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


April 2016

Category:English terms spelled with Ȝ[edit]

Should these be changed to Middle or Old English? DTLHS (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so, but I’m not an expert on Gringonese. With the exceptions of the ligatures and perhaps thorn, I’d be surprised if any of the antiquated letters persisted all the way up to the early modern period. --Romanophile (contributions) 05:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation of basically[edit]

Currently says:

(UK) IPA(key): /ˈbeɪsɪkli/
(US) IPA(key): /ˈbejsɨkliː/

The US pronunciation looks wrong. AFAIK there's no difference in the pronunciation of the first a between UK and US, and /ej/ is certainly wrong. Also not obvious to me what the purpose of the long vowel is. Benwing2 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They should basically be the same. I don't really see why /ɨ/ and the long vowel is used. While transcribing /eɪ/ as /ej/ is not the usual way it's done, it is not uncommon. (In fact, in my linguistics course right now, we use /aj/ and /ej/). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The /ɨ/ is just a different convention. Used by Wikipedia, but not by us. Same with /ej/, except that even Wikipedia doesn't use it. --WikiTiki89 10:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


龴 is listed under radical Chinese Radical/乙. But I put it under Index:Chinese Radical/卩. But then an admin reverted my edit. The reason I did this was because of 's bottom part. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 08:38, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz It was reverted because Unicode puts 龴 under 乙 and not 卩. AFAIK, the radical pages are supposed to follow Unicode radicals and not other systems. BTW, I'm not an admin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanskrit भाषा ‎(bhāṣā), भाषति ‎(bhāṣati), root भाष् ‎(bhāṣ)[edit]

Is the PIE root for this *bʰeh₂-? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The formation *bʰeh₂-os is probably the correct one. This lists bhās as the predecessor, with a cognate in Latin fās. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
{{R:ine:EWAia}} suggests that this is possibly related to √bhaṣ- 'to yell', and bhāṣā would derive from *bʰolseh₂ (closely related to balsas). If from *bʰeh₂-, then might be due to homonymy avoidance with √bhās- 'to shine'. --Tropylium (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


My software lists this character under héng. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 13:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC).

@Johnny Shiz Héng is the name of the stroke. It's actually (héng). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Are onetime and one-time same or not?[edit]

The entries for onetime and one-time seem very similar, at least to me. Are they possibly spelling variations of the same word? Should they have links to each other? They don't so far. Thank you! :) Zeniff (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Onetime is overwhelmingly the more common form in the US; one-time is almost as much preferred in the UK. Their meanings seem to be the same though I haven't tried to find out which of the two definitions is more common in either COCA or BNC. There definitely should be links between the two. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

pass away[edit]

Is my usage note correct? I've never heard of pass away used directly linking to violent death. E.g. "My uncle died fighting in the war.", "My sister was killed in a plane crash." Trying to phrase this fact right... Hillcrest98 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that is right but there is no good substitute for looking at actual usage. I think that pass, pass on, and pass away all have about the same connotation. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
"To die of natural causes"? Circeus (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Though in fact violence is natural, natural causes has an official (non-SoP?) meaning that might be a good definiens. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Collins COBUILD has: "if someone dies of or from natural causes, they die because they are ill or old rather than because of an accident or violence" DCDuring TALK 13:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


I have seen a number of educated white people use it with she/he or it. Why is that? Do they try to mimic AAVE? if yes why? if not what's the reason? Should we add Usage notes to the entry? --Dixtosa (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are probably many reasons, of which imitating AAVE is only one. Other possible reasons would be to avoid sounding too "posh" or "fancy" in front of people who would use it themselves unselfconsciously, for humorous effect, and so on. And it wasn't that long ago that it wasn't considered uneducated in the U.S.: when I read Little Women, I was struck how the main characters (educated white women from Massachusetts in the 1860s and '70s) invariably said "he don't" and "she don't", although the narrative itself never did. (The text currently at Wikisource was taken from an edition where it was standardized to "(s)he doesn't", but the original edition uses the nonstandard form in direct quotation.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not limited to AAVE: it's common to the more informal registers of quite a few varieties of US English, especially in the South. It may be proscribed by teachers everywhere as sounding ignorant and illiterate, but to some people it sounds more "real" or "folksy". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Also in some British English dialects. Equinox 23:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's correlated with people who say "ain't", but I may be wrong. I would actually say that it was common in informal registers in urban parts of the Northeast as well. Ever seen the Godfather or the Sopranos? --WikiTiki89 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's easier to say in speech than doesn't due the reduced syllable. I say it especially when trying to make a point, or to sound more point blank or "real", but I realise that it isn't "correct" English. Americans are rebels, hehe ;) Leasnam (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of my cousin, who is Serbian. One day, while I was there visiting him, we were watching an American movie made in the 90's (I don't remmeber which one) dubbed in Serbian, where the white people were made to look like fools by the African Americans (rather typical of many movies in America). He was around my age (around 25-30 at the time) and he simply couldn't understand why this movie was portraying whites this way...it seemed to go so hard against his paradigms...I just smiled...it's a different world over there :) Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
As a U.S. English speaker, I agree with these comments about contemporary usage of "it don't." Still I'm curious about its origins. In the phrase Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I can't help hearing an echo of Elizabethan English ("If she be not so to me, what care I how fair she be?"—George Wither). My hunch is that speakers at some point overgeneralized from a counterfactual subjunctive. Mrevan (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


RFV pronunciation: The tone diacritic (and the unnecessary secondary stress) in IPA(key): /ˌhiám/ is dubious. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Have fixed problems with this pron. based on local speakers of Singlish. Have removed rfv request (I hope this is the correct procedure) - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

cassette drive[edit]

Can a computing term be reasonably labelled "archaic"? Dated, obsolete, perhaps? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The device may be obsolete, but I don't think the term is. Keith the Koala (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{lb|en|historical}}, perhaps, or is it too soon for that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I would leave it unlabeled. It is still the standard and only term for such drives, despite the fact that these drives are not used anymore. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If we ask 20-30-year olds who use computers what the term means, how often do we get an answer that indicates the term is idiomatic to them? DCDuring TALK 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Which is a good point. Was it ever idiomatic? Or was it just that cassette idiomatically referred to a particular type of cassette in computer contexts during that period of time? --WikiTiki89 14:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Removed "archaic" (which suggests pre-20th-century to me anyhow); I don't think "dated" is correct because it's still the current English term for these. If anything, use "historical", since the technology is (barely) obsolete but the word is not. Equinox 16:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It was in a set of things with heterogeneous names like drum memory, diskette, floppy disk, disk drive, hard drive, tape drive, now solid-state drive and solid-state disk. The heterogeneity of the names seems to me to make them all idiomatic. If a young person has to resort to an SoP analysis of the term to figure out what it means, then for herm the idiom no longer exists, which would make the term dated.
@Equinox If the term dated still bothers you when it is applied to terms you are accustomed to, you are not yet old, but certainly getting old. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that "drive" has two meanings related to this: "an interface for a storage medium, i.e. a place for it to be inserted or plugged in" and "a storage device". The former includes "disk drive", "cassette drive", "DVD drive", etc., the latter includes "hard drive", "solid-state drive", "flash drive", etc. The former set is SOP, while the latter set is usually idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Lovely logic, but aren't all the terms conventionalized without regard to logic? DCDuring TALK 21:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Like I said, in the first meaning, they are mostly SOP, while in the second meaning, not so much. But still, they should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and in the case of cassette drive, I think it is SOP. --WikiTiki89 21:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't be able to figure out what "cassette drive" means, despite knowing what both a cassette and a drive are. I'm on the younger side, and not being familiar with this particular technology, I would have found this a useful entry if I ever had to look it up. I think it's worth keeping, for those reasons. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 I have yet to find a dictionary that has a definition like "'an interface for a storage medium, i.e. a place for it to be inserted or plugged in'". To me that definition appears to be one custom-composed for the discussion. If your definition conformed to lexical (not "logical") reality, wouldn't a cassette deck (for music) be or have been called a cassette drive? DCDuring TALK 12:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for trying to simplify the definition for this discussion. I should have said "an interface in a computer for a storage medium, i.e. a place for it to be inserted or plugged in". Anyway, this is the same sense as noun sense 4.2 at oxfordictionaries.com and noun sense 8 at Merriam-Webster. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Good conventional definitions that reflect actual usage are usually simple and often imprecise.
No one defines a drive using the word "interface". That adds a spurious argument-specific feature to the definition that is not present in actual dictionary definitions, though it may be present
If you try to give precise interpretations to the definitions you offer:
MW drive noun 8: "a device for reading or writing on magnetic or optical media (as tapes or disks)"
They also have another drive section from 'DRIVE Defined for Kids' in which 9 is "a device in a computer that can read information off and copy information onto disks or tape <a disk drive>".
MW8 seems to imply inclusion of music- and video-only analog devices.
MWK9 fits your views, but excludes drums and flash drives and requires that disk be read as including diskettes.
Oxford's is: "[count noun] (Computing) short for disk drive. insert the disk into drive A", thus being "cassette disk drive" for the instant case after substitution.
Computer dictionaries/glossaries are a bit more precise:
Computer User: "A device that spins disks or tapes in order to read and write data; for example, a hard drive, floppy drive, CD-ROM drive, or tape drive." Definition excludes solid-state/flash drives
CSGNetwork.com: "The generic name for any physical hard disk drive, floppy disk drive, optical disk drive, DVD drive or tape drive. This is the device and not the removable media." Doesn't fit use in flash drive.
Computer Desktop Encyclopedia: (1) An electromechanical device that contains and reads and writes magnetic disks, optical discs or magnetic tapes. See magnetic disk, optical disc and magnetic tape.
(2) A solid state flash drive that contains no moving parts. See USB drive.
This last achieves coverage of flash drives by coming up with a "definition" that seems quite ad hoc. Is drive used this way without previous mention of flash drive, solid-state drive, or USB drive.
To me, this indicates that drive in the computer sense has a definition that is a simple enumeration of the devices that use drive in their name, which would make the claim that those terms were SoP spurious. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The word interface is irrelevant. I need not have used it. If you want me to clarify further, a "drive" that reads a removable storage medium, is gonna be SOP when used with the idiomatic name of the storage medium. A "drive" with a built-in storage medium is going to be idiomatic, because the storage medium will not have its own name. --WikiTiki89 17:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Tape drives are still in use today for w:magnetic tape data storage, although most people will never run into one, so any historicity-related label would be inappropriate anyway. Circeus (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Should the hypernym and hyponym labels be used like that in 啟東? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

no use[edit]

Is it really a noun?

Also, I think the uses of "no use" in the first and 3rd example sentences are not idiomatic. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition is worded as if it were an adjective, but "no advantage" would be a substitutable definition, indeed one that might make one wonder whether the expression is SoP. No use (and no advantage) are both noun phrases, which we put under the heading of Noun. The only thing that might make one think this is idiomatic is that, in an expression like No use complaining (arguably from There is no use in), one cannot deduce the meaning without understanding the ellipsis. Most dictionaries don't have an entry, but Collins COBUILD has two definitions under use that bear on this:
"11 You use expression such as It's no use, there's no use, and what's the use to indicate that an action is pointless and will not achieve anything ....
"12 If you say It's no use, it means that you have failed to do something and realize that it is useless to continue trying because it is impossible."
We might serve users better by replacing this entry with entries for each of the three expressions, which seem clearly idiomatic and of widespread colloquial use to me. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
An entry for no use that just pointed to there's no use and it's no use would be useful also. DCDuring TALK 14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


A question recently came up on Wikipedia over the meaning of the symbol "E" used on the markings of some resistor values. According to this forum discussion it is a notation used by the former electronics company w:Iskra (company) and may stand for enot, meaning units. The language isn't given, but I am presuming Serbo-Croatian. However, we don't have this meaning at either enot, or the singular eno, nor the Cyrillic енот. I am seeing some gbook results that might be this meaning and google translate translates the word to units in both Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian for both Latin and Cyrillic spellings. I am very reluctant to add the entries myself for languages I have absolutely zero knowledge of. SpinningSpark 18:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

See enota; enot is the genitive plural, which is the form that would be used after most numbers. It seems to be that this is only a Slovene word and not a Serbo-Croatian word. --WikiTiki89 18:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The Serbo-Croatian cognate is jednota I believe. Dropping the -d- in the word for "one" is a Slovene feature, compare en and jedan. —CodeCat 01:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
While a theoretical cognate might indeed be *jednota, such a word is unattested except as an occasional nonce word meaning »oneness«. The standard SCr equivalent to enota has the suffix replaced, as jedinica. Vorziblix (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Is unforgiven really a noun?[edit]

Currently unforgiven is an adjective, past participle of a verb and a plural only noun. But many similar entries aren't labeled as nouns, for example unforgotten, abandoned, unconvinced. One can use most of them as a noun: We care about the abandoned. This is effective in preaching to the unconvinced. Does this mean that all such words should be labeled nouns in general? Or maybe unforgiven is somehow special? 18:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I would delete the noun sense. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the Old English adjectival noun (weak declension: > Middle English as -e), surviving in Modern English as -∅ (just for a little background on why we still say things like this). I too would delete it Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd delete it. Many adjectives, when used in a context in which those being characterized are people, function as if they were noun phrases of the form [ADJ + (PEOPLE)], PEOPLE being the context-relevant group. The phenomenon extends further, but I am at a loss about how to characterize the limits of it. It is not limited to people ("The shorn are returned to a heated shed, the unshorn to the fields."). I don't know what kind of adjectives are not used in this way.
But, for decoding there is no great benefit to having a Noun PoS. For encoding there is no great economy if a speaker omits an explicit noun.
Collins COBUILD English Grammar (20o5) explicitly addresses this: "When you want to talk about groups of people [sic] who share the same characteristic or quality, you often choose an adjective rather than a noun as a headword [sic].....
"Although some adjectives are commonly used this way, in fact it is possible to use almost any adjective in this way. This is a productive feature of English."
The examples which include: "...providing care for .... the poor."
Notwithstanding this, Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (1996) has a noun definition for poor. The editor-in-chief for both works was John Sinclair. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Irish and Talk:deaf for some previous discussions of this phenomenon. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The COBUILD situation is instructive. The person ultimately responsible for determining whether something is syntactic or lexical decides that it needs to be treated both ways. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps commonness of use should be a factor? (I'm not personally convinced.) Something like "poor" comes up a lot, but e.g. Oscar Wilde's "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" (on fox-hunting) less so. Equinox 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
We could make occurrence in another dictionary a necessary condition for inclusion of these and possibly other similar classes of items, ie, those that are arguably grammatical features but for which lexical examples are helpful to users. I'd call it the necessary-lemming rule (If all lemmings exclude it we exclude it.), the previously discussed rule being the sufficient-lemming rule (If any lemming includes it we include it.). DCDuring TALK 16:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the Old Norse entry for því correct?[edit]

I've only been studying Old Icelandic for the past year, so please forgive me if my linguistic ignorance is showing. But when I came across the Old Norse entry for 'því' on Wiktionary, it seemed incorrect to me. The definitions given seem to be more appropriate for the plural form 'þeim.'

Currently, the entry for 'því' reads as follows: Pronoun 1.) they, them (third-person dative singular neuter personal pronoun) - 2.) those (dative singular neuter demonstrative pronoun).

But I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that it should be: Pronoun 1.) it (third-person dative singular neuter personal pronoun) - 2.) that (dative singular neuter demonstrative pronoun).

Am I just completely off-base here (which is entirely possible), or have the plural definitions for 'þeim' somehow found their way into the entry for the singular 'því'?

You're right; the declension table itself at því showed what's right. I've fixed the entry now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


prompted by a question on Talk:nary

What part of speech is this? Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and Oxford Dictionaries.com have it as an adjective (the former with a quotation of "have nary other copy"). OTOH, Collins, Cambridge and McMillan have it as an adverb ("with nary a penny"). - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of current use is in expressions of the form nary a NP. However, there is some use like "Nary missing a beat" and "Nary had he left the than the ceiling collapsed." These seem clearly adverbial. If a is interpreted as a quantifier "one", then all of the "nary a(n)" uses are supportive of adverb PoS. I'm heading out the door, so I can't check whether one can find nary before other quantifiers ("With nary a hundred men they held against a thousand."). DCDuring TALK 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I found nary a use of nary [QUANTIFIER] with a quantifier other than a, though OED has a use of nary two. OTOH, I found a scant few, mostly recent uses of the form nary [ING FORM] ("nary glancing in my direction"). To my surprise nary is of recent (c 1850) recorded usage, derived from "ne'er a". That the a reemerged suggests that users of the word have reanalyzed it.
OED says it is both "adjective (determiner)" and adverb. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

have an early night[edit]

I came across this one in Norwegian - ta en tidlig kveld (literally: "take an early evening") - but is it worth an entry? Is it obvious? I would interpret it as going to bed earlier than usual, and it appears here [1]. Donnanz (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If includable, it should just be early night, since you can also get or take one. Equinox 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but which is the most common form? Something may be lost by trimming it. Donnanz (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I've only heard "make it an early night". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
In the UK it's 'have an early night'. Sounds like an idiom to me as well as late night and early morning. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • On COCA early night is a subject and appears after forms of call it, have, get, plan, portend, resign oneself to, earn. To make an early night (of it) is also fairly common. "Make it an early" is the most common, but hardly dominant at 5/31 instances of early night.
Adjectives with a night that are like early in dealing with the end point or duration are long/short, late, slow/fast, extended, endless, interminable, only the first three being 'common'. The sense of night seems to be a period of time during which one is awake, but which is after evening (at latitudes between 50N and 50S anyway). I don't see a definition at [[night]] or at MWOnline that covers this. Is it a generally understood sense that we are missing? (I think so.) If it is, isn't early night SoP? DCDuring TALK 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me that "make it an early night" is an American term, in the same way that "have an early night" seems to be British. But night generally means any time in the hours of darkness, but I'm not sure about north of the Arctic Circle in the land of the midnight sun, or the period of winter darkness in the same region. Donnanz (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Right. The general definition of night can't be substituted into an early night with the NP retaining the meaning audiences ascribe to it. DCDuring TALK 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
what about the sense behind call it a night? Chuck Entz (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The last refuge of lexicographic scoundrels is metonymy. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that in "call it a day/night/game/career/season" call introduces a speech act. In the first person present it is something like "I hereby declare my night ('time awake and engaged in some kind of activity during nighttime') to be terminated." IOW I think call is what bears the aspect of "termination" that the expression has. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


This character has a similar meaning to 勉 and 勔. —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs) at 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC).

勔 is a variant of 勉. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Which people does /fɑː(ɹ)v/ apply to? Brett and family get /fɑː(ɹ)v/, but what about his ancestor Simon? Same deal?

What would be the pronunciation be for other people not related to Brett but share the same surname?

Hillcrest98 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd never actually noticed he spells his name Favre I had always used it was Farve but I don't follow football. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I can find some (non-linguistic) books suggesting that /fɑvɹə/, the original pronunciation, is still used by some bearers of the name. Roy C. Major's Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology (ISBN 1135649413) mentions the names of Brett Favre and Patrick Roy (pronounced /wɑ/) as examples of a nonstandard, "U" (by which he apparently means "universal" in contrast to "first-language" or "second-language") process of anglicization — metathesis, in Favre's case. In Roy's case, the *#/rw/ of the original French pronunciation /rwa/ is not permissible, but (as Major notes) the fact that Patrick responds by deleting the /r/ rather than inserting a schwa as in Rwanda is "a U process". - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I see some speculation, such as from this author, that Favre's name may have initially been reduced to /fɑv/ (non-rhotic) in English, with an /r/ an erroneous later insertion. Incidentally, that author mentions knowing two Yvonnes in the Southern US who pronounced their names "why-vaughn". - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

French nourrir[edit]

The conjugation table for nourrir shows that the present indicative and imperfect inflections use the first conjugation, however, the links in the table do not appear to exist. My Bescherelle tells me that this is incorrect and that nourrir is a regular second conjugation verb; the Wiktionary pages for regular 2nd conjugation forms of nourrir such as nourrissez exist and link back to nourrir, and the pages for the nourris and nourrit even say they are the present indicative forms of nourrir. The conjugation table is certainly wrong, but because it is generated by {{fr-conj-auto}}, I do not know how to change it. Help is appreciated. 01:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is second group/regular -ir. I have no idea how this was even able to be classed in the ouvrir group in the first place, as they seem to be all labiodental + -rir. Turns out it was changed to the wrong conjugation by Mglovesfunbot replacing a template that gave the correct conjugation with fr-conj-auto. I've temporarily restored the old template and going to report to Grease Pit ASAP. Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's patent nonsense and I have no idea why {{fr-conj-auto}} is treating it this way. Best to review pourrir as well. If it's because of the -rir ending like Hillcrest98 says, then that's just incredibly dumb to code it that way. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
All miscellaneous -rir verbs seem to be dumped into the ouvrir category. That's stupid. It should check for F/V and -rir before dumping them into the ouvrir group. All miscellaneous -rir should go to the second group by default! Reverting as many of these errors as I can. See here. Hillcrest98 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant And see the module and Ctrl+F this: conj["rir"] = function(). Hillcrest98 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Right, I was going to start on that but I'll leave you to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to program anything, ironically. You can check my module modifying attempts and see me fail big time. Hillcrest98 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. KarikaSlayer (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Who’s been claiming that these derive from the ablative case? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The etymologies are not claiming that. It’s traditional to include another principal form (the ablative or genitive) in Romance etymologies where the Latin etymon has different radicals depending on inflection (i.e. mater vs matr-, ferrugo vs ferrugin-), so the reader knows how the declension goes.
I don’t think this practice is necessary for us, since readers can find that information by looking at the Latin entry itself. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Except that the etymologies for some of the languages do claim it derives from the ablative. Personally I think it should say something like "Derived from {{inh|es|la|mater|mātrem}}" so that it shows the actual case it's derived from and links it to the lemma. (Although in this particular case it's unclear whether madre in various languages derives from the nominative or accusative, since -er -> -re in the Romance languages. This probably doesn't apply to Spanish, which seems to derive all or almost all its words from the accusative, but cf. Italian moglie, uomo, etc. from the nominative, along with all sorts of Old French examples.) Benwing2 (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:EncycloPetey added a bunch of these in the past, due to a misconception he had. See User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 10#-tion. --WikiTiki89 14:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ironically, the ablative was most likely the first case to fall out of use in Vulgar Latin. —CodeCat 14:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


According to various popular internet sources, this is an onomatopoeia of licking, usually of food. It seems to be a licking counterpart to nom. Is this attested well enough for our standards? —CodeCat 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell; I can't even find it on Usenet. I also checked for any magazines or papers that might have used it on Issuu. Btw, is it a general onomatopoeia for licking, or is it specific to cats (and maybe sometimes other animals)? - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be animals mostly. —CodeCat 00:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


This mentions "Latin *deretrānus ‎(“to hinder”)", but deretrānus looks more like a participle or noun like "hindered" or "hindering" than a word meaning "to hinder". - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It can't be a participle (unless it's a typo for *deretrāns), but it could be a noun or regular adjective. Definitely not a verb, though, not in that form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Italian pronunciation of "casa" and "cosa"[edit]

@Alexius Isclanus, Etimo, Gloria sah, GianWiki, IvanScrooge98, Johanna-Hypatia, Tn4196 and anyone else with good Italian: are these edits good: diff and diff? The first one seems to be replacing sourced info with unsourced, and the second seems to be replacing more specific info with more general info. But maybe the info we had before was wrong, and the replacements are correct. Can someone take a look? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'm a northern Italian speaker and I'm not able to give a definitive opinion about it, but the first edit seems to be correct as 'casa' should pronounced as /ka.za/; I just don't know if in south Italy people really say /ka.sa/, maybe it happens in really few zones but I actually don't know. ---Tn4196 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually (I'm a Northern Italian too), in the usual pronunciation that is heard in dubbing, etc. it is either /s/ or /z/ according to the speakers; however, the traditional pronunciation of these words (and also the most common in Central and in particular Southern Italy) is with /s/ (voiceless). IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 16:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Mille grazie for your help! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
My understanding has always been that both are used, depending on region, as Tn4196 and IvanScrooge98 noted, generally /z/ in the north and /s/ in the center and south. I believe the article ought to contain both pronunciations, not one or the other. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Idem as per all here above :-) , --Glo (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have never heard them pronounced as "s" rather than "z". That would just sound like cassa wouldn't it? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, because cassa has a geminated /s/, which casa would have a regular short /s/. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
SemperBlotto, please listen to this song of the Neapolitan Pino Daniele "Io e le cose"..,--Glo (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, casa and cosa are realized with a /z/ in Standard Italian (intervocalic S usually reads /z/, while there is some regional variation between /s/ and /z/, common in Central-Southern and Northern Italy, respectively) --- GianWiki (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I like the way GianWiki put it. These are phonemic transcriptions and need not go into issues of allophonic variation. You can hear the [s] for agreed-upon /z/ in Tuscan speech. --Ph7five (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to place three semantically diverse definitions on the same line, as in the following Japanese definition:

Among other things this discourages any sense-level labeling.

The above is within a single template. How can this kind of thing be efficiently repaired? DCDuring TALK 11:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it necessary to gloss it at all at this entry? Couldn't the entry just say something along the lines of "Hiragana reading of 茗荷", leaving all lexical info to the main entry? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That is a gloss rather than a definition, à la the gloss parameter in various templates. The lemma is 茗荷. It's worth glossing because Japanese has multiple writing systems and many homophones. Nibiko (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto Nibiko's comment. The practice for non-lemma JA entries under hiragana or katakana spellings has been to 1) use {{ja-def}} to point to the lemma spelling, and 2) add glosses to help users disambiguate.
As an extreme example, see かん ‎(kan). Without the glosses to help the user disambiguate, it would be extremely more tedious to find the desired entry. I've made it a general practice to add glosses even if disambguation isn't much of an issue, as at みょうが ‎(myōga), as this improves usability -- the user can get what they want (presumably, in most cases, the gloss) without having to click through. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


Needs a sense meaning something like "place where there are lots of something" ("Then all of a sudden it was dog city everywhere we looked," Joe added. "We jumped in the van to get away from them.") DTLHS (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I always thought a city is a town with a cathedral, but maybe that's culturally outmoded?SageGreenRider (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
But towns also have churches (although I'm not sure exactly what differentiates a church from a cathedral). I always thought that cities have walls and towns don't, but that distinction is probably even more outmoded than yours. Where I live, the actual difference is that a city has a mayor, and a town has a board of selectmen. --WikiTiki89 01:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A cathedral is the church of a bishop. But they are sometimes in rather small places due to some historic importance of that place. And many places that are now big cities don't have a bishop... I, as a German, have never understood the difference between city and town to begin with :) Kolmiel (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kolmiel In that case you'd like the Scottish way of "city" being an official designation I guess ;-). --Droigheann (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My understanding from growing up on the US East Coast was that, in order of size from smallest to largest, hamletvillagetowncity. There are legal distinctions as well, such that a town in legal terms might actually be larger than a nearby legal city, but in everyday speech, these are ignored (and often not particularly well-known or germane to the speakers anyway). When one is going somewhere, town seems to be used more frequently as an idiomatic construction: one would say “I'm going into town”, but generally not “I'm going to the city”. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • You must be from New York State then. That's the only place I know that has hamlets. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Here in Alberta, hamlet designates a non-incorporated community. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New word[edit]

How does one summit a new word —This comment was unsigned.

You right it down on a piece of paper and carry it to the top of a mountain. But if you meant "submit", then you just create a page for it. If you don't know how to do that, see Help:Starting a new page. --WikiTiki89 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't bite the newbies, Wikitiki89 SageGreenRider (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@SageGreenRider: relax, he’s just being goofy. I doubt that the OP will be offended. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't archive.org considered durable?[edit]

My question is about WT:ATTEST. It says As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. but most of the internet is equally durably archived at archive.org and elsewhere, so why can't those sources be used too? SageGreenRider (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There are two relatively easy ways to get content removed from archive.org:
  • requesting it, as the owner of the content.
  • editing robots.txt, as the owner of the domain.
Ungoliant (falai) 01:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That's possible in principle but who is to say that Google is durable? Yahoo! was a leader in its time but now it is on the ropes. The heat death of the Universe ensures that nothing is really durable. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Usenet is actually archived by more than just Google. Google is just the easiest way to access it. But I may be wrong. --WikiTiki89 01:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be the case, but policy explicitly says that one source alone is sufficient when it says durably archived by Google. It seems arbitrary to exclude other archives especially when it is unlikely that publishers would ever prevent archive.org's bot. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is it unlikely? Publishers prevent archive.org's bot all the time for various reasons; it's not merely a theoretical possibility. I agree that we shouldn't necessarily single out Google at WT:ATTEST. --WikiTiki89 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Case in point: http://web.archive.org/web/20040507031011/http://www.roflcopter.com. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think a separate page should be made that includes sources and why they are or are not considered valid for Wiktionary purposes. This question is likely to come up again, after all (I asked myself not long ago). —CodeCat 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think durability is a fake standard. What wiktionary really wants is something like wikipedia's "substantial coverage in reliable sources" SageGreenRider (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We explicitly don't want that. For starters, what's a reliable source? Dictionaries aren't 100% reliable. Languages are spoken by more than just reliable sources/people, we want to cover slang and nonstandard usage as well. "Substantial coverage" is vague; how much is substantial, and how do you cover a word? —CodeCat 02:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
re "sources and why they are or are not considered valid for Wiktionary purposes": WT:SEA (linked to from the header of WT:RFV, but in need of greater prominence) sort of does this. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
“it is unlikely that publishers would ever prevent archive.org's bot.” Sorry, but you are dead wrong on that. People block archiving all the damn time. And to add to the problem, a very common occurrence is a domain being lost and taken over by an advertisement site, whose administrators often decide to block bots, and with a couple of keystrokes the “durable” archive disappears forever.
archive.org not a durable archive at all, even by archive-website standards. WebCite had a much stronger claim to durability, but even that wasn’t accepted as durable (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-08/Citations from WebCite).
Ungoliant (falai) 02:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn’t Wiktionary per se not durably archived? --Romanophile (contributions) 02:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, one of the "durable" sources listed at WT:SEA (Brigham Young University Corpus of Contemporary American English http://www.americancorpus.org/ ) has vanished and is now an ad farm. ;-) SageGreenRider (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It hasn't vanished. It just moved: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Anyway, I would consider a corpus to be a collection of sources rather than an actual source, and I'm not sure why we consider COCA to be durably archived. --WikiTiki89 11:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I updated the page. Maybe WT:SEA is saying that one can find durable source using the corpus as a tool, rather than referencing the corpus itself. Not sure. Interesting that the vote on WebCite was a 7-7 tie. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Right, Wiktionary:Searchable external archives is just a list of tools that make it easier to search through durable sources. Google Books, for example, is not in and of itself durable, but it allows for searching through books that are durably archived in libraries. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion should be moved to BP --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin: analogia[edit]

The accusative singular can also end in -an, i.e. analogian. Examples:

In this case the declension should be like the Latin one, just with "analogian" (short a) instead of "analogiam". However, in case of other Latin words ending in -a and being derived from Greek, it might be -ā in the nominative and -ān in the accusative like it's sometimes a short and sometimes a long alpha in Greek.
PS: Some other words ending in -a and having accusative -an (or maybe -ā and -ān) are blapsigonia, Aea, Aegina, Acra, Camerina, Cilla, brya according to dictionaries. For example, in case of Cilla Lewis & Short have this: "acc. Cillan. Ov. M. 13, 174 (cf. Hom. Il. 1, 38)." -Ikiaika (talk) 04:11 + 04:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin: cometes[edit]

Dictionaries state that the accusative singular can also end in -em (besides -en), i.e. cometem (besides cometen), though this might be Late Latin. Lewis & Short have this: "acc. ... cometem, Serv. ad Verg. A. 10, 272; Schol. Juv. 6, 407". Ikiaika (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ikiaika: Done. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Also thanks to JohnC5 for his updates. -Ikiaika (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

looking for a word[edit]

Is there a word in English to describe a place which, on of account its terrain, is difficult to attack yet easy to defend? (I'm trying to translate the word 險要.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

high ground. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
"Difficult to attack" and "easy to defend" are usually two sides of the same coin, not usually linked by yet, which works for things whose association is paradoxical or surprising.
Adjectives like defensible and impregnable might suffice unless there is something in the Chinese that the gloss doesn't capture. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

video clip[edit]

How did the word "clip" or "video clip" become associated with music videos in many languages other than English? --WikiTiki89 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess through TV channels which air(ed) music videos like MTV and Viva. Music videos are rather short, Western music aired by MTV and Viva quite often is in English, and using (pseudo-)anglicisms seems to be "cool". So maybe moderators announced music videos and called them "(video) clip", and the non-English audience connected "(video) clip" with "music video". -Ikiaika (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think it's understood that the word is an anglicism and that anglicisms spread partly because English is considered by some to be a "cool" language. But the question is, I suppose, about the semantic development. Now, a "video clip" is a "short video" and a music video, too, is a relatively short video (as you said). Therefore the development is not far out. It's just that English-speakers know that a clip is a little piece cut from something bigger, while continental Europeans have no clue what the word originally means. (I didn't either until I looked it up just now.) So that's probably why "video clip" acquired a broader meaning in many languages, but not in English. Kolmiel (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, in German any video of not significantly more than 5 minutes can be called a Clip, not just a music video. Kolmiel (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see how it could have acquired a broader meaning of "short video", but I baffled as to how it acquired the specific meaning of "music video". I could even see how "short video" could have developed into "music video", but how could it have done so without leaving any trace behind of the meaning "short video"? --WikiTiki89 19:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
But I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't know if you skipped my "by the way" above, but it can mean short video, at least in German. Kolmiel (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I missed that part. I wonder if it's only in German, then we can say that German was where the word was first borrowed from English. --WikiTiki89 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: Yes, in German "(Video)clip" has the broader meaning like "short video". In German there also "Clipshows" unrelated to music, like clip shows with "fails".
@Wikitiki89: If there is a native word with a meaning like "short video", then English "(video) clip" isn't needed and it should be more likely that it gets another meaning. French has the word "gens" meaning "people", so English "people" can be used in another sense, namely as "A celebrity, a famous person". But I don't know whether or not for example Spanish has a word for "short video". If it doesn't have such a word, then I can think of two other possibilities:
a) Maybe there were no other clip shows but just video clips related to music in Spanish-speaking countries. I guess, this should be unlikely.
b) Maybe the word "(video) clip" is used for both, "music video" and "short video". Pons (a commercial dictionary) translates spanish "videoclip, vídeo-clip" with German "(Video)clip". As Kolmiel pointed out and as Duden says, "Videoclip" means "short video". So Spanish "videoclip" could have both meanings.
-Ikiaika (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wiktiki89. I really don't know, but I consider it possible that German spread the word to eastern European languages (if they have it). Maybe also Dutch and Scandinavian languages. German still has a certain if limited influence on all those languages, though it's now chiefly that of transmitting English words... Kolmiel (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a feeling that Germany is still prominent enough in European culture to have a big role in spreading internationalisms. But that is just a hunch and not based on any evidence. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that's true. Note, however, that even Arabic now has the word كليب. Google كليب هيفا for examples (referring to the notorious w:Haifa Wahbe). It's definitely an internationalism. I'm even a bit surprised it hasn't been reborrowed into English. Kolmiel (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at all that it exists in Arabic, in fact the first one I knew about was Hebrew קליפ. Also, note that notorious implies being famous for something bad, so you would probably want to say "the famous Haifa Wahbe". The most confusing thing is that people who haven't spent enough time in actual English-speaking countries are entirely unaware that the word has a different meaning in English, even if their English is otherwise really good. And so even Morphix, an otherwise a really good online Hebrew-English dictionary, translates וידאו קליפ ‎(víde'o k'líp) as "video clip", even though that is completely wrong and misleading. Another "false borrowing" I encountered while I was in Israel is the word צ׳ייסר ‎(chéyser) (from chaser), which in Israel refers to a "shot of liquor", rather than the original English meaning of "milder drink to wash down (i.e. chase) a shot of liquor". Do you know if chaser has this meaning in any other countries? --WikiTiki89 23:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I used the word "notorious" on purpose because this singer deservedly is called the sex symbol of the Arab world. (You know, many Arab men post the word "whore" under her music videos on youtube, though they probably enjoyed watching...) Her first English video was banned from all Arabic music channels: [2]. (If you watch it, note that the first part of the video is commonplace even in the Arab world, but what comes after 2:30 was a bit too much for them.) ---- Anyway: No, I've never heard the word chaser in this sense. Kolmiel (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Our most intuitive general definition of vertical (adjective) is:

"Along the direction of a plumb line or along a straight line that includes the center of the Earth."

Does this mean that vertical has no meaning on, for example, the Moon?

Can't we do better than this kind of amateurish "technical" definition? Doesn't this have something to do with up? DCDuring TALK 15:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Perpendicular to the horizon"? - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Some dictionaries take that approach. I'm wondering if there is something even more intuitive. Upright (from Old English upriht) and erect are good for one of the definitions, arguably the most basic one. Apparently vertical picked up the "straight up and down" definition only around 1700. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


The usage note says that among is considered better than between when meaning "in the interval that separates more than two things" (sense 1). But is this generally true? Is it better to say: There are timber pegs among the flower beds, provided they are say four in a square, rather than between? Or do they even mean the same? My English is non-native, of course, but to me "among" would mean that there are pegs scattered in the flower beds, while "between" would mean that they separate them (which is my intended meaning). Kolmiel (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

They do not mean the same things. There are timber pegs among the flower beds means that the pegs are strewn or scattered in and amongst the flower beds; not in the area between them. Leasnam (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. So would you say the usage note is wrong? Of course, it adds some more information, but it also says that among is considered better in sense 1 if there are more than two. Kolmiel (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I was taught in my High School English that "between" is for two people/things, and "among" is for three or more. Back then I thought that that was just total bull, but now I realize that it does apply to some senses. I think when spacial considerations are irrelevant, then this rule applies, otherwise it does not. For example: "there was a consensus among the three professors" but "there was a consensus between the two professors". --WikiTiki89 12:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's the less literal sense of, let me put it, "through negotiation or agreement by two or more sides", rather than the simple literal local sense. I don't doubt that the rule applies to the former, but it doesn't really seem to me to be useful for the latter. I think it would be very helpful to non-native-English users of wiktionary if that were incorporated into the usage note. But well... Kolmiel (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I could only write a usage note from my own idiolectal point of view, which would come off as prescriptionist. I don't have enough data for a good descriptivist explanation. --WikiTiki89 14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheapskate source words[edit]

The definition of cheapskate states the root are cheap + skate, where skate is slang for a old, worn out horse. But under the definitions of skate, I see no mention of anything equine. Why is this? -- 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Because either the person adding the etymology didn't look at the entry or because the sources they had access to didn't have the word, which I haven't found in any dictionary other than OED.
See skate#Etymology 3. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


I think we're missing a sense at get: "to have (someone) covered/taken care of" as in "Boy, don't you worry about it, I got you !" or "It's cool, I got this." I'm pretty sure this is short for "I've got you covered", but I cannot find an entry for that either...Leasnam (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we should handle this. In the present tense, got or 3.sg. -'s got is used, in the past tense "had" is used, and in the future will have is (sometimes?) used. "I got it, I got it. Dang, I thought I had it." --WikiTiki89 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Second round[edit]

= ⿰虫名 = ⿱艹么 , = ⿱艹乜 = ⿱艹区 = ⿰目乔 = ⿺瓜上 = ⿰子入 = ⿱入寸 = ⿰扌三 = ⿱雨双 = ⿰长四 = ⿰𠔾丁 = ⿱雨下 = ⿰亻向 = ⿰忄以 = ⿰应鸟 = ⿸广用 = ⿶凵又 輿 = ⿰讠与 = ⿰米早 = ⿰氵早 = ⿰贝专 , , = ⿱千田 has only one dot per pair = ⿱一心 = ⿱刀牛 = ⿰亻彐 = ⿱犬一 = ⿻弓冫 = ⿱丸一 , = ⿱龹小 = ⿱⺈"日 tilted sideways" omits 丿 and 厶 = ⿵门舌 —This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Shiz (talkcontribs).

I think most of these are not encoded in Unicode yet, so I don't think we'll be adding them until they get encoded. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It's still totally unclear why this data was left here though. —suzukaze (tc) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Ancient Greek ἔχω ‎(ékhō, to have) is sometimes used with adverbs with the sense "be": so εὖ ἔχω ‎(eû ékhō), literally "I have well", means "I am good" or "well". I'm wondering if this counts as copulative or not; does a copula always have to take an adjective or noun as argument, or can it take an adverb?

I can't think of any examples in other languages, so don't have a frame of reference. And the Wikipedia article (linked above) says copula can take adverbs or adverbial phrases (prepositional phrases?) expressing time or location as arguments, but nothing about a copula taking adverbs that express other concepts. — Eru·tuon 05:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin: facile, lene, suave, vulgare[edit]

These adverbs are derived from third declension adjectives.
Adverbs from third declension adjectives usually end in -iter, while adverbs from first&second declension adjectives usually end in -e (long). In case of comparatives of first&second declension adjectives which end in -ior, neuter -ius, the neuter is used as adverb.
Are facile etc. derived like adverbs from second declension adjectives with -e (long) or are they neuter forms of the adjectives ending in -e (short) used as adverbs?
From the entries here and from dictionaries, I'd guess these adverbs are the neuter forms ending in -e (short), and are not derived from -e (long). But IMHO it's better to ask here instead of to guess. -Ikiaika (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


I'm wondering about the adjective shown here - isn't it actually use of the present participle? Even the noun is probably from the verb rather than the noun. The derived terms can be moved to the present participle. Donnanz (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree for both adjective and noun. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the so-called adjective is actually a gerund (noun), not a participle (adjective). Thus watering can means "a can used for watering plants" and not "a can that waters/is watering plants". In the great majority of cases, x-ing y is a compound of a gerund and noun, not a noun phrase consisting of a participle modifying a noun. (Incidentally, I remember hearing somewhere that the Latin translation of Harry Potter gets this wrong and renders Sorting Hat with the present participle, -ens, "hat that is sorting", rather than the genitive case of the gerund, -ndum, "hat for sorting".)
Not sure how to prove this in English, because the gerund and present participle have the same ending, but in German the verbal noun and participles have different endings (-ung and -end respectively), and compounds are usually formed with the verbal noun. Unfortunately, I can't think of any examples. — Eru·tuon 18:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that watering is a noun in the expressions "watering hole" and "watering can". And this noun is simply the gerund of to water. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
So where are we going with this? Adjective or not? Donnanz (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Above I was trying to say that both the Noun and the Adjective PoS sections should be deleted, leaving us with just the Verb (participle) PoS. That means an RfD, since we don't have any criteria which we can apply to speedy those sections. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I have RFVed the adjective only [3], personally I don't have a problem with the noun. Donnanz (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible error in Icelandic entry for 'man.'[edit]

I've run across a discrepancy between two sources on Modern Icelandic. On Wiktionary, the Icelandic entry for 'man' lists the verb form (etymology 2) as being 1.) (Past, first person of the verb 'muna') I remember; and 2.) (Past, third person of the verb 'muna') he/she/it remembered.

However, over on Verbix, the conjugation of the Icelandic verb 'muna,' lists 'man' as being the (indic. pres. sing. 1st & 3rd pers.) of the verb 'muna.'

So Wiktionary says 'man' is the past tense of 'muna,' while Verbix says 'man' is the present tense of 'muna.' Verbix lists 'mundi' as the proper (past, sing. 1st & 3rd pers.) of 'muna.' Can anyone confirm which of these two is correct? Because if Verbix is correct, then we have an error in the Wiktionary entry for 'man.' —This unsigned comment was added by Novashard (talkcontribs) at 22:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC).

Icelandic Wiktionary also lists it as the present tense (nútíð). But, this Icelandic dictionary lists it as the past tense (þátíð). --WikiTiki89 22:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I expect the issue is that muna is a preterite-present verb, which has present meaning, but past tense–like forms (1st sg. and 3rd sg. identical, in contrast to most verbs, which I guess have 2nd sg. and 3rd sg. identical, though it's a long time since I studied Old Norse). From the examples given in the article, it sounds like man has present, not past, meaning: "remember", not "remembered". And it has a past tense mundi that presumably has past meaning: "remembered". — Eru·tuon 23:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, on the other hand, man says that hann man means "he remembered". — Eru·tuon 23:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am no expert on Icelandic, but I'm fairly certain that hann man equates to "he remembers" Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Krun, BiT: Could you help us out? --WikiTiki89 20:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
man is the present form, both first and third person. mundi is the corresponding past form. Ordabok.is is in error, and the reason for it is that dictionaries traditionally cite four forms for both strong verbs and preterite-present verbs, just not the same forms. For strong verbs, it is infinitive, 1.p.(or 3.p.) singular past, 1.p.(3.p.) plural past, supine. For preterite-present verbs, however, the order is infinitive, 1.p.(or 3.p.) singular present, 1.p.(3.p.) singular past, supine. At ordabok.is, the template used expects a strong verb, so that the forms of preterite-present verbs are labeled incorrectly. – Krun (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Listed in verb class 3 with the description Verbs where the ablaut vowel was followed by a sonorant (m, n, l, r) and another consonant in Proto-Indo-European. While the word does follow this conjugation, there is no hint about a liquid or nasal, so either the entry or the description seems wrong. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That description is wrong. Other class 3 verbs where the first consonant of the cluster was an obstruent include *bregdaną, *brestaną, *flehtaną, *hrespaną, *wreskwaną, and *þreskaną. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So should we change it to "...followed by a consonant cluster..."? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I think so, yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No. The the verbs you listed all have one thing in common: the initial cluster ends with a sonorant. The zero grade would have thus been, say, *burgd-, but this was metathesized to give the attested forms. *fehtaną is just a unique anomaly and has no bearing on the class as a whole. —CodeCat 13:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The discritiption doesn't talk about initial clusters but about the consonant after the ablaut vowel. And my biology teacher used to say that one exception invalidates a rule. Either way, we can't leave it as it is now, as it is at worst incorrect and at best confusing for the reader. I am unknowing, you're the expert. I trust you to rephrase it reasonably. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
ps.: Can medial consonant clusters occur in other strong classes? (Counting *ww as /VC/.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat I was about to change the description but found it is a boiler. I don't even know how to find it in your dungeons, so I ask you to please take care of this matter. (Or provide further input to the discussion.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Use the "Edit category data" link. —CodeCat 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

rollock, rollocking[edit]

I added rollock and rollocking, initially as separate entries, but then changed them to alternative spellings of rollick and rollicking, and added a new meaning for "rollick". I'm not sure that these are all now in a perfect state as far as explanation of possible differing etymologies and also which meanings can be spelled in which ways are concerned. If anyone has an interest then please take a look. Thanks. 20:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've always spelled it rollock as it's a euphemistic form of bollock. I suspect rollick is a separate word though of course the two forms may overlap. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


The most common meaning of this seems to be just a general pejorative like pigfucker. I did find a mention of it meaning an Arab or Muslim saying that is was a calque of the Dutch (which is? @CodeCat?). I only looked at about 30 citations so I'm certainly not ruling any meanings out. but based on that small sample the general pejorative should come first. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Dutch word is geitenneuker. —CodeCat 13:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd never heard it before its use in a Middle Eastern context. I've never heard it applied to, say, Indonesian or Nigerian Muslims. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I've heard German Ziegenficker used about Bavarian shepherds in the Alps. But its normal use (as far as normal goes), is also about people from the MENA region + the "stan"-countries, roughly. Kolmiel (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
German "Ziegenficker" is often used to refer to Turks, Arabs and Muslims. But it still literally means "person who fucks goats" and not "Turk", "Arab" or "Muslim". Maybe one could phrase it like "person who fucks goats, often used in reference to Turks, Arabs or Muslims". Examples which should refer to non-Arabs and non-Muslims:
  • "'Ich glaube wir haben zwei Möglichkeiten', sagte der Ork. 'Erstens: Wir durchsuchen diese Ruinen von oben bis unten, in der Hoffnung, dass wir irgendwo einen Hinweis darauf finden, wo dieser Ziegenficker Trelaine seinen verdammten Turm versteckt hat ...'" (Die Horde - Die Schlacht von Morthûl, translated from American English by Andreas Brandhorst, books.google)
  • "'Hast du nie die Sagen und Legenden über dieses Schwert gehört? Was bist du, irgendein rallorischer Ziegenficker?'" (translation of Duncan Lay's The Wounded Guardian, books.google)
  • "In seiner Kolumne titulierte er den Amsterdamer Bürgermeister Job Cohen als 'Ziegenficker' [...]" (books.google)
  • "Die Landser brüllten empört zurück, die Polente seien Ziegenficker." (books.google)
  • "Einer meiner engsten Vertrauten sagt gern in solchen Momenten, dass ein Mann, der 1000 Brücken baut und nur eine Ziege fickt, nicht länger der Brückenbauer, sondern der Ziegenficker ist." (books.google)
-Ikiaika (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Compare sheepshagger, which mentions Wales and New Zealand. Equinox 08:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't really mean "someone who fucks goats". It's a term of abuse, which, per se, can be used about anyone, but which, in practice, is most often used about someone who has some relation to shepherding, or a perceived relation to that due to a North African or South-West Asian origin. (I don't think Islam plays an important role in this. I mean an Armenian could be a Ziegenficker just as well as someone from Azerbaijan. Or a Christian Egyptian just as well as a Muslim.) Kolmiel (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

German: -lei[edit]

  1. What's the part of speech of words like dreierlei, mancherlei, einerlei. Some entries here list these words as adjectives, some other entries list them as adverbs. Dictionaries have them as adjectives, adverbs, numerals, and maybe even as pronouns (German Wiktionary mentions this, but the dictionary used as a reference maybe isn't reliable).
  2. How are they declined or used? Entries which say that these words are adjectives have forms like "der vielerlei". But are these words used with articles or always without them?

-Ikiaika (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The suffix is found in Dutch too, e.g. allerlei. It looks like it's an adjective. —CodeCat 17:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
They are uninflected, and that's probably the reason why there's confusion. I also think they could be defined as adjectives, one might alternatively consider them indefinite determiners. I don't think there's such a thing as "der vielerlei", etc. They can't have articles or other determiners before them. Kolmiel (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
They're the same class like alles, vieles, nichts. Usually counted as pronouns but usable as adjectives. (Alles/nichts/mancherlei Gutes.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The use of the English word "pronoun" is generally different from that of the German "Pronomen". What we call adjektivische Pronomen is usually called a "determiner" or a "(pronominal) adjective" in English. For example, my is a "possessive determinre" or a "possessive adjective", while mine is a "possessive pronoun". Kolmiel (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
And "nichts" in "nichts Gutes" is not an adjective, if that's what you meant. Kolmiel (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
We do list them as pronouns. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Kolmiel (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I accidentally found some inflected forms. I don't know if they are attestable in general, but in case of "mancherley" they are (the spelling already indicates that these forms might be dated or obsolete). As an example: "Solches bezeugen auch die vielfaltigen unn mancherleyen in diesem Werck vorgebrachte Historien". This supports that the classification as adverb is incorrect. Well, the classification as adverbs should already be incorrect as these words are placed in front of substantives like adjectives or pronouns.
Words like "zweierlei" might be numerals (in German these words are known as Gattungszahl, Gattungszahlwort or Speziale) and one could argue that words like "vielerlei" are indefinite numerals (unbestimmte Zahlwörter or indefinite Numeralia). But there might be the words "bunterlei" and "Bunterlei", which shouldn't be numerals. Well, maybe one could argue that "bunt" here means "many" making "bunterlei" an indefinite numeral too. But then "deinerlei" and "seinerlei" should not be numerals.
-Ikiaika (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
alles, vieles, nichts. We list them all as pronouns. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Alles is a pronoun in "alles, was ich will", it's an adjective or determiner in "alles Brot", "alles Leben". The case of "alles Gute" may be doubtful, at first I thought it was a pronoun, but one could also read it the other way round. The same distinctions are true for vieles. And nichts is always a pronoun, so that's definitely correct. We should probably distinguish pronouns and determiners better. Both forms are often the same in German. But at least in cases like mein vs. meiner, in which the distinction is also a formal one, it should be followed correctly. Kolmiel (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


I noticed that the Internet sense (as in a "list of favorites") is missing, although it's explicitly mentioned in the verb section. However, I am struggling to write a good definition. I'm thinking there's something of an intermediate devolved meaning along the lines of "belonging to a group of preferred items" is involved (because the original meanings have the implication there can only be one). Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[ETA] Added an adjectival definition. Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I only use the noun 'favourites' and the verb 'to favourite' not the singular noun or the adjective 'favourite'. I would tend to say '[the website] is in my favourites'. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

eye patch[edit]

Currently we have one definition: "A small cloth patch, usually black, that is worn in front of one eye, to protect or conceal a damaged eye." However, according to Wikipedia this is also used for a corrective patch used for treating amblyopia in children. Should there be a second definition or should the current definition be expanded? Personally I'm inclined towards the former, because (a) it's often worn over a spectacles lens and doesn't necessarily have to be made of cloth (if I remember correctly, mine was made of bakelite) and (b) there's a Czech word okluzor, which is only used for the corrective eyepatch; nevertheless, I'd prefer hearing native speakers' opinions to being bold. --Droigheann (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The original definition could certainly stand to lose the last part, or at least gain an originally. I'm not clear what's the current position on creating definitions in English for the purpose of having separate definitions to refer the foreign words to. Circeus (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I would change it to something like "An opaque patch worn so as to cover one eye". Let's not forget a very important reason for wearing an eye patch: as part of a pirate costume... ;-) Chuck Entz (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, if the corrective thing is perceived as just a specific use of eyepatch just like the one for a blind eye (real or fake), I think I can always treat Czech translations using qualifiers. I don't know whether there's any policy about separating definitions for the sake of translations either, but doing it for the sake of a single FL would probably be well over the top. --Droigheann (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not wrong to quickly list the common uses of an item when it's relevant. Imagine describing a screwdriver based on purely its physical properties without mentioning it's used for inserting and removing screws. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
All right, I've dealt with it somehow, feel free to improve. --Droigheann (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


I've heard this used outside of astronomical fields, in relation to a situation in data procressing/computing, where one resource cannot be seen because a local resource with an identical name is taking priority. ( The best example I can give of this is the use of the term "de-eclipsing" used when re-naming image on Wikipedia so that the otherwise identically named Common image can be seen as well.) I'd appreciate other contributors here, providing any evidence of this being used outside of Wikimedia projects.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Util.System namespace eclipses the top-level System namespace" (2005, Sean Campbell, Introducing Microsoft Visual Basic 2005 for developers, page 56). However, it seems rather like our existing sense 2. Equinox 10:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Is it always pronounced /diːdʒɛsˈtiːf/ in English? I’m sure that the current pronunciation is perfectly valid, but I’d be surprised if nobody pronounced it as /diːʒɛsˈtiːf/ in English. --Romanophile (contributions) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've added the other one. Equinox 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
In fact, I don't think anyone pronounces it /diːdʒɛsˈtiːf/. People either use the anglicized vowels and consonants (/daɪˈdʒɛstɪf/), or the more French-like vowels and consonants (/ˌdiːʒɛsˈtiːf/). --WikiTiki89 21:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Lord Mayor - how to deal with "conventional translations"[edit]

The German title "Oberbürgermeister" is usually translated as "Lord Mayor". However, an Oberbürgermeister is not actually the same thing as a Lord Mayor - an OB is elected and exercises power, while a Lord Mayor is an appointed and purely ceremonial role. Is there a standard way of listing these sorts of terms? Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The German word "Bürgermeister" means the same as mayor. "Oberbürgermeister" (superior mayor) is a specification that implies that there are several mayors in a given city, namely mayors of boroughs. -- I know I'm not answering the question. I just wanted to express that the German word has a pretty general meaning, and that being elected is not a property of the word (although all German mayors are indeed elected). This might matter. Or not. Kolmiel (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's more the definition of Lord Mayor which is important here. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial position, not an actively political one, and a British city can have both a powerless Lord Mayor and an executive directly-elected Mayor (for example, there is the Mayor of Bristol, who runs the council, and the Lord Mayor of Bristol, who just officiates ceremonies). Nevertheless, it's the term used by convention to translate the German word "Oberbürgermeister" (see for instance, the quote below which calls Oberbürgermeister Konrad Adenauer "Lord Mayor of Cologne") even though the OB's powers are those of a directly-elected Mayor, not a Lord Mayor. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • 1998, Arnold B. Cheyney, People of Purpose: 80 People Who Have Made a Difference, Good Year Books (ISBN 9780673363718), page 6
    Eleven years later, in 1917, Konrad, then forty-one, became lord mayor of Cologne and the youngest lord mayor of any city in all of Germany.
Well, in that case it's indeed somewhat misleading. "Mayor of Cologne" would be quite fine. Actually we usually say Bürgermeister, not Oberbürgermeister. The latter is chiefly an official term to distinguish the "city mayor" from the "borough mayors". Kolmiel (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


The only pronunciation we have listed for says is /sɛz/ (to rhyme with fez), which is the traditional pronunciation and, I believe, the only one used in the U.S. But increasingly I've been hearing /seɪz/ (to rhyme with gaze) from speakers from England. Do any English people here have a feeling for how common it is? Is it nonstandard/proscribed? More common among younger speakers? Regionally restricted? Anything like that? Is it encountered in other countries besides the UK, or indeed outside England? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

/seɪz/ is the 'standard' UK pronunciation, /sɛz/ is the common informal pronunciation. I think it's largely regional and perhaps a social class marker, but I don't think anyone considers /sɛz/ an error except in the most formal of circumstances (like the Prime Minister giving a speech). Renard Migrant (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Er, I should probably just shut up, but... is that true? I'm pretty sure /sɛz/ is standard and /seɪ̯z/ isn't. (Apart from what ANGR said, which I can't judge.) Kolmiel (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think /seɪz/ is dialectal. Certainly abnormal in the south-east. Equinox 22:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
OED: "3rd singular says Brit. /sɛz/ , U.S. /sɛz/" DCDuring TALK 23:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No /seɪz/ in Chambers either (though they include an alternate form with a schwa, i.e. unstressed). I did have one (local) schoolmate who said it, but maybe he was just weird! Equinox 00:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
/seɪz/ is also used in the US, by AAVE in the South-South East; but it is largely considered incorrect Leasnam (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added it and labeled it "nonstandard" without marking any region. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll try and find an audio file to illustrate my point. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If by "my point" you mean "/seɪz/ is the 'standard' UK pronunciation, /sɛz/ is the common informal pronunciation", then that is incorrect. As others have mentioned, the standard pronunciation is /sɛz/. The pronunciation /seɪz/ is heard, but is regional and/or a personal idiosyncrasy. 01:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to unblock an user[edit]

Hi all! I've asked a (random) admin -who told me to look for a wider input- to unblock User:.mau., blocked in 2007 for "unacceptable username". It happened ages ago, even before SUL. Currently with SUL projects use to accept any username apart from offensive/truly abusive ones. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked him/her. I don't see what's wrong with the name. Equinox 20:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don’t know if it was the same person, but there was an admin who used to block people for unacceptable username when their username had misspelt or unusually spelt words, or unusual typography. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, same guy. One of his block comments was "Username is a promotion of illiteracy, in opposition to Wiktionary". --WikiTiki89 21:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all dictionaries!
--Vituzzu (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
"promotion of illiteracy" in a username is quite amusing... (BTW, my nickname comes from the end of 80s, I started using it in Fidonet. I understand that this is not standard, and sometimes it is not accepted, but for syntactical reason only!) --.mau. (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Don’t worry about it. No one will hold it against you. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

cock meaning vagina[edit]

On Talk:cock, one IP and one admin mention familiarity with an old Southern US usage of "cock" to mean "vagina", and another user provided (enough data that I tracked down) a citation of the usage from Lucille Bogan, where the meaning is confirmed by Peter Silverton, quoted here as saying "To [Bogan], what she had between her legs was a ‘cock’ – as it was for other southern [U.S.] women of her age, color and linguistic directness. [...] The female cock was a southern U.S. thing. It was the most common slang word for the vagina for a very long time. As late as the 1960s, in the southern states, ‘a piece of cock’ was a woman." Can anyone find more citations of this usage?
This site suggests it was in use at least as early as 1920, and "possibly derived from cockles; a cock-opener was a penis." It quotes the Dictionary of American Regional English (1985) as saying "At a point roughly the same as the Mason-Dixon Line, there is a division in meaning, to the North cock refers to the male genitals, but in the South its use is restricted to the female genitals. Missouri is a border state in which both meanings are used." Cassell's Dictionary of Slang also has it and derives it from French coquille.
- -sche (discuss) 03:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of sensus[edit]

"Perfect passive participle of sēntiō ‎(“feel, perceive”)." Shouldn't it be a short 'e'?

Certainly Gaffiot has all of these with a short 'e' (which is e rather than ē for those unfamiliar with the concept) L&S also. Done. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The usual practice is to mark all vowels long before ns and short before nt, so sentiō would have a short e and sēnsus a long ē. Not sure if Wiktionary follows this or not. — Eru·tuon 6:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
We do indeed follow this practice. —JohnC5 8:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

harden a phoneme[edit]

Languages are sometimes noted to have "hardened" certain phonemes; for example, Wiyot hardened Proto-Algic /m/ to /b/ and /n/ to /d/, and this page on Bantu mentions that "glides and liquids harden to voiced stops"; another book mentions a language "harden[ing] the fricative to a stop or an affricate", and Wikipedia says that in Belarusian, "/rʲ/ has hardened and merged with /r/". How might we define harden in such uses? Is there more than one sense present in these examples? In some cases, it seems to functionally equal "convert to a stop (or a fricative)". PS presumably "soften" is used with opposite senses. - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

At least the Belarusian sense is synonymous with depalatalize. —CodeCat 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
More technically, isn't this fortition? Hillcrest98 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the change of a sonorant to an obstruent (Wiyot, Bantu) or a fricative to a stop or affricate is fortition. The change of a voiced obstruent to a voiceless one is also fortition and can also be called "hardening", which is why Germans call final devoicing Auslautverhärtung. The Belarusian sense comes from a sense of hard ‎(unpalatalized, velarized) that is unique (or nearly unique) to Slavic linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's quite vague, really. Fricative > stop; voiced > unvoiced; palatal > non-palatal; etc. It's also quite random. Why is /dʒ/ a "soft g"? I agree that /ʒ/ is soft, but the affricative sounds particularly hard in my own ears. Kolmiel (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
See Sonority hierarchy. If "soft" means "more sonorous" and "hard" means "less sonorous", then fricatives are softer than affricates, affricates are softer than stops, and voiced obstruents are softer than voiceless ones. The only one that isn't related to sonority is palatalized vs. nonpalatalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, I was aware of this hierarchy to some degree. I strike "random" and say "unintuitive" instead. I've heard about it in the context of the High German consonant shift, namely that the development of word-initial stops into affricates was also a kind of "softening". But in this case as well: I don't find /tsaːl/ softer than /teɪ̯l/, nor /pfaːl/ softer than /peɪ̯l/. Affricates are as hard as it gets in my understanding, but well. Kolmiel (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
"Hard" and "soft" are really laymen's terms anyway. They have no meaning in phonetics and phonology at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


problem with template: incorrect: «wiózłem, wiózłeś, wiózł»; correct: «wiozłem, wiozłeś, wiózł»; source: [4], [5] --Bethchen (talk / contributions)

@Kephir. According to pl.wiktionary some forms do have wióz-, so just changing the template parameter that currently says wióz wioz wouldn't work. - -sche (discuss) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Chinese dialectal pronunciation[edit]

Don't know if it is the right place to discuss on this. The pronunciations in Chinese dialectal pronunciation section seem to be automatically generated by a script. So there are quite a few mistakes. For example, the character 厚 is pronounced only as /gau²⁴/ in Wenzhou dialect instead of the regular /ɦau³⁵/. Is it possible to make specific edits on pronunciations like this? There is no source code for this section. Thanks.--Mteechan (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang would be the person to ask. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the query. The data is at Module:zh/data/dial-pron. I have added gau35 in the reading for Wenzhou and added an edit button in the displayed template. Wyang (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Swiss German[edit]

Re the plural Swiss Germans: is there a missing definition here, such as an ethnic group? I can't imagine the plural being used otherwise. Donnanz (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the intent was that the plural can refer to multiple varieties of Swiss German. However, I think this needs to be RFV'd. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right about RFV, but I'll see if there are any more comments first. Donnanz (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The plural is listed as applying to the common noun, whereas languages are considered proper nouns (although some disagree with this, or with any distinction of common and proper nouns). I think we can solve the problem by adding the missing ethnic definition, which is pluralizable (and possibly moving the language senses to a proper noun section). - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Can any ethnic sense be confirmed though? And I'm one of those who disagree with treating languages as proper nouns.... Donnanz (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
google books:"Swiss Germans" turns up plenty of hits (both hyphenated and not) where "Swiss German" means "A Swiss person of German ethnicity or language." Whether it should be defined like that or rendered as an {{&lit}} I'm not sure. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I found another word in German: Deutschschweizer; a Swiss person who speaks German. Donnanz (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí meaning "tank"[edit]

This is supposedly the Navajo word for "tank". Do speakers really say this whole phrase whenever they refer to a tank? I have a hard time believing this isn't shortened to something more manageable. Benwing2 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The first Navajo term for a tank (World War II code talkers) was chʼééh digháhii (tortoise). It was spelt CHAY-DA-GAHI in those days, since the modern Navajo writing system had not yet been developed. That might be considered poetic today, or a kind of slang, but chʼééh digháhii is not normally used for a tank and it would probably be misunderstood if used for that. chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí is the usual term. Navajo does not easily import loanwords, but prefers to be descriptive using all native words. This is a very normal way to refer to something that comes from without their culture, and it’s not as though they talk about tanks a lot. —Stephen (Talk) 01:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Stephen has entered many protologisms in Navajo, and I suspect this is just another one of the many examples. I'm sure that this wouldn't pass CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
It's still a little hard for me to believe that a language would use such a long phrase to refer to a single concept. Plenty of languages are resistant to loanwords, e.g. Chinese, Icelandic, etc. but when they coin new terms they're rarely (if ever?) the length of this phrase. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if this term is mostly theoretical, something that someone coined but which isn't actually used; it wouldn't surprise me if Navajo speakers just say "tank" since most of them are fluent in English. Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
None of the Navajo entries that I made are protologisms. However, Navajo is a transparent language, and the terms they use are self-defining. When they say something, even a new concept, nobody needs a dictionary because the terms define themselves (similar to German Krankenhaus, or "sick-house" for hospital). And no, this term for tanks is not theoretical, it is standard, and it is not at all unusual for this language. It is true that Navajo speakers in certain parts of the reservation regularly mix a good many English words into their speech, but in other parts of the reservation, they avoid this (except for numbers, where young people tend to use English numbers). I have discussed it with my Navajo community and they said that in a conversation about tanks, once the term has been broached (so that everyone knows what is being discussed), most people will shorten thereafter it to naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh (the one that crawls around with a big gun) or just beeʼeldǫǫhtsoh (big gun). In any case, delete it if you want to. That’s why I stopped making Navajo entries ... I assumed that they would be deleted, one by one, so there is no sense in adding any more, or even in trying to argue about it. —Stephen (Talk) 09:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You can be sure all you want, so go ahead and file a CFI. Once I provide multiple impeccable sources to make it pass, you can apologize for your ethnocentric racialist assumptions. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly… —JohnC5 06:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps understandably. Other than Stephen and Seb, no one participating in this discussion is in any reasonable position to identify Navajo protologisms -- so anyone calling these terms protologisms, or insisting that there must be some other term, is writing from a biased perspective, recognized or not, and that can get up people's noses. I've found myself similarly annoyed and defensive when living in Japan and non-native speakers of English insisted, sometimes quite rudely, that X or Y or Z was definitely English or definitely not English. My sympathies here are with Stephen and Seb.
As a related issue, I think we do a potentially grave disservice to our users when it comes to languages like Navajo that are just now becoming literary and documented languages. Our WT:CFI requirements make it very difficult for limited-documentation languages to gain traction here. Terms or expressions that might have been in use for the entire lifetimes of a speaking community might just now be written down, and often not in forms that meet CFI. I hold that such terms are still worth recording here.
Query: Would it be possible to use an existing namespace, or establish a new namespace, for entering LDL terms for which currently available documentation might not meet CFI? A lot of written Navajo usage, for instance, appears in places like online chats and Facebook, which do not meet CFI (as far as I currently understand the situation). A separate namespace might allow for such terms, without bumping into the stricter mainspace concerns about attestation. Once such a term has citations sufficient to meet CFI, it could be "graduated" into mainspace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Appendix: namespace can be used for this. We used to have Appendix:List of unattested Irish words, so why not Appendix:List of unattested Navajo words? It would be for words we believe to exist but for which we cannot find even a single mention in a dictionary or grammar book, let alone a use in a permanently archived source. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown Thanks for your comments, they definitely help answer my questions concerning the length of the term. Benwing2 (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Concerning Native American languages, it is an all too common attitude that they are incapable of having modern terms such as aircraft carrier, cellphone, kangaroo, or giraffe, and should only have words for bow and arrow, teepee, squaw, and wampum. These people disbelieve American Indian words for these things, and insist that they must be protologisms, freakish inventions. These same people would not question that Cambodian has words for giraffe or cellphone; they see nothing strange about Icelandic having words for palm thief or confederate jasmine; no raised eyebrow over Mongolian having a word for hamburger or a Segway. But it is just unbelievable that Lakota might have a word for clock, or that Cherokee has a word for telephone. This attitude is narrow-minded and uninformed, and for those who are involved with or concerned about Native Americans, it is insulting. It’s what Seb means by "ethnocentric racialist assumptions".
As for written Navajo language found in places such as online chats and Facebook, only someone who knows the language and also knows how to write the language could use those sources. The majority of Native American adults today were taken (virtually kidnapped) from their families at a young age and sent away to distant boarding schools under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and kept there until they came of age. The main objective of the boarding schools was to suppress their native languages and their culture and religion, and to force the use of English, American culture, and Christianity. The children were (and still are, to some extent, since there are still over 4000 Native children in these schools today) punished in a variety of ways when they used their native language or told cultural stories. They had their mouths washed out with soap, including lye soap; they were beaten with leather belts and wooden paddles; they were deprived of food, sleep, and warmth; they were kicked in the rear as well as in the genitals (some women were injured in such a way that they could not bear children); their knuckles were rapped with rulers; and they were slapped, threatened, and insulted. All this to kill the language within them.
And even though a suitable orthography was finally developed for Navajo about 70 or so years ago, no boarding school was ever permitted to teach the writing of Navajo. It is only since the end of the 20th century that Navajo language and orthography have begun to be taught in some schools in the Navajo area. The only Navajos who know how to write their own language are self-taught, and there are few of those. So almost everything you will find in online chats and Facebook is terribly misspelled and should not have entries here. Because of what the U.S. Government has done to our Native peoples over the past couple of centuries, the situation with these languages is different from that of minority languages anywhere else in the world. As President Andrew "Indian-Killer" Jackson wrote in 1833, “[Indians] have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.” Manifest Destiny. And that is why this mean attitude is so disgusting to those who know better. —Stephen (Talk) 01:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
True enough for Navajo, which has quite the critical mass of native speakers, but there are so many dying and moribund languages out there that have been displaced by English for normal conversation, so they only live on in the minds of the older generation as a memory of what was used in the past. They desperately need to be used for talking about everyday things, but, sadly, they often simply aren't. Also, not to downplay the horrific policies and practices used against American Indian language and culture, but there have been some surprisingly nasty things done in the past to minority languages even in supposedly enlightened places such as Europe. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
On the musings by Erik and Angr: A separate namespace bears the risk of making the language invisible and inaccessible to passer-by users as long as the standard search only crawls Main and as long as the translation tables don't carry the entries. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I didn't realize all other namespaces weren't included in the basic search. That's ... less than ideal. Would it be possible to reconfigure to include specific namespaces in the basic search? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe, but we shouldn't do that. The whole point of putting something in another namespace is so that it isn't mixed up with the main content, which comes up in a basic search. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Stephen and Seb, I am truly sorry if I have caused offense. This was certainly not my intention. I don't believe that it is strange for Navajo or other Native American languages to have terms for modern concepts. In fact I'd be surprised e.g. to find that Lakota did not have a term for "clock", "cellphone", etc. To the extent I have any skepticism about this particular term, it is simply because it seems to me its length would make it awkward in conversation. That is why I asked whether there isn't a shorter term. Your response about the way it would be shortened answered my questions about this, however. Benwing2 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It was not what you wrote, it was the oft repeated allegation (not supported by evidence) of protologisms that have been leveled here over the past couple of years or so by someone who knows nothing about the language. As I mentioned above, it is a common but misguided attitude that Native American languages are simply incapable of having modern terms unless they import the words from English (borrowing being a common strategy among the world’s languages for keeping up with technology and other cultures, but a strategy that American Indian languages strenuously avoid). —Stephen (Talk) 21:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I regret that I wasn't present to contribute to this discussion; it seems like it's been pretty much resolved. I would like to add, though, that in addition to the much larger issues addressed here, Navajo has a clear, well-documented pattern of using multi-word descriptive phrases for nouns, as Stephen said. It takes only a little experience with Navajo to show one how natural such constructions are in the language. Ewweisser (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashkun âbo[edit]

This is the only translation of water from a language that starts with 'A' which I haven't been able to verify: Ashkun (code ask) âbo. It's plausible, because related languages use similar terms, but I can't access any Ashkun references. Glottolog knows of four:

  • George A. Grierson's 1919 Indo-Aryan Family: North-Western Group: Specimens of Dardic or Piśācha Languages (Including Kāshmīrī)
  • Georg Morgenstierne's 1929 The language of the Ashkun Kafirs, 1934 Further notes on Ashkun (apparently usually called Additional notes on Ashkun), and 1952 Linguistic Gleanings from Nuristan.

@ZxxZxxZ, Vahagn Petrosyan, do either of you have access to references which might help? (And what script should this word be in?) - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing, sorry. --Vahag (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ashkun, a Nuristani language, is unwritten. If it were to be written, however, it would be in Perso-Arabic script. Âbo is cognate with Persian آب ‎(âb). A dialect of Ashkun (Saňu-vi:ri) has a glossary shown here. Under Lexicon, select saňu-vi:ri, then search hydrology. —Stephen (Talk) 01:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Bende mansi[edit]

Similar to what I wrote above, this is the only translation of water from a language that starts with 'B' which I haven't been able to verify: Bende (code bdp) mansi. I'm not sure who might be able to find a reference; @Metaknowledge, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV? [6] has some related lects' words. Perhaps the word is spelled manzi instead? - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@-sche: Your ping didn't work. Anyhow, I can verify this for you, but I really don't have time this week. Send me an email if you're interested (partly to remind me, and partly so we can discuss how I can help verify the rest of the troublesome translations). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@-sche. Unfortunately, it seems that all books on Bende that were formerly available online have been removed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


The words in this category have a lot of form which are different to hindi wikipedia and website "Van Der Krogt" . So, Are there any sources for them? --飯江誰出茂 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@AryamanaroraΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@飯江誰出茂 They are mostly uncited – I don't think any of them are used even in literature. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Could someone who knows a bit about art add the art sense of classicism (e.g. as contrasted with Romanticism? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

hornswoggle is still alive[edit]

I'm new here. I'm not sure where else to go with this. This morning, April 27, 2016, I heard on NPR (FM) on the Diane Rehm Show a commentator say, in response to a question, "Trump has hornswoggled foreign affairs experts just like he has everyone else." As a person who enjoys the English language, I was delighted to hear the word "hornswoggled" still in use, and in spoken English. For it to pop up in a serious discussion among experts in a well respected setting such as the Diane Rehm Show was even better. There must be folks who record instances of the use of uncommon words rather like historians of the language. Any comments?

Thanks for your comments. I'm sure you're right about people who search out instances of uncommon words being used but I'm not sure who they are. Mostly I've heard of amateur sleuths of this sort looking for the earliest recorded instances of words; many such people have contributed to the OED, for example. In this case, this could potentially be added as a citation if there is a "durably archived" record of it (as we say) somewhere on the Internet. I can't find a published transcript, though. Benwing2 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


In addition to the meanings assigned to "agonic" in Wiktionary (mathematical, cartographic), the term is also used in the social sciences to refer to an antagonistic form of social behavior (one based on "threat, power and anxiety"). The term was supposedly first used in this fashion by one Michael Chance. See "The Agonic and Hedonic Styles of Social Behaviour": seee http://www.amazon.com/Agonic-Hedonic-Styles-Social-Behaviour/dp/B004QBCQ6K or https://books.google.com/books?id=aL40CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22michael+chance%22+agonic&source=bl&ots=pQyDJ-9e_b&sig=0nCdyOfHuNRBn554pTB2fAiS2A0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh4JzQ16_MAhVLxGMKHWftCQUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22michael%20chance%22%20agonic&f=false


How can this be a noun? What is its referent? Equinox 17:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm, QWERTY has a meaning. Was the contributor in his right mind? Donnanz (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose it could refer to the set of keys or the product of striking said keys. We call lorem ipsum a noun. It's hard to see what other PoS would fit. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • However, "lorem ipsum" can actually refer to the pseudo-Latin text itself ("a test page full of lorem ipsum"). asdfghjkl seems to be just a key-splurge. Probably the same for abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Equinox 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should be "phrase". —suzukaze (tc) 19:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


dire#French shows disez (which I don't think is a real word) as the second person, plural, imperative form, however, it should be dites. This is generated by a template so I don't know the best way to fix it. Danielklein (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll raise it in the Grease Pit where it should get dealt with more quickly. Module:fr-verb/documentation doesn't actually say how the module works and I don't fancy guessing, so I won't. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Despite the lack of documentation the code wasn't that difficult to work out because the abbreviations were pretty straightforward. I've fixed it now. Danielklein (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Metaknowledge about uncountability[edit]

Please look at this: [7] To me, a scale is either countable ("one Bloggs scale; two Bloggs scales") or it is a proper noun ("a measurement on the Bloggs scale"); it cannot be uncountable ("*some Bloggs scale; *how much Bloggs scale?"). I think Metaknowledge has mixed this up with the mass-count noun distinction. If I am wrong can someone please explain why? Equinox 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. It seems like a proper noun to me, with a possible, but rarely occurring, plural.
BTW, what are the units of measurement on this "scale"? Or is it just another instance of those in a "soft" field of knowledge attempting to don the white coats of those in "harder" sciences? DCDuring TALK 12:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I should have looked at the WP article. It's more an example of the imposition by a "hard" scientist of quantification (except much more arbitrary, really categorization) on a "soft" field: forecasting human technological development. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's often difficult to distinguish uncountable nouns from proper nouns. In this case, I think agree that it's a proper noun, but I'm not sure. --WikiTiki89 20:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

tooth fairy and Tooth Fairy[edit]

We have two entries. Are both used? With or without capital letters? I would think that the words are always supposed to be capitalized similar to how Easter Bunny capitalizes the Bunny part. 2602:306:3653:8920:50EA:ADBE:CAF1:5C80 20:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

mene mene tekel upharsin[edit]

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/July#the writing on the wall

I just converted this to an English entry, because it certainly is not in any script ever used by speakers of Aramaic; and furthermore, the Aramaic equivalent is not idiomatic. However, I do think it is worth having this as an English entry, only I don't know how to define it. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

How about defining it with {{n-g}}, and including a Wikipedia link? The Jewish Encyclopedia says this: "Words written by a mysterious hand on the wall of Belshazzar's palace, and interpreted by Daniel as predicting the doom of the king and his dynasty." Something like this would be a decent definition, IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I copied that to the entry, having forgotten that it could be copyvio. Since I think it is worded very well, I'm not sure how to modify it without making it worse. --WikiTiki89 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's from 1904 from a work first published in the US. It's in the public domain, at least for the US and for the purposes of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Plural of flagellum. That doesn't seem right, and we already have flagella as a plural. Is there perhaps some other, singular flagella that is the correct singular for flagellae? If not, should we mark flagellae as proscribed or something? Equinox 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It is used in English. It marks one as no Classicist to those who care about such things, a small group. DCDuring TALK 13:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
If "flagellae" is a blunder, which it seems it is, then Wiktionary should note that. It is exactly the sort of information that a good dictionary should be providing, I think. 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


no-doubt is said to be an alternative spelling of no doubt, but is that generally true? For instance, looking at the example sentence at "no doubt", would anyone write "No-doubt you can provide a better definition"? It looks wrong to me. The only case I can think of when I might hyphenate is when the phrase comes before another word to modify it, e.g. "a no-doubt easier life". 19:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


I would like to offer the observation that a further meaning for the word 'when' occurs in a sentence such as: I don't see the point of Christmas decorations when I am the only person who is going to see them. Here it means something like: 'if one considers the fact that'.

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 06:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016


I came across this word and was surprised to find it has two oddly different meanings. Can anyone elucidate the etymology in particular? This, that and the other (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The two "-opic"s of each definition are definitely unrelated. The "partially blind" meaning is from μέρος ‎(méros) + ὤψ ‎(ṓps). I believe the "able to speak" meaning is derived from ὄψ ‎(óps) (voice) or some relative. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Is there any classical usage of either the noun or the adjective? DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lewis and Short lists some uses, though I wouldn’t use the terms Spanish and Spaniard. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


I can't figure out what the entry is trying to convey here. The headword line says the noun is masculine, but the definitions are split between masculine and feminine senses. Is the noun really both genders? And what does the female equivalent parella mean? A "pair" is not something that is naturally gendered, so this seems like a misuse of the parameter. —CodeCat 23:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@UltimateriaCodeCat 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a peculiarity of Ibero-Romance dictionary formatting. "Parell" and "parella" are two distinct lemmas but are both listed under "parell" in dictionaries. "Parella" isn't a separate entry and doesn't even redirect to "parell". 90% of the time this makes sense as the masculine form has a feminine equivalent (e.g."pescador"/"pescadora") but obviously it can lead to confusion too. Ultimateria (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

door prizes redirect?[edit]

i'm new here. Is there a reason door prizes has its own page instead of redirecting to door prize? Thanks. 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't do redirects like Wikipedia does. Separate terms, even inflected terms, get their own entry. See WT:REDIRECTS for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Inflected forms, such as English plurals, have a minimal entry that amounts to a soft redirect. As the headword of an entry page may be a word in more than one language, a single hard redirect is not a general solution. See Category:English plurals for examples like [[abaisses]] (English and French inflected forms) and [[convives]] (English, Latin, Spanish). DCDuring TALK 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Should sensu lato et al. be Translingual?[edit]

Are Latin-derived phrases like sensu lato or sensu stricto really Translingual? I realize that they can be used in more or less any language, but they almost certainly have different pronunciations in different languages (unlike, for example, IPA symbols), could conceivably have synonyms/antonyms in various languages, and might have language-specific usage notes (e.g. their use could be broader in one language than another, or a phrase/word native to that language might be preferred, etc.).

It may seem obvious to some that it belongs under Translingual, but one of the most common reasons I use dictionaries is for finding pronunciation (though not in this specific case). A Translingual entry doesn't really have room for that information. If, for example, I wanted to know if the pronunciation of sensu stricto remained similar to the Latin one in Portuguese contexts, or if it was pronounced like a Portuguese phrase, our entry would not help me as it stands. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, Homo sapiens#Pronunciation does have foreign pronunciations. —suzukaze (tc) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC))
These pronunciations are ridiculous. No one is going to claim that "Homo sapiens" is Korean or Japanese. What's next? Pronunciation of "Homo sapiens" in Chinese? There is too much Eurocentrism and Latin Script-centrism here. Wyang (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang We use Translingual for any entry that spans multiple languages. Hence the large number of entries for CJKV characters. Accommodating the description of pronunciations of pronounceable Translingual terms would lead us to large pronunciation sections comparable to translation sections, presumably reflecting the most common pronunciation of the terms within groups of native speakers of each language. We don't seem to have a consensus for - or against - such sections.
English Wiktionary is, by intention, Anglophone and therefore "biased" toward Latin script. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This is why "Translingual" is so problematic, as it is in CJKV characters. On CJKV character pages, "Translingual" also includes Etymology's, which are more properly "Glyph origin"s that mostly belong in the Chinese sections. The pronunciations are not Korean and Japanese pronunciations of "Homo sapiens"; they are pronunciations of the Korean and Japanese borrowings of the Latin term (호모 사피엔스 and ホモ・サピエンス). Wyang (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
We have decided that taxonomic names are NOT Latin. They are used in running text in many languages, including some not in Latin script. Whether some or most linguists would deem them "borrowings" is not determinative of how we present them, which is or ought be a matter of attempting to help users, within the limits of our technology, skills, and numbers. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Taxonomic names are only valid when written in the Latin script, according to the taxonomic codes agreed to by taxonomists worldwide, including in Japan. It's a simple matter to find plenty of occurrences of Latin-script taxonomic names in texts of just about any modern non-Latin-script language. Homo sapiens isn't a good example, because it's so basic that it's been borrowed into and naturalized into a number of languages, including English. Let's look at a more obscure name that I picked at random, Callianthemum miyabeanum. I sincerely doubt it's been borrowed into Japanese due to Japanese phonotactic constraints, and the fact that the plant already has a Japanese name. And yet, Japanese scientists, if nobody else, must have a pronunciation for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy What pronunciation(s) should appear in a Translingual entry's pronunciation section? As we are in principle descriptive, it would seem that we would have the pronunciation actually used by native speakers of different languages. That seems a bit silly, not to mention overambitious.
I would favor, say, Latin or Latinate pronunciations for taxonomic names. We could possibly justify "English" pronunciations as we are English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For taxonomic names I would support having proscribed Latinate pronunciations. There's too much variation in the way people pronounce scientific names for us to try to include all the different ways or even to try to find a standard pronunciation. For entries like the one under discussion, I think a pronunciation section like that at Homo sapiens would be best. I didn't realize that there was precedent for this, but it's good to know there is.
I can't think of other types of entries that would need pronunciation, besides IPA symbols, which is pretty uncontroversial. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
At some point, I actually have asked for people to add multiple pronunciations in Homo sapiens, and they kindly did it. I support having multiple pronunciation sections for taxonomic names. (In other words, oppose removing the pronunciations if it ever has been proposed.) In fact, if one wants us to have Translingual sections for Latin phrases with multiple language pronunciations, then we are already working with the notion that it's possible for different languages to speak something in Latin using different pronunciations. Being a descriptive dictionary, it makes sense to me helping to pronounce each word as a speaker of each language would. Example: the "sap-" part in English is /seɪp/, which does not exactly seem to make sense in all languages.
It should make sense for us to have some form of attestation, though. Any TV shows or documentaries that mention taxonomic names and are durably archived? I'm pretty sure Callianthemum miyabeanum in Portuguese would be said by many people in my São Paulo, Brazil accent approximately as /kaliãj̃'temũ miabe'anũ/ (mind you, I'm not 100% good in IPA yet) though that transcription is prescriptive by definition unless it can be attested somehow, but the same would be said for multilanguage pronunciations of Latin phrases.
On a separate topic, I support using Translingual sections for the Latin phrases, regardless of what we actually do with taxonomic names. I think the notion that "we need separate language sections to keep the pronunciations!" has already been pretty much disproved. If fact, a single Translingual Pronunciation section would take much less space than having whole separate language sections just for the sake of their pronunciations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Defined and categorised as a noun, but the definition is a verb. Which is it? —CodeCat 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Nuked on sight as SOP for 実る ‎(minoru, to bear fruit) in the conjunctive 実って ‎(minotte) conjugation + present-progressive auxiliary いる ‎(iru).


As above. —CodeCat 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • This is an idiom, literally meaning "it has flowers and fruit", but basically meaning that something is positive in both name and deed. I'll rework it at some point. (I was in the middle of doing so, and was nearly finished, when I ran into the keyboard shortcut issue mentioned here.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but there's still the issue that a noun is being defined as a verb. —CodeCat 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Can this also be used as a noun? —suzukaze (tc) 04:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. We already had the plural, but I've added a singular as well. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't think of checking the plural page. It says "‎(plural only)" though, which now seems contradictory. —suzukaze (tc) 06:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    It may be that we need an inflection-line label usually plural in addition to plural only. The modules supporting {{en-noun}} should be able to handle it. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

red IPA in euvel[edit]

I just added IPA to the page for the dutch word euvel and when I saved it some of the transcription is in red, can someone help? How do I make it black? 2WR1 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion to be added (it's May, y'know), but whatever. It claims that the IPA character ø is not allowed, which is complete bollocks. I'm going to guess this is an undiscussed change by one of our module editors. @CodeCat, Kc kennylauΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The module controlling this behaviour is at Module:IPA/data. DTLHS (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It's more specific than that. It's tagging an invalid phoneme. Short /ø/ is not a Dutch phoneme, long /øː/ is. —CodeCat 01:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's good to know from a linguistic standpoint, but I guess this means that I'm right that this was never discussed? Seems like something that should be, given that last I checked, there were a whole lot of entries with faulty IPA that now have unexplained red characters. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense, but oddly, when I was double checking the pronunciation on nl.wiktionary.org, that was the IPA transcription given. Thanks! And sorry about posting in the wrong place, I didn't realise that the most recent were supposed to be at the bottom and I wasn't thinking about the month. I'll move it to the correct place. 2WR1 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Spell off[edit]

Posting here instead of at spell off per instructions.

"Goodale said plans are in place to spell off firefighters who have been battling the blaze this week." http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/growing-fort-mcmurray-wildfire-could-double-in-size-today-and-reach-the-saskatchewan-border

Please explain this usage of "spell off". The only usage on the spell off page has to do with bees. CapnZapp (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

to replace a tired worker with a fresh worker in turns to allow a rest period; to spell (rest) firefighters with fresh firefighters in alternating shifts. —Stephen (Talk) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this usage must be specific to Canada or North America. I don't think it would be understood in the UK. 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Added a sense at spell off. It may need a regional gloss. Equinox 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And it's not spell ‎(to work in place of (someone)" or "to rest (someone or something)) + off ‎(so as to be removed or separated)? DCDuring TALK 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Since it's transitive (relieving someone) it could only be the second, but "spell" alone doesn't guarantee its existence (e.g. you can't "relieve someone off"); phrasal verbs are notoriously difficult for L2 English learners and are not obvious SoPs. Equinox 22:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We label both definitions as transitive, as the parenthesized placeholders above and in the entry redundantly show. You seem to have bought the argument that we shouldn't limit Wiktionary to decoding English, but we should allow for the possibility that someone might be able to find the entry for the purpose of encoding (or that we should have the entry whether or not anyone who might use could find it). If so, we're doomed. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. It feels like push off or wake up to me. It's a not a verb construction that I recognise and I don't see how I could have known it was part of English by intuition. For example: if I let my cat go outside for a while, do I thereby "spell out" the cat? I doubt that is acceptable English, but it could (ignoring actual usage) be constructed along the same lines. Equinox 13:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox That seems like a problem with one's understanding of the meaning or usage of spell which applies usually to people engaged in a task or having assumed to a duty. I find it a good deal easier to apply spell to a dog than to a cat. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it common in Canadian English? I don't think it would be understood in the U.S. either; at least, I require context to understand the sentence quoted above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've not heard it before, and I've lived in Alberta almost all my life (I'm young yet, though, so that's not saying a whole lot). It's not something one would be likely to hear in everyday conversation where I live. I don't know what province the author of the article is from, though, and it's possible it's used more often out East. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. O-f-f. bd2412 T 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


- The first IPA listing on the autochtone wiktionay page (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autochtone) , in French, is not rigth. It shoun't be /o.tɔk.tɔn/, but /o.tok.ton/. It's associated audio file is right, though, alhtough its creator has added the worh "un" (article) to it. - The second audio file listed on the same autochtone page is not right. We are expecting /ɔ.tɔk.tɔn/ but we hear /o.tok.ton/.

References: dictionnaire Le Robert (2003)


The character 𩷆 is kinda look a Japanese shinjitai form to me (simplified from ), but is only from Vietnamese source. Can anyone clarify this? Dingo1234555 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

GlyphWiki lists few Japanese sources (only one, which seems [to me] to contain all sort of wacky characters). Maybe it would be used in personal handwriting but it doesn't seem to be something Japanese variant-crazy character encodings have cared about, which suggests to me that it's probably not common. —suzukaze (tc) 05:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Google searches for expected ja combinations like 𩷆は, 𩷆が, 𩷆の, の𩷆, 𩷆とは yield zero real usages that I can see. 00:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


All these "plural senses" are a bit problematic. I would have thought that "plural of comic" covered the lot. Equinox 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't mix lemmas and non-lemmas. —CodeCat 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to find senses 3 and 4 ("A collection of comic strips" and "the page of a newspaper especially devoted to comic strips") every in a usage that is incompatible with sense 1 ("plural of comic").
Sense 2 ("an artistic medium ....") can be used with both singular and plural verbs. I haven't found any use of senses 3 and 4 with a singular verb. Instead there are uses like "The comics are on Page 51."
I'd be inclined to challenge senses 3 and 4 as either non-existent used with a singular verb or, in the case of 3, transparently the plural of comic and, in the case of 4, merely reflecting that one physical form of distribution of multiple comic strips was on a newspaper page. "Comics" also refers to comic books, comic strips appearing distributed on several pages of a newspaper or magazine mixed with other content, comic strips appearing as a separate section of a weekend newspaper, and possibly to other forms. Neither collectively nor separately do these forms warrant a dictionary entry.
Also, what would be better wording for the the label "singular or plural in construction", that is, agreeing with either a singular or plural verb or pronoun form? DCDuring TALK 22:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Is the recently added sense "To use the features of the Caucasian ethnic group as a standard of beauty" distinct from the (recently merged, rather broad) sense right before it? I can't think of a usex so I can't tell. Equinox added "for (a TV show)", but if I heard someone say "they whitewashed The Foobar Show", it would suggest to me that they cast white actors in all the roles, rather than that they held non-white actors to white ideals of beauty. "Whitewashing beauty" would similarly suggest "making [the ideal of beauty] more white". - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is (i) work out the transitivity of each sense (which might catch any issues); (ii) find citations for each sense; (iii) possibly gather senses under a heading. It certainly seems a bit weird to have four separate racial senses. Equinox 05:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I hope that no one catches this act of microaggression. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

sangre (Mexico)[edit]

How do Mexicans pronounce sangre? --Romanophile (contributions) 07:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't they pronounce it [ˈsaŋ.ɡɾe], same as virtually all other Spanish speakers? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: yes, but there’s a tendency in Mexico to drop the final e’s in speech. That’s why I asked. --Romanophile (contributions) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

mʉr - Normalising medieval handwriting[edit]

The usage note is correct. But is the character used an adæquate rendering of a diagonally slashed u/v? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a Unicode V with diagonal stroke (Ꝟ ꝟ), but I don't think there's a diagonally slashed U anywhere in Unicode. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no rule saying we have to use only precomposed characters. We can use U+0337 COMBINING SHORT SOLIDUS OVERLAY to create u̷ or U+0338 COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY to create u̸. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a question about how to represent the appearance of the character, but whether anyone would need or use such an entry. Does any other online source use such a character or character sequence for this letter? Would anyone ever search for the entry? If they did, would they know to use our representation in the search box?
Also, how does using a character in the IPA Extensions block of Unicode affect script detection, sorting, and other functions of our code? Would it require adding or modifying things in the data modules?
I vaguely remember we had discussions about using spacing modifier letters that look like superscript letters to represent abbreviations like Mr. and Wm. when the some letters are written smaller and higher that the rest of the letters in the word. I'm not sure how those discussions ended up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall how the spacing modifier letters ended up either. I do stand by my opinion that we should use them if and only if we have a born-digital source that uses them.
IPA extensions should be recognized as Latin, and combining characters shouldn't affect the script of the surrounding characters, provided all things are working as per the standard. Sorting should be relatively fine, again, if everything is per standard.
As always, I think we should be referring to published works only. Instead of trying to transcribe medieval handwriting, we should be using published copies, which use a normalized script with a limited set, that in almost all cases will be in Unicode. We could get quite creative trying to record w:Sütterlin or Pepys' unusual shorthand, but instead we record what's printed. I don't see any difference here; if medieval German linguists are using a u with diagonal stroke here, then we should, otherwise, we should use what they're using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The character in question (slashed U) was the standard way to render the sound in an important region for a certain time. It is however not used in modern editions since the normalised script uses ü. So this might be a case of precedence for spellings of the category standard at the time, made invisible in modern prints. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The shape, a u with a diagonal slash, may have been the standard way to render the sound, but does that shape denote a separate character?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
As much as Danish O and Ø, yes. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

devoir surveillé[edit]

Currently a redlink, and I'm not sure whether it's SOP or not. @Renard Migrant, Romanophile — thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

My inclination is that it is not SOP. Why don't we ping actual French speakers: @Fsojic, Lmaltier, JackPotte, Jerome Charles Potts. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you mean L1 speakers. I just wanted to ping a couple people who I think would want to see; there are so many Francophones around here that I don't have to bother people who may not be active or interested just to get an opinion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not yet present in fr.wikt, but it's worth an entry: this phrase belongs to the French school jargon (at least in France, I cannot tell for other countries), and it's abbreviated as DS. w:fr:Devoir surveillé provides a number of synonyms in several contexts: DS, devoir sur table, DST, contrôle, partiel, épreuve partielle, interrogation écrite, interrogation surprise. Lmaltier (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Some of those are clearly not exact synonyms (in anglophone schools, the boundary between test and exam is ill-defined, but a pop quiz is something very different). I'll create a basic entry, and you can feel free to improve it as you see fit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Another question to consider is that each noun might go with a different verb. In Russian for example, you say сдава́ть экза́мен ‎(sdavátʹ ekzámen), but писа́ть контро́льную ‎(pisátʹ kontrólʹnuju). In English I think you just use the word take for all of them. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Glottal stops[edit]

See recent changes to Batman [8] and atmosphere [9], where glottal-stop versions have been added. I don't think this is a good idea; other dictionaries don't do it, and while the glottal stop is one possible realisation of a t, it's not conventionally listed among the phonemes of English, AFAIK. Thoughts? Equinox 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a phoneme, but an allophone of /t/. So it doesn't belong in a phonemic representation. —CodeCat 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It is the predominant pronunciation in North America and some other places. Please consider how even our logo has undue RP (UK) bias; shows a pronunciation for Wiktionary foreign to most North Americans and most English-speakers (2nd+ language speakers included). Outside of UK and some speakers in au/nz/za, 'dictionary' has 4 syllables; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 01:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
As CodeCat says, it shouldn't be listed in /slashes/ because it's not phonemic. It could be listed in [brackets] as a narrow transcription after the phonemic transcription, similar to what's done at cat. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The phenomenon is so well-known that most lessons on the w:glottal stop specifically mention the pre-consonantal, word-medial t of GA the same way most classes on /x/ specifically mention the word-final velar fricative in Scottish 'loch'. According to w:allophone theory, an instance of w:t-glottalization from tʰ → t → ʔt → ʔ is complete enough to be considered a separate w:phoneme if the sounds exhibit complementary distribution and the sounds are phonetically dissimilar. RP audiences commonly refuse to accept the GA unaspirated word-medial t; they interpret it strictly as a /d/ unless the GA speaker unnaturally affects a /tʰ/. Please consider the pair 'sorted' and 'sordid'. Note that an aspirated alveolar /tʰ/ is certainly physically quite distant from a glottal /ʔ/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/The_International_Phonetic_Alphabet_%28revised_to_2015%29.pdf . Please listen to genuine ordinary GA pronunciations of 'Batman' and I'm sure You'll spot the /ʔ/ . Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 10:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
But the sounds do not exhibit complementary distribution, so they aren't separate phonemes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I do pronounce the glottal stop, but then, I also add j to most front vowels and aspirate word-initial p,t and k. It's just part of the phonetic detail. We don't indicate the difference between the alveolar stop and diphthongized vowel in English dose vs. the dental stop and pure vowel in Spanish dos, so why should be indicate this difference? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just point out that the distinction between what is a phoneme and what is an allophone is very subjective and open to interpretation. The correct thing to say is that we treat [ʔ] as an allophone of the phoneme /t/ (and I'm not saying we shouldn't, but only that we shouldn't pretend that our way is the only way). --WikiTiki89 15:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
First if we remove anything, it should be the /t/ version since the /ʔ/ version is the standard; the copyrighted word was coined in GA, and the plethora of media produced by the copyright owner(s) is all in GA. The /t/ version is incorrect; a minority relegated to other dialects. Please take a moment to view a short summary on http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2604 .
Aɴɢʀ, have You ever been a GA speaker living in an RP land? Perhaps You're an RP speaker in an RP land with RP dictionaries and your lack of broad experience may be producing tunnel vision. One friend, a Northern English immigrant in Australia broke down in tears because every single staff member they approached in Target to help them find a battery /ˈbæ.tə.ɹi/ heard their /ˈbæʔ.tʰɹi/ as 'bat tree' /ˈbæʔt.tɹi/, even though they were a Target employee. One GA immigrant relative was offended in Australia by hearing something they'd completed being called 'sorted' /ˈsɔː.tɪd/, an unfamiliar slang term they heard as sordid /ˈsɔɹɾɨd/. Then trying to incorporate the new term, they said sorted /ˈsɔːr.ɾɪd/ but it was heard as sordid /ˈsɔː.dɪd/. Beyond the complementary distribution, the ability to change the meaning by substituting one word-medial t sound for the other marks separate phonemes. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I've never been accused of being an RP speaker before! No, I'm American and a speaker of GenAm. I also have a Ph.D. in linguistics with a specialization in phonology, and I know that GA (like RP) has no phoneme /ʔ/, but /t/ has an allophone [ʔ]. Batman can be pronounced [ˈbæʔmæn] with a glottal stop, or [ˈbæt̚mæn] with an unreleased [t], or even [ˈbæp̚mæn] with an unreleased [p] (likewise, atmosphere can be pronounced with [ˈæʔmə-], [ˈæt̚mə-], or [ˈæp̚mə-]), but the fact that debuccalization is not obligatory and an alveolar stop is always possible (and not only in careful speech but even in casual speech!) establishes pretty clearly that these words still have /t/ in their underlying representation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Aɴɢʀ, I really stuck my foot down my throat this time; I'm pulling my head in and apologizing. Am I also wrong about /ʔ/ being involved in the majority GA pronunciation of 'Batman'? Do You have any thoughts on the aforementioned short info-graphic? Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 00:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I said myself that Batman can be pronounced with a glottal stop. I'm not denying that for a moment. All I'm denying is that the glottal stop is phonemic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like I hurt your feelings; I didn't mean to but I'll apologize again. Perhaps You think I'm being sarcastic; I'm not. I kowtowed and actually wanted You to teach me if my experience of most GA pronunciations having glottal stops is unrepresentative. I also wanted the benefit of your expert's-eye-view on a text that I find influential. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 08:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Shows how bad the Internet is at conveying emotions. My feelings weren't hurt at all, I just wanted you to understand that you are right that words like Batman and atmosphere are (often) pronounced with a glottal stop, but that doesn't mean the glottal stop is phonemic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank You. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


How did /tɪˈtɑːniə/ take hold elsewhere if a vast majority of -ania words have /eɪniə/ (and thus came the AmE pronunciation)? Hillcrest98 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely it’s an attempt to sound more similar to Latin. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To differentiate it further from titanium (/taɪˈteɪniəm/)? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way of knowing how Shakespeare himself intended it to be pronounced? Or at least how performers of his plays pronounced it throughout the centuries? --WikiTiki89 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
English speakers have always traditionally pronounced Latin long vowels like English, up to about 1900. The [i:] and [a:] of Latin would have been well into the Great Vowel Shift in 1600, so [təɪ'te:nɪə] or perhaps [təɪ'tɛ:nɪə], giving rise to modern (traditional) [taɪ'teɪnɪə]. --Hiztegilari (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
But it's not so simple. If an Italian woman walked up to Shakespeare and said her name was [tiˈtan.ja], Shakespeare would more likely have approximated it as /tɪˈtɑːnɪə/, don't you think? It's not as though we suddenly became aware of the Great Vowel Shift in 1900; England was not isolated from the outside world. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this ever used independently without "principle"? If not does it pass CFI? --Dixtosa (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

google books:"don't forget k.i.s.s." returns some relevant hits (among all the irrelevant ones). However, it seems that each one that actually explains the acronym uses a different word for the last S. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


In cot, two IPA pronunciations are given at the top level - UK, Australia, Boston: /kɒt/ and US: /kɑt/, but then below these, different pronunciations are given - Received Pronunciation: [kʰɒt], Australia: [kʰɔt], Boston: [kʰɒːt] and General American: [kʰɑt] and US-Northern Cities Vowel Shift: [kʰat]. That seems confusing. Why not separate UK, Australia, Boston into UK, Boston: [kʰɒːt] and Australia: [kʰɔt] (and remove the separate UK and Boston pronunciations), and at least change US: /kɑt/ into [kʰɑt] since the ʰ is in both of the entries below (General American: [kʰɑt] and Vowel Shift: [kʰat])? --V111P (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a /phonemic/ and a [phonetic] transcription? (I just thought that this might be the problem. However, you might be a professional phonetician or something. In that case I'm sorry because it's probably me whod doesn't properly understand your question :)) Kolmiel (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Kolmiel, I'm not a phonetician, and I'm also not a native English speaker, so I really didn't understand what is going on there, but now I do. :) --V111P (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reichenau Glosses[edit]

What do we consider the language of the glosses in the Reichenau Glosses to be? Late Latin? Medieval Latin? Proto-Gallo-Romance? KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


"The state or quality of being assimilate.". Can assimilate be used as an adjective? I don't see much if any usage. DTLHS (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in Sheridan's old (1700s) Complete Dictionary of the English Language, where it is defined as "likeness". Actual usage seems hard to find. No such adjective as "assimilate" in Chambers. Equinox 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I can find assimilate as a noun, and have added that POS. I can't find much evidence of it as an adjective, and in the later examples I can find, it's not always clear if it's a typo for "assimilated" or not. The 1898 one, however, does use "assimilate" twice in places where an adjective is natural, and uses "assimilated" once elsewhere, so it at least does seem to attest the adjective. Whereas, a different page of the 1971 citation has "These acts are assimilated to...", suggesting that its use is a typo; likewise, the 1985 citation elsewhere frequently speaks of things like rain and mana being "assimilated" to the feet, the sky, etc. I assume the 2007 one is also a typo.
  • 1898, The United Service Magazine, volume 17, page 96 and 103:
    The Prince made known to me that he was exceeding interested in the matter—the details of which were assimilate to those herein published, having reference to the four points already distinguished—and himself suggested [...]
    [...] concentration of this energetic devotion in a department assimilate to that serving each of the other sections of the United Kingdoms.
  • 1971, U.S. Assistance Programs in Vietnam: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-second Congress, First Session, volumes 74-77, page 205:
    Then it [some other text which is being quoted] says:
    Shall be considered as Pro-Communist Neutralist a person who commits acts of propaganda for and incitement of Neutralism: these acts are assimilate to acts of jeopardizing public security.
  • 1985, Valerio Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii (ISBN 0226845605), page 93:
    Thus two ali'i of the same rank, their regalia, and whatever they put "under the shadow" of their kapu, that is assimilate to their persons, are noa to one another because they have the same position in the social syntagm, because they are equivalent.
  • 2007, Елена Наумовна Зарецкая, Rhetoric: The Theory and Practice of Speech Communication (ISBN 1893552454):
    [...] thinking by timorous steps (O. Mandelshtam) - in all enlisted metaphors the various characteristics (those which the object and its characteristics are assimilate to) [...]
I also find this one where Google won't show me the snippet and I suspect the sentence the search engine provides (below) is a conflation fragments of each column on the page:
  • 1960, The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, volume 26, page 2741:
    The Emperor, being all-powerful, was assimilate to the gods; with many in. fact, be soon replaced them.
- -sche (discuss) 01:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose assimilateness needs a better definition. It seems to be very rare. DTLHS (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Assimilateness seems to be almost as rare as adjectival use of assimilate. Still, I suppose it's best to use a more comprehensible definition and relegate assimilate ‎(adj) to "Related terms" or the etymology ("From the rare adjective assimilate +‎ -ness"). - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


What does pared mean in Occitan? --Romanophile (contributions) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

couch (verb)[edit]

We currently show 2 etymologies for the verb couch: 1). to recline on a couch, and 2). to embed or conceal (in a word, statement, etc.) a hidden meaning. But isn't the furtive sense just the an extension of the literal sense(s) ? Leasnam (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Further, I would suggest moving all verb senses to Etymology 2 and split the Etymologies by POS. Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Our entry for couchier#Old French doesn't provide what is needed for the verb etymology. The required content is probably in Robert's entry for coucher, for which my French is inadequate. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I follow. I will look to see if the split occurred further back... If not, and it occurs in English, then I suppose I will proceed with the above, if that's acceptable Leasnam (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no objections. What you propose is consistent with “couch” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001)., a generally good source. I don't have access to OED. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Yes, it looks like that meaning developed in English (early 16c). Leasnam (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Leasnam (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Is it a general consensus that the English word "leg" excludes the feet (as our definition says)? -- (I added a note that the German Bein (see there) often or usually includes the feet, but I'm wondering if there's a real difference there between the German and English words, because - I s'pose - some Germans might also exclude the feet from their understanding of "Bein".) -- So, is it an obvious thing that the feet are excluded or might our definition of "leg" be too narrow and subjective? Kolmiel (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that it is used both ways, though it may be more commonly used excluding foot. Most definitions focus on use "a limb used for locomotion" A couple have something like "a human limb; commonly used to refer to a whole limb but technically only the part of the limb between the knee and ankle". DCDuring TALK 00:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The medical/anatomical/zoological definition excludes both foot and thigh. I don't know how ankle and knee are treated. If limb is used as the hypernym in the definiens, as it often is, leg would presumably inherit its scope, though it is often defined as "arm or leg". DCDuring TALK 00:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. So there's no substantial difference, as I had supposed. Well, thanks! You guys must know whether to change the definition in the lemma "leg". (I think it may be useful.) Kolmiel (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

About "menhir"[edit]

I have removed the German word "Hinkelstein", since "Hinkel" appears neither here nor in the Cassell's German Dictionary. I have added instead the words "Druidenstein' and "Hünenstein" from Cassell's. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please put it back on. It's the commonest word, though probably not scientific. See this: [10]. Kolmiel (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way: Hinkel is a dialectal word that means "chicken". I don't think it has anything to do with this. But a Hinkelstein is a Hinkelstein. You can't delete a compound just because you can't attest one of its parts on its own. Kolmiel (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think Hinkelstein is the usual word for menhir in the German translations of the Asterix comics, in case someone wants to look for attestation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. That's where you'll come across it most often. But I don't think there can be much doubt about it even outside of Asterix. If we did need to look for attestations it would be for "Druidenstin" and "Hünenstein", which I have never heard, nor would have understood. Kolmiel (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I had a quick look. They are both attestable. Nothing much in recent decades, however. Kolmiel (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

trade crop[edit]

Is this the same as a cash crop? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And market crop AFAICT. Contrast with cover crop and subsistence crop. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Is the declension table correct? After looking into

  • Eduard Sievers: Angelsächsische Grammatik. Dritte Auflage. 2. unveränderter Abdruck. Volume 3 of the series Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte edited by Wilhelm Braune. Halle, 1921, p. 183


  • Joseph Wright, Elizabeth Mary Wright: Old English Grammar. 1908, p. 232

the declension should be like this:

m n
Nom. hwā, hwa hwæt
Gen. hwæs hwæs
Dat. hwǣm, hwām hwǣm, hwām
Acc. hwone
Instr. hwȳ, hwī


  • The masculine nominative can also be hwa with a short vowel.
  • Only the neuter has instrumental forms, the masculine hasn't.
  • There is another instrumental form, hwī.

Also Wiktionary might miss the following information:

  • The accusative hwæne is younger.
  • The instrumental hwon only occurs in adverbial phrases like tō hwon and for whon.
  • There is also the instrumental form with the adverbial meaning how.
  • There were other dialectal forms like Kentish neuter hwet.

-Ikiaika (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1). Old English didn't adequately represent vowel length orthographically, so it's possible that an unstressed form hwa could have existed in speech...
2). The masculine and neuter agree in declension, save in the nominative and accusative, since PIE times, so, the masculine instrumental is accurately shown to be hwȳ/hwon (hwon = suppletive?)/and yes hwī (same as hwȳ). Now, whether it was ever attested to mean "by/for/with that (masc) person or object" outside of just a general meaning of "why" or "for what (reason)" remains to be explored.
3). Yes, just an alternative form of normalised hwȳ. Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
4). There is also an alternative to hwon: hwan Leasnam (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply!
1) I've read that Anglosaxon sometimes marked long vowels, as huus or hús for modern hús, hûs or hūs. So maybe the vowel sometimes was marked. Or maybe one could find out the length from poems.
Wright states (p. 232, and p. 35 and 44): "On the vowel in hwā, see § 79." and "The Short Vowels of Accented Syllables. [...] § 79. Final a was lengthened to ā in monosyllables, as hwā (Goth. [..]), who, swā (Goth. swa), so." In context of the personal pronouns he writes (p. 225, and p. 49): "In forms marked with both long and short vowels, as in [...], those with short vowels were the unaccented forms, see § 95." and "§ 95. Final e was lengthened to ē in monosyllables as hē, he [...]". So the length should depend on accentuation.
2) It could be that Anglosaxon used the dative hwǣm and not the instrumental for persons or masculine nouns, while the neuter could have preserved the instrumental, at least in some fixed expressions or in certain circumstances.
Wright writes in another context (p. 161): "OE. nouns have [...] five cases: Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, and Instrumental. The dat. is generally used for the instr. in OE., so that this case is omitted in the paradigms, see § 334."
3) I'd guess that Wright uses a normalised orthography, so both hwȳ and hwī should be normalised spellings.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ihne, wene[edit]

German dative forms like deme, ihme, weme can be explained by Middle High German forms like dëme and ime. But how about German accusative forms like ihne and wene? Such forms seem not to existed in Middle High German. Two possible explanations came into my mind but they are just poor guessings:
(a) Maybe that are Upper German forms like jedwederer for jedweder, and maybe some words were prolonged for prestige in Upper German regions.
(b) Middle Low German forms are these:

m n
Dat. deme, dem, den
Acc. dene, den dat
m n
Dat. eme, ome, en eme, em, ome, en
Acc. ene, en, one, on it, et
m n
Dat. weme, wem
Acc. wene, wen wat
  • Source: Agathe Lasch: Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Volume 9 of the series Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte edited by Wilhelm Braune. Halle a. S., 1914, pp. 216, 218, 220.

The source also mentions that dative and accusative sometimes got mixed up which might explain the the Middle Low German accusative -e: Having a dative -e and mixing up dative and accusative could result in an accusative -e. Maybe Low German speakers then used their accusative -e in High German too.
Hopefully someone can enlighten me and explain to me where the High German accusative -e comes from. -Ikiaika (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Middle Low German accusative forms with -e are a regular development and did not intrude from the dative. The mixup mainly concerns writing -m for -n. It could very well be that the accusative-e in High German is a dialectal development from northern (High German) regions with similar forms or that the E is merely written, because in the dialects employing these forms, /ə/ had already become silent. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply!
  • Silent letters are common in English (island, shine), but in German? b in for example umb was or became silent, but no other example comes into my mind. In gedencken, Schrifft, Kaufleuth there were unnecessary consonant letters, but I wouldn't call them silent letters.
  • I just found the additions to Lexer's MHG dictionary. He mentions the accusative wene and gives a single source from Austria for this ("westen di luite, an wene si solten glouben, wen si solten haben zeinem vater"). Compared with the cites for wene from München and Dilingen (Dillingen an der Donau?), it might be a southern German or Upper German form, in some way similar to jedwederer for jedweder, seynd for sind, gesyn for seyn. I would explain such forms by prestige, that longer and older forms might look more elevated, noble, courtly. That might be an incorrect and poor explanation, but until now I've not seen a better one.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


This page lists massager as a hyponym of masseuse. Shouldn't it be a hypernym? A masseuse is a female massager. Troyp (talk)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"entre los Ceibos estorba un Quebracho"[edit]

Wiktionary has no entry for ceibo, but it is defined at w:ceibo as the national flower/tree of Argentina and Uruguay. Quebracho is apparently a tree with very hard wood. I have no idea why they are capitalized in the Spanish phrase above, but it comes in a communication from the Organization of American States, so should be accounted for in our dictionary. Here is the OAS release (also Spanish) and what I think is the original song with video. (I suppose someone on Wikipedia would give me flack over a 'prohibited' external link with that, but frankly, the big lyrics sites have been up for 20 years now, they look like Fair Use, and I don't believe their 'illegality' is anything but a propertarian-fringe fiction at this point. I don't know Wiktionary's policy though)


1) create ceibo
2) Do we need Ceibo? And why?
3) The phrase itself is being used with clear political significance here, and I think an entry on the whole thing entre los Ceibos estorba un Quebracho may be in order. I still have no idea what it means in the context of the OAS letter, at least.
4) also Quebracho???
5) explain this sense in quebracho.

Wnt (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it at the moment, but see if ceiba is helpful. Linking to a website in a discussion to illustrate a point is different from including it in an entry. See WT:CFI for our policies on inclusion and citation. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Wnt: The only reasonable request is your first one, which I have fulfilled. We do not include capitalised versions of words unless they are always capitalised, and we do not include quotes, no matter how much metaphorical weight those quotes may have, because we are not Wikiquote. As Chuck said, you can read more about what we do include at WT:CFI.
Chuck: Spanish is crazy when it comes to biological nomenclature. Unfortunately, the ceiba and the ceibo are completely different (although there may be some dialect where that's not the case). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

refrain#Verb: an example is present for two senses[edit]

In the page about refrain, senses 1 and 3 share the example “Refrain thy foot from their path.” --Anareth (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


There's a footnote in the conjugation section that the verb also has the past participle nīsus. Can this be added to the conjugation table and headword line as well? —CodeCat 18:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ultimately, second sense[edit]

The definition: “Indicating the most important action.” An example: “[…] the ultimately luckless Hennessey, who was […]” The example does not match the definition.

It seems to mean "in the end". Equinox 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Both of the definitions now in the entry are awful. They are neither substitutable nor worded clearly as non-gloss definitions.
The second definition could be worded as "Most importantly".
The word is sometimes used to mean "originally" as in "The word is ultimately from Latin." That is, the implied sequence or order can be either forward or backward from the reference time. For the backward use in the end is not right; it might be in the beginning. This suggests that we need two usage examples if not two definitions
The first definition might be better as "Eventually" or "Finally" or we may need something more extensive. The existing usage example seems phony to me. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Predicative forms like "er ist selbig" and mixed forms like "ein selbiger" should be nonexistent.
  • Weak forms should be complicated: While spellings like "der selbige" exist, modern prescribed forms with the definte article should be derselbige etc.

-Ikiaika (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You can create derselbige, of course. But I don't agree that "ein selbiger" shouldn't exist. Google it, it has a lot of justified hits, like: "Wo kein Markt ist, kann ein selbiger sich auch nicht bereinigen." I wouldn't write that, personally, but it sounds okay to me. Kolmiel (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies! I googled it at books.google, but maybe not good enough. Your example can be found at radioforen.de, but with "Selbiger". I don't think that that is a good example (also compare with *ein selber), but let's put it aside for now. [A small PS: As selbig means the same, ein selbiger would mean a the same which makes no sense, and for the same reason there should be no *ein selber.]
What about the predicative forms, do they exist? And what about the spellings with the definite article? Of course one can create entries for derselbige etc., but the template just mentions "der selbige". I'd guess, that it at least requires a note like "Spellings like der selbige are nowadays proscribed, while spellings like derselbige are prescribed." (compare with der selbe and derselbe, e.g. korrekturen.de, lektor.at). Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 00:22, 00:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, they used it. To me personally it even sounds grammatical, but it needn't be grammatical as long as it's used. And selbig doesn't mean "the same" but "same", so ein selbiger is "a same", which might (is it?) still be ungrammatical in English, but need not be in German. Generally, things don't have to make sense, they just have to be attested. A better wording, of course, would be "ein solcher", but that's not the question. --- As far as template and programming questions are concerned, I can't help you unfortunately. Kolmiel (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: You also find relevant hits on google.books. E.g.: "Er kann sich in diesen vergegenwärtigen gemäß der jeweiligen Bestimmtheit ihres Seins, so daß seine Ausdrucksformen sehr verschiedene sind, während er selbst doch ein selbiger ist." Obviously there's nothing to be "put aside for now". It's part of our language whether we like or not. Kolmiel (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
German Wiktionary says there also was "der jener" (which developed into derjenige). So indeed, strange forms could have been used. But if incorrect forms were or are used, then it requires a note. For example, "Ich muss gehen, weil die Geschäfte machen gleich zu." is incorrect it normal German, even if it is used colloquially.
  • How about predicative forms? Till now I can't see any example for that. Examples from books.google for "ist selbig":
    • "... das 'Was etwas ist' [...] ist selbig mit ihm ..." — there selbig should mean identical and not the same, that is, it should have another sense.
    • "sondern ist selbig mit sich selbst" — as above, and the meaning identical should be philosophical.
    • "... so ist selbig den Zöllnern ..." — there selbig should be short for selbiges (similar to "unser täglich Brot" besides "unser tägliches Brot").
    • "Herzog Hand Ernst [...] ist selbig 16[line break]26. Jar [...], als er [...] erkranckt, den 15. December todts verfahren" — that should mean "ist selbiges 1626ste Jahr", that is "he died in the same 1626th year".
    • "Nachdem Martin [...] baden wollen, ist selbig ertuncken" — that should mean "ist selbiger ertrunken".
    • "... aber ist selbig nit wegen sein, sonder ..." — there selbig should be short for selbiges
So while selbig exists, I can't find any example like "er ist selbig" meaning "he is the same".
  • As for ein selbiger:
    • The example from radioforen.de is not durably archived, spells it Selbiger and might be colloquial.
    • The example with "ein selbiger ist" is from a philosophical book out of the 1970s or 1980s. (a) Sometimes philosophers redefine words, so it could have a different meaning. (b) Some sources (e.g. DWDS) say that selbig is "veraltet", so the author could have used it incorrectly.
  • Comparison with selber/selbe: selber and selbiger have the same meaning, (the) same. But ein selber and er ist selber shouldn't exist, and same should be true for selbig.
To sum up, ist selbig (or more complete: ist selbig mit) and ein selbiger might exist. But both should have another meaning: ist selbig mit should mean is identisch mit or is identical with, and ein selbiger should mean ein solcher or such a. Also these meanings might be less common, younger (from the 20th century), and philosophical or colloquial. -- Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we could add a note that these forms are rather uncommon, why not. They definitely aren't colloquial because the word selbig is by itself elevated and archaic. (And the word as such is actually uncommon in contemporary German.) However, we don't say that things said and written by native speakers are "incorrect". We do say that such things may be "proscribed", but in that case I think you'd have to produce a source that proscribes it, and you'll hardly find that, because no one has probably ever written anything about "ein selbiger". Kolmiel (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Older grammarians like Gottsched and Adelung already criticised or even proscribed some words or usages (e.g. in case of was in front of nouns like was Volk), so they could have proscribed ein selbiger. Also there might be another way to justify a label "proscribed". If a grammarian declined selbig and only has (no article) selbiger and der selbige or derselbige, it could mean that ein selbiger does not exist or is incorrect.
But IMHO it's not a matter of proscribed or not, but of the meaning. selbig meaning the same shouldn't have forms like "er ist selbig" and "ein selbiger". selbig with the rare meaning solcher or such has forms like "ein selbiger", and selbig with the rare meaning identisch or identical has forms like "ist selbig (mit)". This would also explain why there is ein selbiger but no ein selber: selber simply doesn't have these other meanings. But I'm not sure if these other meanings really are attestable.
PS: Well, ein selber might also exist as in: "Folglich bezieht sich das Endliche auf ein selber endliches oder verendlichtes Nichtendliches." But there it should have another meaning too. Also ATM these mixed forms aren't mentioned in selbe or selber. -- Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "the word shouldn't have these forms". It's not the way we work here. Who decides what forms a word should have? It yourself who say that it shouldn't have them. I say it should. (And neither is important.) And as far as "proscribed" is concerned: I don't see how something can be proscribed when no one has ever proscribed it. You may discuss that with someone else, I personally think it's ridiculous. What we can say is something along the lines of "some language users may find this use abnormal", which is a safe call. -- So, and that's it for me concerning this topic. Kolmiel (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

selber, selbe[edit]

There should be two words selber and not just one: (a) A word meaning himself etc., and (b) an inflected form of selbe. Compare for example:

  • "er selber hat" (a) and "selber Tag" (strong form of b in the nominative)
  • "am selben Tag[e]" (weak form of b) and "an selbem Tag[e]" (strong form of b)
  • "und gab demselben den Rath" (weak form of b) and "und gab selbem den gewöhnlichen Segen" (strong form of b).

So word (a) is uninflectable and placed after another word, while word (b) is inflectable and a form of selbe. Also, maybe the declension tables from the entries selber and selbe should be in the same entry. -Ikiaika (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So create etymology 1 for the adverb, and etymology 2 for the inflected form. Kolmiel (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The etymology could be the same or at least similar, and I can't say anything about it. I slightly changed the entries (see selber, selbe), but IMHO both tables should be in one entry. Greetings, -Ikiaika (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
They should be two etymologies, I think. We generally put inflected forms in a separate etymology, as far as I'm aware. "Selber" (= -self) is a lemma, while the inflected form is not. Strictly speaking you're right, but this is more a question of layout. (I'm not a huge expert on our layout though. You might want to ask someone else.) Kolmiel (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, one could also say that selber (= the same) is a lemma too. In case of Alter, Beamter, Kleiner the strong form is used, while the weak is just an inflected form. So selbe could point to selber. On the other hand, the weak form selbe might be more common, at least nowadays. For comparision, German Wiktionary missed the strong forms completely. -Ikiaika (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the Dutch approach could be used as a comparison. Dutch also has the same distinction, but since neither word inflects it's much easier. See zelf, zelfde. —CodeCat 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, true. Since there is no "selb", in this case "selber" would be the lemma. (In adjectives without predicative form we always use the er-form as lemma.) Make it one etymology then, or make it two, whatever you like. ---- Comparing with Dutch, the difference is that German "selber" can both be zelf and zelfde, so while there is a semantic distinction the two occasionally overlap formally. Kolmiel (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


apertus is already the past participle of aperiō. Can this be looked at? —CodeCat 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Could it be a frequentive like spectō? I don't see the problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a frequentative. The problem is that apertō, like all frequentatives, is a 1st conjugation verb, so the expected participle is apertātus. —CodeCat 21:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you knew the problem, but were unable to fix it? I fixed it for you, anyhow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I knew there was a problem, didn't know what the correct fix was. Maybe apertātus was also wrong, for all I know. —CodeCat 00:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

apo, apio, apiscor[edit]

De Vaan gives apiō while we have apō. The derived verb coepiō preserves the -i-, as does apīscor. So is the verb actually attested only as apō, or is apiō also found, as De Vaan indicates? —CodeCat 20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


' (easier to click link) is used in English distinctly from the suffix -' in words like talkin'. We have no entry. Also, is this 'punctuation' or what? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's punctuation in the sense that it is a mark that is not a letter. I guess we should define it as something like Indicates that a letter has been omitted from the word. Perhaps it should even be translingual. --WikiTiki89 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(Not a suffix, of course, as it occurs in other places like shan't and 'phone.) Equinox 21:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this adequate? - -sche (discuss) 14:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Does no one else think this should be translingual? I know it at least applies to English and French, but I guess I'm not sure to what it extent it applies to other Latin script languages. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Except from "often [...] they are no longer pronounced" it also applies to German: Katz' (also Katz) for Katze, Leut' (also Leut) for Leute, freud'ger for freudiger, geh' (also geh) for gehe, Baum's (also Baums) for Baumes. However, there might be different views about when to use an apostroph. Forms like Baum's were rare, forms like Katz' might be younger, forms like geh' might nowadays be questioned. Also the apostrophe might be restricted to just replace a few letters in a word. I can't remember to have seen something like "fo'c's'le" (three apostrophes) in German. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
An apostrophe is certainly used to mark elision in Italian as well. Still, this seems to be an eye-dialect marker more than a mark of elision because the g isn't actually pronounced in -ing: it's just an orthographic device used to distinguish a velar nasal from an alveolar one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If "ng" means /ŋ/ and "n" means /n/, then pronouncing "ng" as /n/ is dropping the "g". Otherwise, you're taking technicalities too far. --WikiTiki89 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, either interpretation requires playing games with abstractions, since we're talking about dropping a written "g" in pronunciation. After all, I doubt pronouncing thing as "ting" would be called "dropping the 'h'". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the definition as "Replaces one or more letters which have been removed from a written word, often but not always because they are not being pronounced", I don't see how that can possibly be interpreted as excluding talkin’. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that -in' represents the vast majority of uses (I can't think of any others off the top of my head), "often" wouldn't seem to be correct if this isn't a case of "because they are not being pronounced". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not convinced that -in’ represents any kind of majority or plurality of uses (I would think contractions like -'s and don't would take that title). Secondly, I will still maintain that the distinction between /ŋ/ and /n/ is commonly referred to as pronouncing or not pronouncing the "g". If you really want a more technical justification, you can say that the "g" is a velarization marker when following the letter "n", and in talkin’, the velarization marker "g" is not pronounced. --WikiTiki89 19:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot we were talking about ' rather than -'. My bad. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Even in those examples, the apostrophe is replacing a letter that is not being pronounced. (Leute: /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/, Leut’: /ˈlɔʏ̯t/.) - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
But it is being pronounced- as a schwa. To be analogous, you would have to be talking about the difference between /ˈlɔʏ̯te/ and /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not being pronounced: Leut’ is /ˈlɔʏ̯t/, and rhymes in songs with freut and other such things. In Leute, the final letter is pronounced (/ˈlɔʏ̯tə/), and thus in that pronunciation the apostrophe (which replaces unpronounced letters) is not used. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My point was that the g isn't pronounced in either the alveolar or the velar variant. In the Leute vs. Leut' example, on the other hand, the e is pronounced in Leute, but not pronounced in Leut'. The German example fits the definition where the English one doesn't. My "/ˈlɔʏ̯te/ and /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/" hyothetical doesn't quite work, but it was just an aside. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I see your point now. I forgot that Leute can represent either /ˈlɔʏ̯t/ or /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/, depending on the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There were a number of usage notes about German use of ', located at ’ (the curly version), which have become casualties of the move to translingual. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Do we need both "Cereal plants, Oryza sativa of the grass family whose seeds are used as food." and "A specific variety of this plant."? I am unsure of how to distinguish cites of the two senses, if that is even possible. DTLHS (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It was probably intended to be the countable sense. I've added the label and corrected the inflection line. Is that OK? Arguably something similar would apply to many vernacular names of plants: "The forest contained much pine/many pines (types of pine or indvidual trees)." DCDuring TALK 22:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


The inflections need to be looked at. The verb comes from incidō with a short i, rather than incīdō with a long vowel. So a short vowel would also be expected in the derivative, and the expected participle would be coincāsum. —CodeCat 23:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't in Lewis and Short or Oxford, so it seems not to be Classical Latin at all. Maybe someone with access to a Medieval Latin dictionary could look it up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources has an entry for coincidō. Du Cange doesn't. KarikaSlayer (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the entry you linked to above doesn't provide any information about what the third and fourth principal parts would be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


This clearly has another use, but it’s difficult to define since it’s applied so loosely. I originally suggested ‘[a] man who respects women and girls and sees them as people,’ but that’s probably either an exaggeration or exceedingly specific. One possible solution is to simply use {{non-gloss definition|A term of abuse}}, but even that may be too broad. Perhaps we could use ‘a weakling with progressive views.’ --Romanophile (contributions) 19:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Given your disinterest in this matter, I’ll be forced to resolve it by myself. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, the new def seems better. And you have to be patient. Sometimes an entry sits at RFV for months before it gets cited. You don't have to put "delete, no-one cares" on a talk page just because nobody replied in a week, etc. Equinox 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The verb "to be"[edit]

I was trying to check the Sanskrit verb "to be" (as listed in w:Russian grammar), so I thought the "Translations" section under be would help. But oh dear... Well, "translation" is really the wrong word, because this is about "corresponding words", and yes, a traditional (mis)conception of translation is that it is about replacing words by their corresponding words, then patching up the grammar. But really and truly, translation is about writing something in a second language which has the same required functional effect as something already written in a first language. But leave that aside for now.

In any Indo-European language, saying "the verb to be" normally means something. In (any?) non-Indo-European language it probably means nothing at all. But it really would help for all IE languages just to give the verb to be. It might be labelled as such, and only IE languages included, or it might be labelled as "the copula" (not sure quite how general this term is).

But currently, there is a whole string of supposed uses, and I think the closest to "the copula" is probably: "used to indicate that the subject plays the role of the predicate nominative". What on earth is this supposed to mean (particularly, for example, in the case of Japanese, which does not have subjects or cases)?? I have looked through the Japanese "translations" given: in most cases it really is unclear what the target is supposed to mean, and in many cases the word given is utterly wrong. But it is unreasonable to expect any fluent speaker of Japanese to be able to guess what the heading is supposed to mean. I particularly scratched my head over "occur, take place": how is this the verb to be?

I suggest that this is an unsalvageable disaster, and invite comments. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a disaster at all. Indeed it is quite good. The sense of to be that you are looking for is probably (7), a copula "used to indicate that the subject and object are the same." In the translation section for that sense, the Sanskrit is अस्ति ‎(asti). The entry for अस्ति ‎(asti) needs a lot more work, but I believe it’s what you were searching for.
Note that English Wiktionary is not intended for the use of native Japanese, it is for native speakers of English. Native speakers of Japanese should avail themselves of ja:いる and ja:ある instead. Also, the various senses of the verb are not for Japanese or other languages, they are for the English verb. Sense (8) is a copula that is "used to indicate that the subject plays the role of the predicate nominal." That is a description of the English sense, and has nothing to do with Japanese. In the translation section for this sense, the various languages, including Japanese, show a common word in each language that is used to translate this particular sense of the English verb. Any description of the Japanese verb will be found on the entry for the Japanese verb, that is, at である. —Stephen (Talk) 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


   IMO, use of "IMHO" is, as likely as not, will convey (at best)

"I'm in on the [post-?]post-modernist joke that claims that the act of typing 'IMHO' is inherently arrogant, and i
  • don't care whether i offend you."

for which reason i would never use it where it might be construed that "humble" was meant sincerely. That's too meta to go into a dictdef, but shouldn't there be some sort of "subject to ironic use or misinterpreation" annotation?
--Jerzyt 12:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO, no. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Yeah, I don't know why this article is locked. The oldest attestations of this name date to the 8th century CE (cf Förstemann ibid., Col. 596). There are also sources from the 9th Century Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch(Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch, p.126: Vuolfkanc am unteren Ende der rechten Spalte.)So it is clearly impossible that the 10th century Catholics were the first to use this name. This is in addition to it being a pagan name.

There seems to be a consensus on this, but for some reason, one user has had this page locked. There are also random useless sections on there. Like Wolfgang in Portuguese is Wolfgang. Wow. That was hard to figure out. Shouldn't there only be variations listed that are actually different? And, why Portuguese? It's not like the name is popular there.

How do we fix this page? What is the purpose of locking pages? Isn't that pretty much against everything wiki?DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The page was locked because one user decided to rearrange the page contrary to Wiktionary's standard format, which was arrived at by the community over more than a decade and a series of votes, then edit-warred with several others when corrected. This same editor then proceeded to post a series of belligerent demands to add to their empty accusations of vandalism, showing a blatant disrespect for all the other contributors to the article and for the Wiktionary community.
But then, you already know that, because you're continuing the same bombastic tirade, just using an account rather than an IP. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
They did the same thing at Wikipedia. —CodeCat 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this perhaps a typo for crēbrēscō? The latter is listed at crēber under related terms. —CodeCat 22:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

get better[edit]

Can someone please fix the past participles. I tried but the template doesn't want to co-operate. Gotten better is obviously American, got better is used in Britain. DonnanZ (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I was trying the other way round. Cheers! DonnanZ (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, feel free to swap them. At least you know how to do it now. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried to copy from get and ran into trouble. Actually I don't think there's any need for "head=" now, things have changed since the entry was created. DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


According to De Vaan, there's another synonymous verb meaning "worsen", from peius. Can anyone confirm this and include an entry if it exists? —CodeCat 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

go or be hard in the paint[edit]

What is the origin of this phrase and what does it mean? - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In basketball, to play hard (physically) in the painted area between free-throw line and the basket. "Go" is mostly used for the offense, "be" for defense. To me only the sense of paint (which we already have) is dictionary-worthy. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha! But I see some use which isn't referring to any literal painted area; e.g.:
  • 2013, Danette M. Verchér, As The Spirit Leads: An Apostolic & Prophetic Discipleship, ... (ISBN 1491814438):
    He may not ever know that this little power packed lady in the Holy Ghost, in Hughson, California, was “going hard in the paint on his behalf.”
And (although I haven't found a durable example yet) uses like "Toni Morrison Went Hard in the Paint for Angela Davis". - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sports is often is source of good popular metaphors. To the paint and in the paint are used without go or be. See this for the source of the metaphor. Urban Dictionary would be a convenient source for this kind of thing, but we are too good for that. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

infatuation: merge definitions?[edit]

Here are the current definitions:

  1. The act of infatuating; the state of being infatuated; folly; that which infatuates.
  2. An unreasoning love for or sexual attraction to.

According to the pages infatuating and folly, I fail to perceive the first meaning as distinct from the second one. If they are indeed identical, the definitions should be merged (I suggest simply deleting the first one, because the second seems much clearer). However, if the meanings are distinct, clarifications should be made. --Anareth (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ‘shew’[edit]

There is no complete pronunciation listed at shew, although at least the rhyme -əʊ is noted. However, one of the definitions, the East Anglia past tense, has a different pronunciation, with the rhyme -uː. (See [11], for example, which cites the OED). I'm not a Wiktionary regular, and I don't know how to properly record this in the entry, but its Talk page told me to come here. —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have added {{rfp|lang=en}}. I'd be surprised if it isn't usually pronounced to rhyme with eschew in US classrooms. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneAɴɢʀ (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't the dialectal past tense be /ʃjuː/? --WikiTiki89 14:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Do any varieties of English allow /ʃj-/? Certainly RP doesn't, and I thought East Anglian was famous for reducing /juː/ to /uː/ everywhere, in even more contexts than American English. For example, I thought the stereotypical East Anglian pronunciation of beautiful was /ˈbuːtɪfəl/ (cf. w:Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Yod-dropping). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right. --WikiTiki89 15:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

opetustaulu - teaching poster?[edit]

Opetustaulu' on metric system.
Opetustaulu on papermaking.

What are these teaching aids called in English? For the Finnish entry opetustaulu I defined them as "type of poster or placard formerly used in schools as teaching aid, consisting of an educative image fixed on stiff cardboard". From Wikipedia I learned that they are Schulwandbild in German, skolplansch in Swedish and schoolplaat i Dutch. I'm pretty sure these tables have been used in the English speaking world as well. I tried "school poster", "educating poster", "teaching poster", "school display" etc. in Google image search, but the results didn't look quite the same. All searches produce pictures of self-made boards. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be tempted to simply call them diagrams, though that doesn't refer to a poster, but rather the image on the poster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a wallchart. Equinox 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think English really has a common fixed name for them. I've certainly never heard "wallchart" used. They're posters, with an appropriate adjective if the distinction is necessary. Or diagrams, as Andrew suggested.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I 100% agree with Prosfilaes' every word here. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Search for "educational poster" produces the type of result I was looking for. Thanks again for help. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


On the Wikipedia talk page of w:Prime (symbol), it is mentioned that this symbol is also sometimes called a dash, at least in some contexts, in various varieties of English. Can this use be verified? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some Borderline-SOP entries[edit]

There are several entries by the same IP user (geolocating to Montreal), that are marked by a restricted definition for an otherwise-SOP term.They all are composed of <adjective for a nationality> + <name of a food> all have the same cookie-cutter etymology: {{compound|lang=<language code for the entry>|<adjective for an nationality>|<name of a food>}}, from being the stereotypical, common, and most frequently encountered type of <name of a food> in <adjective for a nationality> cuisine. These include:

  1. Chinese mushroom
  2. Chinese sausage
  3. Italian sausage
  4. Italian tomato
  1. champignon chinois
  2. saucisse chinoise
  3. saucisse italienne
  4. tomate italienne

I'm not really sure how to deal with these: it's true that one can go to a supermarket and find products for sale labeled with these terms with contents that agree with the descriptions in the definitions. The hard part is figuring out if the restriction to this specific sense is part of the language, or just the result of the current relative availability of such things. For instance, most of us outside of the tropics will think of a w:Cavendish banana when someone says "banana", but that's just because that's the type that dominates the mainstream market. How do we tell whether something has become a lexical distinction? Do we look for quotes that say "when I said Italian tomatoes, I didn't mean w:San Marzano tomatoes, I meant w:Roma tomatoes"? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

google books:"Chinese mushroom" finds as many hits where it's used as a name of Volvariella volvacea as hits where it's used of Lentinula edodes, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it might be idiomatic with multiple senses. Uses like Some studies on the cultivation of Chinese mushroom (Volvariella volvacea (Fr.) Singer) on sugarcane industrial by-products seem to treat it as a proper name. There are also a few hits where it refers to Ganoderma tsugae or to the wood ear, and a few where it is unambiguously SOP, e.g. "Cordyceps is a Chinese mushroom". There are a number of cookbooks that call for e.g. "100 g of Chinese mushroom", but again I'm not sure if that suggests idiomaticity (identification of it as a specific thing) or not, since a recipe for Chinese food might call for any (edible) Chinese mushroom.
The idiomaticity of "Italian sausage" is clearer, since it is frequently found as such right next to other Italian sausages such as salami. Compare "Italian beef".
"Italian tomato", on the other hand, seems SOP. all the hits for google books:"of Italian tomato" and google books:"g Italian tomato", which I hoped would find hits of recipes calling for it in a potentially idiomatic way, are SOP.
- -sche (discuss) 07:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of indirect[edit]

For any native:

  • IPA(key): /ɪndɪˈɹɛkt/, /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, /ɪndəˈɹɛkt/

Is that this way? Inferred from indirect and indication. Sobreira (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We could probably stand to separate them out by accent. I don't think Americans would usually say /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, nor Brits /ɪndəˈɹɛkt/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

for cryin' out loud[edit]

What's the feeling about this kind of thing? On Google Books I found "fer cryin' out loud", "fer crying out loud", "for crying oot loud", and "for cryin' oot lood" (the last two presumably representing Scottish accents). Having entries for every permutation of a longish proverb with dialect-variable words could get very silly. Equinox 06:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd favor having a lot of them as alternative forms in the entry for the mainstream-spelling version, but not with separate entries for each form. This would let the search engine do its work. The alternative forms could also be concealed "under" a show-hide bar. DCDuring TALK 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)