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


March 2017


Verb sense 7.1:

(transitive) To follow or proceed according to (a course or path).  
Let's go this way for a while.‎
She was going that way anyway, so she offered to show him where it was.

I disagree that these examples demonstrate transitivity. "this way" and "that way" are surely adverbial. There is also a quotation, "I wish that you would go this path up to its end", which seems less clear to me in terms of transitivity, but "go this path" is not a kind of usage that I ever hear. Opinions please. Mihia (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't feel transitive to me in those cases, but you can also say "Let's go one way, and if it takes too long, we'll go a different way coming back." Are "one way" and "a different way" adverbial in those cases? Or is "go" actually transitive when used that way? I'll leave it to the experts to decide. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Aren't go viral, go medieval, go Hollywood, go home all examples of adverbial usage with this sense of go? DCDuring TALK 08:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Go in this case can basically mean "walk" or "travel", and you can definitely say "I wish that you would go walk this path up to its end" and it be clearly transitive. It is certainly not something you hear here in the States. It sounds UK dialectal to me Leasnam (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Passivizing doesn't seem to work: *This way was gone by many people sounds bad. Inasmuch as that's a test of transitivity, the verb isn't transitive. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, as one might expect, this use of go has a parallel temporal usage: The meeting went three hours. I didn't see the corresponding temporal definition. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

knob job[edit]

Someone create that please. --2A02:2788:1004:11D6:948A:FE27:DF2A:F6D0 19:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally, I haven't got a clue what a knob job is. There's not much point in creating an entry without a definition. DonnanZ (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    My two guesses are "(slang) reconstructive breast surgery" and, possibly, "(slang) Effort to a penis to cause an orgasm" . DCDuring TALK 13:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Confirmation of def 2: google books:"good knob job", but it seems to specifically mean "blow job". I can't find confirmation for my def 1 guess. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know how reliable Urban Dictionary is, but here is the UD article on knob job.
  • Never thought I'd be offering expert advice...but "knob" is slang for the penis, "knob job" is fellatio. Probably more common spoken than written, and middle to low register. It can also refer to a person (as in "Joe is a real knob job") as a general insult.

I remember the term from many 80's era movies - if you need references, screenplays and movie quote sites are probably your best bet. For example: https://books.google.com/books?id=JpJ-kK1j2_MC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=movies+with+the+term+%22knob+job%22&source=bl&ots=gf7hjytiAc&sig=dwsb32uiy5jgcPqMy_MCTKevOiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB-9K72JDTAhWigFQKHcbECS8Q6AEIHjAB#v=onepage&q=movies%20with%20the%20term%20%22knob%20job%22&f=false http://www.quotes.net/show-quote/67272 http://www.angelfire.com/grrl/mandabear/moviequotes.html


The English entry should apparently be deleted. I couldn't find any evidence of use in English in the 1940s or later except in explanations of the term and concept as being Finnish, never used in an English sentence as a loanword. --Espoo (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFV. —CodeCat 22:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


It's not archaic as far as I know. DonnanZ (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like the archaic label showed up in this edit by Widsith back in April 2008. Subsequent restructuring of the entry divorced the label from its originally appropriate context. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do we have two different senses? I can't for the life of me understand the difference between them. "Excrement" just means "waste matter", AFAIK. The OED also only lists this one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've always understood it to apply only to solid (fecal) waste. Note that the example for the first definition is clearly referring to mucus, which is not nowadays thought of as excrement, at least in my experience. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it was after midnight and my brain had ceased functioning. I was beginning to think humans don't produce excrement (solid waste), only animals. I think I'll add "human" to the current sense 2, and reverse the order of the senses. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

sexually mature[edit]

I think it's entry-worthy, being able to reproduce. There's a couple of translations lurking in the system, and I know of more. DonnanZ (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


Where's the stress placed? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

On the penultimate. —Stephen (Talk) 09:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

pollus and polus[edit]

To confirm my correct knowledge of the vulgar meaning of Spanish "polla", I loaded the page. I read it all, and saw "pollus" in Latin. The article for "pollus" says it is an adjective, an alternate form of "polus", and gives the inflection. Trouble is, the article for "polus" only gives it as a second-declension noun, meaning "pole". So either we have something missing in "polus", or "pollus" is an unrelated word. In any case, what does "pollus" mean? And while we're at it, is "pollus" maybe a noun too, meaning "chicken" (cfr. pollo in Italian and Spanish), perhaps with "polla" as a feminine form for "hen"?

MGorrone (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you'd give links to the pages you're talking about; it makes it easier to follow your comment. The Latin word from which Spanish pollo (chicken) is derived is pullus (chick, young animal), with a "u". Lewis and Short don't list a corresponding feminine noun pulla, but I wouldn't be surprised if it existed at least in Late Latin. The Latin word polus (pole) has nothing to do with it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The whole issue of Spanish polla is beside the point- that's just how MGorrone stumbled upon the pollus entry. Special:WhatLinksHere/pollus consists solely of the inflected-form entries created by SemperBlottoBot from the entry, and now Requests for verification (I just posted an rfv) and this page. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Angr and @ChuckEntz to add to this matter, Glosbe (pollus and polus) gives "pollus" as "small, little" and "polus" as both "pole" and "little", and has "pollulum" = "polulum" = "a little". Latin-dictionary also gives "pollus" = "small", and has [v separate entries] for "polus, pola, polum" = "small" and "polus, poli" = "pole". "polla" is not really entirely baside the point: I also conjectured "pollo" and "polla" might stem from "pollus" and "polla" respectively, which @Angr stated to be an incorrect conjecture. That is where the conjecture that "pollus" might mean "chicken" stemmed from. MGorrone (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

air cell[edit]

The word "contraption" seems to be misused in this definition. What word did the writer mean, though? Perhaps compaction? Equinox 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

contraction? DTLHS (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Contraction sounds better. I think it can be found in a hard-boiled egg. DonnanZ (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The definition seems to cover an instance of the use of air + cell, ie SoP. Other dictionaries do not have such a definition, but do have at least two distinct definitions that don't seem SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see my proposed version of the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

chinese literal word-by-word translation[edit]

HI, I think it would improve chinese entries (for example 他把刀放在桌子上) to add the literal word-by-word translation with some grammatical anotation, as can be seen in the wikipedia page for Chinese grammar:

他tā 把bǎ 盘子pánzi 打dǎ 破pò 了le。 [他把盤子打破了。]

he OBJ-plate hit-break-PF.

He hit/dropped the plate, and it broke.

(double-verb where the second verb, "break", is a suffix to the first, and indicates what happens to the object as a result of the action.)

Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting but
  1. not all of us are master grammarians,
  2. Chinese parts-of-speech can be really ambiguous, and
  3. no other language at Wiktionary does this at the moment: there is no framework.
Also potentially of note is that unlike most other languages on Wiktionary, usage examples automatically link to all the words featured.
suzukaze (tc) 11:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Suzukaze. It's definitely interesting, but it's absolutely unpractical in the long run. Wiktionary is meant to be a dictionary, not a linguistics textbook. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

German Arzt and Doktor[edit]

My German friend told me there is a difference between Arzt and Doktor (doctor) in the sense of “(medical) doctor”, in that an Arzt does not hold a postgraduate research degree, whereas a Doktor always does. In other words, someone is an Arzt when he/she has received their license to practice medicine, and the title Doktor is awarded only if someone has completed the research component on top of this. An Arzt is addressed as “Herr”, and a Doktor, “Herr Doktor”. I'm not sure whether this is true, and if so, how this may be clarified in our entries. Wyang (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It is true. My GP told me not to call her Frau Doktor because she doesn't have a doctorate. However, holding a doctorate doesn't preclude you from being an Arzt, so it's more accurate to say an Arzt does not necessarily hold a postgraduate degree, not that an Arzt does not hold a postgraduate degree. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Wyang (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Why did this fail our verification process? The OED has it. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it is because some people don't approve of our mission statement (all words in all languages). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    It is foolish to pretend commercial brands are exactly the same as other types of word. Equinox 19:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


I think we're missing a couple of definitions maybe: earplugs for listening to mobile phones, also for listening to iPods etc. (those which can't be called headphones), not to mention those for hearing aids. These aren't ear protection devices. DonnanZ (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

They would be "earphones", wouldn't they? I have never heard them called "earplugs". Mihia (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have on a number of occasions. I'd call it nonstandard, but that usage definitely exists. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I was coming to that conclusion. So could sense 2 "(non-standard) an earphone" be added? DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Icelandic man#Etymology 3[edit]

“Borrowing from Hebrew מן ‎(mān, “manna”), perhaps via , appearing in Guðbrandur Þorláksson’s 1584 Bible translation.”

Perhaps via? @Krun (diff). Wyang (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Wyang (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The word "end" meaning the beginning.[edit]

The word end seems to invariably mean a distant point in time or similar, but I wonder about it being used to indicate the current location, eg, "The phone line problem is at our end", or "The council will repair the road from our end". Sense 1 does not seem to cover it, and I think it needs more than a usage note. --Dmol (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I've tried to improve the definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I still see "terminal" in the two examples above. Of a phoneline, the beginning is at the switching station, and the two customers are each at their own respective ends. Same for end of a road: depends on what is considered the start of the road. Leasnam (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The two ends of a cable etc. are the points where it terminates (in space): I think sense 1 covers it okay...? Equinox 00:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Is there anybody who still pronounces the w? — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 05:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I do ;) Leasnam (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Really?? Or are you kidding? I have never heard the "w" pronounced in "two", though I have heard it in the dialect "twa". Mihia (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think he might be referencing his affinity for Old/Middle English... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, or he could be the last descendant of English colonists on some obscure islet. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 08:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, does Treasure Island count as an obscure islet? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese[edit]

Both of these should really only have one sense each, and one translation table too. Anyone want to take a stab? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


What does this mean in Japanese? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is 大君 in Japanese (太 and 大 can both be pronounced tai in Japanese). – Krun (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is an alternative spelling. means “large; great”, whereas literally means “fat”, with connotations of “well-off”. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
PS: I should have clarified, this is an unusual alternative spelling. This isn't listed in dictionaries. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


Does it make sense to list various religions as hyponyms? DTLHS (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it was added by a known bad editor (now blocked). I have removed a lot of fluff from the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Is Oxford correct in claiming that lumber means two different things in British and American English respectively? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what does it say? As an American, I'm only familiar with our sense 1 of the noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Assuming this is the noun that is meant. From Oxford Online:
  • 1 British: Articles of furniture or other household items that are no longer useful and inconveniently take up storage space.
[as modifier] ‘a lumber room’
  • 2 North American: Timber sawn into rough planks or otherwise partly prepared.
‘he sat at a makeshift desk of unfinished lumber’
  • Another sense which is Scottish:
Scottish informal: A person regarded as a prospective sexual partner.
‘they end the evening in a disco where they wait for a lumber’
The use of lumber meaning a pawnbroker's shop is obsolete.
DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, this North American would only use the sense marked "North American" above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Me, too. Never heard the others AFAICR. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Now labelled accordingly. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

looking for a term[edit]

"Over the past ten years, people — especially young people — have become aware of the need to change their eating habits." What is "especially young people" called in English? I mean the grammatical term for it. In Chinese it is a 插入語. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is one, bearing in mind that "especially" is an adverb. Young people can also be referred to as adolescents and juveniles, but "young people" is a broader term. DonnanZ (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    The relationship between "people" and "especially young people" is called apposition. See w:Apposition. I think the shortest term applicable to "especially young people" relative to "people" is appositive phrase. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree. Because of the word "especially" this is not quite an appositive. I think this is a compound subject, with the adverb "especially" serving as a conjunction (otherwise, how could an adverb be modifying a noun?). You could just as easily say "people — and especially young people — have become aware...". If this were an appositive, you wouldn't be able to add the word "and" without changing the meaning. --WikiTiki89 20:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Properly speaking, especially would be modifying not the noun people in young people, but the whole noun phrase young people. So the rule does not apply. However, it is a meaning of especially that I am not sure how to define exactly. It's some special type of adverb, or perhaps it would be called a focus particle (looking at the definition in especially). — Eru·tuon 01:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would call it a parenthetical phrase. Mihia (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a parenthetical phrase. —Stephen (Talk) 23:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Which relationship does 插入語 refer to, parenthesis or the narrower apposition? Is the usage context grammar — or rhetoric? DCDuring TALK 13:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    AFAIK, the former, on both accounts. But admittedly most of this is over my head. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin nouns ending in eus (Greek εύς)[edit]

Common nouns:

Proper nouns:

In Greek these words belong to the third declension. In Latin they have forms of Greek's third declension and of Latin's second declension.
Using ~ here to split it up like Orph~e͡us, Orph~eī etc.

Nom. ~e͡us [-εύς], rarely ~eus (i.e. ~ĕŭs)
Gen. ~eī, (Gram.) in poetry also ~e͡i ~eos [att. -έως, ion. -έος, ep. -ῆος & sometimes -έος]
Dat. ~eō ~ei, (Gram.) ~e͡i, ~ī [att. -εῖ, ep. -ῆϊ & sometimes -εῖ]
Acc. ~eum ~ea, rarely -ēa [att. -έᾱ, in drama rarely -έᾰ, ion. -έᾰ, ep. -ῆα & sometimes -έᾰ]
Voc. ~e͡u [-εῦ]
Abl. ~eō
Nom. *~eī ~īs (but depending on edition) [att. -ῆς & later -εῖς, ion. -έες]
Gen. *~eōrum ~eon [?] [att. & ion. -έων, ep. -ήων]
Acc. ~eas/~eās [?] [att. -έᾱς, ion. -έᾰς, ep. -ῆας]


  • Greek forms are from H. W. Smyth's grammar (nominative, genitive -έως, accusatives), LSJ (nominative, genitive -έως and ionic and epic genitive) and another grammar. Appendix:Ancient Greek dialectal declension#ευ-stems mentions some more forms.
  • Forms marked with (Gram.) were mentioned in grammars, but not in dictionaries.
  • nom. sg.: Dictionaries have ~eus with a mentioning of syllables or ~e͡us with a ͡  . Gaffiot has ~eūs but that's very likely an improper form of ~e͡us. Sometimes the ~eus could be unmarked in dictionaries, e.g. digitalized L&S just has "dēmogrammăteus" which could have a monoyllabic ~e͡us or di(s)syllabic ~eus.
    Dictionaries rarely mention nom. ~eus (i.e. ~ĕŭs) like Phălērĕŭs, e.g. in L&S: "Phălēreus (mostly trisyl.) [...] Scanned as a quadrisyllable: Demetrius, qui dictus est Phalereus, Phaedr. 5, 1, 1."
    In wiktionary one can't link like {{l|la|Orphe͡us}} (Orphe͡us) which is also the reason why ͡   was omitted in the examples above, though {{l|la|Orpheus|Orphe͡us}} works.
  • gen. sg.: Dictionaries often have ~eos, very rarely ~eōs. ~eos could have short vowels, or the vowel length could be unknown which was marked improperly. Sometimes the genitive is mentioned later in dictionary entries without marked vowel lengths.
    L&S and Gaffiot using breve sometimes have ~ĕos which would mean it's not ~ēos (Greek epic -ῆος).
    Grammars have ~eos and some mark it with two breves as ~ĕŏs.
  • dat. & abl. sg. in Latin form: Orpheo and Peleo are mentioned in dictionaries.
  • dat. sg. in Greek form: Dat. ~ī is said to occur in Persi ("Cic. Tusc. 5, 40, 118. Liv. 42, 25, 2. 42, 49, 7. 42, 52, 3. 43, 7, 9. 43, 8, 6. 45, 19, 5. Sens. cons. Marc. 13, 3") and in Orphi (Macrob. Sat. 5, 17, 19 in some manuscripts) besides Orphei (Verg. Ecl. 5, 57 in some manuscripts). The Latin Library has "Persei" in these places of Livius, and "Persi" in Cicero. L&S mentions Orphei too, and it has Persi (s.v. Perses, not s.v. Perseus), but not Orphi. Other dictionaries have ~ëi (with misplaced trema?) for Nēre͡us.
  • acc. sg.: Dictionaries often have ~ea which could have short vowels, or the vowel length could be unknown which was marked improperly. Sometimes the accusative is mentioned later in dictionary entries without marked vowel lengths.
    L&S using breve has Orphĕă and Orphēā, but also unmarked Capanea and Pelea. Acc. Orphēā is an error in L&S as that's the fem. abl. sg. of the adj. Orphēus in Ovid. Met. 10. 3 belonging to voce.
    In case of Īlione͡us dictionaries mention the acc. Īlionēa (source: Vergil).
    Grammars have ~ea (rarely ~ēa), sometimes marked with two breves as ~ĕă.
  • nom. pl. and acc. pl.: Dictionaries mention Phinei with acc. Phineas, but do not mark the vowel lengths of it. Maybe only the accusative is attested, so the nominative mentioned in some dictionaries could be *Phinei or more properly *Phīneī.
    The source for the acc. is Mart. 9, 25, 10 (or 9, 26, 10 in digitalized L&S which could be an OCR error).
    Some books mark the a with breve, but some others with macron.
    Another word with acc. pl. could be Sinōpe͡us of which some dictionaries mention acc. pl. Sinopeas.
    For Mylase͡us dictionaries mention the nom. pl. Mylasīs = Μυλασεῖς in Cicero, but it might depend on edition as some editions might have it in Greek letters. There might also be Alabandīs belonging to *Alabande͡us from Ἀλαβανδεύς. In Cicero it is: "[...] ut tibi nolim molestus esse. Mylasis/Mylaseis/Μυλασεῖς (Mylasii) et Alabandis/Alabandeis/Ἀλαβανδεῖς (Alabandenses) pecuniam Cluvio debent [...]" (Cicero's Epistulae ad familiares 13, 56, 1). The words depend on edition. Mylasii and Alabandenses do occur in a text from 1554. Another edition comments those forms with "e correctione non necessaria". And Mylasii could rather be Mylaseī, Mylasēnī or Mylasēnsēs anyway.
  • gen. pl.: strōmateus has stromateon. The o clearly should be long, the e most likely should be short.


  • How should the diphthong in nom. and voc. be marked, by ͡   or by a counting of syllables? Or should it be unmarked and just be "eu̯" in the "Pronunciation" section?
  • What's the correct vowel length of the Greek forms? Well, maybe sometimes it's simply unknown...


  • Of the above mentioned proper nouns once only Enīpeus had a Latin entry here in wiktionary. In wiktionary it was mentioned as a normal second delension noun with voc. Enīpee. But even L&S has "Ĕnīpeus (trisyl.)" and later "voc. Enīpeu". Some dictionaries do also mention gen. ~eos or acc. ~ea (short or improperly marked), but without reference, so maybe it's unattested for classical Latin.

- 14:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC) till 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"flunk" vs. "bocciare"[edit]

There appears to be an inconsistency between the article about Italian "bocciare", which says it means "to fail, flunk (someone)" and thus suggests the subject would be the teacher, and the translation at "flunk", which list "bocciare" as "fail" and not "deny a passing grade". I am Italian, and I never heard "bocciare" used as "He flunked math", but only as "The teacher flunked him". In fact, the sentence "He flunked math" is one I'd translate to a passive "È stato bocciato in matematica" or a pseudo-impersonal "L'han bocciato in matematica" (lit. "they flunked him in math"), and "segare" (given translation of "deny a passing grade") is, to my ears, a more colloquial and vulgar synonym of "bocciare". This says that the usage of "bocciare" as "flunk (an exam)" «appartiene o all'italiano adoperato in determinate aree geografiche o, in altri casi, a un livello popolare, forse anche trascurato, di uso della lingua» (belongs either to the Italian used in some geographical areas or, in other cases, to a popular, maybe even sloppy, of language usage». So maybe "bocciare" should be a translation of the other sense, and of this sense but marked as "regional" or the likes? Also, "trombare" as "flunk"… never heard. And I'd expect it to be an even more vulgar synonym of "segare", "bocciare", as "The teacher flunked him" = "La prof l'ha bocciato/segato/trombato". The last one feels pretty weird to my ears, and would sound like the teacher actually had intercourse with him if a complement like "all'esame", "at the exam", were not present. "Fottuto" might be less weird but still very uncommon, and it would probably be taken as the teacher either actively trying to flunk the student (e.g. by asking him about stuff not covered in the class nor in the material the student studied on -- yeah, that can happen) or involuntarily making an extremely unlucky choice of questions (e.g. asking the only thing the student didn't know that well), much like "fregato" would. Also, "cannare" is another synonym of "segare" in the above sense". Do you guys agree to this? What should we do about those translations?

MGorrone (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

surviving cohabitant[edit]

If one of a cohabitant (unmarried) couple dies, which word should be used of the survivor? I'd guess widow or widower won't do. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "surviving cohabitant" vs. "deceased cohabitant". —Stephen (Talk) 23:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I have seen "unmarried widow". Equinox 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd have difficulty parsing "unmarried widow" as it seems to be either a tautology or a contradiction in terms, or possibly both simultaneously. Personally, I would probably describe such a person as "surviving boyfriend/girlfriend". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not that unusual for an adjective to cancel out one of the usual assumed attributes of the noun... Equinox 13:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I'd have difficulty understanding it. If I heard someone described as an "unmarried widow", my first thought would be that she hadn't remarried since the death of her husband. I wouldn't understand it to mean that her previous life partner, whom she wasn't married to, had died. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't regard myself as an "unmarried widower", I still wear my wedding ring. A "surviving partner" may be an option where a cohabiting couple were unmarried. DonnanZ (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"Surviving partner" gets 90 times as many hits in a basic Google search as "surviving cohabitant". It would seem to me that that's the way to go. Thank you again for your contributions. In Finnish we have avioliitto (marriage, literallly married union or union in marriage) and avoliitto (unmarried partnership, literally open union). Many words with "avio-" may be changed to refer to cohabitation by changing "avio-" to "avo-", e.g. aviopuoliso (spouse) becomes avopuoliso (cohabitant). I still have one related term to which I would like to find the English equivalent. In similar manner as above, avioero (divorce) becomes avoero (separation of an unmarried couple), but what would it be in English? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
One has to be careful with the term "surviving partner" though, it could also refer to a surviving business partner. "Separation of an unmarried couple" - just that I suppose, they can't be divorced as such. But married couples can also separate without being divorced. DonnanZ (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The separation of an unmarried couple is simply called a breakup. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

lemon soda, lemonade[edit]

I assume that lemon soda is a synonym of lemonade (sense 2). DonnanZ (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No confirmation or otherwise, so I'll carry on with my assumption. DonnanZ (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I don't about you, but for me lemonade is just lemon juice, water, and sugar (i.e. not a soda, i.e. not fizzy). --WikiTiki89 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Oh I see you were talking about sense 2. I wouldn't know if they are synonyms because I wouldn't know whether I would consider that type of lemonade a soda, because I don't really know what it is. Not all fizzy drinks are sodas. Lemon soda would be like soda (such as Fanta), but lemon flavored. Also, lemon soda to me is SOP. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Sense 1 of lemonade would be called a lemon drink in British English. If I go to my local shop or supermarket and buy a bottle or can of lemonade, I would get a carbonated (or fizzy) drink with a lemon flavour. The term lemon soda isn't used in British English, but I suspect it's the same as British lemonade. It may be regarded as SoP in Am. E. but it shouldn't be deleted if it has a different meaning elsewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I have added synonyms to lemonade, but these can be revised. DonnanZ (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Have you heard of Fanta? If you would call the lemon flavor of Fanta lemonade, then I guess that makes it relatively synonymous with lemon soda. But I've definitely had fizzy lemon drinks that I would not call soda (ironically, I would call them lemon drinks). --WikiTiki89 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember buying my first Fanta in Auckland around 1963, it was new on the market and hadn't reached my home town. But that was Fanta orange, I'll have to check to see if there's a Fanta lemon here. I'm now wondering whether lemon pop is a better word. DonnanZ (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Pop is just a regional equivalent of soda. It doesn't change the meaning. --WikiTiki89 21:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Fanta lemon is sold here, and that's what it says on the can, not lemonade [1]. So lemon drink it is then for fizzy lemon, how strange! DonnanZ (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

given to[edit]

I don't think it's right to call this an adjective. Equinox 21:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Looking at given (adjective sense 5) there is a similar example. Also mentioned here [2] (scroll down a bit). DonnanZ (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    Not only those, but also our entry for give has:
    14 (reflexive) To devote or apply (oneself).
    The soldiers give themselves to plunder.
    That boy is given to fits of bad temper.
    (The "reflexive" seems confusing or even wrong with respect to the second usage example.)
    But given to at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that some dictionaries include given to as an entry, including MWOnline and a couple of idiom dictionaries. None of them give it a PoS. We may be well advised to punt and call it a "Phrase". DCDuring TALK 22:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If this is changed then I guess prone to should be also. I originally created given to, and I believe I just copied the PoS from "prone to". I seem to recall that I had doubts about it at the time but I guess I took "prone to" to be the authority. Mihia (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
We list bound to as a Phrase. But I can't help seeing all of these merely as SoP Adj + Preposition :\ Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It should depend on whether there is "sufficient" semantic departure of the phrase from the current definitions of the components or of the grammar (eg, complements) from expected behavior. If this is too hard, we could rely on lemmings. Other dictionaries don't include bound to, except as a phony entry (not even a redirect). One idiom dictionary includes bound to do (something). One includes prone to.
IMO, just one lemming with a real entry is sufficient reason for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Noun sense 1:

The act or result of overturning something; an upset.
a bad turnover in a carriage

I believe in putting most frequent / most important / most fundamental meanings first, but I have never heard of this meaning. I suggest it should have a label and/or be moved down the list, but what label? Is it archaic? Rare? Has anyone else heard of it? Mihia (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's from Webster 1913. It's dated. Today we'd talk about a crash, etc. but cars don't fall over like carriages did. Equinox 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have demoted that entry. Mihia (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

cailín (irish)[edit]

Good evening-

Are you sure cailín is masculine ?

--ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@ArséniureDeGallium: Yes! Similarly to German Mädchen, the gender of the word for "girl" is determined by its suffix (in this case, -ín), not by its meaning. Nevertheless, pronouns referring back to cailín are feminine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Other cases where grammatical gender doesn't match natural gender in Irish are gasóg f (boy scout) and stail f (stallion). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ - thank you very much --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. I'm not sure how much this will affect the Wikitionaries. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns (but not if it only adds a section heading), then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first if you have any questions.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Do you remember last April, when nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers? The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks for the update. For future reference, when technical mass updates are left at the English Wiktionary, they should be added to Wiktionary:Grease Pit. Also, to the extent we use inline references (which is infrequent), we use <references />, so I suppose en.wikt should be put on that list. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The config changes should be happening in the next few minutes. Please ping me if there are any problems (or comment at the Phabricator task, if it's urgent). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


What is "special steel"? Is it a particular alloy? DTLHS (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I believe that it means any of various steels made for a specialized use - typically by adding small amounts of other metals, or by physically working it in a special way. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think the more common English equivalent is specialty steel, which AFAICT includes any sufficiently "engineered" or customized steel. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it might deserve to be deleted. I don't know if there's an idiomatic sense in metallurgy, but otherwise it simply means "kind of steel adapted specially for a particular use". I can make the same kind of compound with most any noun: Spezialschuh (specialized shoe), Spezialseil (specialized rope), Spezialziegel (specialized brick), etc. Kolmiel (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: We have traditionally interpreted SOP only to apply to terms consisting of multiple words, so all the German compounds would not be deleted even if unidiomatic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I know that's the case for English and other languages in which closed compounds are a reasonably restricted class. I thought there was a different policy for languages like German and Dutch. In fact, the difference between English open compounds and German closed compounds is purely orthographic. So it would seem quite inconsistent to treat them differently. Kolmiel (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And then I can make additional SOP compounds with the SOP compound, e.g. Spezialstahlhersteller ("specialized steal producer"), Spezialschuhhandel ("specialized shoe business"), both of which are very attestable and could probably even meet our standards for inclusion. It would be a bottomless pit. Kolmiel (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


It seems redundant to have all of these three senses:

  1. (more rarely) Resembling or characteristic of an adult male (as opposed to a boy).
  2. (Caribbean, Guyana) Impertinent; precocious; assertive.
  3. (African American Vernacular) precocious

Of the two citations under the Caribbean sense, "for all his mannish ways, he’s still just a little tyke" could just as easily be using the "characteristic of an adult male" sense. I suggest moving it, possibly removing "precocious" from the Caribbean sense (on the grounds that Caribbean use of the word to mean "characteristic of an adult male" is just use of that sense), and merging the AAVE sense into the "adult male" sense or into the Caribbean sense. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The Caribbean sense is sourced and supported by a citation, so we should keep it. I wish we had a source or citation for the AAVE label.
Also, most OneLook references are more focused on subtle distinctions in meaning (which we combine in definition 1) according to whether the noun modified is a woman or a thing, eg, article of clothing, manner of communicating. We at least need usage examples for the two noun types. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


Isn't the sense "high in price, expensive" dated? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In North America, I think so, yes, but I've heard British speakers use it in that sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe? Maybe not? "He paid dearly for that decision" is doesn't feel dated to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
In my experience (UK), yes, a bit dated. (Figurative "dearly" may be different.) Equinox 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There's also the expression "dear price" (to pay dearly = to pay a dear price). --WikiTiki89 21:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems normal to me (but I am getting on a bit). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It sounds a bit dated to me, but I think it's a regional thing. There are parts of the country where it wouldn't surprise me to hear people of any age use it. Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Aren't the senses 5 ("to consist of a certain text") and 6 ("Of text, etc., to be interpreted or read in a particular way.") almost identical? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they're exactly the same, although they are similar. It's the difference between saying "The first part of my post reads 'I don't think they're exactly the same'" and "The first part of my post reads that I disagree with you." Then again, the difference might just be the quotation marks... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
"That sentence doesn't read very well" suits #6 but not #5. Equinox 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a much better example, thank you. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think #5 is just a special case of #6. We should merge them. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think Equinox's example is a good case for keeping them separate. Perhaps they should be made subdefinitions of a more general definition? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Lithuanian apparently has the same word for both "mother" and "wife". How does that work? How do people not get it all mixed up? 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's solved by not using the word motė much at all. You normally use motina for "mother" and pati for "wife" (there's also žmona for wife, but I'm not sure if it's used much in normal speech). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
In English, some family men use "mum" for both their wife and mother. Not perfectly the same thing maybe, but close. Kolmiel (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary Etymologies interface[edit]

Etymologists may be aware of a grant building an etymology GUI, etytree, drawing on Wiktionary etyms. The grant is up for renewal and they are looking for feedback/support as announced on the mailing list. - Amgine/ t·e 20:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

regrets only[edit]

Is this really a noun? Isn't this more of an interjection? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the emotion expressed? DCDuring TALK 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd call it a phrase. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Chemical compound names.[edit]

Robert Ullmann's missing redlinks list is well populated with names of chemical compounds like barium sulfate, potassium ferrocyanide, and calcium polyphosphate. Do we intend to create these? If so, can we have a bot make them? bd2412 T 00:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We desperately need a policy on chemical names and especially formulae; this may be a good excuse to draft one that can justify semiautomated creation, should such creation be found to have consensus. Do you remember where previous discussion on this topic happened? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I recall discussing abbreviations before, but not spelled out formula names. I will search later. bd2412 T 17:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I found Talk:lithium fluoride#Discussion moved from RfD, where it appears that we decided in 2005 (although not without dissent) that names of chemicals should be included. bd2412 T 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We should have a new discussion if the old one was more than a decade ago, especially if mass creation of new articles is being proposed... - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that what this is? On the merits question, I think that it would be worth having these entries. We already have many (nitrogen pentoxide, carbon diselenide, sulfer trioxide, along with more widely known names like carbon monoxide and hydrogen peroxide) and so long as a particular chemical name is attested per CFI, I see no good basis for exclusion. bd2412 T 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If we did have blanket inclusion, I would like to see some language that prohibited people from bot creating the millions of potential entries. DTLHS (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. When I look up chemical compounds in the dictionary, I hope to see a bit more information than the surface analysis, such as what it looks like, is used for, etc., and maybe a picture (essentially a highly condensed encyclopedia entry). That would be missing in bot created entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Are there millions, though? Actual names of chemical compounds are far less in number than mere chemical formulae. They tend to spell out the relationship between only two or three different elements. bd2412 T 20:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes there are millions. Think about how many ways there are to arrange three different elements. DTLHS (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That is precisely my point - it doesn't matter how many ways there are to arrange three different elements, because a dozen different arrangements of the same element, while having a dozen different formulae, will all have the same name as a chemical compound. There are about 130 chemical elements, not all of which are capable of forming compounds at all (some because they are inert, others because they are too large to create stable bonds). If we generously suppose that there are a hundred elements that can form bonds, and were to count the few dozen elements with which each of these is able to bond (because their atomic structures correspond), we would have a few thousand. Note that more complex molecules, if they are attested at all, are usually given shorter, often single word names, like sucrose or iron pyrite. bd2412 T 20:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
So you're not actually advocating for inclusion of all chemical compound names. DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Per my original post, I am advocating for the inclusion of the chemical compound names on Robert Ullmann's list of missing red links. bd2412 T 21:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about a bot, but the lemming principle seems to have found considerable support, and barium sulfate is in M-W[3], while calcium polyphosphate isn't there and is not in OneLook. This could give us something to start with, although it is not really based on a lexicographical principle but rather on us being an inclusion copycat. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I would rather that we have a principle of inclusion or exclusion of chemical names, and apply it uniformly to all attested names. bd2412 T 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew that these are not very useful unless they describe the chemical's use and characteristics in some way. Just auto-generating chemical formulae from the names (if that's even possible) seems like having those number entries for 109, 110, 111, etc. Equinox 21:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
How about the notion of exclusion based on absence of substantive definition, in this case some reason why one would be interested in the substance. "If you don't have anything nice [sense 4] to say about the term, don't say anything at all." (I am still struggling to provide such "nice" definitions for many taxonomic names.) DCDuring TALK 01:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
To start with, any entry with no meaning that can't be derived from the name should be deletable as SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
By that reasoning, we could easily delete at least a third of the existing entries in Category:en:Inorganic compounds. bd2412 T 03:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether we decide to include these or not (or include some subset of them), I have gathered all of Robert Ullmann's "missing" chemical compound names at User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/chemical compounds. There are about 185, and also about two dozen chemical formulae that appear in that form in the bluelinked entries. bd2412 T 02:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Is this really a prefix? I always intepreted it as a compounding form of Haupt. @-sche, Kolmiel, KornΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree; not a prefix. The forms in question are compounds of Haupt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
What Angr says. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I always wonder about this. I sort of agree that it's not a prefix, but if this is so, neither are vor-, herum-, über-, etc., in my opinion. Or do I miss the difference? (At least, melde- and wegwerf- should also go, probably also küchen- although I created that myself.) Kolmiel (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the separable prefixes aren't true prefixes either, but the inseparable ones are, so ˈüberˌsetzen (to pass over) is a compound, while ˌüberˈsetzen (to translate) has a prefix. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay... What makes you think that one is a prefix and the other isn't? I mean, everything that isn't a word in its own right, like zer-, that's obviously a prefix; but otherwise I don't know how we distinguish them. Kolmiel (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The stress pattern: "pass over" has the stress pattern of a compound word; "translate" doesn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
To take a Dutch equivalent doorlopen, the stress pattern of the separable verb is indistinguishable from that of door lopen, as two separate words. In the forms where the two parts separate, they're completely indistinguishable, even in writing. They are also conceptually equivalent, and I find myself occasionally hesitating, for certain combinations of verbs and adverbs, whether to separate the two with a space or not. —CodeCat 18:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This problem also exists in German, albeit to a lesser extent than in Dutch because they don't let us separate our pronominal adverbs in writing. — @Angr: But what is the "stress pattern of a compound"? Compounds aren't necessarily stressed on the first component. Take ˌsüßˈsauer for an example. Kolmiel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. I was just remembering when I first moved to Germany I referred to Norway as Norˈwegen; the person I was talking to corrected my pronunciation to ˈNorwegen, saying, "Even though it's a place name, it still has the stress pattern of a compound". The other example that occurs to me is that the place in southeastern Niedersachsen is ˌSalzˈgitter, but a literal grid or grille made of salt would be a ˈSalzˌgitter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes :) Well, the vast majority of compounds are definitely stressed on the first component, but exceptions exist. In longer compounds it can also vary. For example, most people including myself say ˈBlaubeerˌpfannˌkuchen, but my mother who's from Westphalia says ˌBlaubeerˈpfannˌkuchen. Kolmiel (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


Why is this in Category:English words affected by confusion? Because some people use "incredulous" to mean incredible? Well, do they also use "incredible" to mean "incredulous" in a way that is not standard? If not, the category seems unnecessary. And more generally, it seems that whenever the category is included, a usage note should explain what the confusion is! - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Why all the -i- reflexes in Romance? Is there a variant lacrīma attested anywhere? KarikaSlayer (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's puzzling to me. If they had developed from *lacrīma, then they would have accent on the penult, not the antepenult. But if they developed from lacrima, they would be expected to have e rather than i. Perhaps the word preserved its vowel by analogy with the Latin form. — Eru·tuon 03:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the words, except for the ones in French and Romansh and maybe some of small languages, seem to be borrowings rather than inherited terms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem with listing borrowed terms alongside inherited terms. When I first started using ‘Descendants’ as a header (and I think I might have been the first to do so), it was supposed to be for words inherited into other languages. If we also list borrowings under this header (which personally I think is overwhelming – consider English words like bar or taxi), they should be clearly marked as such. Ƿidsiþ 08:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

'perfume' as a word and the pronunciatioon of 'alas'[edit]

As a non-specialist, non-native user I have to questions: 1) Shouldn't perfume be given a separate pronunciation as a verb? According to some educatory pages, it is stressed on the final syllable. 2) What about the word 'alas'? Wiktionary gives the pronunciation /əˈlæs/, but the rhyme -ɑːs.

1) You are correct. I have added North American pronunciations with that distinction.
2) I have never heard "alas" pronounced /əˈlɑːs/, and looking at the history of the rhyme page for "-ɑːs", I see that "alas" was added once and then removed. I think a link to the rhyme page is automatically added to the main entry when someone submits a new rhyme, so it must have just been mistakenly left on the main page all this time. I will take the liberty of removing it until someone can attest that it is in fact a valid pronunciation. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


I don't know what this guy did, but it seems to be messing with {{grc-IPA}} in the entry, because omicron is not transcribed. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Same thing for Κλεoφῶν (Kleophôn). --Barytonesis (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: They had the Latin letters K and o instead of kappa and omicron. The correct entries, Κλέαρχος (Kléarkhos) and Κλεοφῶν‎ (Kleophôn‎) already existed. —JohnC5 20:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

declare war[edit]

This term can be used figuratively, right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Any term can be used figuratively. --WikiTiki89 12:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Don't we include figurative uses on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Only if it has become lexicalized. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
We need to modify the entry in some way so as to indicate that it isn't always a government authority that is declaring war, at a minimum. Some other dictionaries have a non-governmental sense, so I've added one. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's much better now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

round prices[edit]

1854, Brillat-Savarin, The Physiology of Taste: Or, Transcendental Gastronomy[4], page 108:
Young girls often acquired a very sufficient dowry, and towns-folk who wished to eat them had to pay round prices for them.

Does this use of "round" fit into one of our existing definitions? I'm not sure what it means. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but it means that the prices were high. I've seen it most often in "a round sum" (= "a sizeable sum"). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Dictionary.com has it (see definition 13). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, if that quote is used to support the sense in the entry, it really ought to be given a bit more context. I initially thought that "them" referred to the "young girls". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be under Middle English (at least the sense used before the 16th century and the 15th century quotation)? Crom daba (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It's now at RFV to see if modern citations can be found. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

get one's butt somewhere[edit]

Admittedly, I'm not a native speaker, but I've never heard/read this instant to mean "now". Is it common? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Mostly interchangeable with "right now" and "right this second". --WikiTiki89 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Now with no delay. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I like the sound of it. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


This is said to be both an obsolete spelling of she and specifically an obsolete emphatic form of she; likewise mee, etc. Is that correct? - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about whether it was more common emphatically, but certainly this spelling used to be used. The OED dates it from ‘ME–17’, i.e. from the Middle English period to the 18th century (and slightly later in Irish English). Ƿidsiþ 07:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
-sche -- Probably sometimes a doubled vowel letter indicated that a pronoun was not unstressed (as pronouns often are/were). Not sure if that's the same as "emphatic". AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


  • How is sense 3 ("morbid enjoyment") distinct from the other senses? - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sense two is sexual, which seems like an important distinction to make. I think the other three senses could be merged however. DTLHS (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Eh, I think the psychiatric sense can stay separate from the lax informal sense, assuming it's accusate. But I've now removed the "morbid enjoyment sense". - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The (US) American Psychiatric Association defines sadism as the enjoyment of inflicting pain or humiliation on others. So someone can be sadistic without causing any physical pain. However, it is only a mental disorder if such enjoyment negatively interferes with someone's ability to participate in day-to-day activities (e.g. not able to perform as an effective boss due to desires to humiliate employees). Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • However, should we also add a separate entry for Sadism (capitalized) as pertaining specifically to the philosophy and practices of the Marquis de Sade, which does not necessarily correspond to the common or psychiatric definitions? Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Does the fifth sense ("to possess something special") make it a synonym of sport in sense 3 ("to display; to have as a notable feature")? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's more or less a synonym; but I think "boast" usually refers to an inanimate object having something ("the new software boasts a number of cloud features") while "sport" is often a person and e.g. clothing ("he sported a bright green tie"). Equinox 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"srdce" is seriously screwed![edit]

I just stumbled upon the entry for srdce and my is it screwed! Every line has at least one Lua error (save for the titles of the sections and the table of contents), therein including the declension tables, where every cell is an error… and this across all languages! What in the world is going on there?!

MGorrone (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A temporary error in module code that is gone now. —suzukaze (tc) 22:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


  • I suggest that the entry for "retosituo" be deleted. This entry was a mistranslation created by me in 2010, and was automatically added also to "website#Translations" by a bot from Ido Wiktionary, where the mistranslation has since been corrected as "retoloko" ("webplace"/"weblocation") instead: http://io.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=website&action=history. "Retosituo" translates in English as a "websituation," and not as a "website." I would suggest "reteyo" as a better Ido translation of "website" though, by analogy from Esperanto "retejo." Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, it would be better to simply move the wikipage to either "retoloko" or "reteyo," with appropriate changes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • From Google Search, "retoloko" appears to be the most common usage, particularly for Ido Wikipedia, so I will go ahead and move the page there, which corresponds to Ido Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made all the necessary corrections here on English Wiktionary I think, including redirects at "retosituo" and "retositui." However, if someone who understands Malagasy could make a similar correction on the Malagasy Wiktionary, it would be appreciated, thanks: http://mg.wiktionary.org/wiki/retosituo. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

cheese and spaghetti in gamer slang: to add or not to add?[edit]

I just went to the cheese and spaghetti pages, and saw that:

  1. The former has the gamer sense in the verb section, but not as a noun;
  2. The latter has perhaps a hint of the gamer sense in "Short form of spaghetti code", and no hint at the verb sense.

cheese, in gaming slang -- as I picked up from the videos of Youtube users such as carlsaga42 and ryukahr --, is an exploit to make beating a game easier than was intended. I guess this sense comes from the related verb sense of "using an exploit to beat the game easily", which is present in the Wiktionary entry and given as a derivative of cheesy (what sense? Sense 3, "cheap, of poor quality"?). What should we do about the noun sense? Should we add it under Etymology 1 as sense 14 or add a new "Etymology 5" where this noun usage is said to stem from Etymology 4 of cheese as a verb? Also, one might want to add that queso can be used as a synonym in this sense. I have a video title "koopas with a side of queso" and a vague memory of an utterance of "smell that delicious queso?" as examples for this.

As for spaghetti, as a noun it means a stupid and/or ridiculous mistake in playing a game. Many examples of this usage can be found in Youtube videos by carlsagan42, GrandPoobear, ryukahr, and more I guess but I'm not sure. The first one actually has a series about Mario64 which is referred to in the series as "Spaghetti64", because he spaghetties all over the place in that series. As a verb, it means to make such a mistake. Is this really a derivative of spaghetti code via abbreviation? In any case, maybe we should add it to the spaghetti article, either as another Etymology "By extension from an abbreviation of spaghetti code", because the inputs in a game are not really like a programming language, or as another sense after the abbreviation one. What say you guys?

MGorrone (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

They should be added iff they are attestable. Please see WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
For attestation, here are examples of spaghetti in the above sense. MGorrone (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And here is another example by someone else. The above was by CarlSagan42, this one is by GrandPoobear. MGorrone (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
And this is an (admittedly not too clear, but whatever) example of usage of spaghetti by ryukahr, a third youtube user.
Cheese and spaghetti compilations by CarlSagan42. Featuring «Oh no no no no no I spaghettied everywhere!» around 1:04, «Oh Jesus, the spaghetti! I bonked my head!» at 1:13, «OK, stop trying to go fast, or I'll just spaghetti all over these ghosts» at 4:06, and a written «THEN CARL SPAGHETTIED FOR A LONG TIME» at 4:49-4:59 in the spaghetti compilation. MGorrone (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
And here is a cheese compilation by ryukahr. Is all this stuff enough for attestation of these senses of spaghetti and cheese @Metaknowledge:? MGorrone (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
No. You should read WT:ATTEST, which I already linked you to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is Poobear again, with «That was a lot of spaghetti right there» or the likes. MGorrone (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't think it has much to do with 'spaghetti code', but rather with this meme which is fairly well known on 4chan, and to a degree reddit, tumblr, and FB meme pages from what I've seen. But yeah, proper attestation is going to be an issue. — Kleio (t · c) 20:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


  • I noticed this thanks to Equinox's excellent efforts to add etymologies to things: should terms like this be categorized as eponyms? There's no-one named "Tudorbeth" from whose name this is derived. But one of the individual words which were blended, Elizabethan, is derived from a name. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, it just stood out to me as something I wanted input on due to the absence of anyone named Tudorbeth as the immediate eponym. - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You are correct. It is not an eponym as far as I can tell. Cat removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I would disagree. The word is a portmanteau of "Tudor-Elizabethan," which would make it an eponym of Elizabeth. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
      • And "Tudor" itself is also eponymous, so it is actually a double eponym. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Since the "beth" part definitely comes (albeit indirectly) from "Elizabeth", I see it as an eponym. Chambers defines eponym as "a person, real or mythical, from whose name another name, esp a place name, is derived; the name so derived". Does any source say that an eponym can only be direct, and not indirect? Equinox 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


(continuing from Talk:PPT) Is PPT used in English speech to refer to PowerPoint? Or does it usually just refer to the file format? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I cited PPT in English, in two senses now: the PowerPoint software (proper noun), and a PowerPoint file (common noun). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @Daniel Carrero! I'm curious as to how native speakers of English would usually read this or use this (in text and in speech). I don't hear native speakers saying /piː piː tiː/ in normal speech (unless they are referring to the file format/file extension). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, is it actually an initialism? T is not really the first letter; in fact, it's the last letter. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Equinox fixed it, apparently it's an abbreviation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Can't be an initialism because the T doesn't stand for anything; it's just the final t from point. Presumably PowerPoint was abbreviated PPT to permit 3-letter DOS/Windows filename extensions, and then users took that as a standard abbreviation for PowerPoint in general. Equinox 19:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox, thanks for the explanation! BTW, isn't {{abbreviation of}} a definition line template? Should it be used in etymologies? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: About {{abbreviation of}}, {{initialism of}} and {{acronym of}}. They're formatted as definition line (non-gloss) text, italicized, yes. So, I don't like very much using them in etymologies, and I'd prefer having separate templates for etymology use. At the same time, they are already being used in etymologies so we would need to edit a lot of entries to make that separation. For the time being, I'm using them in etymologies, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Swazi and Swaziland: etymology?[edit]

I just stumbled upon the Swazi and Swaziland entries. Swaziland is said to stem "from Swazi + -land" in its entry. Swazi has no etymology in the English section, but the French one states it comes "From Swaziland". Um, etymo-loop-ical problems? Which comes from which, and what does the "parent word" come from in turn? I looked across all linked other-language entries, and all the etymology I could see was in the Romanian article:

  1. Din limba swati siSwati. | From Swati siSwati.
  2. Origine incertă. | Uncertain origin.

So is it correct that Swaziland<Swazi<siSwati? And if so, how did the t become a z? And where does siSwati come from in the first place? Is this dictionary entry right in saying siSwati comes from the name of king Mswati?

MGorrone (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The explanation is simply that the English name comes from Zulu, rather than from Swazi itself. And yes, it's in reference to the name of a king. I'll fix the relevant entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Is the Zulu name of the king, perhaps umSwazi or similar, attestable? Also, is it not more plausible that Zulu iSwazi is from Swazi liSwati? —CodeCat 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I assume the name would be thus in Zulu, but I can't find any attestation. And though the Zulu name may come from the Swazi, it may also be of equal age; I think it's essentially impossible to determine that, because the sound changes would happen regardless. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
What I'm trying to ascertain is whether the Zulu named the language/people directly after the king, whose name was in turn borrowed from his native Swazi name, or that this process happened in Swazi and the people/language names were then borrowed fully-formed into Zulu. —CodeCat 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I think it's impossible to determine. The names probably arose more or less simultaneously, but the phonological alteration to make words fit in has the side effect that borrowing is indistinguishable from inheritance on deeper time scales. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

منيَ minniya 'of me'[edit]

Hi, could sb. please add when to use this form, and confirm wether such a form is the one that appears in the following poetry excerpt. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The normal reading would be minnī (as you seem to be aware). The reading minniya wouldn't surprise me before a wasl, for example if the following word had the article, that is minniya l-[...] instead of (or alongside) minni l-[...]. In your poetic example, I'd say that it might be used for metric reasons, but this is just conjecture. I do think that you identified the word correctly. Kolmiel (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: Phonetically, /i/ may easily be turned into a semiconsonant, /y/. Yet, the opposite process occurs in the informal pausal pronunciation of مِصْرِي /miṣrī/--Backinstadiums (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You mean the semiconsonant /j/, which is written in Arabic tanscription as "y". (Don't write /y/ because that refers to the vowel in French lune or German grün). — What you describe is a general phenomenon. Arabic /i:/ (transcribed ī) will always become /ij/ (transcribed iy) when a vowel is added. That needn't worry you. The interesting part is really the vowel "a".
Now take for example the prepositions بِ (bi) and لِ (li). With the suffix of the 1st-person singular they become بِي () and لِي () respectively. However, if the following word has the article there's no way to identify the suffix: قالَ لِي اَلْحَقِيقَة (qāla lī l-ḥaqīqa) would sound the same as قالَ لِلْحَقِيقَة (qāla lilḥaqīqa). Therefore it is common to use a linking "a" in the former phrase: قالَ لِيَ اَلْحَقِيقَة (qāla liya l-ḥaqīqa), meaning "he told me the truth". With مِن (min) this additional "a" isn't necessary because the forms remain distinguishable; apart from the fact that the following word in your example doesn't have the article at all. But as I said, the "a" was probably used for metrical reasons. Kolmiel (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: So when followed by article, long i loses its quantity? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Kolmiel (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Or changes to "-iya". --WikiTiki89 19:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

the talk[edit]

Should we have an entry for this? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

For a moment there I was afraid you were gonna give us the talk here in the Tea room. Crom daba (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I lol'd much --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
We could, although whether it's better at the talk with a soft-redirect (pointer) from talk or vice versa is a matter of discussion. :p The entry should possibly have both the sex-specific sense and a broader sense along the lines of "A customary uncomfortable talk by a parent to a child about a reality of life" (or whatever better wording anyone can come up with), to cover other customary talks — e.g. for many African American speakers "the talk" is the talk about racism and violence from police (although, that use is probably so widespread as to meet CFI as its own sense). - -sche (discuss) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The talk is also used by the Alt-Right (eg. John Derbyshire) to refer to the talk about African Americans and how to avoid them owing to crime etc. The white version of the talk - an article on this had JD sacked from National Review. —This comment was unsigned.
What about the movie? --WikiTiki89 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What does it mean? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I have added this, at talk (with a redirect at the talk to talk#the_talk) per the prevailing practice of such things being at the the-less forms. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Barytonesis (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed the redirect a bit, so that it works with {{senseid}}. —CodeCat 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


It seems evident to me that birb mimics a common mispronunciation of bird by children. Birb is an affectionate term and has a connotation of cuteness (look at the kyute widdle birb, so precious, completely adorbs wow :3, my birb is so smol – huh, I didn't realise that smol is a loan from Torres Strait Creole apparently ...). (Compare lolspeak, which follows the same "amusing baby-talk" strategy, as childlike speech is considered appropriate to cute cats.) This may be "duh obvious" to most of you, but people who are not very Internet-culture-savvy, have never encountered the term before in context, or aren't native speakers, may not find it so obvious at all, so perhaps it should be noted in the article. Is there a standard way to indicate something like that?

(Side note: I wrote mimicks first, but then realised that this is a non-standard spelling influenced by mimicking that I accidentally produced independently.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you're asking for, but it seems like the most appropriate category for this word in Category:English terms by usage would be Category:English childish terms, which is added by {{lb|en|childish}}. I'm not sure if there's a category for terms derived by alteration of pronunciation in the manner of a child; there should be. — Eru·tuon 11:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cf. pasghetti, helichopper (childish nonstandard). Equinox 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it! And how would you note the affectionate part, and the connotation of cuteness? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Polysemic vs Polysemous[edit]

The pages for polysemic and polysemous don't clarify the differences between the two. Do they have distinct meanings? Are they used in different academic communities but for the same concept? Are they both identical? —This unsigned comment was added by Creidieki (talkcontribs) at 10:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

GoPro, gopro[edit]

Has this undergone genericization? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it still refers to cameras made by a specific corporation. DTLHS (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I would call any camera similar to the ones that corporation makes a "gopro" and I honestly wasn't aware it wasn't a generic name (I don't think I've ever seen it written in camelcase, so it never really occurred to me). I have no evidence that other people use "gopro" the same way, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen the terms action camera and action cam (action-cam, actioncam?) used on the Internet as well, but I don't know if that warrants an entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

hāḏā qadr ḏālika[edit]

Hi, a succession of 3 consonants is impossible, so قدر#Etymology_2 in the first sentence must be corrected (e.g. hāḏā qadr ḏālika). --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That just means there's a missing case vowel. Since I don't know what case it's supposed to be, I won't add it. --WikiTiki89 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: In a nominal sentence the predicate is always indefinite genitive (ـٍ). Incidentally, I do not know what is the lexicographic pattern followed in arabic citation forms in wiktionary --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In a nominal sentence, the predicate is normally in the nominative, not the genitive. But this could be a predicate, or an adverbial clause. I don't know. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: The adverbial accusative would be قَدَرًا, so the acc. form of the term must be ruled out. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, because it's in the construct state. It's either قَدْرُ (qadru) or قَدْرَ (qadra). --WikiTiki89 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wiktiki is right. I'm relatively sure it should be qadru (nominative), but their doubt is understandable and I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for it either (as we say in German). Kolmiel (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


Is there any way to type Akkadian mihiştu (Sumerogram gu-šum2) in cuneiform Unicode? It is the Akkadian endonym for cuneiform script (ISO 15924 xsux), meaning "cuneiform writing, cuneiform wedge." A:M M2:54 I cannot seem to find the characters in the cuneiform Unicode block unfortunately to be able to type them without needing an image file. It should look like (𒄖 -šum2): http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/psl/img/popup/Oceb.png Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Nicole Sharp: Note that that in the transcription it's supposed to be an S with dot below, not S with cedilla, and the H has a half ring below: miḫiṣtu. Also, I don't know where you got that the Sumerogram is šum2, it's SUM. Also, don't forget that this word is also just spelled syllabically as mi-ḫi-iṣ-tu(m), not only with the Sumerograms GÙ.SUM (GÙ = GU3). The syllabic spelling would be: 𒈪𒄭𒄑𒌅 (mi-ḫi-iṣ-tu), and the Sumerogram spelling 𒅗𒋧 (GÙ.SUM) (the image you link to has 𒄖𒋧 (GU.SUM); I'm not sure whether that's a valid alternative or not). --WikiTiki89 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much! There are at least three different Romanizations provided between the University of Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (HTML) and the The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (PDF), cited above. I missed SUM in the Unicode block, since I was searching for the string "um2" from the PSD. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2017‎ (UTC)
    • In the PSD though, there is only one Sumerogram provided for Akkadian mihiştu ("cuneiform [writing]"), which is GU-ŠUM2 (𒄖𒋧). GU3-ŠUM2 (𒅗𒋧) corresponds in the PSD instead to Akkadian šagāmu ("to echo, roar, or shout"). Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be that ŠUM2 is another name for SUM. As for the correct spelling, it is quite possible that both Sumerograms existed. I don't have the resources to verify them. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

bitches be crazy[edit]

How do you parse this? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Be" is used as a dialectal/slang/ungrammatical (or something like that) present tense form. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so this is not an imperative? I was picturing something like "[Let them] bitches be crazy; it doesn't matter". --Barytonesis (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It theoretically could be, but without context, I would parse it the same way as Wikitiki. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to add a bit, when "be" is used this way, I feel that it takes on the tenses, aspects, and moods of the simple present of active verbs (i.e. in the indicative mood, it would have a present-tense habitual aspect), rather than the stative meaning of the grammatically correct "are". --WikiTiki89 21:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As displaying habitual be (sense 20): "bitches tend to be crazy" or alternatively "bitches are wont to be crazy" if you want to be pizazzy (and a little incongruent in register). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So "bitches are crazy" doesn't mean the same thing? Siuenti (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It still basically means the same thing, but it's not 100% equivalent in meaning. It's meaning is more like "bitches are always crazy", but with the "always" deemphasized. (I don't think this has to do with sense 20, since there it's an auxiliary verb, while here it's the main verb.) --WikiTiki89 14:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Some commentators on habitual be also note that it can be used as a copula. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
But I don't even think that the habitual copula "be" is an AAVE thing. I think it is universally common in children's speech, and can be conjugated as "bes" in the third-person singular and perhaps even "beed" in the past tense. I don't know if anyone has written about this, but I think it's somehow intuitive. Just that kids learn not to use it as they get older. --WikiTiki89 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
It means exactly the same thing, to my understanding. "Be" is used for "are" in some low-prestige forms of English. Equinox 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think, in AAVE at least, the copula would simply be omitted: "Bitches crazy". — Eru·tuon 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Not if it's habitual. The origin of the phrase appears to lie in urban African American (hip-hop) culture and therefore AAVE, and habitual be is a characteristic feature of AAVE. ---Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that's what Erutuon was saying, that the simple copula would be omitted, but the habitual copula would not be omitted. --WikiTiki89 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

لِأَنْ (liʾan)[edit]

Hi, the entry for ل#Synonyms should redirect to لِأَنْ , yet it shows the meaning of لِأَنَّ. I'd like to know whether sb. could add لِأَنْ and wether they're the same. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums Done - created a new section with the new reading لِأَنْ (liʾan). The term is in the standard Hans Wehr dictionary. Since you seem to have an ongoing interest in Arabic, I recommend getting the dictionary, so that you have to rely less on other editors and switch from request to more contribution mode. :) It doesn't mean that you're not welcome to ask questions but you will ask questions, which are less basic. Also, you need a user page with a Babel table, you have been a while with us. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be some kind of label? literary, formal, archaic or what not? --Barytonesis (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In the 19th century and early 20th it may have been literarily archaic, but the 2012 usage seems to be quite jocular and facetious (maybe even re-created from scratch based on the analogy long:length::strong:strength::wrong:X)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Is the usage example quoted from somewhere? Is the "orgasm" translation accurate? DTLHS (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's from Slovene Wikipedia article on Operation Overlord, literal translation seems alright, the "figurative" translation is clearly a joke. Crom daba (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, regarding فوق#Etymology_1, it would improve the entry to add why فَوْق is a defective noun, as well as why مِن فَوْقُ is an irregular expression. Finally, personally I do not undertand why there're two etymologies. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The usage note already explains everything. --WikiTiki89 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Sorry to bother you, but since prepositions generally do not affect the case of adverbs, I cannot see why مِن فَوْقُ is irregular. --Backinstadiums (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Because it's originally a noun (like most adverbs and many prepositions). So it's at least "notable". I think it would be fine if you were to replace "irregular" with that latter adjective, if it's important to you. Kolmiel (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

hypercorrect Cockney?[edit]

So apparently "The often exaggerated addition of /h/ before words like "out" in written Cockney is a hypercorrect affectation." This means if I see some "written Cockney" and I see the word "out" and I pronounce it as "hout", I am being hypercorrect? Siuenti (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The person writing it is neutral. The Cockney's speech that they are attempting to transcribe is hypercorrect. Equinox 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Or in other words: it has nothing to do with writing. (When writing Cockney you can write hout or out, neither of which would be hypercorrect, just different dialectal orthographies.) The hypercorrection is in the speaker, who adds the /h/ in his pronunciation of (h)out, thinking that it belongs there. Kolmiel (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It is strange. I'd skipped the word "written". What's that about? Kolmiel (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is being fair to Cockneys actually, aspiration/non-aspiration might be in free variation rather than result from attempting to speak "correctly". Siuenti (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, true. But that would another question. The point is really why it says "addition of /h/ in written Cockney". That doesn't make sense. /h/ is IPA, i.e pronunciation, and pronunciations cannot be added to written text. Kolmiel (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you think it meant "h"? Siuenti (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. That would mean writers add h'es when they write out Cockney because they think it's more correct Cockney when it really isn't. I don't know if that would be technically true. But it would definitely be a very bad and complicated example of "hypercorrection". Kolmiel (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Something like octopi being made the plural of octopus might be a better example. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ[edit]

Hi, regarding the sentence 'تَمَّ اعْتِقالُ عَدَدٍ مِنَ الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ فِي الْقاهِرَةِ لَيْلَةَ الْأَمْسِ‎' I'd like to know whether it's o.k. to use the feminine in the phrase الْعَناصِرِ الْإرْهابِيَّةِ. Also, I cannot find it with the meaning 'terrorists'. Finally, I'd write آعْتِقالُ. Is the sentence in MSA?. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wrote that sentence. An Arabic stylist might be able to perfect it, but it's no so bad as for you to doubt that it's even in MSA... Frankly. Now, you could have googled عناصر إرهابية yourself, and you would have seen that it's a very common journalistic expression. It's also grammatically normal because, عناصر means "elements", so it's not animated per se, even it refers to animated beings in this case. Accordingly, you could translate it literally as "terrorist elements", but that doesn't seem to be common journalistic style. Translation isn't always literal. Kolmiel (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that Backinstadiums is still just a beginner at Arabic, so his questions should be taken as confusion rather than criticism. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I may have sounded more iritated than I was. But they really could have googled it. (And then maybe they could have asked: hey, why isn't the adjective plural?) Kolmiel (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That is a justified question, of course. I remember that when I wrote it, I also checked the correct agreement — by googling. Kolmiel (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel By the way, we should never capitalise Arabic transliterations, not for emphatic consonants or following English capitalisation rules e.g. اَلْقَاهِرَة (al-qāhira) is "al-qāhira", not "al-Qāhira". Pls follow WT:AR TR :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Generally, I do. The question of capitalization is not mentioned on the page as far as I can see. I disagree with the standard if that's it. But I will try to respect it. (Maybe by avoiding proper nouns as much as possible ;)) Kolmiel (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
But why? Do you really feel the urge to capitalise proper nouns in Arabic? Hans Wehr doesn't do that and no respectable dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I feel that not to capitalise proper nouns is against the nature in which man was created. Kolmiel (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Ha-ha. A lot of cultures live without capital letters just fine. Most don't even have to worry about the distinction between common nouns and proper nouns or even assigning a permanent PoS to words. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
That's true. As a German, however, my natural disposition is to capitalize all nouns. Just proper nouns would be like a minimum for me... But actually, are you sure that Wehr doesn't do it? I mean the original German Wehr? (I'll check when I get home, which won't be until Sunday, however.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel I'm sure. I've got the 4th edition and I saw 3rd edition scans. It's important that regular contributors are on the same page and follow policies. Or they can challenge the policies by agreeing on a change. If it really is an issue for you and you have some serious arguments, bring it up in BP. The majority so far, to my knowledge, agreed to not to use caps for Arabic and you can rely on automated transliteration in 95% of cases. Otherwise, your position seems a little Euro-/Anglo- or Germano-centric. I mean, I don't project Russian or English on other languages I worked with. Es gefällt mir, dass die deutschen Substantive mit Großbuchstaben geschrieben sind, aber Deutsch is eine wichtige Ausnahme, die die deutsche Sprache auch sehr interessant und verschieden von anderen Sprachen macht!--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Well :) I really don't think it's Euro-/Anglo-/Germano-centric. It's simply useful to mark proper nouns by means of capitalisation, even if Arabic doesn't do it. We also separate certain words with a hyphen, even though Arabic doesn't. And we write as-, at-, ar-, etc., even though Arabic doesn't. Because these things are useful. The thing about capitalising all nouns was a joke. But my honest opinion is that capitalising proper nouns would be good. It's also common to do that in transliteration in scientific literature, albeit far from universal. I do agree that following policies is the most important thing, and of course I will do that (and as I said, I always have). All fine :) Kolmiel (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
As for the question about the وَصْلَة (waṣla), it's frequently omitted on Wiktionary, but I don't think there's a rule against adding it, if you want to. I just did in تَمَّ (tamma). — Eru·tuon 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: Hi, I didn't mean to offend you. I do constantly google them (see our conversation above regaring لِأَنْ (liʾan)), yet there're no parallel corpora to see a proper translation, and I am not able to read arabic yet. Regarding my asking whether it is MSA, I thought it could be Egyptian Arabic, for most pre-al-jazeera journalistic style was so. Semantic agreement is a rough issue for some purists of the language. --Backinstadiums (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Backinstadiums: You didn't offend me. Maybe I was a bit annoyed, all right. But you did nothing "wrong". Just try to answer your questions on your own as far as you can. And when you can't, then do ask. Kolmiel (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Kolmiel -- one minor issue: the English grammar term is "animate", not "animated"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning it. Kolmiel (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev I've just arrived home. And well, I just had to go and check even though you said you were sure. But... Wehr does capitalise proper nouns in the original German dictionary: Rōmā, al-Qāhira, Miṣr, etc. Mine is the 5th edition. It could be an innovation, of course, but in his preface he explains in detail certain minor changes in the transliteration system and doesn't mention capitalisation at all. Do you have your 3rd edition at home? Is it really all lowercase? Maybe the change happened in the 4th edition? Kolmiel (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
PS: I see that you have the 4th edition, not the 3rd. So is it really lowercase? We're talking about the German edition, the Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart, right? Then it would have to be an innovation in the 5th edition. But as I said, he doesn't mention it all, while mentioning less important stuff. Kolmiel (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel I'll check again when I get to the dictionary. I have just checked the scans for the 3rd edition and "miṣr" appears in lower case on page 928. Translations are in upper case, sometimes lacking transliterations but not transliterations, e.g. "al-maksīk" on page 935. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it helps but Wikipedia article about the dictionary also says "Capitalization: The transliteration uses no capitals, even for proper names.". As I said, I'll double-check. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks :) I don't mean to imply that it's extremely important or anything. Just when you said Wehr didn't have capitalisation, I was confused because I've been working with it for years, and I was pretty sure it had it. But all right. They must have changed it in the 4th or 5th edition. Kolmiel (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev What article? Kolmiel (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev All right. I googled it and found it. It's not the article about the dictionary but the transliteration. But this probably refers to the English editions. — But okay, we know that the 3rd German edition is lowercase and we know that the 5th is with capitalisation, so the only question is about the 4th one. Kolmiel (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel Confirmed - 4th edition (English version) - all transliterations are lower case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev Hey, no, wait. Why English version? I've stressed four (!) times that I'm talking about the German edition of Wehr. Have you seen any German editions? Kolmiel (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel No, I always meant the English version, I have never seen the German version. Sorry if I caused the confusion. Germans must be unable to handle proper nouns in lower case letters (joke) :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev Okay... Did you ever actually read what I wrote? I mentioned that I was speaking about the German version four times! I even once spelt out the whole name of the dictionary in German. Kolmiel (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have already apologised for my inattention. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah. That's all right :) I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that I mentioned it so often, because that was really the point of the whole thing. But I've probably done something similar sometime. Bye. Kolmiel (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Is this an alternate / nonstandard spelling of cornice? DTLHS (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Obama is the 44th President?[edit]

I believe that if someone says, today, that Obama is the 44th President of the USA, it's not exactly untrue, but it is unusual phrasing. How unexpected is it? If people see "X is the 45th Y", are they going to be almost certain that X is also the current Y? Please assume these people come from a wide range of English-speaking countries. Siuenti (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the dictionary? Questions like this can go in WT:ID. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The currency is suggested by "is", isn't it? For a past president, "X was the 39th Y" would seem to be the norm. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
OK sorry wrong place, I'll ask there later. Ty -sche Siuenti (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
My intuitions are different. If I say "X was the 39th President" it sounds like he's dead; "X is the 39th President" sounds like he's alive, even if he's no longer president. Helmut Kohl is still the 6th Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, even though we're now up to 8 Chancellors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but when he's dead he'll still be the 6th. And Adenauer will still be the first. I would only use the present tense when it's a more abstract context, like making a list, X is the first, Y is the second, who's the third again? Otherwise I'd always use the past tense for someone who's not in office anymore. Kolmiel (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with -sche and disagree with Angr. Another example is you can't say "Obama is an African-American president", because he isn't any kind of president anymore, even though he is still African-American. --WikiTiki89 17:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "Obama is an African-American president" is infelicitous since January 20, but I still can't say "Obama was an African-American president" either, because he's still alive. For me it has to be "Obama is an African-American ex-president". As for Kohl, I disagree that when he's dead he'll still be the 6th chancellor. Rather, when he's dead he will have been the 6th chancellor. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I would hate to be you; I'd never be able to say anything. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of Wikipedia's policy that you have to say "Dallas IS a TV show" even though it's finished now. Equinox 18:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
With anything recorded in durable media, the present can make sense. If I could watch Dallas right now, then Dallas is still a TV show. --WikiTiki89 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
You can tack temporal position onto that. If Dallas IS (still) a 1970s TV show, then Obama IS (still) the 44th President. Nobody is saying he is the current one, nor that today is the 1970s. Equinox 22:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the issue here is a generational difference in the meaning of TV show. For older people, a TV show is only a TV show when it is first airing, and if you watch it after that it's a rerun (or a tape). While for younger people, a TV show is always a TV show for as long as it is possible to watch it (of course using the past tense is still not out of the question for a number of other reasons), whether as a rerun, or as a tape, or online. And this is only compounded by the streaming video age when most shows aren't watched as they air anymore anyway. This explains the difference between saying "Dallas is a TV show" and "Dallas was a TV show". I think everyone would agree that Lord of the Rings is a book (not was). --WikiTiki89 17:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's TV-specific. If Tolkien stops being so popular and somebody later asks me what LotR means, I think I'd say "oh, it was a fantasy book [published in such-and-such a year, etc.]", not "is". Equinox 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
That falls under my parenthesized comment. The past tense is always possible in certain situations, the only question is whether you'd use the present in other situations. For example, "I just read LotR and it was an amazing book, so now I'll go and tell my friend that it is an amazing book." --WikiTiki89 18:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
So you mean 'if you want temporal precision, you can tack that onto "is the 44th President"' such as by saying "is the 44th and current President" ? Siuenti (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean that you can add temporal precision to "president" by saying "44th president", which tells you which one you mean, in the numerical sequence of all presidents. Equinox 00:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. I think "is the President" also has a kind of temporal precision because it only applies to the current president, whereas "is the Xth president" is ambiguous as to current or not. Siuenti (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


HI, shouldn't the plural of قهوة be قهاوٍ 'Arabic nouns with diptote broken plural in -in', instead of قَهَاوِي? thanks in advance --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. It's indeed قَهاوٍ (qahāwin). Although this form is a bit unusual, because most of the time such a plural would be formed from a noun with four consonants (either with four root consonants or a prefix, such as m.). Kolmiel (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: Therefore, قهاوي is wrong, isn't it? I do not undertand how, but as I've seen its pattern in many more entries, I guess there's a 'template' to automatically insert such a form. By the way, do you know whether such a pattern exists in real Arabic words? If so, even for broken plurals? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Since we also have قاضٍ (qāḍin) under this lemma (and not under قاضِي (qāḍī)), the same should apply here. What exactly do you mean by "whether such a pattern exists in real Arabic words?"? The pattern of this plural is faʿālil or KaKāKiK, which is the single most common plural pattern. The somewhat unusual thing is that the root, which is actually q-h-w has apparently been enhanced to q-h-w-y in the plural. I don't know another example, where that happens, but maybe there is one. Kolmiel (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Off the top of my head: لَيَالٍ (layālin), أَسَامٍ (ʾasāmin). This search also finds many more. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
All right. There you go. Ism is a bit peculiar because it only has two root consonants and the root is commonly enhanced to s-m-y/w, for example also in verbs. But the layla example fits perfectly. (Amazing what you find on the top of your head ;)) Kolmiel (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Backinstadiums What exactly is broken? Where do you see the form قَهَاوِي? I created the templates in question. Benwing2 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2: those irregular plurals are جَمْعُ تَكْسِيرٍ. The fully declinable form قَهَاوِي has already been corrected; If I come across one again, I'll let you know. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2: It has been dealt with. Kolmiel (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Backinstadiums, Kolmiel: OK, thanks. I see now what you're referring to. Those forms are added by hand, not by any template I created. Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

semantic notion of 'future مستقبل' : 'that which is (to be) _____'[edit]

I'd like to add the semantic notion associated by native speakers to the term 'future مُسْتَقْبَل', which is a اِسْم الْمَفْعُول from form X اِسْتَفْعَلَ. In theory, the blank could be filled with one or more of the following 'that which is to be received/met/confronted/faced/assumed'. Feel free to add choose or add yours together with your dialect. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

'احتمل (passive) to be allowable, be possible'[edit]

Hi, should a new entry be created for اُحْتُمِلَ as there's one for شُفِيَ ? Thanks in advance.--Backinstadiums (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There's an ocean of work to be done with Arabic and many other languages. The entry CAN be created, even if it were not considered a lemma but a {{passive form of|اِحْتَمَلَ|lang=ar}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I'd like to know if, at least, it's possible to automatically create a category for verbs used with a different meaning in the passive. Some time ago I asked in the beer room to automatically obtain the patterns of arabic terms and so divide the different parts of speech by patterns. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Such a category cannot be created automatically, someone would have to create it manually. I'm not sure what you have in mind for a category. I don't think we have categories for words that have different senses in certain word forms. You might have a difficult time persuading the community that the category is needed. —Stephen (Talk) 10:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: I think that's a fairly advantageous alternative to having an additional entry for the forms with special/different meanings, as in this case the passive, and a lexicographic one as well. --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Obsolete IPA character[edit]

Which IPA character should be used instead of the crossed I shown in Hartlepool (apparently obsolete)? It should sound like hart-le-pool. DonnanZ (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps /ɪ/ or /ə/. (See .) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
/ɪ/. /ə/ would be used to transcribe dialects in which the phoneme /ɪ/ does not occur unstressed (i.e., it has merged with /ə/). — Eru·tuon 17:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both, I think it may be ɪ, le is actually from Norman. I couldn't format it for {{IPA}} as the pronunciation I filched from Wikipedia has that invalid character. DonnanZ (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
You can still use {{IPA}}- the error message will only show up in the preview. DTLHS (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, I didn't chance it, thanks. DonnanZ (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

not quite[edit]

Is that a good definition? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty accurate, but it doesn't seem to capture the connotation of not quite, which I think has a bit more emphasis on the negative than your definition implies, if that makes sense. I can't think of a good way to make it better though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: That's what bothers me. Pragmatically, you can't use it like you would "almost" or "very nearly". Is it rather a synonym of "not exactly", or "not really"? --Barytonesis (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think "not exactly" is pretty close in meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


  • We currently claim the deceiving sense is slang. This seems highly unlikely, since it is such a common usage in all English speaking countries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that doesn't seem right to me. Maybe someone was referencing an older dictionary that classified it as slang? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I feel that we constantly use "slang" where it doesn't apply. Particularly it's often used for "informal" or "colloquial". In my understanding, slang requires that a word can't be used towards a vast portion of society, because they would either censure it or not understand it. Kolmiel (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Is this the same usage as "the con of man" from The Da Vinci Code? I would say that it is not a slang usage; "informal" might be the best descriptor. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Is this a word in English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. It sounds awful anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It gets more than enough hits on Google books to be includable. DTLHS (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes; created. Equinox 16:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
These abominations show up all over the place, especially in technical contexts. Start with a verb (inform), evolve into a noun (information), transmogrify into another verb (informationize, unattested to my knowledge), then burst forth as yet another noun. This is mechanically doable in English through the magic of lexical suffixes, a process that has no limits in principle but eventually unravels into verbal refuse. Just stop it.
Who are you telling to "stop it"? The English language has been doing things like this for hundreds of years and a stupid dictionary is hardly going to stand in its way. DTLHS (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Down with antiaffixizationers! --G23r0f0i (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

affix, clitic[edit]

Each of these entries links to the other as a coordinate term, but the difference between them is not made clear. MW's definition of clitic implies that it is used only of that which results from a contraction, but then the English possessive -'s is clearly not an enclitic.__Gamren (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An affix turns one word into another word (or form of a word). A clitic functions grammatically as its own word, but is pronounced as part of another word. The possessive -'s in English is a borderline case where a former affix has taken on some properties of a clitic, such as being able to be applied to phrases, rather than individual words. Take for example "Jack and Jill's pale", if the -s were still purely an affix marking the possessive "case", then you'd expect "Jack's and Jill's pale". --WikiTiki89 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


The definition is incorrect (cf. ileus on Wikipedia). Wyang (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to fix it myself... after several days of unresponsiveness. Wyang (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Is this a word in English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find anything useful on b.g.c. except an old-fashioned dialectal form of rinse (e.g. [5], [6]). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be an understandable misspelling for wrench. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How to conjugate irregular compound verbs[edit]

I just heard a commentator on SoCal public radio (KPCC) use the term 'greenlit' in reference to a film project initiated some years ago. I often hear an irregular compound verb like this conjugated like the basic verb. I think we all agree that the past tense of 'undergo' must be 'underwent' if only because 'undergoed' sounds horrendous. In the case of greenlight, however, the word derived from a noun--an electric traffic control--so the choice between 'lit' and 'lighted' is more nuanced. Are there rules here or merely stylistic preferences? —This comment was unsigned.

I have heard it said that verbs formed from nouns are always conjugated regularly -- hence "the batter flied out" (not "flew out"), and "the soldiers ringed the fortress" (not "rang the fortress"), which suggests that "greenlighted" is correct since it's formed from the noun phrase "green light", as you note. Benwing2 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
In the case of ring, the verb and noun are unrelated, so it wouldn't make sense to say "rang" anyway. For "fly out", people always seem to be tempted to say "flew out" even though everyone says "flied out" is correct. With "greenlight", however, I think "greenlit" is the most commonly used form. --WikiTiki89 17:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the only player who ever actually flew out was Yogi Berra. —This unsigned comment was added by Robinsjo (talkcontribs) at 22:43, 3 April 2017.
Which proves that they are not "always conjugated regularly". They just may be or tend to be. There are probably other examples for both cases. Kolmiel (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, this tendency could be a factor in the collapse of the system of English strong verbs, which we expect to happen in the 32nd century. Because the main factor that blocks forms like flied and eated is that they sound strange and give you a little shiver deep insde. But when you can say "flied out", with time "he flied to Amsterdam" might not sound just as strange anymore. Kolmiel (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
All we need is a generation of children to grow up without parents or schoolteachers. That should take care of all the strong verbs. --WikiTiki89 20:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
You think? I'm not sure. All Germanic languages except Afrikaans, even including all dialects, still have them, although those were spoken for maybe 1700 years since Proto-Germanic without any education among the normal population. Kolmiel (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Down with parents and teachers! --G23r0f0i (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I mean those people did have parents, but not educated ones. Kolmiel (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but look what happened to Afrikaans in a matter of a couple centuries. --WikiTiki89 21:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Admittedly, there is a difference now with people moving around so much, and so many non-native speakers using English. So maybe you're right with regards to English at least. But nah, I like strong verbs. Of course, it's only because I'm used to them. But, actually, it's the only thing I would change about Afrikaans. It's a cute language, but something like ek het gevind ("I has finded")? No, sorry, I'm too conservative for that. Kolmiel (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
When I was studying morphology in college, we discussed this in two separate contexts: the regularization of irregular verbs with significant semantic drift and irregularity in novel compounds. For the first category, we had the "flied out" example, as well as the fact that many people consider the plural a computer "mouse" to be "mouses". Similarly, I have since noticed speakers' unwillingness to make the past of "to grind on someone" (the dance move) as "He ground on her" with most people favoring "grinded" (though this could represent the effect of verbification if the etymology is "to do the grind" > "to grind").
For the second category, one of my friends noticed that, when asked to form the past of a compound verb where the first member was irregular, the speaker might doubly mark the past tense. So some speakers would consider the following conjugations well formed:
  • "to breakdance" → "to have brokedanced" or "to have breakdanced"
  • "to sleepwalk" → "to have slepwalked" or "to have sleepwalked" (but not "to have *sleptwalked")
All this to say that these effects can go in either direction depending on a wide variety of factors. —JohnC5 00:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at language histories, I think that simple past forms will disappear altogether before the strong verbs get regularized. Crom daba (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed that has happened in some languages. Afrikaans, again. And also in most of High German the simple past is at least unproductive. In Yiddish and Swiss German it has disappeared entirely. In Luxembourgish, as a northern High German language, it's restricted to some 20 simple verbs. However, all High German dialects still have strong verbs, because they use the perfect tense and the perfect participle remains strong. In English, maybe people will substitute he did fly, so that would mean they're gone. Kolmiel (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm speaking about trends I see in English, not general cross-Germanic or cross-linguistic trends. In American English, the pluperfect will soon be replaced entirely by the simple past. So the simple past is not going anywhere. The simple present, on the other hand, is more likely to disappear, for active verbs at least, although as of now its habitual-aspect uses and non-indicative uses are still highly productive. My comment about strong verbs disappearing is based on the fact that children do tend to say things like "flied" and "eated" until they are taught not to; although there are some strong verb patterns that are on the contrary likely to grow in usage, like the -ing/-ang > -ung pattern (note also that the simple past/past participle distinction is collapsing into just one form), so sang/rang will be gone in favor of sung/rung, and brought will become brung, and I wouldn't be surprised if weak verbs like banged become bung. --WikiTiki89 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The perfect is also used less (I think especially in American English) than what traditional grammar would imply, isn't it? You're likely to hear I brought you some flowers instead of I've.... So the English past tense seems stable. -- I think small children are likely in most languages to use regularized forms. They also do in German. But the fact that older children don't, needn't be because they're told "don't say that", but because they adapt later on. Of course, it's hard to find out and distinguish. Kolmiel (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Zero Google Books hits; zero Google Groups hits. Words that only appear in lists, and not in usage, are not for us. The correct and standard term is "base 128". I have never seen such a base used by anyone for anything. Equinox 18:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I cannot find much on Google either. The only citations for "ducentahexaquinquagesimal" I can find seem to be from Wikipedia, for which the entry is marked as missing a citation. Even if the terms are not in usage though, they can still be added in a Wiktionary Appendix for reference. The naming system seems fairly systematic to create new names for arbitrary bases, as I did with 128 and 512, but I am not sure of the origins or formalism of the naming system. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Other than Wikipedia, this is the best citation that I can find: http://www.mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60405.html, which additionally cites "Schwartzman S (1994). The Words of Mathematics: an etymological dictionary of mathematical terms used in English (ISBN 0-88385-511-9)." I don't have access to the book cited, but the prefixes listed on the webpage seem to confirm "centoctovigesimal" as the non-numerical term for base 128. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
      • "Centoctovigesimal" (I miswrote it as "uncentoctovigesmal" earlier) does have one citation on Google: [7]. Not sure if the poster there is the same as user "@double sharp" here on Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)



Is it vulgar? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be marked as rare or archaic. Crom daba (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Saare County and others[edit]

User:BD2412 recently added a bunch of entries for Estonian counties, all with "County" at the end of the name. I'm wondering, firstly, if they are not known better by their Estonian names (e.g. Saaremaa), but also whether this combination is SOP or not. —CodeCat 22:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#McClain_County? —suzukaze (tc) 22:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is different, though. The US counties are rarely if ever used without "County". I'm not sure if that's also the case with Estonian counties. —CodeCat 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A few things on this. I created them because Saare County is on Robert Ullmann's list of missing red links. Although they are called "counties" they are top-level administrative divisions, and therefore the equivalent of U.S. states; it hardly seems fair that we would include U.S. counties, but exclude state-level subdivisions from another country. If they are sometimes used with "County" (all the Wikipedia articles are so titled), then they would at least be legitimate alternative forms. bd2412 T 22:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia articles can be SoP though, so that doesn't help us here. What I'd be more interested in is whether English speakers really do use these "County" names or if they're something Wikipedia writers invented. I would just call it Saaremaa myself. —CodeCat 23:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Google Books returns a few thousand hits for "Saare County"; whether or not it is the best usage, it is attested as a unit. bd2412 T 23:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Ok, that is one thing down. What about the name Saare alone, is that ever used? The funny thing about this is that in Estonian, saare is a case form, the lemma being saar (island). So it seems like the creators of Saare County just tore off the Estonian word maa and replaced it with county regardless of Estonian grammar. The names without maa are never used in Estonian to refer to these counties, it would be like using Eng alone to refer to England. —CodeCat 23:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
          • These aren't ==Estonian== entries. bd2412 T 00:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
            • I'm aware. I just find it striking that whoever coined the term knew enough Estonian to analyse it as (name) + maa, yet not enough to recognise that saare is a genitive form. —CodeCat 01:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Well whoever did it, it seems to be in use since about 1991. bd2412 T 23:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Spanish coquizar, coquificar[edit]

  • "To use heat to decompose high molecular weight hydrocarbons, in order to obtain petroleum coke" ([9]). Is there an English verb for this? DTLHS (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • cokify? Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
      • "Cokify" is used in the translation for French "cokéfier," and there is also "coking" ("to coke"), but that seems to be a different context. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
      • "Coking" is the term used on "wikipedia:petroleum coke." It would have to rely on context though to refer to either the production of the coal byproduct (coke) or the petroleum byproduct (also coke). Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I guess it's better just to provide the gloss rather than rely on a potentially inaccurate one word translation. DTLHS (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

squad, section, platoon, company, etc.[edit]

Shouldn't we try to organise these terms? -- 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkish proverb in usage examples for "alan": noun or adjective sense?[edit]

I just stumbled upon alan and the Turkish section has the same proverb, "Atı alan Üsküdar'ı geçti", as a usage example both for adjectival usage (in the only present sense, with translation "The one who is the recipient of the horse has already passed Üsküdar. (It is too late to do anything; you have missed the train.)") and noun usage (in sense 2, with translation "[The person] who took has passed Üsküdar. (Too late to do anything about it, as the chance has been missed.)"). While I see that the senses are very close, using the same usage example for both, and with different translations, seems fishy to me. From the translation it seems clear that this is an example of the noun sense, and analyzing word-by-word gives "horse (acc.)-recipient-Üsküdar (unknown case, I have no inflection table at Üsküdar or at wikt:tr:Üsküdar)-passed (simple past, third person singular)", which reinforces the impression that this is a noun usage, and that a more appropriate translation would be "The person who received the horse has passed Üsküdar". This means that the usage example for the adjective sense is missing, and the translation for the noun sense had better be changed to include "the horse". I will do this, but I cannot provide a new example for the adjective sense. Can someone do that for me? Also, is this "alan" a passive active participle that can be used as adjective or noun or is it a verbal noun that can be used as an adjective? MGorrone (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is a present participle of almak (and Üsküdar'ı is the accusative).
Turkish participles AFAIK can be used both attributively (as an adjective) and substantively (as a noun), you are right in noting that the example displays a substantive usage, but it should arguably be listed under a single participle or verb heading and linked to the main entry anyway. Crom daba (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
However, we don't seem to list -an participles as verb forms currently. @Anylai, could you tell me the reasoning behind this convention, are such words treated as independent form? Crom daba (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not a verbal noun, -an makes adjectives, although there is not a very clear line between adjectives and nouns or adjectives and adverbs in Turkish.
Let's take a look at another sense of al- and derive alan in a different sense. Using the sense "to buy";
alan kişi (buying person),
Alan razı, veren razı. (the buying (person) is willing, the selling/giving (person) is willing). The second one is a proverb, meaning "mind your own business".
I guess we need some sort of a template, otherwise we can never get out of the complexity of -an, -en creates, it is very productive and meanings will depend on context. See above, alan in the second example can mean "buyer". Well sometimes words get specific senses, I guess they can be mentioned separately. I wish I were competent enough in this subject to decide on whether it is past or passive active participle. --Anylai (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response @Anylai:. My approach to participles/converbs and other non-lemma forms in Mongolian is to omit such nuances or even a translation, and merely link the lemma form and the suffix, the user should provide their own knowledge of syntax and grammar of a language to use the dictionary properly (I try to give a bit of that in the suffix entries however). See баяжсаар and -саар to see what I mean. Crom daba (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dutch participles[edit]

@CodeCat, @Lingo Bingo Dingo, @KIeio: Inspired by the paragraph above this: We don't treat participles as verb forms in Dutch either. I'm not sure if that's good, but at least it should be standardized between languages. Right now German gelogen and Dutch idem are different parts of speech, although there's not the slightest difference in how they're used. (Except that in Dutch you can say thinks like na gegeten te hebben, but I don't think this is a factor here.) So may I ask to hear your arguments? Kolmiel (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

To call it merely a verb form would ignore the fact that participles behave like adjectives as well. That's what the different header is meant to signify. To call it a verb while giving it an adjective inflection table is weird. —CodeCat 20:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. I don't think I agree, though. Adjectives can be nouns and adverbs, as well. In Dutch they even have different nominal inflections (with the -en form; the -s form has been called nominal as well). The point for me is that participles are always derived from verbs. That's what makes them participles and hence verb forms. I suppose you will answer that it makes them deverbal derivatives, but that doesn't seem to be justified when half of the conjugations requires this form to be used. Kolmiel (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
IMO, the formatting of Dutch entries is good, but participles should be categorized under verb forms in our cat tree hierarchy. Crom daba (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
What about other languages that use the "Participle" header, such as Latin? If we're going to phase this header out, we should do so for all languages. —CodeCat 21:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually now I see that particles are already categorized as verb forms.
In case I wasn't clear, I do like the participle header. Crom daba (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see that either. I admit that it makes the situation a bit different. I found it particularly strange that they should be lemmas, but they aren't. Still, there should be a consistent policy for at least all continentenal West Germanic languages. Kolmiel (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I also like the Participle header and use it in a wide variety of languages. However, I think "accelerated page creation" or whatever it's called with the green links automatically inserts a ===Verb=== header for participles, which is why so many participles (and probably not just in German) are labeled Verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


By the way, can Dutch say the equivalent of Das ist gelogen! to mean "That's a lie!" or gelogenes Alter to mean "an age that's been lied about"? I think we have to consider those usages a real adjective, and not just the past participle of lügen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Dat is gelogen, yes. Do you think really think this is an adjective? It's the same as: Das ist ausgedacht. Das ist bestätigt. Das ist richtig gerechnet. I don't know the exact grammatical term for this is, but it tends to be considered a second form of the perfect tense: Der Kuchen ist gegessen. ("The cake is eaten.", i.e. "gone"), versus: Der Kuchen ist gegessen worden. ("The cake has been eaten.", i.e. "someone ate it".) The thing is that in Dutch there's no distinction. Both would be: Het gebak is gegeten. — The adjectival use is rare in Dutch, but it's also rather rare in German. This could be an adjective since you can't generally construe lügen with a direct object. So that could be the point. Kolmiel (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The term I've seen used for this construction in German is stative passive. Crom daba (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I googled "static perfect" and found nothing. Yours is right. Kolmiel (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe the direct-object argument refers to the first usage as well. But only in this verb then, not with transitive verbs. Alternatively one could say that lügen is occasionally used transitively. Er hat die Geschichte gelogen instead of erlogen is a bit doubtful to my ears, but definitely not impossible. Descriptively speaking. Kolmiel (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yet another way would be to read "das ist gelogen" as an impersonal passive. Then it underlying sense wouldn't be "That has been lied about", but rather "They who said it lied." Kolmiel (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) No, this might work for "das ist gelogen", but not when the subject is not a neuter pronoun. Kolmiel (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The main reason I think this is a real adjective is that lügen is an intransitive verb; that's the difference to Das ist ausgedacht. Das ist bestätigt. Das ist richtig gerechnet. Der Kuchen ist gegessen. Could you call a conversation held on the phone ein telefoniertes Gespräch? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I realized. Only instead of "transitive" I said "construed with a direct object". Yes, you're probably right, as I implied somewhat unclearly in my last not stricken answer above. Of course, you couldn't say ein telefoniertes Gespräch. I did mention that lügen can sometimes be transitive. However, this latter construction is (prescriptively at least) nonstandard, while das ist gelogen is not at all. So, yes, we should probably have that as an adjective. I just didn't realize at first that you were speaking about the word "gelogen" specifically. Kolmiel (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. Kolmiel (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Is the Italian entry meriare some kind of dialectal term or something, because I can't seem to verify its existence in standard dictionaries? Word dewd544 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be Tuscan http://kielipiha.blogspot.rs/2013/06/meriggiare-curioso-e-raccolto.html "Una variante toscana di meriggiare è meriare." Crom daba (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


The two definitions "A person who is a founder of a colony" and "An original member of a colony" do not seem distinct. Our definitions of colony are also suboptimal. - -sche (discuss) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I see it as differentiating specific creators of the colony from the general people who moved to the colony to live/work there. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 14:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

arabic definite article[edit]

Hi, in حق#Etymology_3 we find

        (in the plural, law) rights, claims, legal claims (الْحُقُوق — law, jurisprudence). 

The lexicographic treatment of الـ definite art. is quite complex, and usually overlooked, yet I think it would enrich the wiktionary to add in the descriptions its definiteness if necessary, e.g.

        (in the definite plural, law)

Granted, I do not know whether حقوق may be used withouth it meaning 'law, jurisprudence science' (the examples appearing in other entries seem to corroborate it) --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If you mean that under اَل (al-), we could give some basic (!) information about how the article is used in Arabic, then yes, that may be a good idea. It's not that complex actually, pretty much the same as in Romance languages. Except that it's also used with adjectives, of course. Kolmiel (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
But maybe you don't mean that. Er, yes, sometimes it may be worthwile to add a note that a particular use is always definite. Most of the time, grammar already implies it, but we can add notes when we think it helpful. I've seen that being done in other languages, too. Kolmiel (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be incorrect to use the word "always". I'm sure there are cases where حقوق is used in the indefinite with this meaning (it's certainly used in the construct state, but the resulting construct is also usually definite). --WikiTiki89 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Finnish "kauaksi"[edit]

kauaksi has only one sense:


  1. To far away.

Is this entry OK? It could be just me, but I don't think that definition sounds like normal English.

Going out on a limb: if it's an adverb, should it be distantly? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect what it means is far away but with motion towards a far-away place, i.e. "he's going far away" but not "he's living far away". @Hekaheka, what say you? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That seems to be the case. Compare kaukana. —CodeCat 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, "towards far away" might be a clearer definition. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like good English to me. Equinox 17:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Neither does "to far away". In fact it's very tempting to interpret that as a misspelling of "too". --WikiTiki89 18:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is translated into English as "far". In English the difference between being far away and going far away must be inferred from the context. In Finnish there's different word for "in a faraway place" (kaukana) and "to a faraway place" (kauas, kauaksi). "From far away", btw., is kaukaa in Finnish. I have edited the entry. Is it clear now? --Hekaheka (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a usage note could be helpful. Crom daba (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a standard thing in Finnish. I don't think we want to have to put usage notes everywhere this happens. Someone with a basic knowledge of Finnish will already know that the translative case indicates a change of state. —CodeCat 13:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. Crom daba (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

dry hump[edit]

Is dry hump a hyponym of dry run? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Why did you think so? Equinox 18:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: I'm trying to broaden my vocabulary; to that end I make as many associations as possible. This one was a bit off, though --Barytonesis (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusion of different kinds of sentence-modifying adverbs - reason for the objection to "hopefully"?[edit]

I just put this on the talk page for "hopefully":

Some sentence-modifying adverbs "really mean" "it is x that," e.g.:

Naturally, she dyed her hair. (It is natural that she dyed her hair.)

Unfortunately, he died. (It is unfortunate that he died.)

You can't say, "It is hopeful that the war will be over soon," therefore, "Hopefully, the war will be over soon" is wrong.

But other sentence-modifying adverbs describe the manner in which the statement is made:

Frankly, he annoyed me. ("Frankly speaking" or "I tell you frankly.") (I don't think anyone would claim that this means, "He told me exactly what he thought of my daughter's singing.")

Confidentially, its aroma leaves much to be desired. ("I tell you confidentially")

Briefly, he says she's a fake. ("To be brief") (I'm summarizing his eighteen volumes.)

Truthfully(!!!!), I haven't started it yet. (Nobody seems to object to this one.)

(It is frank that? It is confidential that? It is brief that?)

The "incorrect" use of hopefully seems to me entirely analogous. —This unsigned comment was added by Kostaki mou (talkcontribs) at 18:52, 5 April 2017.

You can say "It is hopeful that the war will be over soon." and you can "It is truthful that I haven't started it yet." --WikiTiki89 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
You can say anything. These are hardly idiomatic and the first changes the meaning. Kostaki mou (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's not idiomatic and hardly anyone would say it, but it does not change the meaning and grammatically it makes sense. --WikiTiki89 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Kostaki that it changes the meaning. "It is hopeful": what is? It's not like the other sentences. Equinox 19:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, "truthfully" seems to be more logically analyzed as "truthfully speaking" or "I tell you truthfully" than "it is truthful that." People do say "it is true that," but not "it is truthful that." The meaning is not quite the same though. Kostaki mou (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

aforementioned (alternate pronunciation)[edit]

The pronunciation given (/əˌfoː(ɹ)ˈmɛn.ʃənd/) is the only one I have seen in dictionaries. In recent years I have heard the pronunciation "/ˌæ.fə(ɹ)ˈmɛn.ʃənd/" ("AFFermentioned")from several people. Any idea when that came into use? —This unsigned comment was added by Kostaki mou (talkcontribs) at 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC).

I've heard that pronunciation too (and find it quite frustrating). I don't know when it arose. It probably indicates that the speaker isn't aware of the morphology of afore, or they would destress the prefix a-. — Eru·tuon 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
My guess is that it's an overcorrection based on pronunciations like "AP-li-ka-bl" (for "applicable") and "FOR-mi-da-bl" (for "formidable") (both of which I myself use) and "DES-pi-ka-bl" (for "despicable") (which I don't). Many people pronounce any or all of these words with the accent on the second syllable, which seems to be most accepted for "despicable" and least accepted for "formidable". Kostaki mou (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Is the Baptist religion referred to as "Baptism" in English? (In German, we do have Baptismus, but it may be an independent [back?]formation from "Baptist".) Kolmiel (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Baptism only refers to the ceremony. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I've used both "Baptism" and "Baptistry" jokingly to refer to the Baptist denomination, but in fact, neither word has that meaning. You have to just say "Baptist denomination/faith/beliefs", etc. Actually, Baptistism is attestable, but it's very rare. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, in the declension table of كسلان the form كسلى seems to be both msc. pl. and fem. singular. Could sb. confirm this? I cannot find it in any grammatical resource. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Figurative senses of "warm"[edit]

I think we're missing figurative senses, as in google:warm piano sound. —suzukaze (tc) 08:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

laugh on the other side of one's face[edit]

What does it mean? --Sonovobić (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you tell someone that they will laugh on the other of their face, you're saying that something bad is going to happen to them and they won't laugh like they are now. Equinox 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I know it as laugh out of the other side of one's mouth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


There are a LOT of Scouting-related terms that are attested, and I keep adding ones that blow my mind that they weren't here already, such as merit badge. I propose creating the new category Category:en:Scouting, and appending Scouting terms with the new label "Scouting", which will automatically add Category:en:Scouting to the page. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Don't forget Venturer Scout, woggle, and dyb! Equinox 00:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I have created User:PseudoSkull/Scouting. A mess, and contains some likely entries, although I suppose some of them may be SOP. Could someone look over them from time to time? Oh, and scouting terms seem to have a lot of alternative forms. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


This entry has one sense:

  1. Exhibiting a love of sophistry or logical reasoning; philosophical; may include fallacious reasoning.

Is it OK? The part "may include fallacious reasoning" looks off to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not personally familiar with this word. Maybe it's an RFV matter? Equinox 01:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems rare / obsolete. DTLHS (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I created an RFV for it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Definition 9 currently reads "(topology) The infinitesimal open set of all points that may be reached directly from a given point." The part about "may be reached directly" is probably a handwavy way of saying "connected space", but that seems wrong. I have no idea what "infinitesimal" is supposed to mean in this context, and I am not sufficiently confident in my math-fu to remove it summarily.__Gamren (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

w:Neighbourhood (mathematics) gives two definitions:
Intuitively speaking, a neighbourhood of a point is a set of points containing that point where one can move some amount away from that point without leaving the set.
If is a topological space and is a point in , a neighbourhood of is a subset of that includes an open set containing .
It seems like one of those math words that you can either give a clear English definition, or a precisely correct one, but not both.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
How about "A set containing a given point and an open set around it"? Our definition of open set is pretty nice so I'd be happy with sending the reader over there. Crom daba (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

pushed out the door, he returns through the window[edit]

The above is what we now have in Czech vyhodíte ho dveřmi, vrátí se oknem. google:"he returns through the window" suggests to me this is not a native English idiom, or is it? Is there a native idiom? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard it in English. What does it mean? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dan Polansky, is it equivalent to fall seven times, stand up eight? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Probably not entirely; the saying you quote seems to describe a response to adversity in general rather than a response to human rejection of a proposal in particular. Furthermore, the Czech saying seems to complain of someone's persistence, whereas the quoted fall-saying seems to commend it, but I do not really know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it means that someone is impossible to get rid of. Get rid of them one way, and they just sneak back in another way. —CodeCat 20:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That seems accurate. It seems to indicate the behavior of someone who does not get easily rejected; once their proposal is rejected, they come up with a modification of the proposal, doing that again and again, or they come up with a proposal that merely appears to be different. However, I do not use the Czech saying and the quotations that I find do not provide all that much context from which to extract the meaning so I am not really sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


It seems that the sense in "it was lying on its side" is currently missing. Sense 5 comes closest, but that refers to the human body. It could probably be generalised somewhat? —CodeCat 23:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Until I added it 13 months ago, we didn't even have that sense! Feel free to generalize it, or add a new sense along the lines of "the corresponding part of an animal's body". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It can apply to objects too. A spinning top can also lie on its side, for example. So I'm not sure how to define that accurately, and there are people here who are better with English definitions than I am. Non-English is more my thing here. —CodeCat 18:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that just sense 2? A spinning top doesn't really have a front and back to distinguish from its sides, the way a human or animal body does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Although, come to think of it, a house does, and we do speak of the side of a house as distinct from its front and back. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Is there a less technical definition of the word that we're missing, or am I thinking of another word? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

can of worms[edit]

Not sure why we need two separate definitions here. Can't we merge them? --WikiTiki89 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, unlike the categories for the rest of the verbal forms, the verbal nouns are not grouped in different categories according to the forms they belong to. Could this ordering be systematically implemented? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the same is true for participles: there's no category for Form I participles, for example. I wonder if it would be desirable or possible to make {{ar-act-participle}} and {{ar-pass-participle}} automatically determine the form and categorize. If not, editors would have to go through and add a |form= parameter to all instances of these templates in order for them to categorize. — Eru·tuon 23:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Verbal nouns of the form I are unpredictable and numerous, hence its priority. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(not) be a patch on[edit]

"The second film isn’t a patch on the first.": Aren't we missing this sense of patch? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

We do have not a patch on. Equinox 17:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, hadn't looked hard enough. I'm a bit baffled by the "preposition" header btw. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation for Mandarin and mandarin[edit]

Is there an actual difference between /ˈmæn.də.ɹɪn/ (on Mandarin) and /ˈmæn.dəɹ.ɪn/, /ˈmæn.dɚ.ɪn/ (on mandarin)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, just a difference in transcription habits. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
In rhotic US English, the /ɹ/ of the /ɚ/ and /ɹ/ at the onset of the last syllable is the same /ɹ/, which makes the transcription tricky. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Should there be some sort of convention we should stick to to make things less confusing? It's really odd to have different transcriptions for basically the same word. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Is the pontificate#Etymology 2 pronounciation actually what is heard? It sounds like that the stress(es) is applied on the first or the last sylllable. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 06:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The stress is kind of ambiguous, but I'm hearing the stress on the second syllable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

About Punktum definition[edit]

Punktum is a definition of when i close a conversation without any respond to recive,or when i say about a thing it is done and do not need further work. Thank you. Robert Dioszegi.

catalog, catalogue[edit]

Now that we have, I very much hope, abandoned the total nonsense of maintaining two entirely separate sets of definitions for mere spelling variants, can anyone see any special reason, before I merge them, for preserving these two separately? Mihia (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You're sure this isn't a like the distinction between program and programme, where the former is an alternate spelling, but also has unique senses? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


  • What is the word to describe writing systems that are used for monuments? E.g. Egyptian hieroglyphs or Roman majuscule letters. It is not "monumental." Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Is there evidence that the stress really should be on the antepenultimate syllable rather than on the penultimate? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora added that, no idea why. Esperanto is perfectly regular, so I've replaced it with {{eo-IPA}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I must have done it when I was learning a little Esperanto, and as a novice I though the stress would be where I kept it. I was not aware of {{eo-IPA}}, I'll be sure to use it if I ever make any Esperanto entries. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


An anon changed this from Translingual to English. Is that right? DCDuring (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's wrong of him to have changed it. It should have been RFV'd or something. Other than that, he might be right that it should be English. --WikiTiki89 21:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Different languages have different pronunciations and possibly even different spellings/scripts for this word, so it can hardly be translingual. Also, the etymology is wrong, it's named after Harald Bluetooth. —CodeCat 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This last consideration hasn't prevented us from having Translingual entries for taxa. DCDuring (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The scientific names are properly translingual, aren't they? Would a Russian writer write Vulpes zerda or would they transliterate it? What about Chinese? —CodeCat 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about Chinese, but in Russian you would either write Vulpes zerda (in Latin letters), or use a Russian scientific translation of the Latin name. Anyway, I've fixed the etymology of Bluetooth. --WikiTiki89 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought the issue was about pronunciations. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Not sure about the definition. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


Haplorhini was just recreated as a valid alternative spelling for Haplorrhini. A case might be made to reverse this to make "Haplorrhini" the alternative after reading why the en-Wiki article was renamed on its discussion page.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ach, what a mess. Based on multiple measures of commonness, as well as the law of priority, Haplorhini should be the lemmatised spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Good. I shall raise the issue at Wikispecies.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to our attention. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Pleasure! and thank you for an almost instant response and fix!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

be well shot of, get shot of[edit]

We already have the relevant sense of shot at 4), but couldn't we create this? --Barytonesis (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

universal value[edit]

Def might be a bit off: "Something that has the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people." Is the "something" really the value, or is the value a property that the something possesses? Equinox 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence of en-Wiki's article: "A value is a universal value if it has the same value or worth for all, or almost all, people." This appears to say that the "something" is the value. It might be improved; however, I'm not sure how. Perhaps "A value that has the same worth for all, or almost all, people." (?)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


A very specific sense has been added, which is quite plausible but may need a context label, since many uses are hardly that specific (they use sense 2; compare Dictionary.com's similarly broad "sexual intercourse, especially between a man and a woman"). {{lb|en|formal}}? {{lb|en|medicine}}? {{lb|en|law}}? - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Opposite of status quo?[edit]

Is there are word for a status which isn't a status quo? Seems like status-non-quo might pass the CFI. Siuenti (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

opposite of status quo: advancement, progress? d1g (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
change? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

-нулевой суффикс[edit]

I find this strange. I feel it would be like creating an entry -null morpheme, then say that "resurrect comes from resurrection +‎ -null morpheme". Take одурь (odurʹ): одуре́ть (odurétʹ) +‎ -нулевой суффикс (-nulevoj suffiks). And there are inappropriate redirects: , ...Ø. Pinging @D1gggg --Barytonesis (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cite a paragraph where о- is able to form nouns (from дурь) without an morpheme.
о- is covered by 511, 529, 540.
Russian morpology is Russian, not English. d1g (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the existence of a null morpheme, merely the way you're implementing it in entries. When you read "одуре́ть (odurétʹ) +‎ -нулевой суффикс (-nulevoj suffiks)", the expected result is literally "**одуре́тьнулевой суффикс (odurétʹnulevoj suffiks)", which makes no sense --Barytonesis (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
True, -нулевой суффикс is not represented by any characters or sounds.
I'm not able to create a page with 0 charaters or use 0 charters to retrieve this linguistic concept or send a link.
or ...Ø make no sense either, but academic reference using it regardless.
Anyone can use these charters to retrieve only relevant results.
"нулевой суффикс" and "нулевой аффикс" were used in literature.
"-..." is a notation for suffixes used in Template:affix d1g (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
This is English Wiktionary, so we don't use Russian terminology in Cyrillic script in etymologies. This is a term for a concept, so use an equivalent English term. As mentioned above, you're getting levels of representation confused: to paraphrase w:The Treachery of Images, Ceçi n'est pas un morphème à signifiant zéro... Chuck Entz (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I could have sworn I saw an entry like here at one point. —suzukaze (tc) 17:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If we create an entry for zero suffixes, it should be -∅ with the empty set symbol. —CodeCat 17:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
In this particular case though, I'm not sure if there's actually zero suffixation though. The verb has a suffix -e- on the stem which disappears in the noun, so part of the stem is actually removed. Wikipedia calls this a disfix. —CodeCat 17:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
We need to fix the entries which link here... - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you write шить (šitʹ) +‎ , the resulting form would still be шить (šitʹ), but with a different meaning. шить (šitʹ) +‎ means there there exists a suffix that has neither form nor sound, but we know it exists because it changes the meaning in a regular way. That is not what is going on with шов (šov). If you're trying to say that stands for the removal of -ть (-tʹ), the morpheme that marks the infinitive, that's not correct. шить (šitʹ) +‎ does not result in шов (šov). If шов (šov) is made from шить (šitʹ), it is made in a different way. The final -в looks like a past-tense deeprichastiye, but that does not explain the vowel о. —Stephen (Talk) 09:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown please review 5457400832 as it provides more context on what's going on in РГ-80

  • шить - шов covered in following books:
    • РГ-80 § 1078 p 429
    • ISBN 5457400832 p 149 refers to РГ-80:
      • 1.1 affixial
        • 1.1.2 root word - 1. flexies () 2. null-suffixiation, 3. alternation of vovels

We don't have templates to show alternation of vovels. d1g (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

arabic hamza[edit]

Hi, I cannot find the rules the community follows regarding the seats for ء. Shouldn't they appear in Wiktionary:About_Arabic ? Furthermore, in that page, regarding 3. -iyy-, -uww- are used in place of -īy-, -ūw-., could sb. please add an example thereof? I think that is not an exception but the formal citation form. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The spelling rules don't necessarily belong to language policy pages, such as Wiktionary:About_Arabic (this is how you should link Wiktionary pages, not the full URL). The seat of hamza is an important rule for writing correctly in Arabic but we would include terms if they didn't follow the rule but were attestable.
We transliterate nisba as in عَرَبِيّ (ʿarabiyy) with -iyy (plus any endings), etc., which is different from Hans Wehr dictionary. That's what the statement means. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Where can I find the rules the editors have agreed to follow then? Or at least the orthographic variation they regard as acceptable? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Any attested Arabic spelling is acceptable. An expert on the language can mark it as slang, irregular spelling, rare, dialectal, etc. As a guide we write out hamza over and under alif أ إ, dots under yaa ي and taa marbuta ة. The other, relaxed spellings are acceptable but treated as alternatives. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I thought there'd be templates for the different seats of ء, therefore I'd suggest creating them for easy of edition. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Templates, for different seats of hamza? I really don't know what you're asking?!
Initial hamza over alif: أ (ʾ): أَجَلّ (ʾajall) (with "a"), أُسْتَاذ (ʾustāḏ) (with "u"); hamza under alif with "i" إ (ʾ): إِبْرَة (ʾibra)
Hamza over alif in the middle of a word إِمْرَأَة (ʾimraʾa)
Hamza over yāʾ ئ (ʾ): أَسْئِلَة (ʾasʾila)
Hamza over wāw ؤ (ʾ): لُؤْلُؤَة (luʾluʾa)
Stand-alone hamza ء (ʾ): شَيْء (šayʾ)
What templates are you talking about? Do you know how to enter Arabic letters? You don't need templates for entering Arabic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Should this be labeled as offensive and or obsolete? DTLHS (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

top of the morning[edit]

The usage notes and context label disagree on whether this is used in Ireland. - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

schoolman and Schoolman[edit]

I believe these articles should be merged. It's not clear why there is a capitalized entry as the word is a common noun, not a proper noun. Aabull2016 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably yes. There is (although I personally disagree with it) a consensus to keep capitalised variants like Pope and Colonel, but I doubt this word is used in that way. Equinox 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
So, how would that be done? The capitalized entry could be reworked as a variant if it could be shown to exist, but I'm not sure that's the case (the only capitalized example I've found is in a 16th-century text in which many common nouns are capitalized). So it seems best simply to delete it and move any relevant content into the lower-case entry. Aabull2016 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

half-plane vs. halfplane vs. half plane: which is most used?[edit]

I just stumbled upon the halfplane entry, and was surprised to find halfplane, and not half-plane, which I always used, nor half plane. Even the alternate forms at halfplane don't list half-plane (or anything for that matter). A quick Google search for half-plane gives both half-plane and half plane, with the former more common (at least in the first 10 results), and no halfplane at all. In fact, the first 20 results of Googling halfplane only have one result with that form: the Wiktionary entry. So is it right to have the entry under what seems to be the least common form, and with no alternate forms section? If not, what should we do about this? I would go for half-plane as the entry with halfplane and half plane as alternate forms. Do you guys agree? MGorrone (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

halfplane, half plane, half-plane at Google Ngram Viewer suggests halfplane is the least often used of the three. I moved it to half-plane, which seems very slightly more common than half plane. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

lot lizard etymology[edit]

It says: "The term was invented by Christopher Echard, the self-proclaimed 'Minister of Filth'." Who is that? I can find nothing on Google. Equinox 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ask anon. —suzukaze (tc) 15:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Dubious. I've removed it. Equinox 15:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong case for RfD, IMO, despite our having lounge lizard. See definition 6 at [[lizard]], which I have just added. See w:Lot lizard and the Fairlex Dictionary of Idioms (2015) which have it, though with a somewhat different definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


أيها I'd like to know which feminine collective term is the following sentence from أيها referring to (ٱلْعِيرُ?)

"When addressing a female, a group of females, or (occasionally) a feminine collective noun (فَلَمَّا جَهَّزَهُم بِجَهَازِهِمْ جَعَلَ السِّقَايَةَ فِي رَحْلِ أَخِيهِ ثُمَّ أَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ أَيَّتُهَا ٱلْعِيرُ إِنَّكُمْ لَسَارِقُونَ‎), the form أَيَّتُهَا (ʾayyatuhā) is used."  Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This topic might be helpful. Plural inanimates are always grammatical feminines, so if you talk to objects (theoretically), use the form.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Thank you, yet I'd still like to know what the term the entry is referring to. --Backinstadiums (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The example given refers to عِير (ʿīr) - "caravan"?.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

lick into shape[edit]

How do you use that? "My girlfriend was feeling a bit down in the dumps, so I licked her into shape?" --Barytonesis (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Licking into shape isn't simple cheering up, but more like discipline or punishment. Your example sentence wouldn't be used for that reason, and probably also because of connotations of oral sex! A book example: "We shall see, before long, how much trouble [the lazy soldiers] brought on Custer, and how he at last licked them into shape." Equinox 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This expression uses a sense of lick that seems to derive from the noun sense "A stroke or blow", and is fairly close to the "defeat decisively, particularly in a fight" verb sense. It's basically the same idea as whip into shape, which we don't seem to have yet, either. Both use the metaphor of employing severe, painful punishment to make the object of the verb behave/improve. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Translations of teal: someone check please![edit]

I just stumbled upon the teal entry, and looked at the translations to be checked. I know neither Serbo-Croatian nor Persian, so I had to come up with tricks. Now, for Persian, I loaded Wikipedia articles in English and saw what the links in the Other Languages sections pointed me to. This way, I obtained the already-present sense 1 خوتکا (xutkâ), and the sense (2) سبز دودی (sabz-e dudi), which I added because I saw it "somewhere" -- and now I just saw it's in the color table at قهوه‌ای. These are, however, not the translations to be checked. I fed those to Google Translate, and "mala divlja patka" yielded "small wild duck", which I confirmed word-by-word with Wiktionary:

  1. mala is the feminine singular of mal, small;
  2. dlvlja is the feminine singular of divlji, "wild, savage";
  3. patka is "duck".

مرغابی جره (morghabi-ye jarre) gave "teal" on Google Translate, and سبزآبی (sabzabi) gave "cyan", with a suggestion to change it to "سبز آبی", which translates instead to "green blue". And indeed, سبز (sabz) means "green", and آبی (âbi) means "blue", according to the Wiktionary.

So what should we do about these? Can someone check those (and confirm that those I added are correct)?

PS Why does Persian here on Wiktionary never appear on my computer, except in the article titles? I mean, Arabic works just fine, but Persian is invisible and zero-width, save for article titles, and I can copy-paste it from translation sections and the Search bar (after pasting it there), but the links are not clickable, and to load those Persian Wikipedia articles I had to use "Inspect Element" from Firefox and find the link in there. Any idea why this happens?

EDIT: Persian appears nicely in this discussion, but not at آبی, where Urdu appears just fine. MGorrone (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

schizophrenic - a note from some mental health professionals[edit]

OTRS ticket # 2017041110003446

We received a note from a mental health service provider from Australia concerning our definitions of schizophrenic. They asked us to consider adding a usage note which highlights the difference between the accepted mental health definition of the term and the more colloquial uses. The full text of their letter (sent to us and several other online dictionaries) is below (by permission).

Dear Wiktionary,

I am writing to you to seek your support in reducing stigma for those living with a mental illness. One
Door is a non-government organisation who advocate on behalf of people with mental illness.
One Door is concerned over the definition of “schizophrenic” in your dictionary. Currently your
dictionary defines “schizophrenic” as:

1. Of or pertaining to schizophrenia.
2. (of a person) Afflicted with schizophrenia; having difficulty with perception of reality.
3. (figuratively) Behaving as if one has more than one personality; wildly changeable.

Despite common practice, the correct usage of the term “schizophrenic” does not refer to multiple or
contrary points of view. In its correct clinical definition, schizophrenia refers to a serious psychiatric
illness characterized by disturbances in thought (such as delusions), perception (such as
hallucinations), and behaviour (such as disorganized speech or catatonic behaviour), by a loss of
emotional responsiveness and extreme apathy, and by noticeable deterioration in the level of
functioning in everyday life.

We believe that the connection of the term schizophrenic and schizophrenia to contradictory
elements further stigmatises an already misunderstood condition.

Although we appreciate that figurative use is not formed by the choice of the dictionary, rather by its
general use, we seek your support through the addition of a usage note along the lines that:
“The non-medical and figurative uses of this word cause some concern to those who are trying to
increase community knowledge of the medical condition of schizophrenia. The general use of the
word to mean ‘more than one personality’ or 'changeable’ is best avoided.”

An inclusion along these lines has been made by several other online dictionaries.

At One Door, we will continue to work to raise public awareness of the incorrect and stigmatising the
use of the word. We appreciate your time and effort.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Ellen Marks
General Manager, Advocacy and Inclusion

I think that there is some merit to including usage notes on technical terms which have been co-opted into similar but distinct meanings. I am sure there are plenty of other terms in the mental health lexicon which could bear similar scrutiny. - TheDaveRoss 12:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As with the SI units: we have to go by actual usage, and not what people put in lists of words, or would prefer something to mean. But a usage note might not hurt. Equinox 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The medical meaning is used, just not by the general public. I think we'd do well to include the meaning that medical professionals ascribe to the term. —CodeCat 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that the word under discussion is schizophrenic, not schizophrenia, and we do have the definition "Of or pertaining to schizophrenia" at the former (and what seems to be an accurate medical definition at the latter). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
A usage note clarifying that the popular definition has its problems is not unreasonable, I see no reason not to honor that request. — Kleio (t · c) 01:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Equinox and KIeio, but a usage note should have a more neutral tone than the one they propose.
Re “Although we appreciate that figurative use is not formed by the choice of the dictionary, rather by its general use, [...]”: it’s great to see an organisation that has a grasp on our inclusion criteria instead of the typical “remove it cuz its wrong”! — Ungoliant (falai) 12:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that the non-medical sense is labeled "figurative". I don't see what's figurative about it; it would be more accurate to call it colloquial or something. — Eru·tuon 00:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

курительный (verbs to adjectives in Russian)[edit]

base verb is кур-и-ть

My question is: do we keep suffixes or do we discard them?

  1. old: кур- new: -ительн-ый
  2. old: кур-и new: -тельн-ый

d1g (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Forgive me if it's been discussed before, but earth in lower case as a proper noun? It's a sticky point, I think, but I would say no, it isn't. DonnanZ (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks wrong to me too. Equinox 22:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
We've established before that (for English at least) capitalization is to be ignored when determining whether something is a proper noun. So I'd like to hear the arguments why it should be considered a proper noun in "We saw the Earth from Mars", but not in "We saw the earth from the porthole". --WikiTiki89 23:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
My position is that the planet Earth (capital E) is a proper noun, but earth (small e) is soil, not a planet: like how Mars is a planet but mars is a verb form of mar. It's just a "misspelling" but with case rather than letters. I realise that's prescriptive but it's based on very intense and very wide reading. Equinox 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that's grossly inaccurate. The uncapitalized form "the earth" is very frequently used as the name of the planet. See these two Ngrams. --WikiTiki89 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
A Google Books search for "blow up the earth" returns results in nearly equal proprtions Leasnam (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Ngrams are more accurate, but you're basically right. They also show how it's changed over time. It seems historically (i.e. before the 1990s) the lower case form was by far more common, but now they are about even. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! I'm very surprised. I must have read a rather anomalous set of books. It would be nice to see them broken down by science/astronomy, literature, penny dreadfuls, etc. Equinox 00:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I remember we previously found that scientific works tend to overcapitalize nouns. You'll find things like "The main types of Eukaryotes are Plants, Animals, and Fungi." --WikiTiki89 00:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been my experience that the name of the planet is capitalized far more often in science fiction than in other genres, and least of all in fiction books that don't have a focus on space. Non-fiction books related to astronomy fall somewhere in between, I think (and like Wikitiki says, those kinds of books tend to capitalize a lot of words). But that's just my general impressions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You do see capped "the Sun" and "the Moon" quite a bit too, but of course there are other suns and moons; there aren't other earths (in the scientific sense of planet). Equinox 00:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
My Oxford hard copy gives Earth, Moon and Sun as alternatives for earth, moon and sun respectively, but avoids calling them proper nouns. Some Wiktionarian has obviously decided that they should be, probably based on the fact that other planets such as Jupiter are usually written with a capital letter. Oxford avoids calling these proper nouns also. DonnanZ (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Does Oxford call anything at all proper nouns? --WikiTiki89 14:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not. I checked London, Paris, Amsterdam, New York and some others which are unquestionably proper nouns. DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I would think they're proper nouns, not based on capitalization, but just on the fact that they're treated the same way as place names, and each refer to a single object... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, and consider any noun which can normally be written in lower case as a standard noun. Would you use the same argument for heaven / Heaven and hell / Hell? DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
So if I decide to call you donnanz with a lower case letter, that makes it a common noun? --WikiTiki89 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
No, as it's not intended to be a common noun. As some user names (which are a totally different ball game and should be left out of this argument) are written in lower case that is feasible, but you will have a problem with case sensitivity if trying to contact me. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by "intended to be a common noun". If I write the earth and "intend" it to be proper noun, why isn't a proper noun? --WikiTiki89 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "earth" (uncapitalized) is frequently (and arguably incorrectly) used as a proper noun. Technically, the usage as a proper noun should always be capitalized. E.g. "We arrived back on earth." is a common spelling, though it actually should be spelled as "We arrived back on Earth." "earth" (uncapitalized) can also be used to refer to any earthlike (Earthlike) planet, as in "there could be thousands or millions of earths (but not Earths) in the Galaxy," from the usage of "earth" as "soil," i.e. indicating planets with organic life and plant debris to form soils (so that the Planet Terra was actually not an earth before the evolution of plants). To avoid this conflation of usages, "Terra" is the preferred spelling used in much of science and science fiction to refer specifically to Earth as an astronomical object, especially in contexts where there could be more than one earth. "moon," "Moon", & "Luna" and "sun," "Sun," & "Sol" have the same complications, with only the Latin names not having ambiguity in English. Note also the usage of "galaxy" versus "Galaxy" (the Milky Way) and "universe" versus "Universe" (our universe within the multiverse [ Multiverse ]). Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Not sure what point you're trying to make. In a descriptive dictionary, "wrong" doesn't exist. Nor is it the role of a descriptive dictionary to suggest alternatives in order to avoid confusion. So the only question is whether it is still a proper noun when it is used as a proper noun but spelled lower case. --WikiTiki89 22:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's why I had to grit my teeth and add "arguably." Just because most people use a word a certain way, doesn't mean that I have to think that it is a correct or viable usage. That's my personal opinion though, and not Wiktionary policy of course. The descriptive versus prescriptive dictionary debate is an old one: wikipedia:The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language#History. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Which brings us back to my original point, which was that I don't know what point you're trying to make. --WikiTiki89 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
          • Just that these astronomical bodies are frequently named as lowercase proper nouns, even though they shouldn't be (since it is confusing and inconsistent). Usage notes for these entries are probably the best route for Wiktionary. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
            • And put what, "Nicole Sharp doesn't like this usage"? Note that I even learned in school that the lower case form was correct when there is no other capitalized planet involved (i.e. "the sun and the earth", but "the Sun, the Earth, and Mars"). --WikiTiki89 23:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Of course not. I would argue that the lowercase form is a colloquial or informal usage, particularly for geocentric writing. Versus the capitalized forms are more often for use as astronomical objects, particularly in contexts where there can be more than one earth, moon, sun, galaxy, or universe. E.g. "the Earth revolves around the Sun" versus "you should not stare at the sun" or "the earth was once devoid of life." The lowercase forms are linguistic inheritances from before Copernicanism. There is little consistent usage though, which is why I advocate for using the Latin names in English to avoid any possible confusion. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
              • Just for a nonastronomical example, Wikipedia and Wiktionary follow a similar pattern to wikipedia and wiktionary, with the lowercase form being ambiguously able to refer to either a proper noun or a standard noun, depending on context. Though personally, I would still always use the capitalized forms, despite the usage otherwise. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
                • How can you say it's colloquial or informal when they teach this in grammar class in schools? You can disagree with what they teach in schools, but you can hardly call it colloquial or informal. --WikiTiki89 11:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oxford does have a definition for proper noun though: "A name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with an initial capital letter, e.g. Jane, London, and Oxfam. Often contrasted with common noun." A common noun: "A noun denoting a class of objects or a concept as opposed to a particular individual." I daresay someone will argue the toss about that, no mention of proper nouns in lower case. DonnanZ (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    Those definitions are clearly incomplete. If you go strictly by those definitions, then "the earth" is neither a proper noun nor a common noun, and neither is "the Odyssey". --WikiTiki89 23:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    In other words, it doesn't say what you want it to say. DonnanZ (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Donnanz: No, they're objectively incomplete. If all nouns are either proper or common (which maybe isn't the case, but then we need to know what the other categories are), then it's a problem that the two nouns I just gave as an example don't fit either of those definitions. By those definitions, "the earth" is not spelled with a capital letter, so it's not a proper noun, and it's neither a class of objects (because there is only one) nor a concept (it's a physical thing, or place if you will), so it's not a common noun either, and "the Odyssey" is not person, place, or organization, so it's not a proper noun, and it's not a class of objects or a concept, so it's also not a common noun either. What part of that is just my personal bias speaking? --WikiTiki89 02:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would rank "earth", when it refers to the very large, apparently flat, object on which we walk, that contains a whole lot of soil and whose end we cannot see, as a common noun, alongside with "world", "universe", "multiverse" but also "heaven". It seems to me one should not be confused by the original singularity of reference. If we define "earth" as "any very large apparently flat object on which the language users walk and whose end they cannot see", there happens to be only one such object, but that's an accident. The definite article before "earth" is of interest; we find it in "the world", as well. The argument is probably not fully conclusive, but rather hints at a certain direction of thought. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    I would say that the earth as a thing is a common noun, but as a named specific location in the universe it's a proper noun. As a common noun I would liken it to "the ocean": all of the oceans on our planet are connected and can be referred to as a single entity, but are treated in English in a more generic way. Individual, named parts as geographical locations are proper nouns, though. Synonyms may be helpful, as well: if you can substitute "the world", it's probably a common noun, but if "Terra" is more appropriate, it's a proper noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

D1g's Russian changes[edit]

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter I am getting frustrated dealing with D1g's changes and I would like some input here. He is a native Russian speaker but lacks a linguistic background, has been making wholesale changes to Russian etymologies without seeking consensus, and makes lots of mistakes. When I try to correct them, he edit-wars. When I point out the need for consensus, he says he doesn't need consensus because he has a grammar book that supposedly backs him up. Much of what he adds has errors in it and he adds a lot of stuff, making it hard to go through and fix it rather than just revert it. Benwing2 (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

One example: -тельный vs. -тельн-. I already created -тельный awhile ago. D1g attempted to delete it, and in its place substitute -тельн-. The difference here is that -ый is the masculine nominative singular ending that is part of the lemma form. I believe it's more helpful to give suffixes in their lemma form rather than as pseudo-infixes. In D1g's page, he completely ignored the work I already did on this page (e.g. my usage notes section), substituted a totally different and IMO inferior page (e.g. with multiple definitions that are copies of each other), which has lots of errors (e.g. his usage examples are missing the English translation, missing stress marks, and have a spurious right arrow in them that gets copied into the transliterated form). Benwing2 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Another example: красноречи́вый (krasnorečívyj, eloquent), literally "beautiful-speaking". His analysis of красноречивый is typical: He writes красн- + -о- + речь +-ив- + -ый, using the noun речь (i.e. confusing nouns and verbs) and segmenting out all the possible morphemes without respecting the linguistic structure. In my analysis, this is красно- (a combining form of кра́сный (krásnyj, beautiful)) + -речь (-rečʹ, to speak) (a verb that is no longer attested as such in modern Russian but still found in prefixed form; note that -ивый is always added to verbs, not nouns) + -и́вый (-ívyj), an adjective-forming suffix. You could further analyze e.g. -ивый into -ив- + -ый, but I don't think it's helpful to do so at the top level; if this is to be done at all, do it on the -ивый page. D1g doesn't seem aware that morphemes can be analyzed into smaller morphemes and wants to do it all at the top level, and confuses the noun речь (rečʹ, speech) with the verb -речь. Benwing2 (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
While my knowledge of Russian is not that great, I'm not impressed by his wholesale reformatting of etymologies. Even I can tell that it doesn't makes sense to do it that way. Hiding behind a book is no substitute for consensus, so I think you are justified in pointing out that consensus is needed. —CodeCat 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Wikitiki89, Atitarev could join at your talk page, don't repeat the same questions.
> e.g. with multiple definitions that are copies of each other
1. Read labels carefully. POS are different, all examples are different.
2. Rules covered at en.wiktionary.org are incomplete compared to the book. Book is always provides better definitions, therefore I placing references every time.
@Benwing2 never does that because he has no references.
> D1g doesn't seem aware that morphemes can be analyzed into smaller morpheme
Could please stop claiming what I assume when I don't do that? Quite sure I know what морф is.
@CodeCat we need better templates to clarify etymology vs word formation.
@CodeCat I used Template:affix because it was in Category:Morphology templates.
I lost a hour or so arguing with @Cinemantique that affix could be used for morphology, not just etymology (as Cinemantique so violently insist).
I'm sure there an easy way to disambiguate definitions. d1g (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat I don't want to hide behind the book, but I want to expose book to readers, please consider what option would be the best for everyone. A new template; not affix, then what? d1g (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I am also very concerned about D1gggg's mass edits without any previous agreement and some of his methods and styles were followed by Awesomemeeos (currently blocked). They also lack quality and looks, missing stresses or redundant transliterations of various symbols. I wasn't able to follow many edits as I am very busy now but what I've seen so far seems substandard or dubious but I can't say definitely "wrong". I don't have any suggestions for any actions at this stage, just asking D1gggg to be cooperative before any punitive action is required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
> edits without any previous agreement
I asked 2 users about "prior agreements" I broke, but I got silence (@Benwing) or taunts (@Cinemantique) as the response.
Not terribly healthy atmosphere.
As I said above, English section absolutely missing at least single way to define morphology of the word.
@Atitarev And instead of technical solution you seem to seek solution in people and blocks, that's just disgusting. d1g (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg I don't seek blocking just for blocking. Did I ever block you? If you refer to Meeos, you should know why he gets blocked first. I mention blocking because cooperation is the key but you refuse to listen to concerns.
I can offer you semi-regular guidance in creating standard Russian entries, not sophisticated, no etymologies (or simple ones) but which will follow acceptable standards. Learn to walk before you can fly. You can choose a list of words you want to create - various parts of speech with various inflection types, including multipart words. I will make them or tell you what you need to get them right. It's no use fighting the community, if you can't beat them, join them. You were blocked in the Russian Wiktionary, you can get end up having the same here. We have to do it slowly - I am busy too and I can't catch with your mass edits. You could have spent the time understanding our complex templates, study existing entries. Believe me, they are not that hard for a native speaker and there's documentation and help is available. There are good reasons why they are complex - well, Russian inflection is very complex and Benwing2 did a great job making it all work. Note that Russian lemmas don't really require mass edits, they are in the good shape, if you want to join the efforts, it's to make them better quality, not worse! We can get by with less editors but editors who are here make a difference not a point. We are more forgiving with editors who work with languages, which have no other contributors but there's a limit to everything. Thanks for understanding. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What to call “script form” loanwords?[edit]

When a word in language A is loaned into language B, only in its script form and not pronunciation, and becomes a new word which is phonetically quite dissimilar, how should the etymology of the word in language B be described? I feel this is similar to a calque, but it's calquing only with regard to how the word is written, and a template is missing for this type of loanwords. Some examples include:

Recipient language Recipient word Donor language Donor word
Chinese 取消 (qǔxiāo, “to cancel”) Japanese  () () (torikeshi, cancellation)
Korean 할인 (割引, harin, “discount”) Japanese  (わり) (びき) (waribiki, discount)
Korean 엽서 (葉書, yeopseo, “postcard”) Japanese  () (がき) (hagaki, postcard)
Vietnamese Nga La Tư (俄羅斯, "Russia") Chinese 俄羅斯俄罗斯 (Éluósī, “Russia”)

Wyang (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think they don't fit into the definition of loanword. I would simply write "Logogram from <language_name> <term>". That's how I often mention Aramaic logograms in Middle Persian (using {{arameogram}}), and have created a new category to distinguish it from loanwords in Middle Persian. I support creating a new template, similar to "der" and "borrowing". --Z 12:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ZxxZxxZ: If I understand Wyang correctly, it's not actually a logogram. It's more like (but not exactly like) the phenomenon of Iran being borrowed from Persian /iːˈrɒːn/, but pronounced in English (at least by some) as /aɪˈɹæn/. This phenomenon becomes more extreme with Chinese characters, and I see why Wyang is tempted to call it a calque. That said, I don't know what we should call it. --WikiTiki89 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd call it an orthographic loan. —CodeCat 15:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Are you saying you consider these a kind (an extreme kind) of spelling pronunciation? Because that's what I'd call /aɪˈɹæn/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said it's not exactly the same phenomenon. Chinese takes a word that was coined in Japanese, and reads it as if it were coined in Chinese, but that's the normal way for these Japanese coinages to be borrowed into Chinese if they come through the written language, which is unlike spelling pronunciations, because spelling pronunciations have a connotation of being the "wrong" way to pronounce something. --WikiTiki89 11:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: A better parallel would be that it is like Germans pronouncing Hamburger (the food) the proper German way rather than as Hämbörgör. --WikiTiki89 11:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It's somewhat related. It's how speakers of these languages read Han characters when they see them written, without any knowledge or use of the knowledge of the Chinese pronunciation, any variety, any period. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Borrowings from Japanese kanji with native Japanese readings (kun'yomi) are especially extreme. Any similarity in pronunciation in the target language may only be coincidental.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Does the sense "joint, marihuana cigarette" belong to the bird? Or isn't it rather from the letter? Kolmiel (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I always assumed it was from the letter. --WikiTiki89 20:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

subject area[edit]

Just dropping by. Do you think subject area is not SOP? I found it on http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/subject%20area . It means "a branch of knowledge, field of study". PseudoSkull (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it's SOP. You can also say "area of study", or "that's not my area". --WikiTiki89 23:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • But is it really the area of a subject? PseudoSkull (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, see definition #4: "The extent, scope, or range of an object or concept." --WikiTiki89 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I would describe it as a reduplicated compound noun. "Subject" and "area" can be used synonymously, so you know the definition of "subject area" if you know the definition of either "subject" or "area." Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I saw this at: "Last high school course grade in each subject area: English (a, b, c, d, f) Math (a, b, c, d, f) ..." etc. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

the sky and the ceiling[edit]

Common sarcastic responses to what's up. Should there be entries for these? Why or why not? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No. This has more to do with the ambiguity of what's up (even though the ambiguity itself is sarcastic and not real ambiguity) than with the response itself. You can just as easily say "that lamp" or something. --WikiTiki89 13:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

category for arabic label ("modern")[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know whether it's feasible to automatically create a category for those terms with the lable ("modern"), as is in توقع#Etymology_1 the sense 3. ("modern") to request. Thanks in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dank meme = overused meme?[edit]

I am under the impression that the intended meaning of "dank meme", by people who take it serious, does not use the term ironically and for things that are overused, at least not usually. I'd argue that when people overuse memes, they are not dank, but "cringe" or "cringeworthy" as they would call it. Reference: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dank_meme#English --Luka1184 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I find this surprising. I’ve only ever dank memes used with the implication that the memes are excellent rather than trite (which our definition of dank would cover), but Know Your Meme supports the current definition. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems to have two definitions. I suggest doing &lit as a second definition. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I see "dank meme" as a really campy, over-the-top way to say "excellent meme". —suzukaze (tc) 05:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

the years pass by; through the years; over the years; remembering years past[edit]

Which definitions of year do the usages in the above phrases correspond to? I get the feeling that they're more metaphorical and emotional(?) than "365 days of the Gregorian calendar", but they are still used to describe a time period of multiple years. (see also the translation of Chinese 歲月) —suzukaze (tc) 05:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What does the Gregorian calendar have to do with anything? A year is a full cycle of the earth around the sun, manifested visibly by a full cycle of seasons. Even if you don't count the days, a year is still a year. I don't know about Chinese 歲月, but the English word "year" probably should not be interpreted the same way. The easiest way to explain this I guess is that "years" in your examples establishes an order of magnitude of many literal years. You could replace the word "years" with "days" in some of these examples and get essentially the same meaning but with an order of magnitude of many days instead (in the other examples, this would be too short of an order of magnitude for it to make sense). Another point is that these phrases evoke a feeling of years passing by one at a time: one year goes by, then another—clearly literal years. --WikiTiki89 09:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Arabic dialectal synonyms template[edit]

Hi, chinese entries are really informative, even showing a "dialectal synonyms template". I wonder whether a similar template could be created for the Arabic language, which would enrich its entries a great deal. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We've had Chinese editors who worked very hard and did tons of research to create those lists of dialectal synonyms. If you want to volunteer to do that same work for Arabic, go ahead. --WikiTiki89 09:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I could try working on the technical side of things, but I wouldn't be able to contribute content-wise with my close-to-zero knowledge of Arabic. Also, it might be a good idea to generalize the templates and modules for use in other (macro)languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry about the technical side. Until we have someone who could contribute enough content (and we don't), we won't be able to do this. --WikiTiki89 13:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung For experimenting, you can try making dialectal forms of what#Translations. It's true that there is very little comprehensive research but there are dictionaries of dialects, textbooks and phrasebooks. We have some contributors for Egyptian and Hijazi Arabic. Lexically, Arabic dialects don't differ that much from MSA, it's pronunciation, relaxed grammar, form of expression and those very frequently used words but low in number that differ from MSA. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Do such resources for dialectal equivalents, comprehensive or otherwise, exist for Arabic? There is a somewhat comprehensive reference for Chinese, and several references covering some of the dialectal groups, which provided inspiration for the creation for the Chinese dialectal template and modules. Wyang (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. --WikiTiki89 02:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You can find resources for specific dialects, they may not be online - Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Moroccan, Libyan, Saudi, Levantine, Gulf, etc. Not necessarily by country but by standard Arabic dialect classifications. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't speak Arabic, but just want to add that that dialectal synonyms system is incredible. If other editors could adapt it for other languages, it would make Wiktionary a truly exceptional, multilingual tool. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Are 生得 (shēng de) and 長得长得 (zhǎng de) idiomatic to be included? Both are not so straightforward cases, IMO.

  1. (shēng) and (zhǎng) are normal verbals with meanings "to be born" and "to grow up"
  2. () is a verb complement particle, which links verbs to adverbs, e.g. /   ―  nǐ shuō dé hěn duì  ―  You are right
  3. User:Wyang says the above are SoP's. E.g. in the phrase 漂亮 / 漂亮  ―  tā zhǎng de hěn piàoliàng  ―  she is very beautiful, it just "she has grown (how) very beautifully". Or, 聰明 / 聪明  ―  tā shēng de hěn cōngmíng  ―  He is very smart (i.e. "he was born smart").

Any other opinions? @Tooironic, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Probably SoP. Chinese dictionaries don't include them. The simple reason is that an unlimited number of verbs can collocate with 得 - just because the resulting combination does not have a direct equivalent in English, doesn't make it idiomatic in Chinese. Example sentences and usage notes are useful of course, but they can be given in the respective 子 entries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. @Tooironic ABC English-Chinese/Chinese-English Dictionary includes both, which can be seen in Wenlin software.
  2. The other endless collocations with 得 don't change the meaning, they are just used to link verbs with adverbs. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    Wenlin also includes SoPs though. And, like I said, the usage of 得 in these cases is typical Chinese syntax, and not idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know.—suzukaze (tc) 17:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. Guoyu Cidian has a definition "生、顯" under 長. It might be useful to keep these, but it might be enough just to have an example under 生 and 長. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Is it true that this word is stressed on the first syllable (and with the /u/ vowel) in Portugal, but on the second syllable in Brazil? Wouldn't /ˈfuβiɐ/ have to be spelled *fúbia? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A native speaker of European Portuguese did add it, but it sounds wrong to me. I've modified it under the assumption that it was just a thinko. @Liuscomaes, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIVΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That’s certainly the case. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Metaknowledge is wrongly reverting my edits[edit]

Reversions e.g. [10] and [11]. This has been discussed; see [12]. I disagree with the reversions. What is consensus? Equinox 01:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought that alternative-form entries were not supposed to have Etymology sections. But I am not sure if this is official policy or not. — Eru·tuon 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
There may be cases where an alt-form entry needs its own Etymology section, but I don't believe the two instances linked above are such times. I agree with Meta that Etymology sections are unneeded in those two entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As is standard practice here, and as CodeCat agreed in that discussion you linked to, we don't need to give trivially different etymologies for alternative forms. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others- it's best to keep entries for minor variants as minimal as possible (minor as in trivially different from the lemma, not minor as in unimportant). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Why have an entry as trivial as that then? Wouldn't a redirect be better if we were dead-set against having any actual information on the page? - TheDaveRoss 12:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Correlation (such as alternative, misspelling or whatever) to a linked term is a piece of information. --Dixtosa (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Alternative spellings can be redirects, with the alternative spellings documented on the primary spelling page. Since every combination of characters which is not the correct spelling is a misspelling I would rather not have them at all. - TheDaveRoss 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention my original reason for posting - if a good-faith editor makes an intentional edit like these, reverting is not the correct action. The first place to go is to Equinox's talk page to raise the issue, and if you are going to undo the change yourself you should do so with an edit comment. Reverts are for obvious and un-contentious changes only. - TheDaveRoss 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that we already discussed this on my talk-page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Even in that case, I think that an edit summary is appropriate. - TheDaveRoss 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
And what about the categories? {{suffix|en|Athabascan|ist}} adds the entry into a suffix cat and without it, the entry is not added into the cat. But of course the entry does belong into Category:English words suffixed with -ist and should be added to that cat. - 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The categories are the strongest argument against. Wikimedia categories are navigational aids for finding entries that have something in common, not statements of classification. Having all the minor variants in the categories adds unnecessary clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical angle brackets for the orthographic representation[edit]

Today, this entry was created: ⟨ ⟩. It uses the "MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET" and "MATHEMATICAL RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET" and is defined as "(linguistics) Encloses orthographic representation."

Is that correct? Do we use these specific characters for that purpose? It sounds off to me, but what do I know.

This definition was removed from 〈 〉, which uses "LEFT ANGLE BRACKET" and "RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET" and has a Chinese and a Japanese section too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia cites (emphasis mine): “The angle brackets or chevrons at U+27E8 and U+27E9 are for mathematical use and Western languages, whereas U+3008 and U+3009 are for East Asian languages. The chevrons at U+2329 and U+232A are deprecated in favour of the U+3008 and U+3009 East Asian angle brackets. Unicode discourages their use for mathematics and in Western texts, because they are canonically equivalent to the CJK code points U+300x and thus likely to render as double-width symbols.”
These characters are indeed used for linguistic purposes; Wikipedia uses them for its angle bracket template, which is used in a wide variety of language-related articles. Please do not be misled by just reading the names Unicode gave to these characters. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Maybe we could explain that in both entries, as usage notes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Right now I’m not sure about what to put on Usage notes, but for now I’ve added an {{also}} template to both entries. And the new entry is missing the definition for the actual mathematical sense (LOL); I’m adding that as well. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the statement that U+2329 and U+232A (〈〉) are canonically equivalent to U+3008 and U+3009 (〈〉), because in my browser they look identical to U+27E8 and U+27E9 (⟨⟩). Perhaps it's a font thing or something. — Eru·tuon 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Linguists don't use Unicode codepoints, they just use angle brackets. And I guarantee that more linguists will choose the code points < > to represent their angle brackets than ⟨ ⟩. The fact that Wikipedia chose such an obscure set of Unicode characters for their linguistic purposes is very annoying because most fonts can't even display them. --WikiTiki89 13:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The characters are obscure, you say? Give me a break, I’ve just found them in the very first linguistics book I took from the library: Photo (wasn’t sure if I could upload it to Commons).
And many free and open-source fonts do display them; grab a recent copy of e.g. Roboto, Vollkorn or STIX. Or update your operating system and you’ll get ’em in the system fonts. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I said the Unicode characters are obscure. Not that the shapes are obscure. Of course people have been printing them since before Unicode added a codepoint for them. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Using less-than and greater-than is just a makeshift solution when you don't want to bother with using the correct characters, like using a plain hyphen-minus in place of an n-dash in phrases like Iran–Iraq War. I would be disappointed if a publisher used < > in a linguistics book. I try to enforce the standard of using actual angle brackets on Wikipedia. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm puzzled that you say that most fonts can't display these symbols, because my default ones in Chrome seem to. Of course, maybe there's some background font selection going on. — Eru·tuon 00:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Latin prox[edit]

wiktionary's definition: "fart"
L&S: "by your leave"
Is wiktionary's definition a joke or do dictionaries like L&S contain an error? - 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Vandalism that has gone unnoticed for some time. Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of atony[edit]

Could someone review this? I'm not familiar with this word but my intuition says the second syllable should probably be a schwa. Benwing2 (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is televise really ambitransitive?[edit]

We claim it is. I've never heard anything like "that show televised well!" or "the golf will televise this afternoon". Equinox 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't help but laugh. No I don't think it can be used that way. --WikiTiki89 13:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Apparently you are the one who added this definition back in 2005. --WikiTiki89 13:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've added a citation of such use.
OT: The term ambitransitive (ditransitive, too) should be cleaned out of English L2 sections, IMO, because they are syntacticist jargon. Are "ambitransitive" verbs translated by the same verb in both transitive and intransitive usage in all languages? DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
We sometimes put "ergative" on cases like this. Equinox 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ambitransitive is ambiguous in cases like this, "ergative" is more specific and informative. But we should only put that it's ergative if it's actually commonly ergative. If it's just a rare usage, then it should be separated and marked as rare. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that intransitive use of televise in non-technical works is much more common than the use of ergative and ambitransitive in dictionaries. I think the use of such terms is at the very least off-putting and could readily be seen as an indication that inmates are running the asylum. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Most English dictionaries I've seen don't even make a distinction between transitive and intransitive and ergative and whatever else. If we're going to be thorough and include the information, we should try to present in as friendly a manner as possible, but not shy away from using accurate terminology with a link to a glossary. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


What's the usage of in Chinese Cantonese, specifically in Hong Kong? Is it the same as (de) for visual effect only and never in a running text? From what I know it's used instead of (zhàn) and is pronounced "zaam6" (站), not "jik6" as 驿 () would be pronounced in Cantonese. Should this be sent to RFV? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kindly refer to etymology 2 of 站 for usage preferences of against . Note that Chinese characters are often corrupted in the past prior to the existence of national standards such as GB 18030 (mainland China), CNS 11643 (Taiwan), Big5 (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau). KevinUp (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
What does it tell us? We all know that in Sinitic and Sino-Xenic world (zhàn) is used in (greater) China and Vietnam and derivations of 驿 () in Japan:  (えき) (eki) and Korea: (, yeok). It still doesn't explain the role of the Japanese character in a Chinese context or the claim that it's also Chinese. And yes, I saw the image. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: Many Japanese characters (shinjitai characters) were in fact derived from historical 楷書, 行書 or 草書 in China dating back to the Tang dynasty (Refer to the calligraphic works of 顏真卿 and 歐陽詢). Other shinjitai characters were based upon a 1935 draft document (第一批简体字表) which was never realized due to the outbreak of war. As to why is used in Hong Kong instead of , it is due to being included in the Hong Kong Supplementary Character Set HKSCS which contains private use characters used either in Cantonese or for writing names of places in Hong Kong. I highly recommend getting a 書法字典 which is an eye opener for studying calligraphic scripts as well as variant characters. Chinese calligraphy is much more versatile compared to Ming typefaces, only used in printed books and of limited variety before computer fonts were invented. KevinUp (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not how works here. The inclusion in HKSCS doesn't make a difference. The actual usage needs to be attested to meet our WT:CFI. I'm sending it to RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Steve the atmospheric phenomenon[edit]

A new atmospheric phenomenon was recently named Steve by its discoverers. Wikipedia already has an article about it, albeit small. Should we include it as a hot word? —CodeCat 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

grow on[edit]

I've heard the verb "grow on" used in a gardening context, but it seems like a British thing and I don't really know what it means. Would anyone mind taking a stab at defining it? — Eru·tuon 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

freedom of expression[edit]

This is not American English, as far as I know. Commonly used in British and Australian English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is used in American English too. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
But the point is, it shouldn't be tagged "chiefly US". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


I'm not familiar with the involved languages, but the changes in this edit do not seem 100% kosher. At best it leaves a headword without a definition line and a lone "Etymology 1" section. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not that bad. Only the etymology 1 header was an issue. We should not have definitions under the translingual header for Han characters because they are different depending on the respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, I'm glad I didn't intervene in this entry. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong declension for "manes" in Latin[edit]

The declension table for "manes" shows the incorrect form for the genitive "manum", while the correct one is "manium" as shown above. I don't know how to edit the table myself. All dictionaries confirm this. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dmanes —This unsigned comment was added by Mozziekiller (talkcontribs).

Fixed. —JohnC5 16:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

could have done without[edit]

This is totally wrong, isn't it? It's not the "simple past" of anything. Equinox 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The lemma should just be do without. The rest is SOP. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)