussion fora where Chinese ingredients are discussed?


What do you suppose this means? The first cite would suggest it is a synonym for Asia, which matches the part of the definition that says "consisting of [the Indian] subcontinent and Asia proper", but that is irreconcilable with the beginning of that sentence, since Asia is not "the smallest landmass on Earth". Other cites seem to be using the sense to refer to part of Asia. The "Hyponyms" section of the entry just adds to the confusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It might relate to the Indian subcontinent and the rest of the continent Asia and could be "The smallest a landmass on Earth, consisting of the Indian subcontinent and Asia proper", i.e. it could be what others simply call Asia. The reason for using Indo-Asia instead of simply Asia could be geological history, moving of landmasses, tectonic plates, etc. Maybe biggest and smallest were confused? Hyponym Europe however wouldn't fit to this. - 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Does this really mean "decay"? The cites I found seemed more like "disintegration", "downfall (into separate elements)", "fracturing" (of movements, countries, languages), as dis- + falo would suggest. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Swedish artell[edit]

There are three different declension tables, and two different designs; that's pretty unsightly. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a mess. I'm not fond of inflection tables, and am not familiar with the Swedish ones, but someone may know. It doesn't seem to be a current word, not in any online dictionaries apart from SAOB, it's not in the SAOL or Swedish Wiktionary. Ironically none of the inflections have entries. Perhaps the appearance (on the page) of the middle template can be revised, which would necessitate a rewrite of the template. DonnanZ (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

gelatin, gelatine[edit]

Are these pronounced differently? DTLHS (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe that the first one always rhymes with "tin" and the second one either does the same or rhymes with "teen" depending on personal preference. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I pronounce gelatine and nicotine as in "teen", and tine as in "Tyne". DonnanZ (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I pronounce them identically: /ˈdʒɛlətɪn/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Cambridge online, WordReference's version of Collins, and Fowler's Concise Dictionary of Modern English Usage (ISBN 0199666318) say gelatine is /-iːn/ and gelatin is /-ɪn/ (or /-ən/). OTOH, Collins’ own site seems to imply either spelling can be pronounced either way. Other dictionaries I looked at aren't clear, but seem to imply they are both /-iːn/ or both /-ɪn/. It wouldn't surprise me if some speakers used their 'native' pronunciation for both spellings, recognizing them as synonymous variants of each other, while other speakers make a distinction, as several say here they do. As an aside, I used to have a box of the stuff where the front said "gelatine" but the back said "ingredients: gelatin" — as Equinox joked, the other ingredient must have been an E number. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Does this really need separate etymologies for the verb and the noun? I don't think there's any etymological difference, and the entry certainly doesn't indicate that. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is not about the Scots law definition; that one is from receipt and should be a separate etymology. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought not (though it is good for an ety to indicate which came first, verb or noun). Equinox 05:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Conversion (word formation) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


This doesn't strike me as being a Translingual term, should it be Interlingua? DonnanZ (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Added almost three years ago by Stephen G. Brown. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Interlingua is a conlang. Aho is a word used by a number of different American Indian languages (such as Lakota, Paiute, Apache, Cheyenne, Navajo, Cherokee, Shoshone, Southern Ute and others). It is translingual, although English is not one of the languages that use it. It is translingual in the same sense that the Cyrillic letter б is translingual ... it's used by a number of different languages, although not by English. —Stephen (Talk) 14:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly not in the same category as the botanical and zoological terms, chemical symbols and compounds included under Translingual, nor of any letter in any alphabet (see A for instance). It would appear to be a waif without a proper home, say ==Native American==, although I have no idea whether it's feasible and how many other terms are like this. Shall we show some Christmas cheer and give it a proper home? DonnanZ (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't we simply have a section for each language that uses it? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
How is this different from amen? How do you distinguish borrowing into multiple languages from Translingual? Chuck Entz (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
A moot point, amen has entries in 13 languages (omitting Catalan, Galician and Spanish amén and German Amen) and more yet to come, but it's not really used for inter-language communication, is it? DonnanZ (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that's precisely what Chuck Entz meant; that we should treat aho as we've treated amen, i.e. with several language sections. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Stephen G. Brown, that's not how Translingual works. And it is obvious that this won't cover even the languages you mentioned, because they have different writing systems. Will you please convert it into a Kiowa entry and as many other entries are appropriate? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Changed to Navajo. I really shouldn't have said that aho is not English. It is used in English, but not standard English. It's like that term inshallah, which is neither Arabic nor English, but somewhere in between. When Native Americans speak English, they do use aho in English. There are a lot of words that Native Americans use when speaking English that are not standard English. For example, chúrn (not a Navajo word, yet nothing to do with English churn). Chúrn is an interjection that appears to have been borrowed from English, yet has no similarity in meaning. It even has a high tone, though it is only used in English. I don't know how to characterize these words. Are they a kind of slang? Code-switching? They don't all fall into only one or two categories. Except for aho, which is a very common word in several regions, I have completely ignored words of this sort. Linguistically, they're too weird. Here is an example of English as spoken by a Navajo:
"Aho! Proud of all of you cheii, masani, shima and yazh! He has no right being here on our sacred land! What made him think he could come on our land after everything he's done?!?" —Stephen (Talk) 23:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou, Stephen, I didn't realise it was your entry to begin with. Seasons greetings to you (and to everyone here on Wiktionary). DonnanZ (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


I was rereading my copy of The High King of Montival (ISBN 9780451463524) and I saw this on page 425 " ...pulled the sheathed Sword from its frow." I've never seen this word before, so I came here to look it up. The page "frow" does not have an appropriate meaning. I thought it would be an archaic word for scabbard. Can this be added?--Auric (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That meaning is at frog (a loop of a scabbard). Is frow then a variant of frog or perhaps frock ? Leasnam (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we would need more examples to add it to frow- it could be a typo. DTLHS (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

sun kink[edit]

Spoorspatting Landgraaf

Is this term actually used anywhere when referring to buckling of railway tracks caused by extreme heat, or is it just a poor translation? It appears in the description of the image, also at Norwegian solslyng. DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I did find one reference in Wikipedia (Buckling#Surface materials) using the same image, but I feel this needs backing up by other reports, e.g. in the press or rail magazines. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of it, but it looks readily attestable: google books:sun kink. DCDuring (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Also known as a heat buckle. DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, reading those links gives me the impression that it's an American railroading term, which would explain why I had never heard of it. I had only heard of buckles and buckling. DonnanZ (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


(humor) I didn't want to unilaterally make this change, but David Morgan-Mar points out the correct definition for "fortnight" is British slang for a two-week period. We seem to fail to emphasis the slang part in our definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He seems to be making the point that it is NOT slang. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Old English fore-[edit]

@Anglish4699 Why does this have a long vowel? There isn't one etymologically, and there's no obvious evidence of it in the descendants either. —Rua (mew) 01:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no clue in the world why it's long. On Bosworth-Toller, it shows "fóre-" for many fore- terms. I don't know if I'm the right one to ask for this since I am not well-read in Proto-Germanic and its descendants. Anglish4699 (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I have seen the OE prefix written both ways, with a short o and what is presumably a long o written ó. I wonder though if this is not an attempt to mark a stressed fore- to distinguish it from unstressed for-. I agree that etymologically it is unfounded. Leasnam (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

craftless Etymology[edit]

I was wondering if the English craftless was from Middle English, from OE cræftlēas. Maybe a possible continuation... I just don't know, and I don't have a dictionary around! Anglish4699 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The same goes for fatherless and OE fæderlēas. Anglish4699 (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone with access to the OED could see if the words have continuous attestation from the Middle English period to today. DTLHS (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as the ME craftles, it is inherited from the OE word cræftlēas. The ME word has the same meaning as one of the Modern senses meaning "unskilled". The ME word is attested at least twice, once in 1225 as creftleas and again in 1425 as craftles. 1425 is only 75 years away from Modern English. I see no reason to think this is not the same word continually. Leasnam (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you! By that same logic, fatherless would be from the OE term, yes? Anglish4699 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I've also updated the etymology at vaterlos. Sometimes, when an entry is created, a shortcut etymology is provided based on surface analysis...that just means that for those of us who are into etymologies have the task ahead of us to find them all and update them ! Leasnam (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Update: Looks like ya beat me to it! Anglish4699 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Can the verb (second sense) be used figuratively? For byspel, "his mind was cankered by surrounding influences". Tharthan (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It may be so. From The Tract Magazine, and Christian Miscellany, I found some quotes on sin. "but alas ! he employed them in folly and wasted them in sinful pursuits, so that they were cankered to him. . .", (1) "Knowledge is an estimable possession, and Clement did all in his power to attain it; but when gained it made him not happy, for he used it to do evil and not to do good. His knowledge was cankered to him, for it only increased his power to be wicked," (2) and "His reputation was cankered, for it led him to think more highly of himself than he ought to think. . .," (3). There are some on Pg. 168. Anglish4699 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Catta is currently defined as "cat (or some unknown species of animal or bird)", but is there really such uncertainty about what the word means? The English translation of Baruch 6:21 does make "cat" sound like an unlikely meaning, but Mahagaja points out in the Etymology scriptorium that it's a (awkward) translation of a Greek original that uses αἴλουρος (aílouros) (which our entry says means "cat" or "weasel") and probably isn't meant to imply they fly. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Knight vs. knight: what was the Middle English?[edit]

At Knight we see "from knyghte from cniht", whereas at knight we see "from knight/kniht from cniht". Which one is right? Were all three forms used, in which case all three should probably appear on both entries? MGorrone (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Middle English was incredibly varied, not having a standard version and a multiplicity of dialects. There are certainly more forms than just the 3 mentioned above (like: knigt, cnigt, kniȝt, cniht, knigȝt, kniȝght, kniȝht, knikt, knict, cnict, knicht, cnect) just to name a few. All three then are correct, but it's no necessary to add all of them Leasnam (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there a normalized spelling of Middle English that we use? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of one. —Rua (mew) 13:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
knight is the headword used in most ME dictionaries. Leasnam (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

rectahedron etc[edit]

An orthohedron is defined as being like a cube but with only two faces constrained to be square.

At http://www.fzglobal.org/w040617-040716.htm the word "rectahedron" is mentioned, but suggested to be an erroneous substitution for "orthohedron".

I thought "rectahedron" meant a three-dimensional six-sided polyhedron in which all angles are right. Every pair of opposing sides will therefore be congruent, but none need be squares. An orthohedron is a particular kind of rectahedron. A cube is a particular kind of orthohedron (and therefore a particular kind of rectahedron).

I can't find any attestations to this definition, though I can find occasional usages of it (especially in patent applications), with cognates like "rectahedral", "rectahedra", etc.

Google Scholar seems to be barfing on me right now (though that could be a Javascript problem). I found the page referenced above with plain Google, searching for "oed rectahedron" and saying "no I didn't mean octahedron".

Anybody else think the word "rectahedron" is real, and worth an entry?

  • Nothing like it in MathWorld, but I can see several usages that mostly have to describe it (as a polyhedron with six rectangular faces (i.e like a brick)). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I have added definitions for rectahedron and rectahedral. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

zed for zombie[edit]

Someone in a video I watched noted that this sense is widespread even in the US. This would mean that the context label in the headword line doesn't apply for this sense. Can this be verified? —Rua (mew) 16:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Was that person American? I am, and I am wholly unfamiliar with this sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes they were. —Rua (mew) 22:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, zed for “zombie” is used not that rarely in the USA. That’s something one finds in really trashy movies and computer games, however it is often written Z. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The American (be it US-American or Canadian or both) TV show "Z Nation" should use the term Z or z to mean zombie. z-nation.wikia.com/wiki/Zombie (not reliable) mentions it in the plural as "Z's". - 17:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

brown bread#Adjective[edit]

This couldn't just be Cockney rhyming slang. American James Rolfe uses it in this video at 1:44. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it's widely known in American English. I'd say isolated use of Cockney rhyming slang by Americans (I use it myself occasionally, mostly to get a laugh out of my English friends) doesn't mean it's no longer just Cockney rhyming slang. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


After these edits, the entry has four senses; are they accurate? Calling especially our experts on taxonomic and common names. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the first definition is correct. Not sure about the second. Either way, they need to be cleaned up a bit so they sound more like definitions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the fourth sense is correct. I'm skeptical that the second and third senses are actually differentiatable. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Italian: scatto[edit]

I wonder if in the translations listed for Italian word "scatto" there should also be:

snap (photography)

For example I read a story today with "grazie a uno scatto casuale..." and the meanings listed didn't make me think of a snap (quick photo) that was the meaning of the word in this context.

  • Yes. It can mean the act of taking a photograph. So "snap" is a reasonable translation - added. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

amici curiae[edit]

Another one which has ended up in Translingual, but it should probably be a Latin entry, or merged with English. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

But doesn't it in fact meet our standard for Translingual entries: that it be used in running text of multiple languages? Is the problem our standard for 'Translingual' or our failure to apply the standard to legal and medical Latin terms? DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
See the result here. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it used in running text of multiple languages? English it is for sure, thus at least another language is needed for being present in multiple languages. If it's used in multiple languages, where does it come from? In German text sometimes "amici curiae" (with italics) does appear, but it might be a 20th/21st century borrowing from English as to mention, discuss, explain English law stuff, thus the italicised appearance in German texts, wouldn't make it translingual. - 17:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The anon has moved a large part of the entry to amicus curiae, which may be the right thing to do, so I'm not contesting it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Amicus curiae is with absolute certainty not part of the German language. From a German standpoint it is even hardly imaginable what that even is. I also question the use in Latin, the concept seems to have its home in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's used in Scots or Irish or Hindi or Canadian French or any Caribbean Creole. DCDuring (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
For a start, Hindi has "squiggly" writing, but it could be used in Indian English. DonnanZ (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Uh, what? Do you know anything about Hindi? It's not "squiggly handwriting", it's the Devanagari script. Anyways, the singular एमिकस क्यूरी (emikas kyūrī) gets plenty of hits. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if I have mortally offended you, but that proves we need contributors who do know Hindi. What I was trying to say is it's not Latin script. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Apologies if my reply was a bit acrid... I agree, we do need more contributors for Hindi. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 01:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Even more reason to assume it is not translingual. The term has not even had the power to spread thoroughly in the countries where the Anglo-Saxons have had the power. Also it is not used in an ECtHR or an ECJ context even though there are submissions of uninvolved entities before both courts. w:de:Amicus Curiae § Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit presents a hugely misleading dog’s breakfast under its lemma. If somebody has asked himself why Wikipedia is a bad source for linguistic usage: Here you see why. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why work on assumptions when we can collect evidence? RfV gives a month or more to produce such evidence. If Hindi has a sound-alike term written in Devanagari, that to me is suggestive that it may well be found in languages with Latin script. I though there was a chance that Latin script might appear embedded in Devanagari, as some Latin-spelled terms appear in Japanese and Chinese. DCDuring (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
For examples:
Mazeaud D (1995) "L’expertise de droit à travers l’amicus curiae". In: Frison-Roche M-A, Mazeaud D (eds) L’expertise. Dalloz, Paris, pp 107–112
Transparenz im völkerrechtlichen Investitionsschiedsverfahren, J Sackmann, 2012. - nomos-elibrary.de Eingehend wird behandelt, ob die in diesem Zusammenhang häufig angeführte Beteiligung von Amicus Curiae die Transparenz dieser Verfahren tatsächlich erhöht
Two errors in that German quote. It uses Amicus as singular, and writes Curiae with a capital letter while the rule is to write multiple part Latin nominal phrases used in German – i. e. not as code switching – with the first letter after space as a majuscule and the second as a minuscule. Also, it is a quoting of usage in a foreign language (“häufige angeführte”). Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
You call them errors. I call them evidence. Whatever the other indications, that the quote defies the prescriptive capitalization rule may mean that the author didn't think of the term as true Latin. DCDuring (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Still it is a reference to the usage in an other language and not a usage by itself. Even if it is usage, it could be the Privatsprache of the author or code switching, anything that the author has just chosen for analysis but does not actually believe to be part of his language. What does one have to do as an author if one wants to analyse things in foreign countries and not to emburden the dictionary editors with another word that appears to be in the language of analysis? The linearity of language just lets appear code switching and borrowing appear the same. Evaluation is necessary, else we will have hundreds of terms in Category:English terms borrowed from Ge'ez and alike because some philologist and his friends did not use italics frequently and you happen to find three instances of it. Be careful with the word “evidence”. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
De Europese Commissie en nationale mededingingsautoriteiten als amicus curiae. Huidig en komend recht, W Devroe "Amice Curiae, quo vadis?" Het openbaar …, 2002 - cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl
In French it would be easy to cite, not too hard in German, possibly in Dutch, Spanish, and Italian. DCDuring (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
But then it would need entries in those languages, probably as amicus curiae. It is not translingual in the botanical, zoological and scientific senses, the customary inhabitants of Translingual. DonnanZ (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC).
Taxonomic names and CJKV characters are treated as Translingual because they meet our standard for determining what should be so treated. There is abundant evidence that most medical and legal Latin terms do also. DCDuring (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: If you can find this amongst the other waffle, we need to find out whether other legal and medical terms have been entered in Translingual. This is the only one I know of. DonnanZ (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think very many have been, though I don't understand by what subtle reasoning the plain facts of the matter are argued away. One argument in similar cases is that pronunciations are different in different languages. This applies to many of the other Translingual terms so, if applied, it could lead to the complete depopulation of Translingual and the creation of multiple language sections for each page that currently has a Translingual entry and pointless search for attestion of taxonomic names in multiple languages.
With 38,747 entries currently in Category:Translingual lemmas I don't think there's going to be any serious depopulation. Only a few may need weeding out. DonnanZ (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't AAA#Translingual have pronunciation that differs by language? DCDuring (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it depends on how the letter A is pronounced in each language and whether each A is sounded separately. For example the audio in Nynorsk for A. DonnanZ (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking a bit through the translingual lemma category, it looks like translingual terms have a general characteristic that pronunciation does not matter in them but their being written. From their being written they derive their power of being translingual – oral language has it hard to make terms translingual. For German, there is no rule how Amicus curiae is to be pronounced. It can be like in the English, it can be like Classical Latin. Though the latter is more likely because English pronunciation of Latin terms arouses horror, for it makes Latin words unidentifiable for non-Anglo-Saxon ears. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 14:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Palaestrator verborum: Amicus curiae (or amicus curiae or Amicus Curiae) could be a German term, and may it only be used in reference to English customs and laws. | Amicus Curiae with two capitals could be correct, depending on orthography or opinion. For example, Duden has Genus Verbi (Duden). (By the official orthography, a spelling like Genus verbi could be the traditional spelling before 1996, while a spelling like Genus Verbi could be a reformed spelling after 1996.)
@DCDuring: As for German one must be careful regarding spelling (amicus curiae or Amicus curiae or Amicus Curiae?) and also regarding etymology (from Latin as stated at amici curiae#Translingual or from English?).
@Donnanz: Probably, as it's probably better compared to computer (English and anglicism in other languages) than to a biologic-taxonomic term (Latin and then in other languages, or pseudo-Latin but potentially in multiple languages).
- 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, such an arbitrium introduced by the Communist orthography reforms. de:Genus Verbi with two majuscules, de:Accent aigu with one. Call it a misspelling or not (depending on if you lay value on those reforms imposed by a coterie), but lawyers as well as philologists are still unlikely to write two majuscules for such phrases. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
And now analyze, what’s the word “arbitrium” above?
A borrowing?
Code switching?
An L4 interference?
… ?
I can that tell you that it is not a borrowing – for, well, I did not want it to be one. But other authors do not answer yours questions about such. However surely as in this case there are cases where you cannot distinguish unless told but in truth there is no borrowing, just you do not know that there is not. Is there a statistical distribution known though with which one can work through a corpus about that question? That’s hard. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, Verbi (genitive of Verbum) is a substantive, aigu is an adjective. That is, for correct spelling one now has to know the foreign part of speech. However, there are also exceptions or somewhat contradicting rules, compare with de facto, in dubio pro reo, High Society.  I wouldn't be so sure about philologists. After all, wasn't the bad reform made by (incompetent) philologists? | As for the above comment (with "Privatsprache of the author or code switching"): Amici curiae could be a German exotism, a German loan word (in this case borrowed from English) for a foreign custom or thing. That's comparable to Oval Office (a certain room in the US-American White House; Duden). (Although the citation above might be a bad one, but there could be better ones.) | I did interprete arbitrium as arbitrary + -ium with the meaning arbitrariness, which would make it an English coinage, probably a neologism. Latin arbitrium or German Arbitrium (Duden) in my opinion didn't seem to fit. - 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice, I forgot the coinage anew. I meant arbitrium – it corresponds to German Willkür. The current definition on en.Wiktionary does not reflect the meaning well. One could translate it with arbitrariness or “arbitrary choice”, or in the specific context “arbitrary decision”, but this would make it more pejorative than it is meant by Latin authors.
It is a funny notion that “Verbi” is the genitive of “Verbum” whereas it is for long the rule not to decline Latin words used in German as in Latin (the last people who did so died out in the earlier 20th century, though I have not much against declining Latin words in German). It looks like the reformers exceeded their mission by even reforming outside the German language, reforming the treatment of languages that are not German: as one has now to know foreign parts of speech, i. e. is clearly somehow codeswitching. Or have the reformers prescribed that such phrases can never be German because they have to be treated as in the foreign language?
As for who made the reforms, of course it has not been the philologists. It was a certain kind of Germanists intensely connected with the educational system of the state. Those who have made the rules perhaps follow them, though this is one of the obscure points. If one writes Genus verbi as a pupil in an exam one perhaps does not get an error ascribed because teachers think that “here German ends and codeswitching begins”. The rules are perhaps of limited scope of application, if one wants to approach to the matter with analogies from law.
For the Anglo-Saxons here I point out that the amount of rules after the reforms has multiplied though their perpetrators have promised that the reforms ease usage (there were some countings too when the reform issue was hotter). Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential edit war[edit]

Hello, @Rua and me have a disagreement on the content of the inflection table of Proto-Indo-Eurpean *diwyós, and the discussion looked like it wasn't going anywhere. So I decided to resolve it asking for more opinions on the subject. I argue that the references reconstruct *diw-yó-, and this is well supported by the descendants. Yet she won't let me fix the inflection table, and reconstructs it as *dyu-yó-. As I told her in the discussion, we cannot give ourselves the luxury to reconstruct erroneous etymons without support on the daughter languages nor recognizable authors. Either the inflection table is removed, or fixed, but we cannot publish misleading information. --Tom 144 (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not reconstructing it any way at all. I've merely said that using ugly hacks to work around how the template is supposed to work is not a solution. You haven't been helpful in coming up with a real solution, like figuring out why the reconstructed inflection contradicts established PIE phonological rules. —Rua (mew) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
*dyew- is a well known dissyllabic root. The hiatus is evident in the Rig-veda. If you don believe me just look at what Sihler has to say about it. Hiatus are not so rare in PIE, they also appear in the thematic optative suffix *-oih₁-, if instead we used the syllabification rules we would have to reconstruct *-oyh̥₁-, which is not attested anywhere. We know there was a first laryngeal there becuase the morpheme must have been *-i(é)h₁-, which is found in the athematic formations. The origin could be the deletion of an early consonant but it is just conjecture. It is not our problem to solve. --Tom 144 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There are no disyllabic roots in PIE. Roots are understood to consist of a single syllable, having the vowel -e- as its nucleus, and at least one consonant at either end. *dyew- is no different structurally from *ḱlew-. —Rua (mew) 16:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
*ǵenh₁- is another dissyllabic root. Root constraints only forbid having more that one full grade, but not more than one syllable. --Tom 144 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
How is it dissyllabic? *h₁ is a consonant. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:E5DC:D203:5BE5:6B80 17:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It can also be a vowel, see for example, *ǵénh̥₁tōr, *ǵénh̥₁trih₂, *ǵénh̥₁mn̥, *ǵénh̥₁tis. --Tom 144 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a post-PIE phenomenon. In PIE itself they were obstruents and didn't participate in syllabification. —Rua (mew) 17:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
They could be syllabic, if not, worlds like *ph̥₂tḗr would be monosyllabic, and such consonant clusters weren't allowed in PIE. The epenthesis of ə on syllabic laryngeals was a post-PIE development. --Tom 144 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This is probably better addressed at the Etymology scriptorium, if only because those who know enough to have useful opinions on the subject are more likely to be paying attention to that forum than this one. I have a linguistics degree with some PIE courses, but that only gives me the background to understand the arguments- not to have anything to say. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

"on" (or "X-on-Y action")[edit]

Should there be a sense at "on" (or perhaps "-on-" for "having sex with", as used in "girl-on-girl" and by extension, snowclones of the same? For example, "I Trick Bulls Into Gay Sex: 5 Realities Behind Your Beef", Cracked, "So we use a real, live animal. Not a cow, though -- hot bull-on-cow action spreads bovine VD and produces unwanted pregnancies..." bd2412 T 18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It almost has shades of "versus", e.g. "boy-on-girl wrestling" (not a very common phrase though), "blue-on-blue". Equinox 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If a sentenced referenced "blue-on-blue action", the presumption would be that something sexual was going on, wouldn't it? bd2412 T 22:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it's just the sexual sense of action, with a phrase specifying who is doing it. I remember seeing phrases like "girl-on-girl wrestling" eons ago, and I suspect the sexual usage was a play on that (of course, back in the day, anything "girl-on-girl" was a transparent excuse to see something vaguely like pornography for those with no access to the real thing). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right; but "X-on-Y" is now often used as a noun, with the "action" or "sex" or whatnot left implied — see e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=dPHnDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA286&dq=girl-on-girl — so we may want something at [[on]] anyway. —RuakhTALK 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Is there any difference at all between undershorts and underpants or are they synonymous? Tharthan (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider them synonymous; for me undershorts specifically means underwear in the form of shorts, such as boxers or boxer briefs. (So I disagree with our current definition, which takes it to mean underwear that could be worn under shorts. And a Google Image Search for "undershorts" vs. A one for "underpants" mostly seems to bear me out, though it's obviously possible that some people do use it in the way that our current definition suggests.) —RuakhTALK 04:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Other dictionaries view them as synonyms, though the definitions usually have an 'especially': "underpants, especially for men or boys". DCDuring (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

defense vs. defence double definition[edit]

Hey, I noticed that defence and defense, both dialectal varieties, have the definition on both pages. Is this on purpose? Other pages, like glamor, reference to their Commonwealth/Brittish equivalent (glamour) or vice versa - honour to honor.

--TheDodosaurus (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I support making one an alternative form of the other. —Rua (mew) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
defense is nearly twice as common as defence in usage since the 1940s per Google n-gram. DCDuring (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

it's a joke, Joyce[edit]

Is this common Australian phrase valid for inclusion, or is it sum-of-parts? It's used to tell someone a sentence they took seriously was a joke (obviously). Does the "Joyce," used no matter what the recipient's name is, make this phrase valid? Jjamesryan (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the easy part. Deciding whether it's independent of the TV show that produced it is the tricky part. We're only interested in phrases that are used as part of the language rather than as a quote. If you have evidence that it's used by people who don't know where it came from, or at least don't assume that those they're saying it to know where it came from, then I'd say it would be a valid entry. That's not to say we don't want to know where it came from- that would go in the etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Not happy, Jan! Equinox 05:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


I have never heard of this, is it an American term? DonnanZ (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I've never heard it either, but I haven't lived in America for 20 years. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been here since 2004 without being queried, now it's gone to RFV. Very strange. DonnanZ (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I've seen similar entries before: basically they're old nicknames for the different fingers, supposedly taught to young children (probably part of some sort of rhyme). Since no one would ever still be using such words by the time they were old enough to write, it's not likely most of them would show up in print except as mentions in folklore publications, except for a few that made it into children's books. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Labelled it as obsolete, not apparently used now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

lightly Etymology[edit]

I'm pretty sure lightly is from Middle English, from Old English lēohtlīċe, but I don't have dictionary to look it up. I'm almost certain it is. Take a look at the second Middle English quote from The Middle English Dictionary. yes? no? Anglish4699 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes :) Leasnam (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

francais, Francais[edit]

English, really? Note the "parlez vous francais" example given at francais. That would make "parlez" and "vous" English too, wouldn't it? Equinox 05:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Mais, oui. DCDuring (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Lol, is that a realistic English sentence? It makes no sense ahah --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel like I've heard something like it in a TV show... That and sprechen Sie Deutsch /ˈsprɛkən zi ˈdɔɪtʃ/ are fairly well-known phrases in their respective languages. — Eru·tuon 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there evidence for francais being used outside the phrase parlez vous francais? I would give the latter an entry otherwise. — Eru·tuon 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
In the song I Wish I Could Speak French (1962), Alvin sings "You don't parlez English? Well, I don't parlez much French either, but I'll try my best." So arguably "parlez" is used in English sentences by English speakers. I'm going to take my usual standard here; I don't really care about the header as much as the fact that francais and Francais are actually words in use and should have entries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Obvious code-switching. francais or Francais are not English words and entries are not merited in this case, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

heavily Etymology[edit]

I believe heavily is from Middle English, from OE hefiġlīċe. Yes no? Take a look at the Middle English Dictionary quotes. Anglish4699 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've updated the entry to reflect this. Leasnam (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018


Can someone explain to me how this is the English plural of "artist"? Does any other dict have it? Equinox 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an alternative plural of artist. It’s a plural of the more technical and historical artista. I have to admit that I was a bit prescriptive and wishful when I submitted that. Here are some cites. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 20:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. We do still need an English entry for artista if you wanna do the honours. Equinox 02:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


We have several words that are in categories under Category:Bahuvrihi compounds by language. But we don't seem to have a definition for this word. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Yeah, we do; but bahuvrihi is written lower-case. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


A 19th century balance scale

It would be fascinating to have some reference to how on Earth the periot was weighed, in practice. Depending a bit on which country's grain you start with, 1/9600 of it is around an eighth of the Planck mass; a 1 periot drop of water has diameter less than a quarter mm. Reasonable readers might doubt the practicality of measuring such a small mass (of gemstone) with any semblance of accuracy, using equipment available to 18th century jewellers (IIUC, that's roughly where this unit dates from). The blanc, a 24th part of a periot, even more so. Eddy, 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Arithmetic on WikipediaWikipedia , Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Lever on WikipediaWikipedia , Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Weighing_scale#Mechanical_balances on WikipediaWikipedia , and image. I assume that some of the techniques involved trial-and-error, lever arms, weighing multiple "periots", and using groups of weights, between which the difference was equal to the expected weight (eg. a 50 periot weight and 20 and 25 periot weights would allow measurement of 5 periots on an unlevered balance and 1 periot on a 5:1 levered balance. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I am familiar with beam balances and the tricks one can do with them. However, we're dealing with under 7 microgrammes here; I cannot help but wonder how precisely anyone ever measured a periot using such balances (much less the blanc, at about two sevenths of a microgramme). Doing so in a cold room, for example (as just one potential confounding effect), would involve a hazard of error due to condensation on the metal of the scales; it would be easy to fail to notice a thin layer, along a beam's length, whose mass could be significant relative to that of a quarter-mm droplet of water. During swapping of the masses between pans, to check a weighing, such condensation might well flow along the beam, confounding precision. I guess my curiosity is more about the practicalities of how 18th century jewellers dealt with such absurdly tiny masses. One might also wonder whether anyone could actually see a gem so small. Eddy, 21:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Should we have an entry for this word, which is apparently only found in broad-winged hawk? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Presumably not, because a dictionary lists lexical items, not phrases. "Broad-winged" means "having broad wings", just "short-legged", "high-nosed", "lumpy-elbowed" and so on mean the obvious things. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium: You're probably right. We do have entries for short-legged and high-nosed, though. The latter has the justification of being idiomatic, but the former apparently isn't.
@DCDuring, should we pass some rule about this? I know from Talk:big-dicked that you weren't too keen on including them all, and I think a fair many words in CAT:English parasynthetic adjectives don't really have idiomatic senses. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to think that common sense, unaided by an explicit rule, would exclude bat-winged, swept-winged, and broad-winged and big-dicked, limp-dicked, large-dicked, and small-dicked. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I think we should have it, and I consider it a single word. It's useful to know when it was first used, and whether it typically describes specific animals. It's in the OED. It also probably qualifies under COALMINE rules. Ƿidsiþ 17:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


I am a bit dubious sometimes where a term is described as being from Ancient Greek when ἀφασία (aphasía) may be a coining in Modern Greek. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can stop being dubious, because the word is genuine Ancient Greek (which I found out by looking it up in Liddell and Scott's dictionary online, just as you could have). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There was an Ancient Greek word aphasia but the word entered English in its medical sense through French ([13]), around 1865. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know of Liddell & Scott anyway, not being a Greek scholar. I think I'll just use the latter part of the etymology. DonnanZ (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Could a Japanese-language editor take a look at the Japanese translation here? It seems wrong. In Chinese at least 十字軍 refers to the forces themselves, not the military campaign. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the meaning is exactly the same in Japanese as in Chinese. The problem is that there is no "word" for "Crusade", other than saying "an expedition by the crusaders" (十字軍の遠征); the word for "crusader [army]" is more basic. I don't know what is supposed to happen here; removing the translation is not helpful, but adding a Japanese entry for a phrase is also dubious. (Fundamentally, there is a problem with this "translations" notion: it assumes that all languages have the same division into semantic units, and this is not true.) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really. We add sum-of-parts translations all the time, we just make sure the units are linked individually, as opposed to pointing to one (red-link) entry. If the Japanese is the same as the Chinese, then 十字軍 would apppear to be a mistranslation. A "crusade" is not an army. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
If a trans is SOP, link like this: "Japanese: {{t|ja|[[十字軍]][[の]][[遠征]]|tr=じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei}}", resulting in this: "Japanese: 十字軍遠征 (じゅうじぐんのえんせい, jūjigun no ensei)". - 18:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Etymology at evenly is not right. A separate etymology needs to be made to fit an adjective sense (if it's attested) from OE efenlīċ. Also look at the PGmc source *ebnalīkaz that shows Eng. evenly as a descendant. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the etymology to show OE efenlīċe. Anglish4699 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Swedish döma[edit]

Could someone please check my attempt to fix the usage notes? --Espoo (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's OK, it really needs looking at by a Swedish speaker. It's similar to Norwegian Nynorsk døma and Norwegian Bokmål dømme, but a double m is used in the latter case. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Just made a minor adjustment, otherwise some mighty good changes @Espoo. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


This can be an adjective right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, but it can be used attributively, such as yuppie flu. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Well "hippie" can act as an adjective, so I don't see why not. "That place is so yuppie." etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I know that would make it meet our test for adjectivity, but so many nouns can, in context, be used that way and demonstratively are, at least on the Web. Do we want to memorialize all such durably attested usage? I am not sure that there is a way to objectively distinguish the usages I find lexically adjectival from those I do not. If there isn't than our existing tests of adjectivity must prevail. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

life's a bitch[edit]

A red link I found at c'est la vie. An idiom? DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Such a common term, but some of us don't think it inclusion-worthy (except possibly as a usage example for the right definition at [[bitch]], ie "Something unforgiving and unpleasant", possibly reworded). Isn't that a bitch? DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder who entered life's a bitch and then you die? I found more red links at life and bitch and decided to do something about it. DonnanZ (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

busyness and busy-ness[edit]

Is there a reason we distinguish these? And I'm not sure I agree with the "without achieving much" part of the definition at busy-ness. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a little evidence for the "without achieving much" part in the first few pages of Goole Book Search results:
"The work culture in many organizations emphasize being busy as in busy-ness rather than effectiveness."
"BUSY-NESS. If you're not careful, you can spend all day spinning your wheels and have little time left over to actually get anything worthwhile achieved."
"Before we know it, we are stressed, aged, "busy-ness" junkies who fill even our vacations with meaningless tasks."
Of course, this isn't any evidence that "busyness" is not use the same way. Mihia (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The definition should probably be modified to say "without necessarily achieving much." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right; or maybe there should be two definitions, one for the "useful" busy-ness and one for the futile sort. Mihia (talk)


At go there is the following usage note:

  • The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs), e.g., going and goand. The form goand is now obsolete outside a few (rural) dialects where it is considered archaic.

I don't believe that the first sentence is particularly helpfully worded, but I'm not sure how best to fix it. Is it saying that many English verbs have an archaic or dialect participle form -and, e.g. seeand for seeing, or doand for doing, etc.? When it says "e.g.", which seems rather vague and confusing, does it mean that there are alterative spellings/forms of goand? Mihia (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Is goand attestable in either Middle or Modern English? If it is attestable in Modern English, it could be on the inflection line with some qualifier. If in ME, then that is where it belongs. If neither, we can delete the usage note. DCDuring (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The reference in the entry for goand is to Scots goande. We are usually pretty specific as to spelling (except in Middle English) and treat Scots as a separate language. DCDuring (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe e.g. and i.e. were confused and it was meant to mean "There are two participles, namely going and goand"?
I wasn't able to find the cite in goand with google books. The Scots reference however has "Ane thristie manne … goande by ane tauerne; Q. Kennedy Oratioune 18.". google doesn't have it either but "goande by ane taverne" (by Quintine Kennedy but in a book with works of John Knox (?)) can be found. I'd assume that someone changed the Scots quote to make it more English or "normalized" it in some way... - 01:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Note was added by User:Mountebank1 [14], who habitually adds some rather strange bits of dialect. Equinox 03:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What I meant to say was that whilst the suffix -and was productive, that is from God knows how long ago until the early 17th century, every English verb, in the Northern dialects at least, had the present participle which ended in -and and/or -ing. However, -and was completely replaced by -ing at the end of the Middle English period in the Southern dialects, and there aren't enough written works in the Midlands dialects to be able to tell when the suffix -and fell out of usage over there. I heard people use this suffix only when they were reading literary works or when they were trying to sound "archaic". Mountebank1 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I meant to sayː
  • The verb to go has two different present participles (like many other English verbs). One of them is goand and the other one is going. Goand is now obsolete, except for a few rural dialects where it is considered archaic, nota bene, these days, it is almost never used in common speech. Mountebank1 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mountebank1: but doesn't that usage note properly belong at -and, rather than at go ? Leasnam (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know where it belongs... Mountebank1 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
If I may be critical again about the new wording above, the information that "the form goand is now obsolete ..." is not sufficient in my opinion to make clear that all the alternative present participles are obsolete or dialect, and that for 99.99% of all practical applications there is actually only one present participle for each verb. Also, "e.g." is still wrong. It doesn't logically work within the structure of that sentence as it is written. Mihia (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mihi, Mihia: Thoo art full richt, it ne wurkes non. Joost ne wurkes... Mountebank1 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I ne knowe hu tae wird it anie bettir than this. Mountebank1 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And by the way, I do not think that there is anyone out there who might find it reasonable to use the word goand instead of going, especially since "goand" was never used to form the continuous present or the continuous past... But like I said, I do not think that I can reword it any better than this, so if any of you feel like you can do a better job, then go ahead. Take a whack at it. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my suggestion:

  • Like other English verbs, the verb go once had an alternative present participle formed with the suffix -and, i.e. goand. Goand is now obsolete, having been replaced by going, except in a few rural dialects in Scotland and Northern England, where it is considered archaic. Even in such dialects it is never used to form the continuous tenses. These examples are from ### which dialect? ###:
    Goand snell athwart the houf, hoo hent 'im be the swyr. (Going swiftly across the churchyard, she grabbed him by the neck.)
    Goand oot of the holt, she saw a woundor baist. (Going out of the woods, she saw a magical creature.)

The current text says "Northern dialects", which I think may be confusing to readers around the world. I have assumed it means northern Britain. It would be good to mention the particular dialect that the example sentences come from. Mihia (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Highland dialects. The suffix -and is almost never used outside the Highlands. I don't know about Orkney, though. And if I had to guess, I would say that it survived there, to this day, via the oral tradition (which is now all but dead). So, I am not even sure that anyone uses it in the Highlands any more, most certianly not the young people. And I haven't been to Scotland myself for a very long time... although I still sometimes hear the suffix -and used in my dreams (if that helps anything). Mountebank1 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And by the way, goand is not really an alternative form of going, because goand and going had kind of different roles, so I don't think it is all that correct to call it an alternative form. Goand was used to form dangling participles (at least on some occasions) and going was used to form the continuous tenses. The suffix -and was used to impart a sense of archaism. It basically served as a stylistic device. Mountebank1 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
      So, you are saying that goand is not something that is currently being used to communicate what is communicated by going, but someone might run across it. That is, there is no particularly good reason for the entry for go to prominently support encoding into goand, though there is a reason to have an entry for goand for decoding. That is, goand does not belong on the inflection line at go#Verb though there might be reason to include it as a related (derived?) term. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I wonder too whether there is anything special or different about the use of goand, in terms of either historical development or present usage, compared to the use of the -and suffix generally. If the suffix is used (or not used) in the same way with numerous verbs, then, if we include this information at go, should we not also logically include it for numerous other verbs, and would that be making too much of it? Perhaps, as suggested above, the detail should be explained only at -and. Mihia (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You can still run across words like goand at events like this, or maybe at school or at churches that use the Scottish bible.
When I was attending Catholic school in the Highlands we often read old Scottish poems from the 15th and 16th centuries in which the suffix -and figured prominently. I also occasionally heard very old people (80 to 85 years old) use the suffix -and for the sense of archaism that it provided. And that was in the late 70s. And when I was in my late teens (in the early 80s) I spent some time with a traveling preacher who sometimes used the suffix -and when he was reading the bible (this suffix appears in the Scots bible). Mountebank1 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mihia, Mihia: Historically, -and was occasionally used to form the continuous tenses, but that sort of usage was very rare. It was mostly used to form dangling participles and adjectives. For exampleː
  • And when Jesus came into the house of the prince, and saw mistrals and the people makand noise, He said: Go ye away; for the damsel is not dead, but sleeps. And they scorned him. And when the folk was put out, He went in, and held her hand, and said: Rise, damsel; (and) the damsel rose.
  • Fyftie thousand fightand men; a burnand brand; a falland star, a criand child, a falland case (an incident) etc.
  • Cupid, with his fairy dart,
  • did pierce him so out through the heart,
  • So all that night he did but morned;
  • Sometime sat up, and sometime turned.
  • Sighand and with many (a) gant and groan,
  • To fair Venus makand his moan:
  • Sayand, Lady, what may this mean?
  • I was a free man late yestreen:
  • And now a captive bound and thrall
  • For one that I think flower of all

By the way, here's an example for seeand from Murdock Nisbet's translation of the New Testamentː "And the Pharoe, seeand that, had called him, said within himself, sayand: If this were a prophet, he should wit who and what manner (of) woman it were that touches him; for she is a sinful woman." Mountebank1 (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand whether there is something special about go that means we should explain the usage detail at go and not explain it at many other verbs, or whether we should (in theory) explain it at numerous verbs, or whether it should just be explained at -and. Mihia (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that we should just create entries for the present participles formed with -and. Mountebank1 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And no, there is nothing special about go. I think that most of this stuff should be included at -and. Mountebank1 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A question in my mind is: "Where should goand appear on the go page?". Goand and go are obviously to be linked. The link from goand to go is obvious. The definition line contains a link to go
    Inflection line gives it too much prominence.
    Usage notes isn't appropriate because there is nothing to distinguish go from many other Germanic English verbs in his regard.
    Derived terms is not where we put inflections.
    Related terms is not really for inflections either.
    See also seems like an evasion.
    The Conjugation box seems like a good place, but only in this case, not for the general case of -and participles.
    Thus I return to the inflection line for the general case. Perhaps a show-hide bar to make it clear that the hidden contert is of less-than-primary importance. It is a shame that the bar takes up so much space. DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Goand should go in the same place on the page [[go]] where other archaic forms like goest and goeth go: not there at all. Links don't always have to be reciprocal, and this is good example of a time when they shouldn't be. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know, maybe we shouldn't even put goand in the entry for go. Mountebank1 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no need for it to be there Leasnam (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I suggest that it could be listed as an alternative form, labelled "obsolete or dialect", at going. Any usage detail not already explained at -and could be moved there, and the examples moved to goand. I will do this in due course provided there are no objections (and I remember!). Mihia (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't be there. Where would it end? The OED lists the following attested forms for the present participle: “OE gande, OE gende (in prefixed forms), OE (in prefixed forms)–ME gonde, eME goinde (south.), eME goude (transmission error), ME gaand (north.), ME gaande (north.), ME goand, ME goande, ME goende, ME gond, ME goond, ME goonde, ME guoinde (south-east.), ME 16 gooying, ME–15 gooinge, ME–15 gooyng, ME–15 gooynge, ME–15 goyinge, ME–15 goynge, ME–16 goinge, ME–16 gooing, ME–16 goying, ME–16 goyng, ME– going, 15 gohyng, 15–16 goeing, 15–16 goeinge, 18– goan (regional), 18– goin (regional and nonstandard), 18– goin' (regional and nonstandard); Eng. regional 17– gaain (north. and Lincs.), 18 gaain' (north.), 18 gaen (Cumberland), 18 ga'n (Lancs.), 18 gawin (north.), 18 gawin' (north.), 18 gawn (north.), 18 geayn (Northumberland), 18 goain' (Yorks.), 18 gooan (Lancs.), 18– gaan (north.), 18– gaeing (north.), 18– gahin' (north.), 18– gain, 18– gan (north.), 18– gaun (north.), 18– geann (Cumberland), 18– gewing (Essex), 18– gi'en (north.), 18– gine (Yorks.), 18– gooin, 18– gooin', 18– goon (Essex), 18– guaying (Worcs.), 18– gying (Yorks.), 18– gyne (Cumberland), 19– gahn (Westmorland), 19– gaing (north.), 19– gooen, 19– gyen (Northumberland); U.S. regional 18 go'n', 19– ghy, 19– gine, 19– go (in African-American usage), 19– go' (in African-American usage), 19– goan, 19– go'n, 19– gon, 19– gone, 19– gorn, 19– goun', 19– guh (in African-American usage); Sc. pre-17 goande, pre-17 17– going, 17– gaun, 17– gawn, 18 gain, 18 gyaan (north-east.), 18 gyain (north-east.), 18 jyaain (north-east.), 18– gaain, 18– gaein, 18– gaen, 18– gain', 18– gyaun (north-east.), 19– dyan (north-east.), 19– dyaun (north-east.), 19– gaan, 19– gaean, 19– gae'an, 19– gaein', 19– gaing, 19– gan, 19– gan', 19– gauin, 19– gawin, 19– gien (south.), 19– gjaain (Shetland), 19– gone, 19– gyaain (Shetland), 19– gyaan (Orkney), 19– gyaen (north-east.), 19– gyan (north-east.); also Irish English (chiefly north.) 18 goan, 18– gan', 19– gaein, 19– gan, 19– gaun, 19– gawn, 19– goin; see also gwine v.” Ƿidsiþ 17:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


This Scots entry shows English Ulster Scots as a synonym, not a translation. Translingual entries often have a similar problem with English related and derived terms and synonyms. Don't we have to follow the logic of our separation of every languages from English and Translingual? DCDuring (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what Scots is or how it should be attested. I have created a separate English entry however. DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Scots on Wikipedia.Wikipedia (language code: sco) is considered a separate language. Is Ullans attestable in English? DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Among OneLook references only Wiktionary and WP have entries for Ullans. Nor does Century 1911. Ie, none of the English-language dictionaries have the term, at least until you added the English L2. OED? DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Neither OED[15] nor DSL[16] have it; attestable through Google Books though[17]. --Droigheann (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I've gleaned, Ullans isn't really a Scots word at all, having been made up recently by an Ulster language society to differentiate what is spoken in Ulster from Lallans. Though Lallans seems to be both English and Scots, Ullans seems to be just English, at least by our standard of attestation. DCDuring (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I know that it has a Wikipedia article. I should have said, I don't know what it is on Wiktionary. And yes it's easily attestable as English. DTLHS (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Is it really proper to mark this entry as "nonstandard"? Why not just "rare"? Tharthan (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If I used highfather in a school English paper about religion or patriarchs, I doubt it would be marked "wrong", so it doesn't seem to be the same kind of non-standard that quicklier or boughten are Leasnam (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I note that 2 of 4 citations are for "high father" with a space, which seems rather different. (A "grand father" is a father who is grand; a "black bird" is any bird that is black.) Okay, there are cases like "high priest"/"highpriest" but I am suspicious of this Wiktionary narrative that unusual Anglo-Saxonesque forms are of equal ranking with the equivalent Adj+Noun phrases; the latter are quite possibly of independent modern formation. Equinox 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
So how do we determine whether this is a legitimate "Anglish" term à la those coined by Michael of Northgate, Barnes and Hollander, or just a latter-day affectation? Because I am sick of seeing the latter around. As much as I love using Germanic terms over post-Old English Latinisms when I have the choice, we ought not to be peddling around false terms. Tharthan (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Dan Michel of Northgate is irrelevant to this discussion since he wrote in Middle English, not modern. As for Barnes and Hollander, their terms are no more or less "legitimate" than anyone else's; "Anglish" is always just an affectation. CFI still applies: if a term is used at least 3 times in durably archived sources, by multiple authors over the span of more than 1 year, we include it. Otherwise we don't. Back to the original point, however, I agree that {{lb|en|rare}} rather than {{lb|en|nonstandard}} is probably the correct label here. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Were inkhorn terms not affectations in their own time? I fail to see how (at least a mild form of) "Anglish" is any worse. If one more or less sticks to already coined terms and terms coined by authors fairly published, what is wrong with that? But anyway, if no one objects, I'll change the label. Tharthan (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that highfather really qualifies as an "Anglish" term anyway, not any more than the words I, you, me, the, meaning, follow, house are "Anglish"...highfather is a word that's always been in our language, just like those others just mentioned. It's just "English". To me, a purely "Anglish" term is like waterstuff or uncleftish...Leasnam (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, I recently noticed that the entry for 「会する」 has broken conjugation, the kana and rōmaji sections are fine, but the kanji versions erroneously repeat the 「する」 part for every form. I tried fixing it, but I cannot correct it. --AstroVulpes (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm seeing something different to you. I see nothing obviously amiss. Could you quote exactly what you see for one specific entry that you think is wrong? Mihia (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@AstroVulpes, Mihia: Fixed. This is a topic for WT:GP, not the Tea room :). This is how -suru verbs are now handled. I missed when it was agreed that the verbs is in this group stopped displaying "suru" in the transliteration, though. It doesn't make sense to display "会する" in the headword but show only "かい" and "kai" without the "する/suru" part. IMO, it should be "かいする, kai suru", as it always has been! I noticed it some time ago but never raised it. @Erikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: was there a discussion about it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, if the conjugation of する is not included, then surely there is no conjugation at all, and no point in having a conjugation table? Wouldn't every entry simply read 会/かい/kai? Perhaps I am missing the point somehow. Mihia (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mihia: I meant that "する" is not included in the headword but it is in the conjugation table, which is working as expected. Yes, I think you're missing the point. The suru part is the only one that gets conjugated: shi, sure, shiyō. You can have a look at the conjugation table at する (suru). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the suru part is the only one that gets conjugated. That is why I don't understand how it ever could have been suggested that it should be omitted. But, if it's all working correctly then I won't worry about it any more! Mihia (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Fixing the stuffed ping: @Eirikr.Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Now I see 会するする… The same problem as in User talk:Haplology#Fun with Template:ja-suru. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang: I can see it too now! What happened? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I've got it... suru verbs are supposed to be at the entry name without suru: , not 会する. — Eru·tuon 02:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah no in this case. There must be an entry for 会する because is not a noun but a kanji. See User talk:Eirikr/Archive 2011-2012#鼻汗. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed by changing the headword template. Modelled on  (あい)する (aisuru, to love), which also has an entry title with する. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Actually, I modified Module:ja-headword, and {{ja-suru}} should work fine now. — Eru·tuon 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon:: OK, thanks. As long as verbs with or without する in the title work, I'm happy with your solution. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I did test a verb without する too, and it looked fine. — Eru·tuon 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon: A certain set of single-kanji terms + する are analyzed as inseparable. For instance, 愛する (aisuru) conjugates differently from what one would expect for (ai) + する (suru): the negative form is 愛さない (aisanai), not *しない (*ai shinai). There is also a potential form, 愛せる (aiseru), which for a separable verb would instead be *できる (*ai dekiru). I am not familiar with the 会する (kaisuru) verb itself, but my references list this as following the same inseparable-verb pattern. HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Are you certain that the negative of 愛する is 愛さない? Would that not be the negative of 愛す? Mihia (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't get the ping...
@Mihia: It appears you're correct, and also that this verb is a bit irregular. I had learned somewhere along the way that the negative should always be 愛さない, but it appears that 愛しない is also valid. Digging deeper now, the term 愛する is classed as a サ行変格活用 (sa-gyou henkaku katsuyō, "S"-row irregular conjugation), with considerable overlap between the expected patterns for -する and -す. See more at the Japanese WP article on サ行変格活用, with a specific section for the verb 愛する.
@Shinji, can you supply any native-speaker wisdom on this one? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
愛する, as well as 会する, has a new conjugation pattern. Traditionally it is explained by the two verbs 愛する and 愛す, but it is difficult to imagin a speaker switching two verbs according to tense and mood. It is rather reasonable to think the two conjugations have been merged:
愛する 愛す Merged
Nonpast 愛する  ?愛す 愛する
Past 愛した 愛した 愛した
Negative  ?愛しない 愛さない 愛さない
Conditional 愛すれば 愛せば 愛せば
Imperative *愛しろ
愛せ 愛せ
Volitional  ?愛しよう 愛そう 愛そう
Potential *愛せられる 愛せる 愛せる
My intuition is that there is only one verb. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting. I also found this discussion. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of Hungarian halaszt[edit]

What does the etymology of halaszt mean? There is no reference to the hal- part. Would someone expand it or otherwise make it make sense?

Ok. Crom daba (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure where to post this. Scrit uses the English header, but is probably Middle English; the last quotation in the OED is from 1450. — Eru·tuon 00:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

scrit in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 calls it Middle English. Our documentation makes 1500 the division point between Middle and Modern English. There is a case for the division to be somewhat earlier, marked by the later works printed by William Caxton (d. 1491). I'd go with Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I've visualized Caxton setting up his press in England and upon the first stamp a wave passing through England where the power of the printed word changed the language mid-discussion from Middle English to Modern English. But "the later works"? That's hopelessly fussy for a line drawn in a continuum. 1500 is a nice round number as good as any.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Can we rename this (not sure to what)? The current title is not only inappropriately slangy for a thesaurus headword, it is also rare, not found in Google Books at all. Equinox 14:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the most common term for it though Leasnam (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
How do you know?! Equinox 23:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Everyone I know refers to it as such. I hear it all the time. It may not be encountered much in print, but that's the term people use for it in speech. Show anyone a pic of a man's bulgy crotch area and ask them what this is, and they'll say "manbulge" lol Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
(I wonder what you talk about all day.) If you asked me I'd scratch my head and say "um, 'package' I guess." —Tamfang (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not gonna go and ask random people what they think about a picture of a man's bulging crotch because I will be arrested and put on a list. But yeah unfortunately I don't know any better name for this. I am slightly biased because the creator was (I am pretty sure) "Pass a Method", who had a brief flurry of trying to edit all penis/trousers articles to get his word into it. I don't like us supporting this by apathetic default. Equinox 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Does a thesaurus title have to be a word, or could it be a gloss? DTLHS (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
All those thesaurus titles which are SoP are not words in that sense, so yes, the title can be a gloss. Else it would mean that compounds are allowed while words with a prepositional phrase or a relative sentence aren’t. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I would prefer a silly "Thesaurus:man's bulging crotch" over the current one, because, while I have nothing at all against slang, slang is colourful and carries implications. Thesaurus headwords should be neutral, even if that means we get a little biological about the dick in the pants. We have Thesaurus:drunk, not Thesaurus:pissed. Equinox 03:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Since when is manbulge slangy ? I don't see it as slang. It's a crude concept, but the word is spot on. "Man's bulging crotch" is okay too, but unnecessary (too verbose and very British-sounding). Maybe manbulge sounds too North American ? Otherwise, it sounds just fine IMO. I mean, we do have cameltoe as well don't we ? [[18]] Leasnam (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I dunno, seems pretty slangy to me... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thesaurus:cameltoe was also created by a "Pass a Method" sock as one of his mad campaigns (you only see about 10% of what he did, because the huge amount of egregious shit was deleted by hard-working admins, not just me); and I would equally prefer a non-childish term to group those thesaurus items. Equinox 04:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
From my experience, I would guess that at least half of all English entries deleted through rfv in the past few years can be traced to Pass a Method, the Sky UK Japanese/Magic vandal (though Japanese got the brunt of it) and the Greek Pseudo-Intellectual IP. WF, Fête and Luciferwildcat/Gtroy did a lot of damage in years past, but they've been almost quiet in recent years (WF, please take that as a compliment, not a challenge...). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
"Is X slang?" is probably arguable, but my personal benchmark (for slang, colloquial or informal) tends to be "if I were writing an academic paper that had to be submitted to a journal, could I use this word without quote marks or italics?". Manbulge is a no-no. Equinox 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with Equinox; "manbulge" seems slangy; something like "male crotch bulge" would seem more appropriate. Like Tamfang I would normally use "package", but that word is polysemous and also seems slangy, although it seems more appropriate than "manbulge" by seeming less explicit. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Does this character have a Chinese meaning "program"? Dokurrat (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


The current definition of 男色 doesn't seem quite right. In the quotation, 男色 looks to be the object of 親, so I'm not sure if it could mean "homosexual sex". @Wyang, Dokurrat, Tooironic, any ideas on the definition? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not? 親 (roughly, "to be familiar with") + 男色 ("male homosexual sex"). ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the rfdef sense is supposed to represent... There are two senses for this IMO: "(1) masculine charms; man's beauty; (2) lust for man; sexual intercourse with a man (or men)". Compare 女色. Wyang (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: I think Dokurrat added a rfdef because the current definition doesn't match what's in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

does size matter?[edit]

Should we add a sense to girth? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends what that sense is? DTLHS (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Penis circumference. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

drive letter[edit]

User:Zcreator just made this, but it's completely incomprehensible. —Rua (mew) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the wording used by the Wikipedia article linked from that page.... I added a context label (which I see you just fixed for me, thanks) and a link to volume, which clarifies it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The "PC" wording is a bit strange. Certainly Windows mobile has drive letters too, while Linux on a PC does not. It's OS dependent, not hardware-dependent. —Rua (mew) 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I know very little about this sort of thing, but I would tend to agree. SemperBlotto made that edit, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I changed it to MS-DOS or Windows. There's other operating systems, according to Wikipedia; OS/2 is obvious, I think we can avoid mentioning all the MS-DOS/Windows clones, and there's a few archaic systems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO should delete as SoP. It's like "part number". Equinox 15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

despite that + subordinate clause?[edit]

Is this

  • a) in use and correct;
  • b) in use but proscribed; ("despite the fact that")
  • c) not in use?

I'm hoping for b): it'd be an accurate translation of malgré que. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't say "despite that." You can say "despite the fact that," but it's not proscribed as far as I'm aware. I can't think of anything that perfectly fits what you want. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you considered although? Although it's not quite as strong in expressing the opposition between the main and subordinate clauses, it might fit your need. DCDuring (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: Do you mean it's not used at all? Or that it's used, but prescriptively incorrect? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: although is okay, but it won't capture the fact that malgré que is a proscribed construction. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you looking for an English expression that is proscribed in a way that parallels the way a French expression is proscribed? This seems like a fool's errand to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I agree that it's a fool's errand! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought that despite that was fine. I've used it before. But my speech is probably weird. — Eru·tuon 21:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Ahah, it's this message of yours that prompted my question! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In the message that you cite, as I read it, there is a missing comma after that. I think that is an anaphoric reference to a prior sentence. DCDuring (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree: the meaning, as I see it, is: "Although I'm an Ancient Greek enthusiast [and I'd prefer using the first person singular], if a form has to be chosen, I'd support the third person.". I'd say that your analysis is true for most of the occurrences of "despite that" we can find in Wiktionary, though: [19] --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We have the opportunity to ask the author. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, @Per utramque cavernam is right. I meant [despite [that I'm ...]], not [despite that] [I'm ...]. — Eru·tuon 22:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


The page shows a Cantonese pronunciation. Is this word used in Cantonese? @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Wyang. Dokurrat (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And 哩哩囉囉 / 哩哩羅羅, which also make me wonder. Dokurrat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about the first one, but the second one seems vaguely familiar to me as li1 li1 lo1 lo1 (I could be wrong). —suzukaze (tc) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Cantonese does have li1 li1 laa1 laa1, but it has a Cantonese-specific meaning: careless. There is also li4 li4 laa4 laa4, meaning "swiftly". Not sure about li1 li1 lo4 lo4. Wyang (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
li1 li1 lo4 lo4 doesn't sound colloquial to me; I'd go with li1 li1 lo1 lo1, but I'm not sure if it's actually used in Cantonese. For 哩哩啦啦, apart from li1 li1 laa1 laa1 and li4 li4 laa4 laa4, I've also heard of li4 li1 laa4 laa4 for the second sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

all's Contraction of all as[edit]

Yet all as does not have an entry of its own. Some reference(s) of its use would be clarifying --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, in the entry all's the two words are linked separately: it's a contraction of [[all]] [[as]], with as being sense 9: "(now England, US, regional) Functioning as a relative conjunction; that". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

antonym of free of charge[edit]

Do we have an entry that can serve or already serves as a translation hub? I'd like to add payant and платный (platnyj) to it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

When you find one, you can add kostenpflichtig to it too. I notice that both kostenpflichtig and пла́тный (plátnyj)}} are glossed as "chargeable", but chargeable itself doesn't seem to have the exact meaning "not free of charge". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The SoP expression for + sale is the most natural way for me to say it. As is often the case I can't find the appropriate definition of for which MWOnline has as its first "1 a —used as a function word to indicate purpose. a grant for studying medicine. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Our closest definition is: "In order to obtain or acquire." That wording doesn't work too well for for sale or They put the baby up for adoption or The tree stump was suitable for sitting.. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak to the French or Russian terms, but German kostenpflichtig isn't quite "for sale" either. It basically means "that must be paid for". A sign warning car owners that their vehicles may be towed away at owner's expense might say that the cars will be kostenpflichtig abgeschleppt. When you buy something online in Germany, the last button you click to finalize the purchase is required by German law to say "kostenpflichtig bestellen", i.e. "order while recognizing that you are committing yourself to pay". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak for Russian either, but I agree with Angr: I wouldn't translate payant by for sale either (that would be à vendre). When you ask "Is it for sale?", the answer you expect is either "Yes, it's for sale" or "No, it's not for sale", not really "No, it's free". --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I would expect a possible response to be No, take one. or No, it's a floor model/demo.. This comes up with things like free (advertiser-paid) newspapers or better-quality sales brochures near a cash register. For free, a near-antonym of for sale, is close to synonymous with free of charge, at no charge. DCDuring (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja, DCDuring: What about paid (as in paid service)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I think of paid as having to do with past payments, not future ones, though context could make it work as you want it to. But we don't want our definitions, usage notes, etc to depend much on context for correct understanding. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
There are contexts where paid could work, but not all of them. I think we simply have to accept that English has no obvious adjective that means "subject to payment". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

+ Greek πληρωτέος (plirotéos) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There's always nonfree. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I've put the translations there. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Consider paid, e.g. a paid service. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The normal way to say it in English is not with an adjective but a clause; "It costs something", "You have to pay for it", or similar. Ƿidsiþ 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Redirected to -year-old, and I'm not sure whether I'm reopening a can of worms by suggesting that this (in the case of a person) is a synonym of centenarian, and a note won't do any harm. DonnanZ (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I would like us to have entries for ALL n-year-olds, both as adjectives and as nouns. Even if only as translation targets (for e.g. Italian). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing odd with having SoP terms as synonyms of idiomatic terms. Just do something like {{syn|en|[[hundred]][[-year-old]]}}. Crom daba (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you use that instead of {{synonym of|centenarian}}? A redirect to -year-old would still be needed though for other senses.
@SemperBlotto: I generally agree with you, however in addition ninety-year-old is a synonym of nonagenarian, eighty-year-old of octagenarian, seventy-year-old of septuagenarian (my new age group). DonnanZ (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

-ous pronunciation[edit]

Should the pronunciation(s) of -ous be added? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've added it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: thanx. What about the alternative forms? I am not sure I know them for 100% of cases --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The pronunciation of -ious depends on what it follows, since it tends to turn t and s into /ʃ/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Montenegrin now has an ISO 639 code of its own, cnr. However, since we treat it as a regional variety of Serbo-Croatian, I don't think there's anything we need to do about it besides this, is there? Terms are added to CAT:Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian by means of {{lb|sh|Montenegro}}, which doesn't use a code. Is there anything I'm forgetting, where our ad-hoc code zls-mon is being used? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No results for insource:zls-mon, so it's not being used. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I think we can probably trace or add automatically Serbo-Croatian words with letters С́, с́, З́, з́ to CAT:Montenegrin Serbo-Croatian. They are not used in other varieties. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


What does the first cite mean? And shouldn't we split this in (at least) two senses (cf. incorruptible)? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In the first cite corruptible means ‘perishable, subject to decay’, and the sense of the whole cite is roughly ‘You weren’t redeemed by means of things like silver and gold, which are not eternal.’ I’d split the senses. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


Is heapmeal possibly an inherited or borrowing of a Mid. English *hepmele, from OE hēapmǣlum? I couldn't find a descendant on B&T or Middle English Dictionary. They seem so close! I just don't know... Anglish4699 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

We really don't see it reemerge until the early 20th century, which suggests (at least to me) that renewed interest in Old English reading was responsible, or at best renewed vigour in creating Old English-sounding words was in minor fashion. The only other mention before then is in a 19th Century dictionary where it is listed as obsolete. Personally, I would say it was created anew, and mention the OE hēapmǣlum for comparison, unless you find more evidence that writers were consciously trying to evoke the OE word, in which case stating borrowed may be used Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
IF anyone has access to OED, it would be nice to know if there are any earlier/interim uses of heapmeal Leasnam (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The OED1 is mostly public domain and can be found on the Internet Archive. It offers OE cites using hēapmǣlum or hēap-mǣlum, and then offers "1610 HOLLAND Camden's Brit. 1. 17 And thereon powre the same forth by heap-meale." (OED1, Volume 5, page 155.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Excellent ! Thanks Leasnam (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
That leaves a gap from 1000 to 1610. It's iffy. It may be a stretch, but considering how little Middle English is attested (being that the official written language in England at the time was Old French and Latin), it's quite possible that it survived through to re-emerge in EME. I've altered the Etymology some unless anyone has any objections Leasnam (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If an OE/ME etymon is attested and the phonological development from it to heapmeal is regular, I would view inheritance as the simpler explanation, and so agree with how you've rewritten the etymology. But I've added a context label "rare, largely obsolete". Century had only the 1610 citation mentioned above, and marked the word obsolete, but our 1939 citation is from within living memory (for some people), so I added that qualifier "largely". - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

guy/guys gender[edit]

(Searching through the archives on such a common word is hopeless. At least I couldn't find any recent relevant discussion)

The article on guy reads as if dated. I've seen plenty of young women calling their (all-female) gang "guys". Please update to contemporary usage. In other words, tone down the certainty. In particular, I dislike the (unsourced) discussion about pussycat dolls - I can't shake the feeling of bias / prejudice there.

But go have a look yourself. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a huge change in contemporary usage. Douglas Hofstadter had a discussion on it in one of his books, pretty similar to what we say, and I don't see much of a change. --Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see that our usage notes are of much help. This edit in particular seems inadequate, perhaps misleading.
Clearly the term is used in a more gender-neutral way now than it formerly was. The first two senses were apparently the only ones in the 19th century. It would be somewhat interesting to get some indication of when the word was beginning to be used in reference to mixed-gender and to all-female groups and to female individuals (very late 20th century). Though search is difficult, it is not hopeless, depending on some cleverness and persistence. Also, the gender reference question applies, I think, to both definition 3 and to definition 6. DCDuring (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the problematic certainty there. Would you ever hear the line "The Pussycat Dolls are a bunch of guys" and not think that the speaker is claiming they're male? There's a context rule there; it's hard to see that as conveying information unless you assume that "guys"=males.
Haschak Sisters - Girls Rule The World "Someone please explain how we can find the two of you in the park pigging out, acting like a couple of guys." (About 30 seconds in.) It's clear that even to a young audience, guys is clearly male in certain contexts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
From my perspective there is generally a connotation of "men", even when cultural trends lead to "male" things being allowed/default for either gender. It seems comparable to how some people assert that "dude" is gender-neutral, but "go ask a straight guy if he fucks dudes and then get back to me"; some speakers may use the word to refer to people of other genders, but some hearers will always perceive the word as gendered/gendering. Slate has an article on that. Adding references to the usage notes and rewriting them to be clearer would be good. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say that if it can be genderless in some contexts devoid of anything that even hints at gender/sex, but if it has a gender, that gender is always masculine. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"pick-up artist" vs. "incel"[edit]

The article incel claims the word is used primarily in the seduction community. Is this correct? The Wikipedia article never mentions the word, and the word seems to be more related to sexual frustration and hatred of women. This article in The Guardian specifically distinguishes incels from pick-up artists and men's rights activists. Jc86035 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • seduction community would be a nice expression to have in WT. --Gente como tú (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a good part of our coverage on such terms comes from a banned user who used his/her imagination a bit too much. Cleaning this up requires knowledge of usage in places most of us never visit. It's definitely a problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
As I've said here, I don't think incel is much used in the seduction community. It's a manosphere term. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think it is wise to differentiate. If you have learned from the “PUA” community to address random 100 women to get laid, you are probably an incel. One must be careful not to accept self-descriptions of such communities, some are no doubt internet marketing scams, the question is just which.
To gather all those communities defined by their positions about women, a label manosphere would not be bad. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I've seen (mostly Reddit), incels, despite claiming to want a female partner, mostly hate and demonise women; they come across as those angry kids who end up doing school shootings. Whereas PUAs are more about hanging around bars etc. trying to pick up as many women as possible via slimeball tactics, since eventually statistically they have to manage to bag one! I don't think the incel approach would impress the PUA at all, so their "communities" aren't really the same. Equinox 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
There's a short documentary on the incel community called Shy Boys: IRL that you can look at for further amusement education. Crom daba (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


Does 'unboxing' need a separate sense to cover unboxing clips or does it fall under the existing definition? Thanks. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"removal of something from its box" seems right to me. —suzukaze (tc) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

«English öra»?[edit]

The entry at Ohr lists "English öra" as a cognate, together with English ear. Now I don't recall English having umlaut, and öra gives only Icelandic or Swedish. Which was meant? Maybe there is another language with öra and that's the one meant there? Or did "öra" actually exist in English at some point? MGorrone (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case it was just a typo: before the conversion to {{cog}}, it had the right label (“Swedish”) but the wrong lang code (“en”). Ungoliant (falai) 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV You didn't put enough tildes. I fixed it for you.
Regarding English not having umlaut, what about über, which is one of the alternative spellings listed under uber? Tharthan (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I didn't know that loanword existed, let alone that it had the umlaut. I guess I should have said "outside recent loans", which "öra" is AFAIK not. MGorrone (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


What's with the first def? Are these even distinct? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sense 2 could cover a device that doesn't tell the time at all, and is only watch-like in being worn on the wrist (e.g. keep-fit devices) - are there such devices that don't tell time? I know nothing about gadgets. Equinox 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm just familiar with the FitBit (which does cover the time), but with the amount of circuitry in one of these, not covering the time would be silly. I can't imagine once you've got the LCD there and enough hardware to be "smart", that you wouldn't offer the time.
The Pokemon Go Plus is worn on the wrist and doesn't tell time, but I wouldn't call it "smart" or a smartwatch. The advertising copy goes with "wearable device".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


It occurs to me that we should probably include an entry for this common wiki jargon. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we should only do so if it meets CFI, and I don't see enough actual uses of the noun on Google Books to justify that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Previously failed RFV. Equinox 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


With a word like jeera, for example, which (I believe) is transliterated from an Indian dialect, do we have a way of requesting that someone add the word in its original language (and alphabet) to the listing? And do we have a Category for transliterated words? (If not, might it be worth having one?) Thanks in advance. --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Use {{rfe|lang=en}} to request an etymology of an English word. Use {{bor|en|hi|}} if the source language of an English word is known (e.g. Hindi) but not the original script or the correct spelling. Note the missing parameter after the second language code. The templates will categorise accordingly. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Philologia Sæculārēs: In any case, I think it ज़ीरा (zīrā) or जीरा (jīrā) "cumin". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Thanks very much, Atitarev. So is jeera a word from the Hindi dialect? (And if so, do we know whether or not it's shared by other Indian dialects?)
Probably a bigger issue is that (unless Wiktionary's definition of 'English' includes words not normally used in countries where English is the first language), 'jeera' isn't actually an English word. The English word is 'cumin' (same goes for methi vs 'fenugreek', saunf vs fennel, aloo vs potato). They are all transliterations. However I'm unsure of how to change them and to which dialects.--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Latin includes words not normally used in the Roman Empire, sometimes for concepts not known when there were still first-language speakers of Latin. India is a country where English is a frequent interlanguage between people with no other shared language, and however weird it may get sometimes to people in the US and UK, Indian English is still English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that Wiktionary used "English" that way. (p.s. I'm not in the US or UK)--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was more concerned about the real source language of these words getting short-changed by them being (what seemed to me) inaccurately labelled as being from another language. --Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary uses English that way, because so does everyone. What else are we supposed to call the Romance-influenced Germanic language that is spoken in India? Why are American borrowings English and Indian borrowings not-English?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
When used as English words, they're not transliterations. A transliteration is when you write (for example) a Hindi word in the Latin alphabet. But if someone says "I added some methi to the aloos", they aren't speaking Hindi, they're speaking English and using Hindi loanwords. A transliteration can only be found in writing, for one thing, while a loanword can be found in speech. It doesn't make sense to say "transliteration of Hindi जीरा (jīrā)" in the etymology section of an English word. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja Maybe we should delete {{transliteration}}, which we're using in some entries. What do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I looked at a random sample of its uses and didn't see any that I thought were necessary, so I'd support deletion. But of course we should keep things like {{got-romanization of}} for entries that really are transliterations. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm only talking about the etymology template. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

while we're at it - while one is at it?[edit]

Should we have that? Other dictionaries have it.

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would argue for having all the attestable contracted and uncontracted personal-pronoun(-tense?) variants as hard redirects to while one is at it. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Equinox 19:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Vulgar Latin Swadesh list[edit]

A few Latin words lost among an ocean of PIE... Anyone up to cleaning this up? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

deep throat[edit]

At the wikipedia article deep-throating, it's said that "the term was popularized by the 1972 pornographic film Deep Throat."

I guess that title must be construed as a noun: "<a> deep throat". But which came first then? The verb "to deepthroat", or the noun "deep-throating" from which the verb was back-formed? Is/was there a noun "a deepthroat" = "an instance of deepthroating"?

Or is it attested before 1972? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


I doubt the existence of Cantonese pronunciation. Dokurrat (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Surprisingly, it's actually used in Cantonese ([20]). I've always thought it's only used in Cantonese until I've looked into other lects. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Quoi?? Thank you. It's surprising. I was thinking something similar to yours too, just not "Cantonese"... Dokurrat (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Justinrleung I see the etym has been requested in that page. Can I write something like "One possibility is that it is from *波羅 (“knee”) + 蓋"? As I see this in Hanyu Fangyan Da Cidian: "[波罗]…(2) <名> 膝。江淮官话。江苏东台。清嘉庆二二年《东台县志》:“膝谓之~”". Dokurrat (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: I'm mostly concerned with 波羅, i.e. is it related to "pineapple"? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Oh! I think the etymology of *波羅 is not gonna be easy to trace, if possible. Dokurrat (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: I've seen something about it being from Manchu or Jurchen, but I can't confirm it. @Wyang, Zcreator, any ideas? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, Dokurrat

  • Publications by Chinese authors: I checked some Chinese references that mention this as being of Manchu origin (e.g. 近古汉语里由于语言接触而产生的东西, 满语词语在东北方言中的遗留), but they did not mention the exact Manchu word. One other reference that looks promising is: 赵杰:《融合过程中的满语和汉语》,载《满语研究》1993年第1期。 but it doesn't seem to be available online.
  • About the Cantonese usage: very strange and unexpected. Discussion one:
天津方言称膝盖为“玻了盖”,据调查山东、河北、北京等不少地方称膝盖为“波罗盖”(或经语音换位变成“格棱拜”,即声母形式为“k-l- p”),有研究表明“波罗盖”是女真语“波罗”与汉语“盖”的合璧词,冀鲁官话有少数词语来自北方民族语言,有些已进入通语而走向其他方言。而据台湾李仲民先生的研究在广东肇庆端州、深圳沙井和珠海井岸,即珠三角的边缘,将膝盖称为“菠萝盖”,地理语言学将“菠萝盖”于珠江三角洲地区的特殊分布称为“跳跃扩散”。“玻了盖”、“波罗盖”、“菠萝盖”的声母形式均为“p-l-k”的三音节词,各说法之间相似的语音形式是否与军话有关,都需要语言学工作者给予进一步的关注和研究。
  • About Manchu: Overall, searching the Manchu dictionary yielded no perfectly suitable word for "knee" or "kneecap", or other phonetically possible sources. In detail:
  • Publications by non-Chinese authors:
    • An interesting discussion is in Historical, Religious and Genetic Context of Tangwang (2017), on "knee" [puə22 luə24 ke42] in the Tangwang language:
Iwata et al. (2009) have already observed that many Chinese dialects do not use the word 膝盖 xīgài ‘knee’, a term used in Standard Mandarin. They employ 波棱盖 bōlenggài to express “knee”. The pattern p-l-k is concentrated in the North (Iwata et al. 2009: 220). Their research results correspond closely to those of Chinese scholars (Li et al. 1995; Chen and Li et al. 1996) who show that the p-l-k pattern is mainly found in Northern dialects. Among 93 sites they have investigated, 39 take the form p-l-k, within which 20 also use other forms to indicate “knee”. Among the 19 dialects which have a single form to express “knee” in the p-l-k pattern, 16 are located in the North or Northwest while 3 are found in the South.6 For example in Beijing speech, two terms are used: 磕膝盖儿 kēxīgàir and 波棱盖儿 bōlenggàir. It is interesting to note that in Wutun, a language which is more mixed than Tangwang, this word is pronounced “polo-gaize” (Janhunen et al. 2008: 121). All these facts suggest that [puə22 luə24 ke42] in Tangwang is not an isolated case and probably has the same source as other dialects and Chinese varieties. But the problem has not been solved: where does this term come from? The earliest example I found in a non-Han language is in the 清文指要 Qīngwén zhǐyào [Outline of the Manchu language] annotated by Zhang and Liu in 2013. The earliest version in which 膊洛盖儿 bóluògàir ‘knee’ is attested dates to 1809. But we cannot confidently assume that this word was loaned from the Manchu language in Northern China and expanded to many dialects. In several Manchu dictionaries (Norman 1978; Hu et al. 1994), it is noted that the word “knee” is tobgiya or buhi. Phonetically these words have nothing to do with the widespread p-l-k pattern in Chinese varieties. Did Manchu borrow this word from Chinese? Further investigations are needed to find the origin of this word. For now we only know that this word in Tangwang is a common word widespread in Northern Chinese dialects.
    • An even more interesting read is: Iwata (2007), “Dialect Contact and the Production of Contaminated Forms — A Reconstruction of the History of Chinese Words for ‘Knee’” (方言接觸及混淆形式的產生-論漢語方言「膝蓋」一詞的歷史演變). Absolutely recommend this article (福利), and other publications by Iwata. (Anyone got his 汉语方言解释地图? :))
  • Trivia: I'm reminded of Middle Korean mulwuph ("knee") > modern 무릎 (mureup).
  • Too long didn't read: Read this.

These for now. :) Wyang (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang: Whoa! Dokurrat (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of biche[edit]

The pronunciation of biche in French at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biche#Pronunciation sounds wrong. It sounds like two syllables, like (in English) ven deesh or ben deesh. It doesn't sound like a native French speaker speaking, as if it was someone who speaks French as a second language, badly. Compare to the two version at https://forvo.com/word/biche/ . Note that I don't speak French. --Chuck Baggett (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's reading it with the article une (feminine "a"), which seems to be the norm for all French nouns. It sounds perfectly fine to me. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Can this be attested as a word in English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


Are the links to Wikia and YouTube not formally appropriate for a Wiktionary entry to be citing/linking to? PseudoSkull (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we cite anything that is useful to us? Certainly YouTube is a stable page for the video found there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't cite Wikia wikis. —suzukaze (tc) 03:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

peto: from *pesd or *perd?[edit]

I just came across an answer by Oscar Tay on Quora, and in the comments he says peto peido and péter all come from PIE *perd like English fart. I was wondering how the r got lost, so I tried to browse Wiktionary for intermediate steps on peto, finding peto<peditum<pedo<*pezdō<*pesd, peido<peditum<…, péter<pet<peditum<…, and I bet pedo<peditum<…. Whoops! Contradiction! So who is correct? If Oscar Tay is, then how did the r got lost? If WIktionary is, it seems the s weakened to z and got lost entirely; are there other examples of such an evolution or is this a one-off case? MGorrone (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MGorrone: sīdō, which comes from *sizdō (notice the compensatory lengthening). I'd say we got it right, but *perd- and *pesd- are probably related anyway. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


I believe we are missing the sense as in "organized religion", "organized crime", etc. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention “organized desk”. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think both senses are covered at organize#Verb. DCDuring (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Other dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, MacMillan) seem to generally accept "organized" as an adjective with two senses, one for ~"affiliated through an organization; unionized" ("organized workers") and one for ~"having formal structure to carry out activities" like "organized football" and "organized religion". A few even have the one adjective sense we have, for being an efficient individual. It meets at least some tests of adjectivity, e.g. one finds "very organized religion" and "the most organized religion", and it forms the basis for an adverb "organizedly". - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I was wondering whether the comparability/gradability adjectivity tests are not very often almost always met by "-ed" forms of verbs. For example, do we need an adjective section for accented? It would seem to need at least two senses, one for music, another for speech, but perhaps also for artwork and descriptions of organisms. At least partial attestation for these can be found at Google Books ("very accented"). DCDuring (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

scardey cat[edit]

Alternative spelling or misspelling? I would think the latter. Mihia (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Definitely the latter. DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    Relabelled accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Mihia (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

blow off steam[edit]

Can this mean "to relax, to unwind"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think so - it seems to be active rather than passive. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Our definitions seem weird, maybe overspecific. The phrase seems very similar to "vent", for example you can call someone on the phone to talk (not shout or yell) to "blow off steam" (this is confirmed by the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms), although A Dictionary of Confusable Phrases does suggest that the talking or acting has to be done in an "unrestrained" manner. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


I don't get the [Attested from the mid 16th century until the early 17th century.] next to the first sense. Does it mean that sense is obsolete? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the sense seems to still be used, I think the defdate is a confusing attempt to say that the date of first attestation falls somewhere in that range, and needs to be rephrased like "First attested sometime between ... and ...". - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That was my thinking as well. I've changed the entry. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


1. We are possibly missing a non-sexual sense: google books:"bukkake noodles" gets a few hits, although only of compound words and not bukkake by itself, ditto bukkake udon, but maybe other phrases get more food-related hits.
2. Are the two sexual senses, for "the act of..." and "the genre of pornography centered around this act", really distinct? I don't see how. I'll merge them if there are on objections. - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I asked a Japanese friend about this some years ago when I found bukkake on a menu and recoiled in shock. It is clearly attestable in English, and I have added the sense to the entry with wording modified from the Japanese entry.
2. I see that you have already merged the sexual senses; I support this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge -- FWIW, the EN term derives ultimately from the JA compound verb 打っ掛ける (bukkakeru), from 打つ (butsu, to hit something, possibly implying with a thump or thud) + 掛ける (kakeru, to cover one thing with something else). I believe the food context preceded the sexual one, but I can't find anything definitive (and to be honest, I'm not researching this very deeply). For food, the basic idea is plopping one thing on top of the dish, like a big dollop of heavy sauce or other fixings. Butsu also has a sense of “to shoot something off, to fire”, which may be a factor in the sexual sense of bukkake.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

monkey wrench, throw a spanner in the works[edit]

Where I live, we pretty much just say "throw a wrench (into the works)". No "monkey" about it.

I found this which supports the existence of the phrase which I am familiar with.

May "throw a wrench (into the works)" at least be added as an alternative form of throw a spanner in the works if nothing else? Tharthan (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if nobody has any objections, I'll add it as an alternative form. Tharthan (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Said to be the past participle of intention, but we don't have a verb section at that entry (rightly so, I should think). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Intentioning looks attestable. I can find ~20 instances of the collocation have|has intentioned. It looks like intention#Verb is justified by the facts. DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

give someone a break[edit]

Why is there a {{trans-see}} leading to rest? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition line included two definitions that do not have the same synonyms. Transitive rest#Verb is a synonym for the first, though I doubt that a user who needs the entry would quickly find the specific definition. I've split them, but {{trans-see}} should direct the user to the right definition of rest. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Once again a heavy handed revert, so? do we promote proper grammar or not?

Article is A not An if initial vowel is silent (Opossum)

but once again, despite properly identifying the rule of grammar, someone virtually auto reverted contrary to proper English grammar. PLEASE GIVE RIGHTS TO SOMEONE WHO AT LEAST KNOWS ENGLISH. --Qazwiz (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)--Qazwiz (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (article Possum)--Qazwiz (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Qazwiz: You've edited the wrong entry, I'm afraid. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
the possum is this link https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/possum#Noun --Qazwiz (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC) sorry for confusion
The 'o' is not silent, but you are right about the rule. - TheDaveRoss 20:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Ross, i suggest you check a dictionary, the O is silent, anyone who says OH-possum is wrong--Qazwiz (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

UGH! I cannot believe how horribly the Language has been treated! 50 years ago teachers would have flunked all wikis! now all Opossum soundings are saying "a possum" I guarantee 50 years ago that was marked as incorrect. --Qazwiz (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up, I'm voting for Hillary. this is not the American you are looking for --Qazwiz (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC) SARCASM !!!

After edit conflict...
Qazwiz, I have no idea where you get your information. I grew up in Virginia with family in the north and midwest, and have heard both pronunciations, spelled more or less as spoken, and (in the vernacular, at least) referring to the same scrappy North American marsupial. If pronounced with an initial open vowel, it's spelled opossum; if the first sound is a consonant, it's spelled possum.
As a separate issue, I've never heard of English having silent vowels on the front. Silent h, sure, but I sure can't think of any silent vowels at the moment.
If you have any interest, there's related discussion in several threads at w:Talk:Opossum. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've referenced the pronunciation sections of both opossum and possum; other references do say the first o in opossum is sometimes silent, but it can also be pronounced. - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche, agreed re: references. In my life experience so far, I've never encountered "silent o". Be that as it may, we seem to have adequately refuted Qazwiz's odd insistence that "the O is silent, anyone who says OH-possum is wrong". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Raw hits at Google books for "an opossum" are twenty times more common than for "a opossuum". "A possum" is a bit more common than "an opossum". Evidently authors and editors try to make the spelling correspond to the pronunciation.
Stack exchange had a discussion on the point about 4 years ago and finally got a thorough, good response this past September. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Abbas says this also means "lion"; if so, can someone add a noun section? - -sche (discuss) 01:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it actually means "lion." In the context of someone's name, it is the description of a lion. عباس means austere, frowning, sullen, sulky, and it describes a lion, so if you ask someone named Abbas what their name means, they may say "lion," which has the qualities of عباس. —Stephen (Talk) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Does Sichuanese pronunciation ha3 exist for 哈#Etymology 4? Dokurrat (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat I can only say that it applies to 哈巴狗, not for the other senses listed there. There's still much to be done about that entry in terms of splitting by etymology. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

lead someone a dance, lead someone a merry dance, lead someone a merry chase[edit]

Being unable to parse this idiom (since when is lead a ditransitive verb??), I dug around a bit. Is the explanation put forth in the second message of this thread (that it's really lead someone on a merry dance, with the preposition being elided) reasonable? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

how can I delete an entry I made yesterday?[edit]

I entered a word that I totally made up, confusing the (sometimes) satirical purpose of the Urban Dictionary for Wiktionary. —This unsigned comment was added by Skyflier0652‎ (talkcontribs).

I will do it for you. Thanks for your willingness to fix the mistake. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much - the word is 'frighteousness'. Thanks again!

(Old English) Inherited sex[edit]

The English word sex is a loanword from French. In Old English (or Modern English, if such word survives dialectally until today), which germanic inherited word denoting "sexual intercourse" (in a socially-accepted slightly-formal non-vulgar sense, just like "sex" has, but "f*ck" and alike don't) was displaced by this French borrowing? -- 18:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I can only think of swive, but that's a verb. Not sure if it is ever used as a noun...but then there's swiving. These two words meant "to copulate" and "intercourse" in Middle English, but the forerunner word OE swīfan, if ever used that way, was never recorded with that meaning... Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In Middle English there was dede (deed), as in "do the deed" but I don't see that sense in Old English. Then there's knowledge which has a parallel in OE cunnan (literally to know), but the general word for intercourse in OE seemed to be hǣmed, which kind of survived into ME as haunt, but I don't think anyone uses it today to mean anything like that... Leasnam (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, the use of sex to mean "sexual intercourse" is relatively recent: our etymology section says it dates back only to about 1900, in the works of H. G. Wells. It may have only become common with Freud, though: Mapp and Lucia (1931) has a quote, "Tranquillity comes with years, and that horrid thing which Freud calls sex is expunged." —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
If this is true, then the use of sex to mean "sexual intercourse" is English in origin (?) Does this indicate that languages that use this sense borrowed it then from English ? Leasnam (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
In the Etymology of English sex, it says the Middle French term sexe also meant "intercourse"...the Middle English term certainly did not record this meaning: it only means sex as in "gender" (male or female). Can we confirm if the Middle French sense is correct ? I only find uses referring to "gender" and in Old French to "genitalia" Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I also think that pointing to Middle French may be an error as well, as most dictionaries I see either point the ME to Old French or directly to Latin Leasnam (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
If I'm reading the TLFi correctly, the sense of "sexual intercourse" for French sexe hearkens back to the mid-19th century only. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm! If they're saying that and they're right, we should remove "sexual intercourse" from the list of things Middle French sexe is glossed as meaning in the etymology section of sex. - -sche (discuss) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the English etymology. Leasnam (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a such thing as...[edit]

Is there a term for a word which is also a personal name ? For instance: Bob and bob; Brian and brian, Jack and jack ? If so, would it be worthwhile to categorise them ? Leasnam (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have heard the word "capitonym". Mihia (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes that is like pole "long rodlike instrument" vs. Pole "person from Poland" where capitalisation changes the meaning...that's close but not quite the same thing, though all the examples I provided above are also capitonyms :) Leasnam (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Why is this anything more than homonymy? The word brian has zero connection to the name Brian. DTLHS (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, we have palindromes, do we not ? Why ? There should be a special nomenclature given to words that are homonyms for names as well...I should think :\ (?) Leasnam (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so I guess the answer is "No.". No worries. Thanks all ! :) Leasnam (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Can anyone check the accuracy of this edit? Pinging recently-active Serbo-Croatian speakers @Crom daba, Vorziblix. The word is attracting attention as a Serbo-Croatian translation of the phrase "shithole (country)" which Trump made headlines for using. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Using a strictly literal reading, either interpretation could be possible, although the one we currently have is probably more likely to cross speakers’ minds; the literal etymological meaning is along the lines of wolf-fuck-place, and so leaves the exact connection vague. Regardless, I think it’s more likely that the jebina part of this is just a generic term of abuse rather than a reference to actual wolf-fucking. Unfortunately I don’t have any etymological resources that can confirm this or any other interpretation. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

IPA for vowel tenseness in Sichuan Yi[edit]

What is the correct IPA symbol to use for indicating tenseness (loose throat vs. tight throat) in Yi vowels? Most authors use some sort of underline for showing tense (tight throat) vowels, like here and here, but in standard IPA, that symbol represents a retracted sound. This is also problematic for /z̩/, as underlining it would make it confusing. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the underscore could work; Nuosu language#Vowels says the tense vowels are “laryngealized and/or show a retracted tongue root”. The combination // seems to be rendered correctly on my computer (though it could be confusing). Wyang (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
If they're laryngealized you can use U+0330 (◌̰) for them. You can probably dispense with the syllabification marker for the tight-throat /v̩/ and /z̩/ since only the syllabic fricatives are phonemically laryngealized; the normal nonsyllabic fricatives don't have this tense/loose distinction, do they? Alternatively, you can use the nonspacing laryngealization marker U+02F7 (˷) if you want to keep the syllabification marker. So my recommendation is to take your pick between /z̰/ and /z̩˷/ for the tight-throat syllabic /z/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: If I were to pick /z̰/, should I still use /z̩/ for the loose throat version? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because unmarked /z/ would be ambiguous between syllabic and nonsyllabic, but /z̰/ can only be syllabic. I'd also recommend writing Appendix:Sichuan Yi pronunciation and making everything clear there. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

let me show you my etchings, would you like to see my etchings?, etc.[edit]

(No, that's not an offer.)
Are the clichéd innuendos above includible? Attestation is not a problem,[21] [22] despite the high number of variants, but I'm not completely sure about their idiomaticity. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd try see someone's etchings and show someone one's etchings. Redirects from the more common variants, using appropriate personal pronouns, would get users to the main entry. Some common sentences or longer phrases such as are in the headings would make good usage examples for the same reason. DCDuring (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel like this is lexical at all. I wouldn't even call it a euphemism for "have sex". It's just a (formerly) common trope in comedy. When I first saw this James Thurber drawing I didn't understand the joke until one of my parents explained it to me, but I don't think there's any dictionary entry that could have made me understand it. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
We sometimes use non-gloss definitions ("Used to ....") in cases like this that might fall under pragmatics. DCDuring (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like variants are included by dictionaries of catch phrases and also by one "Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions".[23] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Netflix and chill[edit]

The post above made me check the history of the word Netflix and chill. As often for this kind of words, Wikipedia is much more informative than us. I'm tempted to copy-paste here the entire "Origins" paragraph.

They also have several interesting categories, for example: w:Category:Words coined in the 2000s. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a bad thing to accept that some etymologies are very encyclopaedic in nature, and we can give a brief summary and then link to Wikipedia's treatment of it. As for the category, that'll be good fodder for when I get around to creating a {{coinage}} template. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Do the two definitions really constitute different senses? "For a brief period of time" necessarily implies "not permanently". Ultimateria (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest changing "brief" to "limited" and merging them. Other dictionaries I made a quick check of also seem to detect only one sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

as all that: as + all that?[edit]

Should we have an entry for this? The noun sense we have ("That, and everything similar; all of that kind of thing; and so on, et cetera") doesn't really explain why "as all that" means what it means, IMO.

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

if you say so, as you say[edit]

Do those deserve entries? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

harlot - adjective usage[edit]

Unless I miss my guess, the quotation used to illustrate the adjective sense of harlot ("While she with harlots feasted in my house") is actually a noun. Do I miss my guess, or should this be removed/replaced? Cnilep (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a quote from Nick Joaquin, though I'm not sure if it clarifies the usage. Cnilep (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I've moved the quotation to the noun section. - -sche (discuss) 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As a separate matter, I'm not entirely sure this is "archaic". Phrases like google books:"media harlot" get very modern hits, which don't seem to be trying to seem old. Maybe "now uncommon"? - -sche (discuss) 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


I don't think there is any need for two translation sections, they are virtually identical, and they were one and the same people after all. DonnanZ (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

holocaust quote from 1938[edit]

Can we confirm the existence of the citation from 1938 added in diff? When I search for it, the very few results look like Holocaust-denier websites (which I haven't clicked on, because: illegal), and it gets no Google Books hits. It seems to fit a political agenda (oh look, the Jews/Zionists used the word to refer to a holocaust of Germans!) so perfectly that, in the absence of proof of its existence, it seems like an invention... - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


RFV-pron: kāla for the sense "black". @Wyang — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung It's from 《汉俄大词典》 (Большой Китайско-Русский Словарь): [25]. Wyang (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: OK, thanks! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

paper cut[edit]

There is another sense of this term in software development jargon which signifies something to the effect of

  • a software bug or design decision that results in frequent annoyance, though not by itself typically enough to discourage use of the software

Wikipedia has paper cut bug, which establishes the etymology, though the treatment there doesn't quite capture the expanded use given above. For example, the Rust Programming Language Blog uses:

Previously, you’d have needed to write x += *y in order to de-reference, so this solves a small papercut.

Similarly, their RFC #2126 uses:

From an ergonomics perspective, one often ends up with many mod.rs files open, and thus must depend on editor smarts to easily navigate between them. Again, a minor but nontrivial papercut.

From this later example, I gather that, in current usage, paper cuts need neither be trivial nor really caused by a "bug": this one arises from a design decision, however poor, that is nonetheless working as intended in practice. The unifying concept seems rather to be that the bug or design decision is a nuisance, but not an impasse, likely in reference to phrase, "death by a thousand paper cuts."

Has anyone spotted use of this sense of paper cut outside of the Rust programming language community? –Rriegs (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The use of paper cut to refer metaphorically to some minor harm occurs in many realms. I don't see anything special about the use you describe in software. We should have the metaphorical definition. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

woolly back[edit]

Per discussion with @Robbie SWE, he has recommended that the above article be mentioned to solicit additional opinions. The above article has had a back and forth, it would seem for the last decade, on what the term means. I have made two edits to the article today (one I can agree, being rightly reverted) and a second providing expanded definitions and background, as well as references. It would be appreciated for anyone to look the recent edit over for comments, and to make adjustments to fit to the MOS of the wikitionary. 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We should figure out which spelling is most common and centralize content there. It is not good that different spellings list somewhat different senses in a way that does not seem supported by use. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Based off my own research, it seems that "wooly back", "wooly-back", "woolly back", and "woolly-back" are used interchangeably and mean the same. Both articles could be merged, or both edited to reflect what the sources state? 23:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Something's weird here (etymology 2). Firstly it looks like a taxonomic name (so should be Translingual, not English?), and secondly we have an already-plural definition ("a group of...") but the headword says that the plural of Hamites is "Hamitae". What giveth? Equinox 07:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Undecimber, Duodecember, Duodecimber[edit]

Basically defined as "months that don't exist". I feel we need some context: are these used in fantasy fiction? Are they important in computing? (I gather that some software calendars use them as placeholders in certain situations.) What do they mean? That's our job. Equinox 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Why is there an inflection table transcluded in the headword-line template {{ka-adj}}? Now there are two identical tables in the above entry. @Dixtosa? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

defender ?= lawyer[edit]

Have any of you ever run into the sense "lawyer who represents defendants"? It sounds like interference from other languages and isn't in any dictionaries i checked. --Espoo (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's "public defender" as a very native/normal English term, and google books:"public defender" "the defender" suggests that "defender" is used by itself in roughly that sense at least some of the time. It's a little harder to make sense of the uses that google books:"the defendant" "the defender" turns up; some may mean "defendant" and some may be interference from e.g. Chinese, but some seem to also be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure, but has a new meaning of this word emerged? That makes me wonder is not limited to following usages:

  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
    「ROG Bezel-free Kit」基本能达到将边框隐藏起来的效果,虽然仍旧能隐约看到套件轮廓的阴影,也比拼接后那种汽车 A 柱既视感的效果好不少。

Dokurrat (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

elementary school tactic, grade school tactic, kindergarten tactic[edit]

I think these are SoP and not even particular common. Same creator made the deleted "what are you, six". Feelings? Equinox 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Can this be moved to RFD? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone know the status of comrad ? Is it an alternative form for comrade, non-standard, or a misspelling ? btw, there's also comradship Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, I couldn't find it in any dictionaries, but due to the high Google hit count I made the entry as a misspelling Leasnam (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It's the name of several companies, but I don't think it's a legit misspelling. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but if you do a search for "comrads" it becomes clear that many are spelling it that way...in fact, it's actually pronounced as though it were spelt com-rad, so I can see how easily one could spell it this way, at least in North America Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


stumbled on the "wiktionary" entry.

I speak VERY little German. But was reading Heidegger's "Letter on Humanism" in English. He appears to claim that the root is "mag" or to favor ... or "like" according to my meager vocabulary.

"Possiblity" of course has an almost entirely neutral connotation. Is this also true for "moglichkeit?"

The basic meaning of this root in German is "may/might/able to" and it is neutral. Specific to German among germanic languages, it also means to "like" someone or something (Ich mag das.). I am not certain, but I believe that sense developed during the Modern German period (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The sense of "like" was present in Middle High German as well, but not in Old High German as far as I can tell. Leasnam (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"Possibility" is rather positive, in contrast to "impossibility", anyway.Rhyminreason (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wine emulator entry[edit]

Should we have an entry for it? The only reason I'm asking is that "Wine" is a recursive backronym for "Wine is not an emulator", and we generally keep acronyms...right? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Isn't that "WINE"? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... "The name Wine initially was an abbreviation for Windows Emulator.[15] The phrase "Wine Is Not an Emulator" is a reference to the fact that no code emulation or virtualization occurs when running a Windows application under Wine.[16] "Emulation" usually refers to the execution of compiled code intended for one processor (such as x86) by interpreting/recompiling software running on a different processor (such as PowerPC). Its meaning later shifted to the recursive backronym Wine Is Not an Emulator in order to differentiate the software from CPU emulators.[17] While the name sometimes appears in the forms WINE and wine, the project developers have agreed to standardize on the form Wine.[18]" PseudoSkull (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

morpion etymology[edit]

I noticed a plea for a Hudibras quotation - there are two in Gutenberg.

It is also misspelled 'morpeon' in Scott's 'Antiquary'.

Sorry I don't know how to add this information, maybe some 'Harmless WikiDrudge' could do it.

spetacciare once more[edit]

I already remarked here that the usage example at spetacciare doesn't use spetacciare at all. I proposed an alternate usage example, but didn't add it in because the source was a random website, so maybe a better example could be found. Nothing happened since, so I'm reposting the issue. MGorrone (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll add the example from p. 203 here aka here searching for "spetacci". Also, someone should create sfracassare with the example from spetacciare. MGorrone (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone please check my creation of sfracassare and translation of the new example of spetacciare doesn't feature errors, and validate the example I provided in the older post. MGorrone (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


We currently have one definition, but many non-English entries have glosses for both "in the dimension that isn't time" (I tried) and "in outer space". Does it merit splitting? Ultimateria (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've split them, although the "outer space" sense seems uncommon? Other dictionaries discern two senses but they both seem to relate to the dimension of space... - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

long-page, long-scrolling, and/or single-page[edit]

A modern web page design pattern that has gained popularity in recent years is to put a large amount of content on a single, very long page. This is distinct from just not breaking up an otherwise linear article over multiple pages, but rather often comprises multiple different articles/topics into a single page, one stacked on top of the other. It is often composed with w:parallax scrolling (whereby not all page elements scroll at the same rate) or other scrolling-driven animations to create a more engaging experience, though not necessarily so.

What properly is this design pattern called? I've found some use of the terms long-page, long-scrolling, long-scroll, single-page, and various other combinations both with and without hyphens, though none stick out as a clear winner. Further, I can't find any "official" uses, e.g. by Mozilla or Google—the examples I've found are mostly SEO content for "let us design your website for you" businesses—nor any obvious definitions in dictionaries or Wikipedia, etc. Does anyone here have any experience with this subject? –Rriegs (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)