Wiktionary:Tea room

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:TR)
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


August 2015

Meaning of 'docket' in administrative agencies of the executive branch[edit]

The Wiktionary entry 'docket' explains meaning of 'docket' in law, more precisely as used by courts in the judicial branch. This is covered even by the Wikipedia article w:Docket_(court). However, it appears that the meaning of 'docket' in administrative agencies (e.g. NTSB or FAA) of the executive branch is different. This meaning is not covered by the Wiktionary entry, nor by the Wikipedia article(s). I raised the issue in the Wikipedia talk page w:Talk:Docket_(court) but was advised that the Wikipedia article is only about 'docket' as used by courts in the judicial branch and was also told that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So, I'm here! :) Please, read the replies in w:Talk:Docket_(court) discussion, it gives a good insight into the issue, a lot better than I could ever provide myself. I'm not a native English speaker, let alone familiar with US law concepts, I cannot resolve the issue myself. --Sivullinen (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Voseo present subjunctive for e→ie[edit]

The English and Spanish Wiktionary seem to have a different idea on how to conjugate e→ie verbs for vos in the present subjunctive. For example, this and this (created according to template). Which standard should be used? Codeofdusk (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If nobody knows here, I would try asking on the Spanish wiktionary (on whatever page is equivalent to this one). 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I always learned that voseo terms were NEVER EVER irregular, apart from sos and andá. --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Tell & Tally cognates?[edit]

According to the page for English tell, it lists English tally as a cognate. However, their etymologies seem inconsistent with them being cognates.

Namely, Latin dolus ‎(guile, deceit, fraud) is given in the etymology of tale, compared to Latin talea ‎(a cutting, rod, stick) listed in the etymology of tally.

Is it a coincidence that tell and tally sound similar?

Tally shouldn't be listed as a cognate IMHO. A tally-mark is a notch made on a tally (--a stick used to keep count by marking it with notches), so the similarity is purely coincidental. To keep tally is to observe/handle the marking of the stick, i.e. to keep count... Leasnam (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

‘àla’ – alternative form or misspelling?[edit]

Hi, does anyone know whether ‘àla’ is considered an alternative form or misspelling of ‘à la’? P.s.: ‘ala’ is considered an alternative form according to its entry. —James Haigh (talk) 2015-08-04T21:07:50Z

I personally object to labelling things "misspellings". Misspellings always imply a particular standard of judgement, such as an official spelling. But not everyone always follows such standards, and it's not up to us to decide whether they are right or wrong in doing so. So I think "alternative form" is more appropriate. —CodeCat 21:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's easy. If the author would agree that something is a misspelling if it were pointed out to him, then it is a misspelling. --WikiTiki89 22:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
So it's just peer pressure? —CodeCat 22:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
No, no pressure, merely asking yes or no. It's like typos: if I type "the wmoen" for "the women" and it's raised, I'll agree yes it was an error. If "the" is raised, I'll stand firm: that's how to spell "the". Equinox 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
But with something like àla vs à la it's much less clear. Some people would disagree with àla, while for others it's the normal way of writing it. However, most people who are not confident with their spelling will change it whenever someone else tells them they're spelling it wrong, regardless of whether a majority actually does spell it differently. That's what I mean by peer pressure. It's a question of "not knowing any better" and who gets to decide what better is. —CodeCat 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's more like "Are you sure you spelled this word right?" Then they go check their own favorite sources or whatever and tell you. You're not pressuring them into anything. --WikiTiki89 23:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Looking around on Google Groups for citations of the "for the win" sense, I also find a lot of uses of 4TW in sexual contexts, sometimes by itself ("Shemale Kimber Will Show You A Good Time 4TW"), sometimes extended ("Tiana- Real Catholic School Teen Slut q'`4Tw", "Jackie- Twisted Taboo is her Specialty JU'4TW", "Sloan- Playful Slut Can be Your Mommy 4Tw;YU", "Libby- Domination Temptress Bitch +4tw[F"). Any idea what it means? - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Some Usenet posters would append alphanumeric gibberish to their subject lines, to get around any killfiles that had blocked the message by subject previously. I think that's all you're seeing; it doesn't appear in the message bodies. Equinox 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Aha, that's probably it. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So we should add this sense: # Phrase used on Usenet to get around killfiles. You know I'm kidding. --WikiTiki89 00:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
TW can also mean transwoman (that's a sense we should probably have) which might explain the first one and might be citeable in the same way that m4w, m4m would be (another type of entry we should have?). As Equinox says, the rest are probably random strings - I tried a few other random three-character strings ("p7z", "2L4") and got similar results. There's just so much spam on Usenet that any of the 46,656 random three character strings gets dozens of hits. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


One of the examples in this Latvian term, skatīties tuvu, means something like "to look at nearby things", "to look at something near", indicating that attention is concentrated within a field of vision with rather small radius (hence the use of tuvu "near"). I wasn't sure about how to translate this into English: "to look near" sounds bad to me, and "to have a close look" seems to mean (I think...) something slightly different. Perhaps one of the resident native speakers of English could give me a hand? @Neitrāls vārds:, maybe you can help? --Pereru (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not an en-N speaker, but how about "to look in the immediate vicinity." It also seems that one can "un-idiomaticize" the en words by tacking on -by ~ to look close by, to look nearby (kind of like it is right now.) Also, at least when a perfective prefix is added, it mirrors the en idiomatic sense – apskatīt tuvu ~ examine closely, look closely. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Someday I'll need to find a good explanation for the use of those perfective markers in Latvian, @Neitrāls vārds:. Maybe there is a good description somewhere that you know? They certainly aren't used the way the Russian perfective prefixes are, i.e. almost as part of a grammatical paradigm. They're more like English aspectual markers (the 'up' in 'to drink up' or 'to eat up', for example), right? And they also add non-aspectual information, so that apskatīties' still has a little of "around" to its ap- -- or doesn't it? I'm really far from understanding these things well... --Pereru (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think they should be similar to the Slavic system, the only "real" difference are the split forms that were copied from Finnics (piesiet : siet klāt, aizsiet : siet ciet) where the split form allows "de-perfectivizing", at the same time communicating the spatial information (there's a bit of discussion on this by Marta Rudzīte in here), whether or not you can make the split form is my private test to determine whether a pref. is purely perfective or spatial/qualitative as well. This probably allowed lv to avoid creating a "frequentative tense" as Lithuanian did (which somewhat resembles the Russian imperfectives, e.g., privjazyvat')
Curiously, while the split forms are imperfective in lv, words like ära in et (jarā in liv) "away" are called something like perfectivity adverbs (perfektiivsusadverb), this is conjecture, but they may be viewed as some type of an intensifier maybe, because Finnics already mark perfectivity on the object.
Back to apskatīt, in my test I cannot make a split form from it *skatīt apkārt doesn't really work) which would suggest it being a "plain perfectivization". The English constructs are similar in some ways, but then the best transl. for "drink up!" would be dzer ārā! (or maybe dzer laukā!) Which raises the question of their true nature, because the concept of "drink up!" is very perfective...? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought "to look around", which suggests you aren't moving your own body, but are studying everything in your vicinity. Equinox 23:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I think I'll settle for a combination of your suggestions, like "to look around nearby" -- would you agree this is OK in English? --Pereru (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Danish verbs ending in -ere; pronunciation?[edit]

There are a number of Danish verbs ending in -ere; a few of them are fingere, præsentere, introducere, fundere and citere. Wiktionary semi-consistently indicates that the penultimate syllable is long, which seems wrong to me. Stødt and stressed, yes, but not elongated. Am I mistaken?
Also, would it make sense to create a category of these words? Perhaps a subcategory of Category:Danish terms derived from Latin?__Gamren (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Der var fejl på introducere samt citere. Jeg har rettet dem nu. De to andre transskriptioner er korrekte - [ɐ] er et udtryk for /rə/, og så står man tilbage med en vokal (der indgår i stavelseskernen) med stød: Denne vokal er dermed lang. Der er en længere forklaring bagved (samt visse særsituationer). Note hertil: DDO har lavet en simplificering mht. vokallængde og stød (f.eks. [1]), den korrekte repræsentation i IPA er [ˈɡ̊ʁoːˀ]. Vedr. kategori, du tænkte vel ikke på Category:Danish words suffixed with -ere? Den fremkaldes i etymologisektionen af koden {{suffix|[ORDETS ROD]|ere}}, du kan følge duellere som eksempel. Vh. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hvis du siger det, er det nok korrekt, selv om jeg ikke selv kan høre nogen forskel i længde på de tre stavelser i citere. Kan du anbefale nogen "længere forklaring"?__Gamren (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Eventuelt w:Stød for en overordnet beskrivelse. En lille bemærkning - i artiklen benyttes alligevel den forkerte notation somme tider. --ContraVentum (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


This word seems to be almost always spelt as marshmallow-like. Is there a reason? My Pocket Oxford Dictionary states that -like should be considered as appendable to all nouns (all such words virtually exist in English), but doesn't discuss the spelling issue. Lmaltier (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The longer a noun is, the less likely (somehow) it is that you can add -like without a hyphen. I can see some unhyphenated uses in Google Books, but they might be rare. Equinox 23:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's not just how long the noun is, but how natural vs nonce-like the noun is, with concessions in favour of hyphenating even natural, non-nonce-y constructions if they would otherwise be unclear. For example, "an L-like shape" (plenty of things are L-like, but "Llike" would be unclear), "a marshmallow-like pillow" (it's not common to talk about things being similar to marshmallows). Longer "(-)like" terms tend to be nonce-y. Our entries tend to avoid hyphens, but that is often not representative of usage; for example, "asparagus-like" is more common than what we have an entry for, "asparaguslike" (I will move the entry now). - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your insight. It could be compared to italics: when a word is not found in dictionaries, it's more likely to be italicized. Here, it's more likely to be written with a hyphen. Lmaltier (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Request pronunciation[edit]

Can we get a pronunciation guide for Blunger?https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blunger Westley Turner (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Is this really nonstandard? If so, why? — Ungoliant (falai) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It feels nonstandard or at least weird (nonce-y?) to me. In my experience, the standard term in British English is "flatmate", which dwarfs it by a couple orders of magnitude in Ngrams, and the standard term in American English is "roommate", which dwarfs both "flatmate" and "apartmentmate". Even on the raw web it gets only a couple thousand hits, compared to the 700 million which "apartment" gets, and a lot of the Google Image search results for the singular and plural are Asians (possibly non-native speakers). Changing the label to "rare" and adding a usage note that "the usual term is..." (we apparently have many such notes already) might also work, though. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard or seen this word. Terms I've used myself are roommate and suitemate. Terms I've heard but not used (or not used very much) are roomie, housemate, living mate, flatmate, and bedmate. In my experience, roommate is used both for people who share a bedroom or for those who share an apartment but not a bedroom, while suitemate is used to emphasize the fact that these people do not share a bedroom. --WikiTiki89 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a word I'd ever use. My usage and what I hear is along the same lines as what Wikitiki89 relates. I like -sche's Usage note wording. It might be worth a template. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To move things along I've made changes to the entry that might be sufficient, but the Usage notes approach might be better. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
"Rare" is definitely a better tag than "nonstandard". I may have used this term once or twice myself as an American "back-translation" of flatmate to emphasize that he and I had separate bedrooms, but usually I would say roommate (or flatmate when conversing with British/Irish friends). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with rare is that it is not obvious when the term means absolutely rare, like hapax legomena, or relatively rare, as in this case. Sadly, merely adding relatively to the label/context, requires that users understand that we would mean relative to synonyms or alternative forms. Which of the two needs to be clear and the forms and synonyms need to, at least, be present in the entry, which they often are not. A usage note seems essential. Perhaps one could be templatized (and use subst:?) to speed the creation of such notes.
Also, when this problem arises in polysemic entries, a usage note is often not clearly connected with a specific sense and may not even be noticed by a user. For such case we could use {{lb}} or {{cx}} (possibly with anchor) to direct users to the Usage notes or a specific appropriate usage note. DCDuring TALK 12:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Should the translations be moved to pathological? The only problem I can foresee is splitting into the various translation headings under pathological. Donnanz (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sense 2, the second medical sense at pathological seems clearly to be a synonym of pathologic, but the other senses don't seem so to me. I don't know whether pathologic or pathological is is more common in that use. I also wonder whether there is a US/RoW, NA/RoW, or other difference in alternation in different varieties of English. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. Pathologic is not used in British English, only pathological, and the entry is now suitably labelled to reflect this. Donnanz (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that now it says pathologic is American English, but actually it isn't used in American English either. It should probably be labeled "rare" or "obsolete" or something else to show that it isn't really used (much). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree; I think it was BrE (and perhaps AmE too) but is simply dated. Equinox 10:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I may have started something - I was referring to this [2] and this [3]. Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This Google Books search (with preview) shows abundant 21st Century use. The usage context may be (medicine) or similar. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Gheg Albanian categories[edit]

We currently have two categores for Gheg:

Is that really a good idea? Is there a difference between the Gheg Albanian language and the Gheg dialect of Albanian? Or should the {{label|sq|Gheg}} senses be broken out and made into separate aln entries? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous (long, inconclusive) discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/October#Gheg_Albanian. - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Don't you guys think that a definition this long like this should belong in an encyclopedia? I don't know if I'm just being too critical, but I had to notice this. It seems way too explanatory for a dictionary IMO. Should we shorten it? NativeCat drop by and say Hi! 04:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is one of the few cases where Wiktionary should approach encyclopedic levels of explanation (since it's directly about language use) but it's absolutely incorrect to have that information in the definition. I've moved it to the usage notes and added examples to make it a bit clearer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the distinction "encyclopaedia vs. dictionary" is one of length. There are encyclopaedias with an average entry length of just some lines, and there are dictionaries with an average entry length of several pages. The question is what kind of a dictionary wiktionary should be, and it seems common opinion that it should strive towards shortness. Well. I just think that the notes of ß are quite short, actually. Kolmiel (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Error in the word OMNIS[edit]

The alternative m/f plural form (omnis, Kennedy 73) is not given. Sorry I can't edit it, but it looks too hard, and maybe other -is adjs are affected.

All adjectives using {{la-decl-3rd-2E}} are affected by this: the older masculine/feminine nominative/accusative plural ending -īs is not given. I'm not sure if all two-ending third-declension adjectives are attested with the -īs form though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be only the accusative plural. The nominative plural was -ēs already in Proto-Italic. —CodeCat 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to have an article written about me. Is it ever appropriate to ask someone else to do this here?

No, we don't do biographies. See WT:CFI. Equinox 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


Is -um really an acceptable alternative for -ium for non-pure neuter i-stems in the genitive plural? My Latin professor didn't say anything about it, and if it isn't found in Classical Latin, it should be marked accordingly. Esszet (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of heterochroma iridium[edit]

Wikipedia's page is at "-chromia" and not "-chroma". Is this a mistake at Wiktionary? —suzukaze (tc) 02:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this is an old error; someone pointed out the same thing on the talk page ten years ago, but no one followed up. Yes, judging from the total absence of Google Books and Scholar hits for "-chroma" via the many hits for "-chromia", I'll move the page. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Would anyone agree that it's an adjective too? [4]. Donnanz (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Very high-rise neighborhood/pants"? "this one is more high-rise than that one"? "that building/those pants is/are high-rise"? Even if found in such usage, IMO it isn't dictionary-worthy, but it would be includable under current CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A "high-rise apartment block" seems OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly OK as usage, but it falls short of being evidence of true adjectivity. After virtually any noun can be used attributively. Similarly with noun phrases. Is the sentence "I lived for a time in a red-brick house." evidence that red-brick is an adjective? DCDuring TALK 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Did the adjectival "high-rise block", etc. precede the noun "high-rise"? Equinox 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Several hits where if it was only a noun, "were high-rises" would be expected instead of "was high-rise":
  • 1997, Eleanor Smith Morris, British Town Planning and Urban Design: Principles and Policies, Addison-Wesley Longman
    It is difficult to remember that families were thrilled to move out of their damp, 'unfit for habitation' houses in London's East End into new housing, no matter that it was high-rise.
  • 2004, Richard Turkington, Ronald van Kempen, F. Wassenberg, High-rise Housing in Europe: Current Trends and Future Prospects (ISBN 9789040724831)
    Between 1962 and 1965, 14% of new housing was high-rise, of which two-thirds was 5-6 storey [...]
  • 2006, Barbara Miller Lane, Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture, Routledge (ISBN 9781134279272), page 365
    During the 1950s and 1960s most conventional public housing built in large cities was high-rise.
And some comparatives/intensifiers:
  • 2007, Ultra high performance concrete: (UHPC) ; 10 years of research and development at the University of Kassel, kassel university press GmbH (ISBN 9783899583472), page 193
    In addition coarse grained UHPC with artificial or natural high strength aggregates were developed e.g. for highly loaded columns and for extremely high-rise buildings (Schmidt et al. 2003).
  • 2008, Stephen Graham, Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, John Wiley & Sons (ISBN 9780470753026), page 271
    That pattern, preexisting the attack on this particular citadel, will be strongly accentuated, but in less high-rise, less representative, less ''signature'' fashion, and more heavily barricaded and secured even than before.
  • 2013, Max Steuer, The Scientific Study of Society, Springer Science & Business Media (ISBN 9781475767919), page 299
    The latter is more high rise, and reads much like a troubled English estate.
  • 2014 March/April, Alexander Bakhlanov, quoted in "Pollution has more than one solution", ITS Magazine
    Take two theoretical megacities with roughly the same number of inhabitants where one is very high rise and compact while the other is relatively low rise and spread over a much wider area.
Adjectival use seems to begin in the late 1950s (according to Google Books) - the earliest noun use I can find is in a 1962 issue of LIFE (where it's used attributively, but then glossed as a noun). —This unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester (talkcontribs) at 06:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
The unsigned research above is quite impressive, who wrote it? Donnanz (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


This word (with two "l"s) (the condition of being monophyllous) doesn't seem to exist. With a single "l" it has a different meaning. I am trying to translate the French noun monophyllie without success. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Easy solution: monophylly actually does exist, is easily citeable, and I've therefore created it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder why I couldn't see it. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Cookie (used here for Swedish and Icelandic) is not a really helpful translation for anything, since it means different things on different sides of the pond. What does it mean exactly for these languages?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added a Wikipedia link to the Swedish entry. In a photo what looks like a cookie is described as en småkaka. Donnanz (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


It seems we are missing a big sense here: the one in He did not share his parents' values.. Unless this falls under one of the senses we already have in some way that I don't see. --WikiTiki89 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're right. The verb senses have something similar (as a verb), but not the noun. Leasnam (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I took a stab at it Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


The translation says "cellar (enclosed underground space)" and the relevant definition at cellar "An enclosed underground space, often under a building; used for storage or shelter." Now in Czech blocks of flats, especially of the concrete panel type, to each flat usually belongs a storage space also called a "sklep", even when it is (which is quite often) on the ground floor, rather than underground. (They commonly look like this.) Would you call these "cellar" in English too? I ask because I don't know whether the English or the Czech headword are imprecise. --Droigheann (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a cellar has to be at least partly underground. Perhaps "storage space (such as a cellar or closet)" is a better translation? - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I put a usage note to sklep. --Droigheann (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Man[edit]


Is this definition for the Hiberno-English term 'your man/woman' sufficient?

I'm only second generation Irish but I feel this expression covers something lacking in Standard English.

It's not a simple case of he/him, she/her. I feel like it's a bit like the 'distant' pronoun in Korean's three-way distinction. Someone far from both the speaker and the listener; often someone they haven't met. The best example would be a celebrity or a politician.

As I say, I'm second generation so this is the gist I get from my cousins and other relatives. Maybe someone who lives in Ireland could verify this? 01:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I would have connected this with the informal English use of "your friend/pal/man/guy/gal/girlfriend" in referring to someone who is substantively or conversationally associated with the hearer. Sometimes the point is to imply a relationship of substance when there isn't one or the relationship is distant: "Your gal Clinton seems to be having some email problems." If the Irish use is different, it would seem worth recording, though the citations don't make the distinctive sense unambiguously clear. DCDuring TALK 05:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The Irish use (which I've heard but don't use myself) is quite different. There's no suggestion that the listener has any relationship with the person being referred to at all. I was once on top of a cliff in County Donegal with a local, and we were looking down at the beach where there was someone walking. The fellow next to me said, "Look at your man down there [doing something remarkable]". Or an Irish friend of mine was telling a story of one time when she was in a pub, and she said "...and your man behind the bar said...", when I wasn't even present at the time. It really just means "that guy/the guy". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • An interdialect false friend, then. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't say it's a different enough meaning to call it a false friend. --WikiTiki89 13:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
          • A misleading friend then. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
            • Would it have misled you in those situations? --WikiTiki89 14:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes. I wouldn't have even noticed it otherwise. In my idiolect, it only occurs in partisan political banter, in which there is an element of guilt by association that the usage invokes, as "Your gal Clinton seems to be having some email problems.". I would read/hear any usage as parallel to that, especially with regards to the "guilt by association". DCDuring TALK 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
                • The first time I heard it I did think, "Why is he my man? What does he have to do with me?" but after hearing it a few times I realized it was just a figure of speech that meant "that guy". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
One of the citations of messages touches on this:
  • A South African woman, just married to an Irishman and newly arrived in this country, was shocked when her husband told her, "I just saw yer man in the shop when I was getting the messages (groceries)." "My what?" "Yer man. […]" "I swear to you, Michael," she said tearfully, "I haven't been unfaithful."
Incidentally, that book also mentions an Irish sense of inside:
  • "Inside" is a room you're not in at the time. If you are in the kitchen, "inside" is the sitting room (living room). If you are in the sitting room, "inside" is the kitchen.
- -sche (discuss) 17:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I think Wiktionary has been genericized into wiktionary based on my reading of usage included in the (new) entry. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

At least some of those quotes look like they are referring to a wiktionary as one language Wiktionary (e.g. en.wikt; definition 3 of Wiktionary#Proper_noun). Can't tell if all are doing that though. Pengo (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple POS sections vs. multiple headwords[edit]

Many words can be of the same POS in different ways, ex. ultrahard can be countable and uncountable. Some of such articles have multiple POS headers, like ultrahard, and some others only have multiple headwords. Should there be multiple POS headers (like two Adjective headers in this case) ? I think multiple headword template should suffice. Yurivict (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Our current policy is to have multiple POS sections (of the same POS). --WikiTiki89 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it? I don't think so. Certainly for nouns that are countable in some senses and uncountable in others, our policy is to have only one POS header, with ~ on the headword line ({{en-noun|~}}) and the senses labelled "countable" and "uncountable". Only in cases where where e.g. foobarem is both the dative singular of foobaro and the accusative plural of foobare have I seen multiple headers (in Latvian adjective entries in particular), and that's because we're dealing with two different lemmas' inflected forms. In the case of ultrahard, it seems we need to modify {{en-adj}} to take ~. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is that our policy is to have two POS sections rather than two headword lines in one POS section. If you can fit in in one headword line, that doesn't apply. --WikiTiki89 02:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Aha, true. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


This is labelled as an archaic form of two different words, which is a lemma-level definition (archaic form = archaic lemma). But the entry is also categorised as a noun plural form. If so, then what is it the singular of? That should be the definition, and the current definitions should be moved to the singular entry. —CodeCat 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that both senses are just the plural of the archaic/obsolete Sofee, which may or may not be attestable. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

en-verb template doesn't do a good job validating input, and isn't well documented[edit]

When I change the template for the word 'abide' to {{en-verb|aaa|bbb|ing}}, the verbal forms it produces are abides, aaabbbing, aaabbbed. Where does the concatenation aaabbb come from? Documentation doesn't mention that arguments #1 and #2 are ever combined. It shouldn't even allow ing or es or s as the last argument after two forms were defined, because allowing them has no meaning, and is pretty much invalid.

Additionally, documentation is vague to possibly wrong at some places, for example {{en-verb|t|y|ing}} (changed the -ie to -y) - what does this mean? What is t, why would this mean that ie is affected?

Also, placing another en-verb in the same section just appends another inflection description. Code should prevent duplicates.

Could somebody please verify and fix the code and documentation? Should I file WikiMedia bugs for such things? Yurivict (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia bugs are not for locally created templates, JS, CSS, or modules.
The examples are what I find helpful. With respect to the use of {{en-verb}} for headword tie#Verb, the t is the unchanging part of the written forms, the y only being applied to the ing-form. So for retie the inflection line is {{en-verb|ret|y|ing}}. The template (actually the underlying module it invokes) uses the headword to construct the other forms by addition of s or d.
Validating input is not normal practice here, however desirable it might be. We are forced to be happy with semi-intelligible error messages if an error is discovered. It is considered better to have conspicuous failure that virtually forces the contributor to correct an omitted or out-of-order parameter, but not usually other faulty input. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
{{en-verb|t|y|ing}} in tie#Verb is a very fuzzy use with an overly-complex template logic. Should just type them explicitly in such non-standard cases. It appears that |t| can only be used with verbs beginning with 't', otherwise forms that come back are wrong. Yurivict (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It's just a typing shortcut, for Christ's sake. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What verbs is that syntax returning the wrong forms for? If, as a test, I put {{en-verb|r|y|ing}} on rie, it displays the forms I'd expect (at least in "preview"). - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

man child[edit]

Sense 3, this looks like an adjective Leasnam (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


I don't know what to make of this. There's citations, but no definition. —CodeCat 16:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

google books:"un chiaux" shows that the expected singular is attested, so I've added it. But in the past, we've declined to include alternative letter-case forms of words where the case difference doesn't have semantic significance and isn't maintained in the modern era (e.g. we don't have Rights even though a lot of older documents capitalize rights in that way), so I'm tempted to RFD this. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

freedom of speech[edit]

Someone has asked for etymology, but I don't think it's really necessary; can't you just click on freedom and speech? Or is there more behind the request? Donnanz (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They might want to know first/early uses of the phrases and the meaning at the time(s), especially in some historically important documents. It would be easy to get too encyclopedic in such an effort. Scholar pore over the words of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, constitutions, declarations on human rights etc. and write books on original meaning etc. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I notice User:-sche has crept in and added some. Cheers. Donnanz (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I figure the requester must have wanted to know when the phrase originated. The answer seems to be 'a long time ago, in a language far far away'. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

do, did, d'[edit]

From the pron section of do: "(UK, some speakers, used only when 'do' is unstressed and the next word starts with /j/) IPA(key): /d͡ʒ/". This isn't limited to the UK; US speakers also do this. What about Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ? Is it just a general phenomenon? Examples: jew wanna = do you want to, jeet = did you eat. The latter highlights that did is also reduced in this way. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The assimilation of /dj/ to /dʒ/ across word boundaries is completely normal and predictable, so I would say that the real change here is reducing /duːj/ to /dj/. There's several intermediate stages too, such as [dɨj] or [dɨː]. —CodeCat 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In my idiolect, "do you" is never reduced to /dj-/. The only reduction that happens is "do" is completely dropped: "do you want to" > "you wanna" (/juːˈwɒ̃.nuː/ or /jəˈwɒ̃.nə/) and "where do you want to go" > "where you wanna go". However, with "did you", the "did" is never dropped and is never reduced to [dj-] either. Whenever it is reduced, it is always to /dʒ(j)-/: "did you eat" > "d'you eat" (/dʒ(j)uːˈwiːʔ/) and "where did you want go" > "where'd you wanna go" (/ˈweɹdʒ(j)ə-/ or /ˈweɹdʒ(j)uː-/). --WikiTiki89 20:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
On second though, that's not true, "where'd you wanna go" can still sometimes be pronounced with /-dj-/ rather than /-dʒ(j)-/, but then it can easily be confused with "where do you wanna go". --WikiTiki89 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
In my speech it sounds OK to say "jew wanna eat?" (do you want to eat?) but "where jew wanna go" is not possible (except with the meaning "where did you want to go?"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please verify real (currency)[edit]

There are two Noun sections there, one says that this is the older currency with plurals reis/réis/reals, and another one is for modern Brazilian currency with plurals reais/reals. Are plurals really supposed to be different when the base form is the same in English? Articles linked to reis/réis don't correspond to currency at all. Could someone with the knowledge of this subject correct? Yurivict (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

make it rain: should we re-create it?[edit]

I noticed that this article has been deleted in 2010 with the reason: fatuous entry. I would like to say that while that act indeed can be considered fatuous (for ex. I myself would never do it), this term is certainly familiar to the vast categories of people: students, comedy club goers, strip club goers, among others. Wiktionary (alike wikipedia) isn't in a position of making judgements on the subject matters (no-POV policy). It only should make determinations on the validity of particular words or idioms, and their familiarity to the speakers. And this is certainly an identifiable idiom. Hence, I propose to re-create this entry. Opinions? Yurivict (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The deleted content was: "To click your heels together and be on stage 4.-Mike C. To toss money generously at stage 4.-Alex F." Equinox 21:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I am familiar with make it rain "to bring work or prosperity to an enterprise, as by selling of inventing." which looks like it is attestable. It is probably a backformation from rainmaker, but that is from a agricultural metaphorical sense of make + it + rain.
There seems to be a contemporary AAVE sense which is something like "to cause a substantial amount of paper money to fall on a crowd or audience".
The AAVE sense also has some association with the idea of achieving sufficient financial success to afford such an extravagance. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant these two: 1. "to bring prosperity to enterprise" 2. "to throw bills around" I first assumed it was declared fatuous because of the second meaning. Yurivict (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes entries for includable terms are so bad that we should start over. This looks to me like one of those cases. I would not undelete the fatuous entry. A new entry should have attestation, especially as no OneLook reference has an entry for make it rain, though many have the "bring prosperity" sense in their entries for rainmaker. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not proposing to un-delete an entry. I am proposing to re-write it in a good way. It obviously has valid meanings. Also googling images for it brings whole lot of pictures corresponding to meaning#2. Google image results for make it rain. Yurivict (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be reading too much into the deletion. Note that the entry was not formatted (no Language, no PoS, no inflection line) and had only the two silly definitions.
There has never been anything preventing you from replacing it with good content. If it were to turn out bad, but in good faith, it might be RfDed, RfVed, RfCed, or rewritten, because this is a wiki. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think our first definition is overly specific. It should just be "to make a lot of money" or something like that. And it should probably come after the (slightly more) literal sense of throwing paper money in the air. --WikiTiki89 01:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek noun χάος (uncountable )[edit]

In the entry it appears as countable. I believe it is uncountable.SoSivr (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


"(Britain, nonstandard) Form of a used in many British regional accents before some words beginning with a pronounced h". This isn't just a UK phenomenon; in fact, I thought someone said in a previous discussion that "an historic(al)" with a pronounced 'h' was more common in the US than the UK. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the UK, but in the US, if you write "an historical", then you don't pronounced the "h". If you pronounce the "h", then you write "a historical". You never have "an" with a consonantal "h". --WikiTiki89 12:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've heard it, but not in regular speech. I vaguely remember the phrase "This is an historic occasion" being uttered in a very formal speech. I think it may be the sort of elevated, hypercorrect pronunciation associated with upper-class education of a certain era. As for the entry: there shouldn't be two senses: the only difference is in the environment for the variant, not the variant itself. I'm sure those who say "an historic" don't think of it as any different than saying "an apple". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Just to clarify, you heard the "h" pronounced in that speech? --WikiTiki89 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. You don't hear that kind of thing much, anymore- the emphasis is on being folksy and in touch with the average person. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok (but how does that make you more in touch with the average person?). --WikiTiki89 14:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, to expand on my original comment, I have heard "an historic(al) (occasion|event)" with a pronounced /h/ in the US. It's an affectation. Grammarist, in the process of deprecating it, notes usage in some reputable printed media, which highlights the need for an to note its use in print (where one could argue it's impossible to know if the /h/ is intended to be pronounced) as well as in speech (where it precedes pronounced /h/). Relatedly, the usage notes say the use of an before a silent h is "optional", but I don't think that's the case — who says /ə ɝb/ for a herb? - -sche (discuss) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that article is very trustworthy. It claims "As far as we know, there are no modern English dialects in which the h in historic is silent (please correct us if we’re wrong)", which I'm pretty sure is wrong. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in New York who still don't pronounce the h in historic. The thing about the an being optional before silent h is totally wrong and we should remove it. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, come to think of it, a + [vowel] is attestable in representations of nonstandard/dialectal speech (and presumably also in nonstandard/dialectal speech itself), e.g. the line "Well, ain't this a innerestin sitchation?" in Moira Young's Blood Red Road (2011, ISBN 1407131583), but it's a stretch to think that's what the note was intended to acknowledge. what do you think of these changes? - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a good start, but I would mention that in writing, such usage of an before h occurs only in places where certain dialects used to, or still do, drop the /h/ sound (specifically this occurs when the vowel after h is unstressed). --WikiTiki89 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
C. Edward Good's Grammar Book for You and I-- Oops, Me!, page 84, says:
[If the] beginning h is weakly pronounced (historic, habitual), you may use an, especially in British English. an historic occasion (hisTORic) an habitual offender (haBITual).
Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2015, ISBN 0199661359), page 2, says:
Before words beginning with h [...] the standard modern approach is to use a (never an) together with an aspirated h [...], but not to demur if others use an with minimal or nil aspiration given to the following h (an historic /әn (h)ɪs'tɒrɪk/, an horrific /әn (h)ɒ'rɪfɪk/, etc.).
It goes on to note that Wells (third edition, 2008) shows that 6% of British speakers use an historic, and even more writers do.
- -sche (discuss) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the standard on which articles should exist?[edit]

Some strange articles can be found in wiktionary. Here is one example: 2.4 children. I see why this is the wikipedia entry, but why this is in the wiktionary? Wikipdia article names shouldn't generally be added to wiktionary, unless these are very stable terms in English.

Someone also adds a lot of Chinese dish names, like doufuhua. These aren't English words either. Maybe there should be the special category, like "English (Transliterated Foreign Dish Names)" or something like this? Yurivict (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wiktionary has nontraditional entries like your examples. I think you'd find that they would meet WT:RFV and WT:RFD if challenged. But I think there is value to normal Wiktionary users in both of the entries you cite as examples, so these policies have not led to a bad result.
doufuhua To some extent contributors are all too eager to show that words from their languages have arguably become part of English. Particularly in the case of words from languages with non-Roman scripts there is a good case for having them as many cannot read the non-Roman scripts. Such an entry could well be called a "pronunciation spelling" redirecting users to the corresponding Wiktionary article in the non-Roman script and to the most relevant WP article. In all cases they can be RfVed, though quick Google Books and OneLook checks may show that our attestation standard would easily be met. If they otherwise meet WT:CFI on what grounds would you exclude them. Or how would you have CFI amended?
2.4 children could easily be encountered in English text. It has meaning beyond the meanings of its components. There is also little point in compelling readers who encounter the term to search for a WP article when we can provide something simple that enables them to get on with their reading and provide a good WP link for them to boot.
For those of us who are accustomed to traditional print dictionaries and a less globally integrated world it takes some getting used to. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Doufuhua would have to be used in running English text, conveying meaning. Being of foreign origin is not a criterion for exclusion. Message is a French word, after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Where's the line between doufuhua and spaghetti? It is very common to adopt a dish by transliterating the foreign name; if you ask a native English speaker "what's that?" and they say "doufuhua", then that's probably the English name for it. In this case, I'm a little concerned about the spelling, as it doesn't look like this spelling can be cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • To answer your fundamental questions: the rules are at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. In a nutshell: the term should have been actually used, its meaning should not be deducible from its parts, and in most cases we don't include names of specific people or companies. 2.4 children passes all of these rules (since it doesn't literally two-and-two-fifths of a child, thank goodness). Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

‘él’ and ‘ella’ as subjective ‘it’ in Spanish[edit]

In Spanish, are ‘él’ and ‘ella’ ever used as subject pronouns to refer to non-personal masculine and feminine antecedents, respectively, the way ‘il‘ and ‘elle’ are used in French and ‘er’ and ‘sie’ are used in German? I know that the word that would normally be translated as a subjective ‘it’ into English is generally left out in Spanish (e.g. Está aquíIt's here), but I'm guessing there are times when you would want to say it explicitly, and since French, German, and (I'm guessing) most other European languages use masculine and feminine third-person singular pronouns as subjects to refer to non-personal masculine and feminine antecedents, respectively, I assumed that Spanish did so as well. I was unable to verify that online, however (this is the closest thing I found, and even the RAE has them listed as simply personal pronouns), and so I came here to find out how, if at all, subjective ‘it’ is explicitly expressed in Spanish. Are ‘él’ and ‘ella’ used, or is it something else? I'm guessing whatever rule there is for the singular also applies to the plural, by the way. Esszet (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Although it rarely occurs, él and ella may be used as subjective or objective ‘it’ (él, ella, a él, a ella, de él, de ella). Ella es una universidad divertida. —Stephen (Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, "él" & "ella" are "lui" et "elle".... or alternatively "il" et "elle". As for the gender-neutral case, you can say "él" but probably you would say "eso" "ese" or "esto" or "este", am I right? Just like French "ça"... but "il" as in "il pleut" (Spanish "Llueve ahora")

Edit: Yes, as Stephen pointed out, "a él" is a good example.Hwfr (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

-ion and related suffixes[edit]

I have been thinking of putting -tion, -sion, and -ation words in the -ion category, because of their identical functions and other similarity. -ion, -tion and -ation have identical etymologies as well, not sure about -sion (the -sion entries are strewn over). The separate categories should be kept; maybe linking the other categories to the -ion category should do?


fuse > fusion; act > action; explode > explosion; accuse > accusation; realize > realization; tessellate > tessellation; continue > continuation; conclude -> conclusion; ...

I don't know how to deal with them exactly. And -sion needs cleanup (look at the garbage at the bottom!) and a category. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've sort of cleaned it up. But Category:English words suffixed with -sion doesn't contain any entries, and I can't name any either. Fusion, vision, conclusion (and so on) are all borrowed from Latin or from French (almost all of those are borrowed rather than inherited into French too). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Underexpression and overexpression might be examples though. Underexpression is currently listed as from underexpress +‎ -ion which is I suppose better than saying underexpress +‎ -sion then that the third -s- gets dropped. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Making the entire -tion category (et al) a subcategory of the -ion category (while still also leaving it in the categories it's in now) sounds OK. (Changing -tion words to categorize into the -ion category would not be good IMO.) - -sche (discuss) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


User:Eirikr asks "Does this verb also have a sense of "to make a noise" or "to cry out"?". Moving the question here, rather than making entry requiring {{attention}}. I don't know a good answer to the question. Naver dictionaries give this, the third one is funny:

  1. cry, weep, howl, bawl, wail
  2. cry, chirp
  3. 기타 (gita, “guitar”)

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

빽빽 울다 ‎(ppaekppaek ulda) means "cheep, peep, chirp". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The obvious question about senses 1 and 3: does it gently weep? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Yes, the same question was in my head :) Still love this song. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

road game[edit]

I have never heard of a road game, is it an American term, and the equivalent of away game? Donnanz (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see w:Road (sports). The term perhaps made more sense in the early days, when teams would commonly go on tours of the country in a big road trip. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, there's more to it than I thought. I have added that link to the entry. Cheers. Donnanz (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't help thinking these would be best covered by road and away as game is just one of the possible nouns you can use, such as away win, away match, road win(s) ("leading the league in road wins"). But keep on the road as not easily derived from the sum of its parts (even if you have the sense at road). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I entered some missing derived terms. That should help. Donnanz (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant IMO, road game itself is not easily derived. Nor home game. Also, let's take the time to note that road game and several related entries have been RfD. Purplebackpack89 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussion migrated to a RfD discussion, which is now closed as there was a clear consensus to keep all the articles. Purplebackpack89 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


* {{a|[[w:English phonology|Anglicized]]}} {{IPA|/koˈsɑ/|lang=en}}

English doesn't even have /o/ so that's not Anglicized. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Should be /əʊ/, of course. (I think some accents do have /o/, BTW.) Equinox 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, presumably /o/ was just shorthand for /oʊ/ in English, like /r/ for /ɹ/. I've expanded the pronunciation section. - -sche (discuss) 17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You seemed to have left out what I would find to be the most natural pronunciation: /ˈkoʊ.sə/. Also, since when do we allow "native" (i.e. foreign) pronunciations in English entries? --WikiTiki89 17:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I only fixed the /o/ and didn't notice the /a/; the dictionaries have the schwa you're familiar with. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Swedish -na[edit]

The Swedish entry currently has two definitions for this suffix under one etymology: one that forms the definite plural of many nouns, and one that forms verbs. The given etymology seems appropriate for the second definition, but it's not appropriate for the first definition. I think the two should be split up into separate etymology entries, even if one of the etymologies is not known. The Old Norse morphology article offers some ideas on the etymologies of all the definite endings, but I lack a Swedish-specific source. Eishiya (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It is true that -na forms definite noun endings, but only for common nouns. Neuter nouns usually end in -en for the definite plural. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the verb ending. You can always check a few entries in Swedish Wiktionary (or on this site). Donnanz (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I found this [5] on the Swedish site, but no etymology given I'm afraid. Donnanz (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina[edit]

Can anyone verify the pronunciation /kaɪɹəˈlaɪnə/ (specifically the /kaɪ-/)? It sounds unlikely to me. --WikiTiki89 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It was added by EP seven years ago. I'd say it's simply a mistake, possibly because the vowel which is used (the AIR / CARE / SQUARE vowel) is so hard to notate — perhaps EP thought /aɪɹ/ = air. You can hear three North Carolinians pronounce the state's name (albeit in a very formal setting) here, at 0:06, 2:55 and 3:30. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
That was my thought too, but I thought I'd ask just to make sure. --WikiTiki89 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Never heard it pronounced that way, if that helps Leasnam (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Southern accents can do some amazing things to vowels, but making both long a and long i into the same diphthong isn't one of them. If anything, I would expect the accented vowel to be pretty much a monophthong. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever heard the pronunciation IPA(key): /nɔːθ kæəˈlaːnə/? I swear it exists, including the /r/ dropped intervocalically. Benwing2 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I've ever heard it in the wild, but I have heard that some nonrhotic Southern accents drop intervocalic /r/ as well as coda /r/. John Harris once told of his surprise at hearing his surname pronounced /ˈhæ.ɪs/ by a Southerner. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not in this particular word, but I have heard that in other words. --WikiTiki89 12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I can find eye dialect which suggests it in white speech:
  • 1941 September 8, Robert Coughlan, "Our Bob" Reynolds, the marrying senator from North Carolina "don't hate nobody," including the Germans:
    [I]n his thickest mountain drawl [...] Reynolds would [...] imitate Senator Morrison[: ...] "Now ah want to ask you folks. Don't you all want a Senator who's satisfied just with good ol' No'th Ca'olina hen's eggs, that cost 26¢ a dozen?" The folks uproariously and overwhelmingly did. They gave Our Bob the nomination by a plurality of 100,000 votes, []
And Labov has heard it in black speech:
  • William Labov, Dialect Diversity in America: The Politics of Language Change (2012, ISBN 0813933269):
    R-pronunciation among African Americans
    Furthermore, /r/ is often dropped between two vowels, as in Flo'ida, Ca'olina, inte'ested.
- -sche (discuss) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Latin noun modules[edit]

There are currently two modules for the declension of Latin nouns: Module:la-utilities and Module:la-noun. The former covers first and second declension nouns, and the latter covers third declension nouns (fourth and fifth declension nouns aren't covered by any module at the moment). It would obviously make sense to merge them and add support for fourth and fifth declension nouns, but there are two problems with that: there are differences in formatting between the two modules, and Module:la-noun cannot automatically detect on the basis of the word itself at the moment which pattern to use. Resolving the differences in formatting should be simple: just decide which one is better (I prefer that of Module:la-noun; it appears to be much easier to read and edit) and merge the two modules with that formatting. As for the automatic detection of appropriate declension patterns for, I realize that that would be much more difficult for third declension nouns; maybe a |type= parameter can be created to specify the appropriate pattern so that we wouldn't have to use a separate template for each pattern? Anyone else have any different opinions on this? Esszet (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They definitely should be merged. But where are the declension functions in Module:la-utilities even being used? It looks like most nouns are still using the old non-module templates. I think it's a good idea to have a single template {{la-decl-noun}} or similar rather than a bunch of templates. It might make sense to have the type parameter be one of the numbered params for typing convenience, and omittable whenever the autodetection code works. You could have the first param be the nom sg with macrons, the 2nd param the decl type when it can't be inferred, and the 3rd param the gen sg when it can't be inferred. Further parameters can be named, e.g. |loc=1 for nouns with a locative and overrides to allow any individual case form to be manually specified. So e.g.
  • {{la-decl-noun|saxum}} (inferrable as 2nd neuter)
  • {{la-decl-noun|vōx}} (inferrable as 3rd non-neuter with genitive vōcis)
  • {{la-decl-noun|rēx||rēgis}} (inferrable as 3rd non-neuter, non-inferrable genitive given)
  • {{la-decl-noun|rūs|3n|rūris|loc=1}} (need to specify 3rd neuter, with genitive rūris, with a locative)
  • {{la-decl-noun|sēnsus|4}} (need to specify 4th decl non-neuter)

Benwing2 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was completely shocked to find out that Template:la-decl-first, which (I think) is one of only two templates that make use of Module:la-utilities, is not used in any entries at all (see here) and that Template:la-decl-second, which is the other one, is used in a grand total of one entry (vesper, see here), and that's because I added it to it a few days ago. It might be best to merge all Latin noun declension templates into one comprehensive one, but before we do that, we need to have one big Latin noun declension module that covers all five declensions. Anyone have any objections to the proposed merger? Esszet (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I put a bunch of work into {{la-decl-first}} and {{la-decl-second}} which simplify the use of Latin templates a heap. There's a list of examples on each page to show how it simplifies the usage, under "Comparison to previous templates". I was going to do the third declension too before pushing for a global change over, but it was more complicated and more work than I had time for and I dropped the ball on it. Pengo (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
With the first and second declension, the whole declension table could more-or-less be inferred out just from the lemma. With the third it becomes more complicated as you can't always tell which option is being used. It would be easy to stick with thinking of templates as a "fill in the blanks" exercise, but with Lua it's possible to move towards thinking about what makes sense for the user of the template? My thinking is that for Latin, ideally, the templates should try to emulate the "citation form" commonly found in dictionaries, and build the tables from that. So for example the citation form "nox, noctis f", would become {{la-decl|nox|noctis|f}} and "vetus, -eris" would become {{la-decl|vetus|-eris}} or something like that. And this is how I was going to attempt to make {{la-decl-third}}, though I'm still not sure if all use-cases are covered 100% with this approach. Yes, absolutely, the goal would be eventually to unify templates and drop the "first" or "second"—but I believe it doesn't even need to be a parameter as I'm pretty sure it can always be inferred. (It could be a parameter for highly exceptional cases) Pengo (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Esszet, Benwing2, Pengo: This sort of thing is an excellent endeavour. If I had more time and were more Lua-competent, I'd help. Failing that, I'd just like to point out that ObsequiousNewt has recently done excellent work on {{grc-decl}} and {{grc-adecl}}; some of his solutions therein may be applicable to Luacising the Latin declension templates. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

{{form of}} template adds ".23English" to links. Is this a bug?[edit]

I added such clause {{alternative form of|cattle prod#Verb|cattle prod (as verb)|lang=en}} to the cattle-prod article. However, section "#Verb" is mistranslated into non-existent "#Verb.23English", and doesn't work. Is this a bug, or I am doing something wrong? Yurivict (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Most templates with a language parameter don’t allow section linking, because they link to the language section automatically. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
By default 'form of' only links to language section, which in this case isn't sufficient. I wonder if there is the URL link that would link to language section first, and then to POS. Also, it shouldn't produce that ".23English". If this is done by Lua code, it should have complained instead of outputting the wrong string. Yurivict (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with section linking is that the position number of sections is very fickle. For example you could have the noun form FOOs link to FOO#Noun, but if someone adds a translingual section with a noun section, or even another English noun section, the link will take users to the wrong section. Links to a language section may not always be the most precise, but they are always correct. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity nicknames[edit]

Are terms like R-Pattz, J-Lo, K-Stew WT-worthy? All words in all languages, I guess, right? --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as they meet CFI, I'd say they belong on Wiktionary. Having these entries would definitely be helpful. --Tweenk (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


In the "usage notes", it says that the word whoop-de-do is often used sarcastically. However, as far as I know, it is *always* used sarcastically. Maybe in the past it had a different connotation. Shouldn't it be noted right up front that it is always used sarcastically? As it stands, the given definition comes across as a joke. —This unsigned comment was added by ‎ (talkcontribs).

Maybe the usage notes themselves are sarcastic. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology for arabic days of the week[edit]

Considering that the pages for the English days all have their etymology, shouldn't the Arabic ones also have them? Especially since they are rather simple for the most part; Saturday is literally called "the first" (الأَحَد) and they go on till Thursday being "the fifth" (الخَمِيس), then Friday is the congregation/gathering and Saturday is the rest (fully these should all be "day of ..." but that would only be when preceded by يوم, literally meaning day, as in يوم الأحد -> first day). I'm not very familiar with editing on this site, so I'd appreciate it if someone could put these in for me. 07:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add them if you want. --WikiTiki89 14:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mis-statement or incomplete statement of fact. "Accusative" English, adjective, 2nd sense[edit]

Mis-statement or incomplete statement of fact. "Accusative", English adjective, 2nd sense. First sentence reads: 2. (grammar) Applied to the case (as the fourth case of Latin, Lithuanian and Greek nouns) which expresses the immediate object on which the action or influence of a transitive verb has its limited influence. I suggest it should read: 2. (grammar) Applied to the case (as the fourth case of Latin, Lithuanian and Greek nouns) which expresses the anticipation of an immediate object on which the action or influence of a transitive verb has its limited influence.


Is this Italian word ever used as a noun to mean "noun", similar to sostantivo ‎(substantive”, “noun)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. One dictionary has a noun sense - meaning something like "essence" (that which is essential). But I can't see a grammatical noun anywhere - that is sostantivo. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Thanks. In that case, I'm stumped. Would you mind translating the Italian citation I've added to Citations:triale tantum, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm about to cook my dinner, but will try later. But at a glance it looks like "sostanziale" is being used as an adjective in front of a Latin term in italics. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I've had a go - it sounds a bit stilted but gets the message across. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Is there a succinct English equivalent for this word? —suzukaze (tc) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, no. I just added the Mandarin equivalent 罰站. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

it's not you, it's me[edit]

'It also implies that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done' and 'The reason why I want to end our relationship is unspecified' don't seem correct - please help to improve them. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Should it even be kept? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be an excuse to sidle out of a relationship without giving a proper reason, but that's not what it means: literally, it's stating that the other person's behaviour etc. isn't the cause of the breakup. Equinox 12:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The expression is certainly a set phrase in the US. I think the definition (misformatted as a non-gloss definition) is not correct. IMO, the essence of this expression is its use. Ie, it needs a proper non-gloss definition. Though it may have been and may still be most commonly used in conversations about romantic relationships, it is of wider application in relationships (eg, friendships) and not exclusively in termination of romantic relationships. It would be interesting to determine in which film or popular novel this was first used. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I can't write the definition; I have only made a few edits to English, ever. I am going to delete 'It also implies that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done' if no-one has any objections. I deleted the reference to Seinfeld because I am sure that it was a popular expression before then. I think it was an expression that was used and that passed into use on TV and so on rather than the other way round. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, rather than implying 'that the reason for relationship termination is something vague, based on emotions and feelings, rather than something that the other person has said or done', I think it can imply the opposite. If I said 'DCDuring, it's not you, it's me', I might be implying that everything was down to DCDuring. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It also has the function of trying to make the dumpee feel less bad, without any real adverse consequence to the dumper, and cutting off the possibility of a defensive response by the dumpee. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Is this pejorative? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The times I've seen or heard it used were pertaining to rather unflattering aspects of Jewish characteristics (e.g. Bob Saggett is beginning to look rather Jewy now that he's getting older.), but I wouldn't say it's pejorative. More like: adhering to or typical of Jewish stereotypes (i.e. stereotypically Jewish). Leasnam (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, Leasnam: It's not vulgar slang, but it's definitely pejorative. OED lists it as "depreciative and offensive" Pengo (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it can be...I've only heard it used by Jewish persons referring to other Jews, so...I guess we can add self-deprecating to the list as well. Leasnam (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

false cognate[edit]

May require RFA or demotion, e.g. to (rare), of the current 1st sense. In a recent discussion on Wikipedia we've run into difficulties in locating sources that use this specific term to talk about words that might be plausibly cognates but aren't. (Mentions as a part of a definition are easy enough to find; actual uses, not so much.)

There also seem to be indications for a 3rd sense entirely: a word that sounds or looks similar to a word in another language, while meaning something different altogether. See e.g. this paper (e.g. red#English : red#Turkish), this guide on Spanish education (e.g. pie#English : pie#Spanish), or this StackExchange answer.--Tropylium (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Even our own usage over at Category:False cognates and false friends appears to follow the 3rd more than the 1st. --Tropylium (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Sense 1 covers things like Mbabaram "dog" (synonymous with, but unrelated to, English "dog") and many languages' words for "ma" and "pa". Sense 3 is a subset of sense 1, referring only to apparent relatives which are not only not related but also not of a similar meaning. Is the requirement that terms have dissimilar meanings really part of the definition of "false cognate", i.e. would you really say that Mbabaram "dog" and English "dog" are not false cognates, because they mean the same thing, whereas you would say English "dog" and Swedish "dog" ("died") were false cognates? That seems improbable, because it seems like you would only discuss the false cognancy of two words if there were a reason (like synonymy) that someone might consider them cognates, and there's no reason I can see that anyone would ever suspect English "dog" and Swedish "dog" ("died"), or English "pie" and Spanish "pie", of being cognates in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
As Florian Blaschke wrote on WP: "A definition of "false cognate" that does not even require a similarity in meaning would be ridiculously broad. Words that sound similar but mean something totally different are ubiquitous and therefore completely uninteresting." - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

double take[edit]

Two questions about the current definition,"A take#Noun, commonly used as a comical reaction to a surprising sight, in which someone casually sees something, briefly stops looking at it, realizes what it is, and snaps attention back to it with an expression of surprise or disbelief."

(1) Wouldn't reaction be better than take, where the appropriate sense comes after as many as 6 definitions for different things?
(2) Is it necessary to emphasize it can be (intentionally) comical, especially as the first example sentence is "Smith passes the car and does a double take as he realizes it is on fire." ? --Droigheann (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. The word reaction occurs just six words later in the definition, so a simple substitution wouldn't be good style. How would you rewrite the whole definition?
  2. It is certainly usually comedic. The usage example is just made up and may not reflect actual usage. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that take in the acting sense is not a very good word to use in a definition as it is not at all common in general use. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. You are right about "reaction", I overlooked that. What about "An abrupt movement, ..."?
  2. It is? I thought it was more like when you genuinely start and look again because your brain has finally processed what it had seen. But if that is the case shouldn't we at least change the order of the two example sentences? --Droigheann (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that either of the usage examples reflect real usage. In writing, I find the term mostly in stage direction, apparently in comedy. In speech it may be sometimes used in narration/dramatization of a story. Real citations would qualify us to depart from the standard definitions. In the absence of citations I will defer to your judgment, which may be right. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Most of the dictionaries you linked to at the entry don't mention its being mostly comedic and/or theatrical; BNC search [6] and the two relevant WR threads [7][8] don't seem to support this claim either; OTOH nobody here seems to oppose it, so not being en-N myself I'll just think of this debate as inconclusive and won't meddle with the entry (save for having substituted "abrupt movement" for "take"). --Droigheann (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I respect professional lexicographers, but I'm not always sure that they are basing their definitions on much evidence. Being able to use Google Books as a corpus is a new development, newer than some of their print editions. And researching a word like take is particularly difficult. Searches at google books for "a double take", "do|does|doing|did|done a double take" etc. might generate some relevant hits. DCDuring TALK 03:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I was too focused on take. I reduced the "comic" to an example. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


<<(countable, Canada, US) A math course.>> Is the word "math" used to mean math course? It is apparently definition three. Is it used in this sense? 2602:306:3653:8A10:7553:A374:560B:1B1A 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, students use it this way; I've added one quotation from a book. It's comparable to a waitress saying "table three ordered two waters" (two servings of water). - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems problematic in exactly the way your comparison points out; anything can be used that way. "I need two Germans to graduate." "I need two calculuses to graduate." "Table three ordered two pies" (two slices of pie). There's the argument what the possible is much broader here then the citable, but it is a fairly general form in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "pies" is often used to mean "slices of pie". If I heard two pies, I'd think two whole pies, not slices of a pie. 2602:306:3653:8A10:A8F5:5D80:541F:88EE 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems plausible to me. Similar case: if a restaurant sells cheesecake as a dessert, a waiter asking the kitchen for "two cheesecakes" would surely mean two portions, not two whole cakes. Equinox 00:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Math majors/students/questions/degrees/certifications/books/papers/homework assignments/tests/problems/exams could all be referred to as maths in the appropriate context. I suppose this kind of elision is more likely with a shortened word like math rather than mathematics. DCDuring TALK 04:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Why does the Latin word have two possible declensions? Are they entirely interchangeable? Equally common? A usage note would be helpful here. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it was used in both cases, that is: with genetive -eris and genetive -eri. Although from what L&S say, it was in practice an irregular mix of both: "(in class. prose mostly acc. vesperum [2 decl], and abl. vespere [3 decl], or adverb. vesperi; the plur. not used)".
Or: it's of both 2nd and 3rd declensions, and don't bother to use either exclusively, because the Classical authors didn't. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the entry and added a usage note based on L&S, after corroborating with the corpus. One issue I have is that I'm not sure how to characterise the "adverbial" forms (described in the Declension section), or whether they should have 'Adverb' L3 sections. Perhaps the Latin cabal has thoughts? @I'm so meta even this acronym, JohnC5, Angr. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I could see an argument for vespere, vesperī being declared adverbs of their own right as opposed to idiomatic uses of a particular case, but L&S, OLD, and Gaffiot do not break them out into their own lemmata. On the other hand, someone has made domi and humī into adverbs (but not domō, domum, or rūrī). I'm fine with adding a few extra idiomatic adverbs, but it would be nice to have a policy to help us decide when a funny use of a case breaks free into adverbiality.
Personally, I would prefer if we were called the Coniūrātiō Latīnōrum. ObsequiousNewt and I are already in the Fraktur Cabal.JohnC5 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015


out-and-out is missing a definition relating to breeding. This was a new find for me this evening, as I was wondering about how it got its "thorough" meaning. In a Google books search I could find farmers using "out-and-out horse" and "out-and-out work". In poultry books, "out-and-out breeding" means to rotate in genetically different roosters each year (cf poultry "in-breeding", inbreed). I'm guessing that such thorough mongrelizing is the basis for the "thorough" meaning of "out-and-out" which, confusingly, seems to have an opposite meaning in thoroughbred. - 09:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

on the daily[edit]

What is "on the daily", when used as a (chiefly AAVE) synonym for just "daily"? For instance:

  • 1996, The Fugees, "How Many Mics?"
  • How many mics do we rip on the daily?
  • 2005, Black Eyed Peas, "My Humps"
  • I drive these brothers crazy, I do it on the daily
  • 2012, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, "Same Love"
  • "Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily

Is this a special construction of on, a special definition of daily or an idiomatic phrase? As an argument against the last suggestion, I can also cite "on the weekly" and "on the monthly":

and "on the yearly", "on the hourly" get occasional hits:

Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd call them all idiomatic, since it's only in this phrase that "the daily" (etc.) is used to mean "a daily basis" (etc.). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To me they seem like syntactic constructions with the following formula to transform the expressions into mainstream English: "on the Xly" ⇒ "(on) every X", where every is probably often hyperbolic. I don't know how to add a definition to on that would help. This seems meant for Collocation space, but we could also have an entry for on the that had two "definitions": {{&lit|on|the}} and a non-gloss AAVE entry. That would need redirects from and usage examples of all of the collocations in the usage instances above and possibly more. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There's also on the regular ‎(on a regular basis). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


I had a little shock when I read that attached to someone meant “in a romantic or sexual relationship”. Because I thought I might have used it terribly wrong on many an occasion. But now Google has given me 7 million quotes for “attached to his mother”, which don’t seem to speak of incest. So I suppose the word can indeed mean “fond of, devoted to” as I thought it did.Kolmiel (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Added. Equinox 04:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the more common sense. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

myself, yourself and similar - pronouns?[edit]

These forms are currently denoted as pronouns. And most uses are indeed pronoun-like, such as I wash myself. But some of the uses seem more adverbial, like I myself have seen it or I'll do it myself. You can replace "myself" with "alone" and you can see how they are syntactically very similar. So is this an omission on our part? —CodeCat 18:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Although they're not known for piercing up-to-date analysis of things like part-of-speech, FWIW the "lemmings" cover the "adverb-ish" uses as pronouns, e.g. Merriam-Webster: "pronoun 1: that identical one that is I — used [...] for emphasis 'I myself will go'", MacMillan: "pronoun 3a. used for emphasizing that you do something without help from anyone else : I arranged everything myself." In German, where selbst is both a pronoun and an adverb, uses like "ich selbst habe das Essen gekocht" (I myself cooked the meal) and "es waren die Tunesier selbst, die [das taten]" (it was the Tunisians themselves who did that) are typically considered to the using the pronoun (while the adverb covers uses like "selbst wenn du mir nicht glaubst, ..." = "even if you don't believe me, ..."), although the Duden labels both uses "particle"s. I've yet to find any in-depth analysis of the (English) matter, besides the hint that the specific term for this is "intensive pronoun". Does CGEL have anything to say? - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Surely in "I myself will go" the two pronouns are merely appositional - for emphasis. I don't think myself is modifying the verb (will go), so not an adverb. With "I'll do it myself" again myself is not modifying "do" - rather it is equivalent to (and perhaps a variant of) "I'll do it by myself", where myself is clearly a pronoun as it is preceded by a preposition.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Who said adverbs have to modify verbs? --WikiTiki89 13:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, and themselves are collectively referred to as reflexive pronouns Purplebackpack89 13:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

neger, néger[edit]

  1. Neger says "now chiefly Caribbean", but the only citation is from 1700. The modern hits at google books:"a neger" suggests that, in addition to referring to a type of WWII submarine, this is just a variant / synonym / eye-dialect form of nigger and it does not seem to be specific to the Caribbean.
  2. Can anyone vouch for or against this?

- -sche (discuss) 02:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

away (in a restaurant)[edit]

In the UK (not sure of elsewhere) a waiter in a restaurant will shout to the chef "table <n> away" when the people at that table have finished their starters and are ready for their main course (In Italy the word used is via). What is the part of speech? What do waiters in other countries say? The OED doesn't seem to have a definition for this meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an adjective. Possibly (guessing) in the sense "at a specified distance in space, time, or figuratively", a bit like when horses in a race are said to be "away" (at the point of starting). Equinox 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a procedure word, and not an English sentence. Pengo (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Category English language contains items that don't belong there[edit]

Items like Maroon Spirit Language‎, Kriol language‎, Tok Pisin language shouldn't be included. I think they are included because English is listed as on of the ancestors for them, but they themselved aren't English. I think only pages that have English section should be included in Category:English language. Yurivict (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of words in Maroon Spirit Language, Kriol, or Tok Pisin that are miscategorized as English? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
For languages that have their ancestor set in the modules, the language category is automatically categorised into the ancestor's language category by {{poscatboiler}}. —CodeCat 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But this doesn't make much sense, because in English language category people would expect to see "English language", not some other languages, even though English is within the set of their ancestors. There should be the separate category "Languages having English as ancestor". Yurivict (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Most of such categories would only ever have one language in them. —CodeCat 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I never noticed this before; is it new? At any rate it seems to me to be a very bad thing that Category:English language is a daughter of Category:Middle English language, which is a daughter of Category:Old English language, which is a daughter of Category:Proto-Germanic language, which is a daughter of Category:Proto-Indo-European language. That's not what membership in a category is supposed to mean. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
{{langcatboiler}} should probably have a Descendants field in addition to Ancestors. (But it might have to be truncated to immediate daughters, at least in the case of things like Proto-Austronesian or Proto-Indo-European.) --Tropylium (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Could a native speaker of English check this definition?[edit]

Hi everyone,

I defined 'рунетчик' as "A user of the Russian segment of the Internet", but shortly after that the definition was changed to "user of the Russian segment of Internet". The removal of the indefinite article before the word 'user' isn't particularly important; the absence of 'the' before 'Internet', however, looks grammatically incorrect to me.

Could a native speaker of English provide an opinion on the matter?

Thanks! Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"of Internet" doesn't sound right to me. —suzukaze (tc) 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that "the Internet" has been in dominant use since the early 1990s. Some 1980s american TV news reports used "Internet" without the article (see youtube). Also, "segment" does not seem like the right word to me; "part" might be better. 13:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Is (national) subnet common or transparent enough to replace segment in the definition? DCDuring TALK 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, this 'segment' of the Internet is not a technical 'segment'. People who use the word 'Рунет' use it to describe all the Russian-language sites on the Internet as sort of a separate cultural space. The problem is – such a space obviously doesn't exist. And secondly – it's hard to decide which sites should be considered part of 'Рунет' and which shouldn't. For example, Russian Wikipedia and Russian Wiktionary – are they part of 'Рунет' or not? So, I'm pretty sure that 'рунетчик' could be defined as a user of 'Рунет'. How to define 'Рунет' – I know not.
And also, does it even belong in an English definition if it's a Russian word that isn't really used in English? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, suzukaze and, for your contributions.
Yes, a Google search of phrases like “French segment of the Internet” and “Chinese segment of the Internet” exposes the use of the word ‘segment’ in this context as a Russianism. If any word should leave the definition, it’s this one.
The word ‘Internet’ should obviously be preceded by a definite article. The native speakers in this thread, as well as Google and the Oxford Dictionary of English all agree.
As for the ‘a’ at the beginning of the definition, it’s not that I feel strongly that it should stay – rather, I don’t understand why it had to go. The aforementioned ODE routinely uses it in its definitions, and it’s commonplace to start definitions of countable nouns with ‘a’ on Wiktionary as well.
But all of this still leaves me with the question of how the word should be defined. Technically, the Internet is not divided into segments or parts based on language.
I guess the easiest way would be to define ‘рунетчик’ as a user of ‘Рунет’ – and let those who understand what the latter is define ‘Рунет’. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I did my best to reword the definition. I can't think of any reason to remove the, though whether to use a seems more like a personal preference. As for defining Рунет, look at Anglosphere for an analogous term. I would suggest "the collection of all Russian-language sites on the Internet", or "the Russian-language sites on the Internet, taken as a whole", or something like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thank you for your work on defining 'рунетчик'! I also think that your two definitions of 'Рунет' are about as precise as one can be with this markedly imprecise term. Come to think of it, I might borrow one of them verbatim for the definition. :) Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

woodpigeon vs. wood pigeon[edit]

Shouldn't wood pigeon be the main entry? Woodpigeon seems to be an Americanish spelling, but I don't think they live in America (or do they?). We always spelt it "wood pigeon" in NZ (referring to the native species there). Donnanz (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The data in Google n-gram indicates that indeed wood pigeon should be the main form, with woodpigeon and wood-pigeon being alternatives. Why do you say woodpigeon is a US spelling? DCDuring TALK 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "woodpigeon" is used in British English, so I assume it's an American form (I don't know for sure), and "wood pigeon" is the customary spelling here [9]. They come into my garden, by the way. Donnanz (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The RSPB uses woodpigeon, as does the BOU British List. Authorities generally seem to be split between the three forms. Keith the Koala (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Very surprising, so where do we go from here? Absolutely nowhere, I suppose. Donnanz (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Au contraire, we correct the 2009 change that switched the main entry from [[wood pigeon]] to [[woodpigeon]]. The 2009 edit summary rationale for the change by User:Top Cat 14 (apparently not using "Move", let alone WT:RFM) was "Moved the page here becuase woodpigeon is the preferred spelling and used more". Which rationale is contrary to what Google N-grams and COCA show. BNC shows all three forms roughly equal. It would have been nice to see some hint of the source of evidence. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely brilliant! Thanks a lot! Donnanz (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


I've heard this used (by Brits) as an insult, like "idiot" or "knob", but I'm having trouble finding citations. Has anyone else heard of it? What's the etymology? - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Could it have actually been nit? It can be pretty easy to mistake one unreleased final stop for another. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I can find it written on a few websites, like here, just nowhere durable. - -sche (discuss) 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No, doesn't ring any bells I'm afraid. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
For nitwit one can't get ANY semantics from what passes for our etymology (which goes back to PIE). In contrast Online Etymology Dictionary more helpfully gives "nitwit (n.) "stupid person," 1922, probably from nit "nothing," from dialectal German or Yiddish, from Middle Low German (see nix) + wit (n.). DCDuring TALK 10:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, American dictionaries seem to like the German/Yiddish root idea, while British ones prefer a more literal "having the brains of a nit" (although Chambers goes with US). The earliest (non-scanno) hits in Google Books are from the US Northeast (which surprises me, since now it's quite a British-sounding insult), so I'd go with the German root. Added both to the entry, with preference to German. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this either. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps I'm re-listing this (it's already tagged but I see nothing on its talk page) but it summon used as a noun as opposed to summons? Or to put it another way, is it currently used as a noun, that is, is it archaic, dated, current, what? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's rare and possibly archaic. I can find a 1817 citation of "which took place the night preceding his summon of his uncle" and a 1979 citation (by a non-native speaker?) of "His summon of all the Northern emirs", a few citations of google books:"his summon to", in all of which cases I think it could be defined as "(rare) singular of summons". - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"white hope"[edit]

The phrase "white hope" deserves explanation and an entry. I think it is to be distinguished from the common or vulgar understanding of the phrase "great white hope", which as far as I can tell is basically that of a white boxer or other athlete.

The phrase "white hope" apparently has a true, much older significance. Thus, one finds in "The Decline of Bismarck's European Order", by George . Kennan, Princeton University Press (1979), p. 93, at the asterisk at the bottom of the page, the following: "*Skobelev's death, it might be further noted, occurred within a few weeks of that of her other great hero and white hope, Gambetta ...."

It's clear that the use by Kennan is free from any racial reference, and that "white hope" has an independent meaning. In this older, non-vulgar sense, the phrase "white hope" is deserving of an entry in Wiktionary.

Does anyone know what this phrase really means, and its derivation, with other examples of its usage?

The Oxford Dictionary of English does: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/white-hope Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
See white hope at OneLook Dictionary Search, especially MW's definitions. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. We currently have: "A silly, foolish or unintelligent person". I thought that it was more like a forgetful, distracted, or unaware person. But since English is a second language to me, i consult y'all instead of making a change. Of course a second sense/def could be added, but i think it overkill, as i believe the word to have but one meaning. Opinions? Thanks in advance.--Jerome Potts (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See airhead at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so there is another sense. Thanks. Note that i don't copy from other dictionaries, i want us to make our own. But the "consensus" is always interesting. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The idea is that their head is filled with air rather than with a brain. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Europeanize or europeanize?[edit]

? --2A02:908:C30:EBE0:69A9:8A6F:CD91:312C 00:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Euro- words are more often written with a capital. Equinox 00:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
BGC Ngrams confirms that the capitalized form is way more common. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oxford agrees with the capitalised form [10]. Donnanz (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Is there a way to change the title of the article अझ़दहा? The title should be अज़दहा. There is no such word as अझ़दहा in Hindi. This word exists in Urdu, but that doesn't mean it also exists in Hindi. In Hindi, the modified form अज़दहा is used instead. Here is a dictionary entry with अज़दहा, and as you can see there is no अझ़दहा present.--Foreverknowledge (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be correct, so I have moved it. @Dijan, Stephen G. BrownΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the former is an alternative spelling used to indicate the Persian/Urdu pronunciation with the voice palato-alveolar sibilant, a sound which isn't native to Hindi, just like the word itself. That doesn't make the word non-existent as the claim above suggests. --Dijan (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If the word were existent in Hindi, one would expect to find at least some references to it in literature. However, you can see for yourself, there are 0 results for अझ़दहा/अझदहा in Google books. In a general Google web search, all results for अझ़दहा/अझदहा are either derived from, influenced by, or based on Wikipedia/Wiktionary. In other words, अझ़दहा/अझदहा is not a real Hindi word, but a word Wikipedia/Wiktionary created for Hindi. It is, however, an appropriate transliteration for the Urdu/Persian word. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Pot Noodle" or "pot noodle"?[edit]

Pot Noodle is a registered trademark of Unilever, but it seems to have entered general usage and used for other manufacturers' identical products, and it is also written completely in lower case. Other manufacturers have to use a different name, the ASDA product is called a "noodle snack". The question is whether it's worth an entry. Donnanz (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I've eaten those damn things a few times (I prefer "Super Noodles") but I've never seen it written in lower case or used generically. Want to make a Citations page? Equinox 09:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The generic, lowercase, term is instant noodle I think. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
p.s. Apparently you can only eat them after you have been soaked in boiling water. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Citations pages aren't my speciality, in other words I've never done one. A little bit of info here :: Citations pages aren't my speciality, in other words I've never done one. A little bit of info here [11] may help.
Maybe Semper Blotto should rephrase that last comment. Donnanz (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what our definition seems to say to me. Perhaps it needs a comma or something. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
"It is eaten after being soaked in boiling water." Cf. "it is thrown away after being used". No grammar problem. Equinox 09:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The way I read it, you yourself have been soaked in boiling water. Ouch! Donnanz (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The first reading is supported by the weight of the grammatical evidence and of the context, but the other reading isn't completely ruled out, especially with the looong distance between the two clauses. It's also more fun to talk about... Chuck Entz (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've swapped the words around a bit - any better? Keith the Koala (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "pot noodle" is more specific than "instant noodle", in that it implies the boiling water can be poured directly into the styrofoam cup packaging. Not sure how to judge how generic the trademark has become. Can't say I knew it was a trademark. Pengo (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems to be pluralised as well [12], and has a Wikipedia page. Donnanz (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

RMOS Consultancy new word addition in your dictionary[edit]

hi i want to add a new word RMOS Consultancy in your dictionary so plz help and describe me by and by process to do so

That is definitely not going to happen. It's commercial spam, or advertising. If you add it, you will be blocked. Equinox 09:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Jewes and jewes[edit]

The current state of these two entries is rather problematic, but I don't actually know what to do with them (besides the obsolete spelling listed in Jewes, of course). Would {{only used in}} be appropriate, perhaps? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I wasn't aware of that template when I made those pages or I would have used it. I'll wait and see if someone's got a better plan though. FTR, there's a lot more than just those two pages, there's about a billion variations on it, all of them are in Category:English particles (all of the Js in that category). WurdSnatcher (talk)
All I know for sure is that they oughtn't to be particles! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I originally named some nouns but thought they didn't really act like nouns, maybe nouns that are only used attributively? WurdSnatcher (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

proprioception, nociception, etc.[edit]

Where does the ception bit come from? I don't think it's a suffix, I don't think it's directly from Latin (would be capiō or captiō not ceptiō) so where's it from? Reception, inception, what? Note we have -ception but with a completely different meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

perception presumably. Equinox 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Latin noun inflection table templates[edit]

I've recently migrated a great number of Latin noun inflection table templates to Module:la-noun and so rendered many of them obsolete; all of the locative templates have been superseded by the |loc= parameter, which simply has to be set to ‘yes’ to add the locative row as well as the appropriate forms of the word to the table, and the one plural template has long since been superseded by the |num= parameter, which can be set to ‘sg’ or ‘pl’ to eliminate the singular or plural column, respectively. In addition, most of the templates for irregular nouns have also been rendered obsolete; named parameters such as |nom_sg= and |dat_pl= can be used to specify irregular forms of the word, and an {{la-decl-noun-irreg}} template can be created and declensions added to the module for highly irregular words such as domus. JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, and Metaknowledge all think getting rid of the obsolete templates is a good idea; I haven't discussed with them the possibility of creating an {{la-decl-noun-irreg}} template, but I don't think that will be a major bone of contention. Anyone have any objections? Esszet (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: the parameters should be |noms= and |datp= to match the syntax used in {{inflection of}} (and Module:gender and number in general). --Tweenk (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
@Esszet: No objections from me. I'd like to recommend {{la-decl-irr}} in place of the overlong {{la-decl-noun-irreg}} (irregular adjectives could be handled by {{la-adecl-irr}}, per {{grc-adecl}}).
@Tweenk: Parameter names like |nom_sg= and |dat_pl= are a legacy of the templates' wikicode parameter names pre-Lua. I think I prefer the _sg and _pl forms, rather than the the _s and _p forms, but that's probably just because that's what I'm used to; however, I see the merit of having uniform abbreviations, so I can support the _s and _p forms. That being said, I certainly believe that we should keep the underscores — they improve readability (just like {{inflection of}}'s pipes) — imagine conjugational parameter names sans underscores: |3spresactvindc= rather than |3_s_pres_actv_indc=, for example…
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

up shit creek without a paddle[edit]

I always assumed that this referred to the situation of being stuck in a bathroom after having taking a shit without toilet paper, given both the human tendency to wrap such situations in metaphor, and the closeness of the imagery.

The existing entry for this phrase is, by its own admission, dubious, and contains no citations, so I'm interested to see more evidence. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If you believe the article needs better citations, you may want to start a Request for verification. Purplebackpack89 14:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

'dâm' (Vietnamese)[edit]

The Vietnamese word 'dâm' has 'being a pervert' listed as one of its meanings. This definition sounds very strange to me. What does it mean exactly? 'Pervert'? 'To commit perverse acts?' 'Perverted'? It's listed as an adjective, but 'being' is a state, and therefore indicates a noun... In short, I'm confused. Maybe somebody who is familiar with this particular sense of the word could come up with a better definition? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Do we have a place for this word? The citation is "He was illiterate, and he has made frequent boast that he never saw the inside of a schoolhouse. His habit of mind was singularly illogical, and his public addresses the greatest farrago of nonsense that ever was put in print. He prided himself on being a great financier, and yet all of his commercial speculations have been conspicuous failures. He was blarophant and pretended to be in daily intercourse with the Almighty, and yet he was groveling in his ideas and the system of religion he formulated was well nigh Satanic." Salt Lake Tribute on Brigham Young's death. There does not seem to be another use, but Wikipedia quotes this, and there are many places on the Internet asking what it means. Is there some appendix page where this notable nonce word can live?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: It belongs in Appendix:English nonces. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

tengah hari (afternoon) in Malaysian Sign Language[edit]

I know how to the sign. Left hand crosses infront of chest, left palm facing below, right hand elbow besides ribs contacted above left hand, stand still and right palm towards left. I want to contribute it to here but not sure how… --Malaysiaboy (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)



Although I'm a registered user, I don't know the ins and outs of how to create an entry here. Perhaps someone could set up this using the following as info: http://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/a-startling-hidden-treasure-exploring-the-holloways-of-dorset-england-1.2564028.

Good work being done here. Humbug26 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent catch. We didn't have holloway, sunken lane, or hollow way. I'm not at all sure that sunken lane is necessarily dictionary material (See sunken + lane. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for adding. I would never be able to provide that level of detail. I'm now starting to use this site more, especially now that I'm processing material at Wikisource. Every once in a while, there are some words that I really need to get the meaning of to have the context make sense. Really quite a good resource. Humbug26 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Accelerated inflection creation gadget doesn't work any more[edit]

Missing links don't show as green any more for no apparent reason. It still worked yesterday. Yurivict (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yurivict, CodeCat: It seems to be due to an edit made by CodeCat, which I have reverted. I hope she can identify the error so that Latvian & Co. can be added successfully. (For future reference, WT:GP is a better forum for technical concerns.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yurivict (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I copied and pasted the code that User:Neitrāls vārds had provided in User_talk:Conrad.Irwin/creationrules.js, assuming it was correct. Should I have checked for errors beforehand? —CodeCat 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you do that? That'd be great, if it helps it is practically a verbatim copy of the Turkish rules (as Turkish doesn't appear to have any complex modules, and is pretty heavily inflected, I thought that'd be a good reference point...)
And I suspect that Latvian in particular is what could've been the culprit (mdf and myv had it set to stick the rules in {{inflection of}} but Latvian has a custom inflection-of template.) Adding the three of them one by one could give clues, I assume. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's the problem. The problem was actually in the script itself, something was throwing an error and that brought everything else down. It might be an undefined variable or something. —CodeCat 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

CodeCat, there is a semicolon missing after every the last curly brace in all three of those blocks. Could this be it? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Just created onct - Google suggests strongly that it's an eye dialect of once, but I can't even guess what dialect it might be. SHould it be pronounced "wunst"? --Zo3rWer (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted to drop an RFV on it right off the bat. If you're going to create it, especially with it being unclear as to dialect, you should put cites on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"Onest" also exists (google books:"onest upon"), as does "onst". - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this is just a spelling variation of oncet, or possibly a guess by someone not familiar with the more usual spelling, which can happen with rare and dialectical forms. Your pronunciation is correct, and much easier to understand than the existing IPA guideline. P Aculeius (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous = Gay?[edit]

I've started a discussion on the talk page for fabulous with respect to a new sense that was added today. I'm not convinced that the examples cited demonstrate a meaning that can be clearly distinguished from the existing senses of the word, and that the meaning asserted is derived from the context in which the word is used, rather than the word itself. Apologies if I've posted this in the wrong area; please feel free to move it to the right place if I have! P Aculeius (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a new kid here, and I'm afraid I don't quite understand the procedure. We had a brief discussion on the talk page, where 2 users were kind of in favor of removing this new definition, one user sort of wanted it amended, and yet another user seemed to be quite happy with the way the entry is now. Then everybody went silent... What happens next? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pfftallofthemaretaken: Talkpages are an uncommon place for discussions, as it may be difficult for them to show up on others' radar. In a case like this, I would encourage you to put {{rfd-sense}} on the definition line and create a discussion at WT:RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Thanks! I think it would be more logical for @P Aculeius to do this, as he was the one who started the whole discussion. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pfftallofthemaretaken: It's not at all illogical for you to do it. Anyone can, after all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I like how definition 6 is worded. It's kinda of a low-level/underhanded way of saying you're gay without actually SAYING it. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the problem. It doesn't say it. Just because a word or phrase has a sort of loose association with something else doesn't mean that the said something is a definition of the word. In every example offered, the reason for using "fabulous" is supplied by other words creating a general context, while the word "fabulous" just sort of sits there ambiguously meaning "extremely amazingly wonderful" or something even less specific. Never done an RFD before, but I guess I'd better look into that. P Aculeius (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@P Aculeius: Feel free to ask me if you need any help. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Just tagged it, about to add an entry on the RFD page per instructions. If I've placed it in the wrong spot, please fix it! P Aculeius (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Fabulous! But really, does anybody know what happens next? Or, perhaps, I should ask—is there a procedure for such cases? Do we get to vote or smth? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
First a discussion of the presence of absence of any aspect of usage that should make it easier to make a decision. After that and also while the discussion is progressing: voting. DCDuring TALK


This is also a variant spelling of Ciara, of Irish origin. I'm not really sure how to put it in the entry though. —CodeCat 00:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If the same string has origins in two languages, one could try to distinguish an Etymology 1 and 2, like at Amber... though I can see how it could be hard in many cases to tell which uses of a name have which etymology, since they're synonymous and context (like someone being born to Irish vs Persian parents) could be missing or unreliable. Pragmatically, one might need to have one etymology saying "In some cases, from X. In other cases, from Y."
In cases where a name has its origin in one language and then came to be applied to another thing, however, we seem to use just one etymology and note the sense evolution: toad covers "amphibian" and "man" under one etymology. It's debatable which of the two situations the use of an English name to anglicize / respell / re-form an Irish name is more similar to, but in practice we mostly handle them under one etymology, as in Humphrey and most other entries (where the info is in the etymology), Cornelius (where it's in usage notes), or Jeremy (where it's in the definition). I think Angr's edit to Kira was the way to go.
Straying off-topic, perhaps a dedicated template for that would be useful; it would take the Irish name as a parameter and produce something along the lines of the existing wording, "Used to anglicize Irish Amhlaoibh" (add nodot=1 and add "from Olaf" manually).
- -sche (discuss) 17:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


I can't figure out what knaue means in Middle/obsolete English. I guessed at new, know, knave, but the quotes don't make sense. --Zo3rWer (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are all knave, many of them in the meaning "boy" (compare German Knabe). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So a knave child is a babie boye. --Zo3rWer (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The distinction is typographical. Written English at this period didn't distinguish between 'u' and 'v', even though spoken English did. In other words, they were treated as the same letter with two pronunciations (like many letters today). I've been transcribing church records from the 16th Century this week, and I can confirm that 'u' and 'v' are written the same way, as are 'i' and 'j' (except that both shapes are used; the j shape is usually found at the end of a word or numeral). P Aculeius (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Deus says "Only the vocative retained the -v-", but none of the five vocative forms contain a v. (One contains a u, but the nominative and accusative also have u.) Are we missing a form, or was the v retained only in Old Latin and lost in Latin, in which case we could spell that out in the interest of clarity? This article suggests that v-forms of divus (dívum or dívom) were sometimes used as forms of deus, which seems like something to include in a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


I added a second definition to the French word ("from the Lord (i.e. Jesus Christ)"), but I couldn't think of any English adjective meaning "from the Lord." Can anyone think of one that isn't obsolete or archaic? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In Christian contexts, divine is often taken to refer specifically to the Christian god, but I think "of the Lord" may be the best translation (and quite common). "...brought (the wrath of the lord | divine wrath) down upon them" (either phrase works). - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Wiktionary describes as Węgiereka: Hungarian woman. Not sure exactly how to add 80 grams of a Hungarian woman to a plum cake recipe. Any suggestions? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Wiktionary entries are case-sensitive, so the entry is correct. The problem is that that nobody has created an entry for the lower-case counterpart, węgierka (yet). Do you know anyone who speaks Polish that could do that?. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not even on the Polish wiktionary yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Old English mægþ, noun sense 2[edit]

The etym explains where sense 1 comes from -- girl, presumably cognate with German Magd. Sense 2, however (power, i.e. might, presumably cognate with German Macht), must surely have a different derivation. Could someone split these senses up by appropriate etymology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

done Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome ! Leasnam (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious, does the power sense really derive from Proto-Germanic *maigiþō ‎(shamelessness, wantonness, wickedness), rather than from *maganą ‎(to be able)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
There is already a derivative miht. —CodeCat 21:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder that too. I am not sure, it could have evolved out of the "ambition" sense, or have been influened by sound-alike meaht. I wasnt able to trace it adequately to any derivative of *maganą. Leasnam (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What do we do with ngọn đuốc now?[edit]

I created an entry on the Vietnamese word ngọn đuốc yesterday, then started doubting myself. I know, ideally it should work the other way around. The problem with the entry is that ngọn actually looks like a classifier, and we already have an entry on đuốc. Two of the dictionaries that I use list ngọn đuốc as an independent word. Another dictionary lists this word only as part of the entry on ngọn, but doesn't specifically call ngọn a classifier. I asked a native speaker, and to said native speaker ngọn looks like a classifier. Still, words can function like classifier but actually not be classifiers... Does anybody have any idea what should be done with this entry? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to the main entry. We don't make Vietnamese noun entries with classifiers. Classifiers belong in the |cls parameter in {{vi-noun}}. Similar entries have been converted to redirects or deleted. Pls. don't add {{attention}} if you have questions about words, use {{rft}} and discuss senses here.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
But we haven't established yet if it is a classifier... But as you will. Also, I wasn't the one who added {{attention}} to đuốc, and the person who did did so because they weren't sure whether the word can also mean flashlight. Maybe you could put {{attention}} back in? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Fine, I'll do it myself. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Tuttle Concise Vietnamese Dictionary, page 214, states that ngọn can be a noun as well as a classifier: ngọn n. peak, top (of mountain, tree, flame): ngọn lửa flame; ngọn nến candles (CL for flags cờ, trees cây, lamp đèn, etc.) —Stephen (Talk) 12:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It would seem that in this case it is indeed a classifier. One of the dictionaries that I have lists "ngọn đuốc" alongside "ngọn cờ", and Tuttle says that "ngọn cờ" is classifier + noun. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Geomythical places experience[edit]

I would like to know if someone could help me to understand what geomythical places experience means in the women health and nursing care context. Thank you

Cecília Marques - Brazilian Journalist

Pronunciation of bon appétit in English[edit]

Stephen left a note on the page:

do some speakers really pronounce this "bone a pay tee"? In Australia it's always "bon app a teat" with the final "t" pronounced as it's slightly anglicized and we're not familiar with French. ANSWER: I have usually heard it pronounced app-a-teat in the U.S. Whenever I hear someone say app-uh-tee in English, I consider it pedantic. —Stephen

And I completely agree. I can safely say that I have never heard the pronunciation /ˌboʊn æpeɪˈtiː/ given on the page. I did some research in dictionaries and found this (converted to our IPA scheme from whatever system was used):

Those are all the dictionaries I found that include this term and it seems the lexicographers at every one of these dictionaries is suffering from a serious case of francophilia and lives in a quarantined environment. I would say that each of the variations of bon listed above probably does occur, but I have never an /eɪ/ sound for the -é- and have never heard this pronounced without the final /t/. The American version of the ODE comes the closest to how I would usually pronounce it: /ˈboʊnˌæpəˈtiːt/ (and incidentally, through the glottalization of the final /t/, it does come close to being dropped). --WikiTiki89 20:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I found as well. Surprising. And I agree, ODE (Ame) comes closest. What I say and hear is: /ˌboʊnˌæpəˈtit/, /ˌbonˌæpəˈtit/, /ˌbɒnˌæpəˈtit/ —Stephen (Talk) 23:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • WordReference's R. H. Learner's Dict. of American English: /ˈbɔn ˌæpəˈti/ - bô nᴀ pā tē′
  • dead-tree Wordsworths Concise English Dict. (ISBN 1840224975): "bo-na-pə-tē" = /bo(ʊ).næ.pə.ti/
  • dead-tree Oxford Dict. of English (2012, ISBN 0199571120) and the COED (2011, ISBN 0199601119): /ˌbɒn apɛˈtiː/, French: /bɔn apeti/
But I usually hear /ˌbɔn ˌæpəˈtit/ from English-speakers. Like Wikitiki, I have never heard this with /eɪ/, and almost never without /t/. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Having looked at dictionaries, let's look at actual uses via one corpus it's easy to search the text of and then find the audio of: songs.
  • Detroit Michigan rapper Angel Haze, in 22 Jump Street ~2m37s rhymes it with "sweet" as /boʊn.æ.pə.tit/
  • Detroit Michigan hip-hop duo Insane Clown Posse, in Dead Pumpkins ~38s, rhyme it with "dick or treat" as /boʊn.æp.ə.tit/
  • Lexington North Carolina horror punk/metal singer Wednesday 13, in All American Massacre ~1m49s, says /boʊn.æp.ə.tit/
  • Detroit Michigan rapper Eminem, in Don't Front ~2m13s, rhymes it with "eat"+"beat" as /boʊn.(æ|ə).pə.tit/ (I'm not sure of the 'a' vowel)
  • Harlem New York rapper Azealia Banks, in Fierce ~1m17s, says /boʊ.n(æ|ə).pə.ti/ without /-t/ (but I'm not sure of the middle vowel)
I think that's enough evidence to give /boʊn æpətit/ (without syllable breaks because those seem to be variable) as an American pronunciation. - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it needs a usage note explaining that those familiar with the French term may insist that the English term be pronounced the same, but in actual usage it isn't. As for the final t: final stops are often unreleased when there's nothing with an initial vowel after them, especially in rapid speech. I'm not sure if I would call it glottalization, but it's very common. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You'll notice it has become a glottal stop if you pronounce a vowel right after it. In the US, this is common before vocalic [n̩] (bitten = [bɪʔn̩]) and in Britain this can happen before any unstressed syllable. If there is a pause after the /t/, then it is pretty much the same (bit = [bɪʔ]), but usually the tongue is ends in a position as if it were about to articulate a /t/, so you could call it an unreleased stop if you want, but the glottalization is still there. --WikiTiki89 02:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Another data point: Michelle Obama, from Chicago, says /boʊn.æ.pə.ti/ at the 2015 Kids State Dinner, ~14m24s. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
One more data point because it's a favourite film, the French-accented waiter (played by English actor Bryan Pringle) in Terry Gilliam's Brazil, does not pronounce the final -t (which I can't say I ever picked up on before now). —Pengo (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm used to hearing this with and without the final [t], not that I hear it every often. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
More data points: Craig Benzine (born in Wisconsin, lives in Chicago) says /ˌboʊn ˌæpəˈtit/ at the 45s mark of this Mental Floss video. Hank Green (born in Alabama, lives in Montana) says /ˌbVˌnæ.pəˈti/ (not sure if the first vowel is /o(ʊ)/ or /ɔ/) 15 seconds in to this Sci Show episode and /ˌboʊn ˌæpəˈtit/ at the 11m20s mark of this CrashCourse episode. Ian Somerhalder, who was born in southern Louisiana and who might therefore be expected to have heard the phrase in French, says /ˌboʊnˌæpəˈti/ in the Vampire Diaries episode I'll Remember (playing a character from Virginia). - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

marriage equality usage notes[edit]

The Usage notes section of the entry on marriage equality says, "Mainly used by supporters of such equality"—just as KKK members don't have much use for the term "racial equality". Nor do male chauvinists refer to the concept of "gender equality" by its proper term. Quite frankly, whatever equality you take, it will only be called that by those who support it. Therefore, this usage note doesn't make much sense, and I propose that it be removed from the entry. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, usage notes like this are more commonly used on the less preferred term. It might make more sense to add a usage note to "gay marriage" instead, noting that many prefer to simply refer to it as "marriage", or as "marriage equality" when framing the politics. —Pengo (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Words that are loaded with political meaning should have usage notes. "marriage equality" is now moribund as a word, at least in the gay sense in the US, UK, Ireland and Canada. I don't know about Australian and Indian English, but I'm quite sure it's a political term there, used preferentially and non-neutrally by one side.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Following this logic, we should include a usage note on the word 'black', in the sense 'a person of African descent', saying that only one side of the debate uses the word, and white supremacists prefer the word 'nigger'. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, slippery slope fallacy. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

gay—Vietnamese translations[edit]

Could somebody correct the Vietnamese translations for the word gay? (The entry is locked for editing.) The Vietnamese translations for the adjective should be đồng tính—without người, which in this context means 'person' and makes the whole word a noun. This applies to both the sense "homosexual" and the sense "typical of homosexual appearance".

It would also be nice to add {{qualifier|male}} before both Vietnamese translations for the noun 'gay', as the English definition of the word says "A homosexual, especially a male homosexual". (Although, maybe it would be better to just define the noun as "male homosexual", because, quite frankly, who would say, "She is a gay"?) Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Μετάknowledge, for making the edits! We still need {{qualifier|male}} in front of "người đồng tính nam" (noun). Or, seriously, let's just get rid of that especially part? 'Gay' the noun means 'male homosexual', period. Who uses it to describe lesbians? Is Ellen DeGeneres a gay? Should we start a new discussion about this somewhere? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of female homosexuals who dislike the word "lesbian" and refer to themselves as gay. Ellen DeGeneres is, in fact, one of them: if you watch the episode of Ellen where the Ellen Morgan character comes out of the closet, you'll notice the word "lesbian" is never used. Ellen herself, and the other female homosexual characters, are consistently referred to as gay. Using "gay" as a noun is more complicated; I'd never say "Ellen DeGeneres is a gay", but then I'd never say "Tom Daley is a gay", either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The noun form is probably more often used in the plural: "Are there any gays in the audience?" would be assumed to include lesbians. Keith the Koala (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I also know homosexual women who have no aversion to "lesbian" but who vary between describing themselves as "gay" and "lesbian" since both the broad and the narrow labels apply. Ingrid Nilsen is an example. And to be clear, it's not just self-reference; after Ellen Page came out by saying "I am gay" at a Human Rights Campaign event, the HRC congratulated her "for taking the steps to live openly and come out as lesbian", and people have used both words to describe her ever since. (She went on to do an interview with Ellen Degeneres where they both only used the word "gay".) See also google books:"gay woman". - -sche (discuss) 08:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Angr "There are lots of female homosexuals who dislike the word "lesbian" and refer to themselves as gay."—ah, but that's a case of the word being used as an adjective, which is covered elsewhere in the entry and is totally uncontroversial. The definition of the noun though...
@Keith the Koala "The noun form is probably more often used in the plural: "Are there any gays in the audience?" would be assumed to include lesbians."—I'm not sure about that. If I were in that audience I would assume the speaker was asking whether there are any gay men in the audience.
To be fair, though, I doubt too many people would say that, and not "Are there any gay people/men/women in the audience?" Just feels more natural. Which the use of the word 'gay' as a noun doesn't. Should we add a qualifier 'unnatural', or something like that?.. 'Archaic', perhaps? The use of the word as a noun is definitely going away—a Google search of "are there any gays" turns up exactly 3000 results... Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Using "gay" as a noun sounds odd in the singular and in the plural when it's specific, but sounds find in the plural when it's general: compare ?"I met a gay at a party last night" and ?"I met two gays at a party last night" vs. "Gays were outraged by the verdict." The first two sound very odd (and even somewhat offensive) to me; the third sounds fine. The first two also probably refer only to males, but the second easily includes both males and females. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Is that true of other words, too? "Obama is a black" sounds a bit odd (possibly offensive?) but "blacks were excited by the nomination" sounds OK. If there are several words like that, we could make a usage note template. Transgender and a number of 'related' words (e.g. genderqueer) are similar: they are usually adjectives, and sound awkward and offensive as nouns (in my experience and per style guides) — notably even in the generic plural. Btw, I cited gays in the sense "homosexual people (including women)". Citing the singular may be harder. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. It does sound odd, and possibly offensive, with a hint of 'objectifying' the person mentioned. "I met that thing at a party", "Our president is that thing"—gives you that kind of feeling. Or maybe I'm just imagining things. But then, all three of us are imagining the same thing. Curiously, if you google "as a gay I", "as a black I", you find lots of people talking about themselves in this way. In most cases we, of course, have no way of telling whether the person saying that is a native speaker. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Using gay as a noun is rare and awkward except in the case of "gays and lesbians", which seems more accepted (probably because "gay men and lesbains" sounds overly verbose). Perhaps a usage note could be added to this effect. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
For many people, Jew also works this way, even though it can only be a noun: "I met a Jew at a party last night" and "I met two Jews at a party last night" sound vaguely offensive to many people, whereas "Jews were outraged by the verdict" doesn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think Jew is much, much more commonly used as an inoffensive noun than gay is. --WikiTiki89 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


This is labelled "(sarcastic)", but doesn't seem sarcastic to me, it just seems like the word you use when the phenomenon (in your subjective judgement) has happened. Likwise mansplainer, mansplaining, mansplanation. In contrast, "surprise surprise" deserves its "(sarcastic)" label, since you say it when something unsurprising has happened. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is used with a sarcastic (sardonic?) tone, but it is not literally sarcastic. Shouldn't be in the context label. —Pengo (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, I really doubt that it's "chiefly Internet". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As another 2p in the same mien, I've only ever heard this term verbally -- this thread is the first time I think I've personally ever seen the term in print. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi again. I've been playing with a wordlist from 2008 - User:Connel MacKenzie/Gutenberg, and I created all the required entries except for one! It is ahaua, which certainly means something. But I can't figure it out. Googling suggests it has a meaning in Maori, possibly one in Latin, and there's lots of crap to wade through. Can someone give me a clue, and we can delete the Gutenberg page. --Zo3rWer (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think in Latin it may be a spelling of the Ahaura River. There's a river of the same name in New Zealand too, though the Maori word looks more like a personal name to me? Or maybe it's both. WurdSnatcher (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It certainly means something in the Cakchiquel language, but I don't see cites for the lowercase in any other language. It's not present in my (fairly exhaustive) Maori dictionary. And the Latin should be at Ahaua (as an alternative spelling of Ahava), but as an obscure placename in the Vulgate I'm not thinking it's especially important to add. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the Vulgate, it's spelled Ahavva anyway. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Oddly, that comes up much less on Google Books. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In Latin, it is Ahava in Historia Scholastica. In English, the Bishops' Bible spells it Ahaua, but only because it always uses u for v ("And euen there at the water beside Ahaua I proclaymed a fast, that we might humble our selues before our God"). The usual spelling in modern English Bibles is Ahava. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Sarsenet and sarcenet have different (albeit not radically different) etymologies. I can't find any of the supposed Old French etyma in the Godefroy or http://www.anglo-norman.net/. If you use the Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub you can search using regex which is extremely useful (example: sa(r|rr)a(z|s|ss)ine(t|tz|ts|z)) and the definitions are in English, so if anyone fancies it, feel free. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


The page for -tion says that it is not productive, yet words seem to still get make by it. For example, "fertilization" was invented in 1857 according to the online etymology dictionary. Tideflat (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That was formed from -ation, not -tion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

crying game[edit]

I've often heard this term used but I've never understood it. Any ideas? And should we include it here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've gathered some citations here and here. The capitalized form is a reference to a 1992 film (the definition is a spoiler of the movie's "twist" – which probably isn't as shocking as it was 23 years ago). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How many strokes in 謎?[edit]

Some fonts show an extra dot above the center radical (motion radical) in this character. Other fonts do not. Even on the Wictionary page for this character (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%AC%8E), on my computer at least, I find it listed both ways.

This is a very interesting inconsistency that ought to be at least mentioned on the page, don't you think? 21:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a font thing. It's like the difference between g and ɡ:
suzukaze (tc) 21:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


I'm interested in a word that I can't completely recall. It was in my reading of the work of Carl Jung. It referred to a phenomenon when something was read, casually in passing, a long time ago, then recurs spontaneously, seeming to be an original thought. The word was something like "cryptesthesia" That's the best that I can reconstruct it. I'd really like the accurate spelling.

Cryptomnesia DTLHS (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

independista - in English?[edit]

Hi. I'm looking for a good one word translation for Spanish independista. Springs to mind separatist. but is there anything closer? -- ALGRIF talk 10:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

independentist? Equinox 10:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's odd. I didn't find that! (Maybe I mispelt ?¿?). Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


Wanted to add another sense to the entry on Glaswegian—wasn't sure whether to call it an accent or a dialect of English (Oxford was no help, as it literally says "dialect or accent", but the way that I see it, it's either one or the other), so looked it up on Wikipedia, and it claims that it's a dialect of Scots. Who knew...

So, does anybody know what it actually is? Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Accent" refers only to pronunciation/phonology, so if Glaswegian is distinct from other varieties of Scots in morphology, syntax, or lexicon, then it's a dialect and not just an accent. I suspect it's a dialect of Scots rather than of English (under our definition of Scots as a separate language from English), but I don't know enough about it to be sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason it couldn't be both: most of Scots coexists with Scottish varieties of English, so someone might switch between Glaswegian Scots and English with a Glaswegian accent, depending on the situation and the audience. It does make more sense, though, for Scots to have the stronger geographical variation of the two. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

без (Macedonian)[edit]

The example "Не могу жить без тебя." is Russian. I'm pretty sure it's not Macedonian, as жить is an infinitive, which Macedonian wouldn't use. PierreAbbat (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, someone must have misplaced it. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Macedonian doesn't use ь or я either. —CodeCat 17:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikitiki89, when you moved the not-Macedonian example into the Russian entry, you moved it into the wrong sense. I was going to move it to the correct sense, but it doesn't fit stylistically. I think the example is worth keeping, but I'm not sure how to make it look good. Since it's a full sentence, bullet-points seem inappropriate. Eishiya (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realize there was another sense (in fact I don't think that sense should really be separate). The entry needs to be reformatted anyway, and I'm too lazy to do that. --WikiTiki89 14:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

quotation in Weedjie[edit]

We have a quote from Trainspotting on the page for Weedjie: " Ah've never met one Weedjie whae didnae think that they are the only genuinely suffering proletarians in Scotland, Western Europe, the World." Nice one, but the word is listed as English, and the sentence isn't written in English, as words in bold indicate. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well whae and didnae aren't English, but ah can be (see ah#Pronoun). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
To me, it looks like pretty standard literary English with a few Scottish pronunciation spellings (didnae is a familiar part of Scottish English). Irvine Welsh would generally be described as writing in English (the Scots Wikipedia calls Trainspotting an "Inglis-leid film") – to be honest, I think very little modern published writing could genuinely be called Scots, even when it has a slight Scottish flavour – there's a big difference between throwing in a few naes and actually using Scots idiom and vocabulary. For contrast, here's a couple of sentences from the Scots Language Centre's website: "Dr O’Donovan hauds a puckle degrees sib tae langage fae the Versity College, Cork, the Versity o Limerick an the Versity o Dublin City. Afore takkin up this post she wis the Heid o Langage Inpit at Harper Collins in Glesca an haes skeel in biggin up baith the body o wark on the leid an wirkin wi langage material deegital-wise." Translate it word-for-word and it certainly doesn't sound like idiomatic English (she "has skill in building up both the body of work on the language and working with language material digital-wise"?) Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
When I read Trainspotting, my impression of the dialogue was that it was chiefly Scots/English code-switching. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think often it's not even as simple as code-switching. The problem is that, realistically, Scots and Scottish English exist on a continuum, and most writers are somewhere in the middle, moving towards one or other pole in different sentences for different effects. Ƿidsiþ 15:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


The entry am in the English verb section has "sg" put in the middle there. Is that an error or does it mean something? WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The template didn't recognize "sg" as an abbreviation for "singular", so it just output it unchanged. I changed the parameter to "s", which the template does recognize. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

past continuous[edit]

Have a stepped beyond my competence? I have added "imperfect" and "imperfective past" as synonyms.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonable to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Past continuous describes a grammatical tense of the English language. Imperfective aspect and imperfect are generic grammatical terms that are used to describe their respective phenomena in any language that employs them. What's more, imperfect and imperfective aspect aren't synonymous. that guy 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a bit tricky: different languages can have tenses called by the same name that differ in significant ways from each other. For English, imperfect and past progressive seem to be synonyms, but there's no guarantee that's true for all languages. Also, as pointed out above, aspects and tenses are two quite different things: not just past, but present and future tenses can be imperfective. It has more to do with whether an event or state is viewed as continuous or as a point in time rather than when it occurs (and even that is probably only accurate for some languages). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Would anyone care to venture what traditional English "tenses" (conflating tense and aspect) the following underlined verbs are?
    1. I was wondering why she said that.
    2. I have been wondering why she said that.
    3. I had been wondering why she said that.
I'd expect there to be more than one name for at least some of these. I think it would be a modest service to English language learners if we could make sense out of the last two or three centuries of English grammar terminology. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
1. Past continuous.
2. Present perfect continuous.
3. Past perfect continuous.
'Continuous' can be replaced with 'progressive' in all three.
It is true that what English grammarians usually call 'tense' is actually tense+aspect, but in practice that makes learning easier, not harder. What makes English tenses difficult is the fact that their practical application is even more messed up than the famously convoluted and inconsistent English spelling/pronunciation. A big headache for those trying to learn English as a foreign language. that guy 18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
At least we have all six of those.
In the case of present perfect continuous/present perfect progressive (I have been wondering), I have a little difficulty in the use of the term perfect "(grammar, of a tense or verb form) Representing a completed action." Is that a defect of our definition of perfect, a missing definition thereof, or a misnomer that is a justification for the idiomaticity/non-transparency of present perfect continuous/progressive? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
When I hear "completed action", I think pluperfect/"had SOMETHINGed". The perfect tense is usually rendered in English as "has SOMETHINGed". The perfect can be a continued tense, the pluperfect can't be. Purplebackpack89 23:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and in answer to your hypotheticals, I'd say 1) past progressive, 2) perfect progressive and 3) pluperfect progressive. Purplebackpack89 23:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 Actually, 'perfect' means 'completed' in the grammatical sense, and 'pluperfect' means 'completed by a certain point in the past'. Only, learners of English wouldn't know the term 'pluperfect', as to them it's known as 'past perfect'. And why can't it be continuous? Construction number 3—'had been wondering'—is continuous pluperfect.
@DCDuring Well, present perfect continuous might or might not be completed. Consider this example: you have been working on something for hours, and now somebody has just ruined your work. You say, "I have been working on this for hours..." Are you still working on it? But of course, as you said, it could also be the case of the action still continuing into the present moment (and that's how this tense is used in the majority of cases)—as your example number 2 above shows. But even in that case, the speaker arguably directs our attention to the past, i.e. the fact that he/she has been wondering about it for some time. If the speaker wanted to emphasize that they haven't stopped wondering even now, they would use present continuous: "I'm still wondering why she said that." that guy 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Pfftallofthemaretaken Are you saying something can be both continuous and completed? That seems counterintuitive. Purplebackpack89 13:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89 Actions cannot be both continuous and completed, but English tenses can. To form any past perfect sentence (including the continuous) you need 2 types of past: a distant past, and a more recent past. The latter might be either specifically stated or implied, but let's take a sentence in the full form: "I had been vacillating for months before I made the decision." Here, 'vacillating' is a continuous action in the distant past, which had ended the moment something happened in the more recent past—in this case, the moment 'I made the decision'. Here's an example timeline for this tense (but a different example sentence): [[13]]. that guy 15:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why "I will have been wondering ..." makes sense, but "I will had been wondering ..." doesn't. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess because past perfect requires 2 types of past—distant and more recent—and that's just too much to drag into the future. Have some shame, English grammar! You're confusing enough as you are already! that guy 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that's because in "I will have been wondering", "have" is in the infinitive, not in the present tense. In short, only the first auxiliary verb can change number and tense, so the past tense would technically be "I would have been wondering." --WikiTiki89 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Bah, only dem grammarians be intrested in dis stuff! :) that guy 18:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Declension of народ-богоносец[edit]

Can somebody help me get the Declensions table in the entry on народ-богоносец to work? It requires some sophisticated wiki-magic that I haven't mastered yet. that guy 17:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The template does not yet support compound nouns (but maybe it will soon). This diff is what we have generally been doing. You can create богоно́сец ‎(bogonósec), using the declension template {{ru-noun-table|a|богоно́сец|*}}. --WikiTiki89 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Maybe I will some day, although not sure. Researching and writing that entry isn't going to be as much fun as it was for народ-богоносец. :) that guy 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I created it. You don't have to do detailed research for every entry you create. --WikiTiki89 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! that guy 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


It looks like we are missing the sense as in "The population boomed". —suzukaze (tc) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That sense seems to be covered by Etymology 3. Will change the Etymology 3 definition to fit. Hillcrest98 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015


Do we currently include the sense as in "shave on/against the grain"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "a linear texture of a material or surface" ought to cover it, though the given example is for wood. Equinox 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Could somebody amend the translation in the 2nd ux for the Russian word хуйло? It should be "Who's that dipshit smoking outside of [that building's] entrance?" instead of "What kind of dipshit is smoking outside of [that building's] entrance?"

(We also need to create Хуйло for Vlad—the nickname has really caught on.) that guy 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the page was protected, I fixed it. As for the second thing, you know you can do things instead of asking for them to be done. Also, keep in mind that for attestability, there need to exist citations spanning at least one year. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, it's been more than a year, so I think it's fine. I guess I'll do it, only it requires research and all that. that guy 18:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, actually, as a quick web search of "хуйло сказало" revealed, the word хуйло is never capitalized when referring to Putin. So I guess we'll have to add it to the existing entry on хуйло, and I can't do that as I'm still not autopatrolled. that guy 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You will be soon. --WikiTiki89 19:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hope so. :) that guy 19:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian: слышимый, обитающий[edit]

Aren't they both participles (and not adjectives)? that guy 19:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A participle is an adjective. I guess we consider them to be adjectives when the meaning is different than it would be as the participle of the verb. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"A participle is an adjective."—that's not what they taught us in school...
"A participle is a form of a verb that is used in a sentence to modify a noun, noun phrase, verb, or verb phrase, and thus plays a role similar to that of an adjective or adverb."
"Как формы глагола, причастия обладают некоторыми его грамматическими признаками. Они бывают совершенного вида и несовершенного; настоящего времени и прошедшего; возвратными и невозвратными."
Слышимый — слышанный — услышанный, etc.—is that an adjective? that guy 19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. --WikiTiki89 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I don't mean that all participles are adjectives, only adjectival participles. --WikiTiki89 14:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

the female equivalent of men definitions[edit]

The current def of "bushman" is "The female equivalent of a bushman."

Is it Wiktionary policy to define women in terms of men? I thought this sort of sexism was not pc any longer in dictionaries. Also, it makes for a poor definition as what type of "equivalence" is intended? Do bushwomen do the same type of work as bushmen? (Actually, the definition of bushman needs some work as well, a bit overspecified at the moment). Also, it raises the question of why we don't first define bushwoman and then define bushman as "the male equivalent of a bushwoman". The current def style was common in print dictionaries that used alphabetical order and were attempting to save page space - not a factor in an electronic dictionary.

I think it would be better to define bush woman with something like "a woman who lives in the bush; a woman accustomed to the harsh life of the bush" ...

This makes wonder how many entries there are with "The female equivalent of xxx" definitions...and whether a policy is needed (or already in place) about this issue.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:bushwoman. I think you are right, and I don't define entries this way any more, but I created a few. Equinox 01:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Many words like that were formed by taking the -man form and appending -woman, and the -woman form will pretty much never be used as a generic, whereas the -man form at some point in most cases has been used with women. We don't need to save page space, but we do need to make sure that male/female versions of the same base word don't drift apart in definitions, implying a difference that doesn't exist. I certainly oppose taking e.g. aviatrix and changing it from "a female aviator", because that what it is, an aviator limited to one gender.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad you agree. I will edit bushwoman ... however, is there some way to get a list of them all? A bot perhaps?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To continue with this ... I agree that "a female aviator" is well-worded and accurate since the term "aviator" is generic. However, there are times when xxx-man and xxx-woman are not the same thing as well, i.e. there is a difference that does exist. I don't think bushman/bushwoman are the same as aviatrix/aviator. There are also cases where the -man version really does refer to men, rather than generically referring to people (men or women). Haven't really thought much about other cases, but it might be a good pet project for someone.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we define parts of speech in other languages in terms of English grammar?[edit]

This is a continuation of a previous thread, but now the question that I have is more general.

Russian words слышимый and обитающий are participles. In Russian grammar the participle is seen as its own part of speech, separate from the verb and the adjective. In English grammar a participle is a form of a verb that can act as an adjective. In the above entries Russian participles are listed as adjectives—and their English translations might very well be adjectives. But the Russian words themselves aren't.

My question is: do we define parts of speech of other languages in terms of English grammar? Is there a policy to this effect? that guy 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To answer your literal question, no we don't define other languages' parts of speech of terms of English grammar. As for particples and adjectives, the way I see it is that adjectives are part of speech, while participles are forms of verbs, so as long as the participle is nothing more than a form of the verb, then we put it under a ===Verb=== heading, but when the participle has its own meaning separate from that of the verb, it becomes indistinguishable from an adjective. слы́шимый ‎(slýšimyj) has two meanings, one is the present passive participle with the translation to English "being heard", while the other is an adjective with the translation to English "able to be heard", i.e. "audible". As for обита́ющий ‎(obitájuščij), I agree that we can delete the adjective sense and leave just the participle sense. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Does classical only refer to ancient Greek or Latin culture/society? Or can it also be used to refer to, say, ancient China, for example? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think used on its own, it's only Greek/Latin. In the context of a discussion about China, "classical" might mean a particular era of China. But without context, I think it's always Greco-Roman culture. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is a bit ambiguous at times. If we talk about "Indian classical dance" then clearly is it referring to India, not Greek/Roman culture. But the context does not have to be specifically stated verbally: in an Indian newspaper, "classical dance" would refer of course Indian classical dance, not Greek/Roman dance, and if the article was about say Greek dance, then that would have to be specified. In any case, it is better to be specific about what culture you are referring to when you can and not just assume classical=Gk/Rm.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet I note that both Wiktionary and the OED specifically define classical as pertaining to Greek/Latin cultures only. According to the information provided above (and my own gut feeling), this is incorrect. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

the meaning of the word Eclectic[edit]

what is the meaning of the word Eclectic and were did it derive from,and from which language/

Please see our entry for eclectic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


For definition two, how would it be conjugated?

Is it:

yede, yeded, yeding

yede, yode, yoden, yeding

yede, yode, yode, yeding

yede, yede, yede, yeding

yeed, yede, yeding


Are other forms unattested?

I know that the verb "yede" only exists as an obsolete pseudo-poetic verb which arose from a misunderstand of the original past tense of go ("yode"), but surely it must have some method of conjugation.

Someone more familiar with the verb might wish to add the correct conjugation to the page. Tharthan (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


The last definition in whip is very weird: Any of various pieces that operate with a quick vibratory motion, such as a spring in certain electrical devices for making a circuit, or a rocking certain piano actions. Can someone clarify this? I'm not familiar with it, but it doesn't seem very sensical to me. Don't all electrical devices make a circuit? (at least the functioning ones) And "a rocking certain piano actions" looks like a random grouping of words. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Old def from Webster 1913. Perhaps the spring closes the circuit. Agree, the piano bit looks like a scanno that's propagated around the Web. Equinox 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


Can someone with access to the OED or some knowledge of geology find a meaning of tan related to sedimentary rock? Dinneen's Irish–English Dictionary ({{R:ga:Dinneen}}) says the following in its definition of leac: "any sedimentary rock, a tan; [] l. liath, lime-tan; l. ruadh, iron-tan." I've found nothing in Wikipedia or Webster's Third New International (or the 1828 or 1913 Webster's) or in Google Books (even restricted to the 19th century in case it's an old-fashioned term no longer in use). All I can find is references to various tan-colored rocks, but I don't think that's what Dinneen is talking about. Any ideas? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The OED has nothing. The only connection to Irish in its entry on tan is a reference to the w:Black and Tans. Probably not relevant: "In the manufacture of artificial marble, to steep (the composition) in a hardening and preservative preparation: cf. tannage n. 1." DTLHS (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing it is a reference to the colour of the rock. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

James Taylor "doggies retire".[edit]

James Taylor "thinking about women and glasses of beer he closes his eyes as the doggies retire". I know doggies or dawggies or dowggies means cattle. Does this term have history? Is it cattlemen slang? Are there other instances were this term is used?

It's usually spelled dogies, but the origin is unknown. I know it from Git Along, Little Dogies. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure how to go about adding it to the posh article, but posh is also dialectal for "slush", e.g. Walt Whitman, "To Think of Time", 'Cold dash of waves at the ferry-wharf, posh and ice in the river, half-frozen mud in the streets...'

student syndrome[edit]

Does this term only refer to students? The entry claims it doesn't. But wouldn't that make it the same procrastination in general? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is procrastination by anybody: e.g. "This initial research investigates three behavioral issues which may affect team member productivity in both a traditional waterfall project and in a Scrum project: the management of stress, the use of slack and the student syndrome." Equinox 12:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


This "fictional" form of transport has now been invented, albeit not exactly the same as it was in Back to the Future Part II. As a dictionary, I think we should mention this. --Zo3rWer (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

They aren't common. Change it to "mostly sci-fi". Equinox 12:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)