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


September 2017

light rail[edit]

The definition seems overly specific and US-specific. Even if it originated out of the US, you can have light rail in other countries that don't match up to such specifications. The usage notes seem to be encyclopaedic too. Anyone? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the term light rail is used more in the US than in Britain, where the term tramway is normally used for any rail transport that can run in a street as well as on reserved track. These need grooved rails in street sections as standard rails are unsuitable. Overhead power wires are used, use of a third rail power supply with the risk of electrocution is probably banned in a street environment. Suburban rail services which use standard railway tracks aren't classed as light rail. DonnanZ (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree, light rail is common in the US and Canada but not elsewhere. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In the US, light rail is intended to refer to passenger-carrying rail lines that have rights of way that are not on streets shared with cars (but may use pedestrian malls?), but use streetcar-like equipment. The idea was that these overcome some disadvantages of streetcars, but are less expensive to build than conventional rail lines (lighter track, sharper curves, etc). I remember it as a way of selling legislatures and voters on funding for mass transit by differentiating it from both traditional subways/els and commuter rail. DCDuring (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
My memory is consistent with the various relevant WP articles and supporting documents. The term was apparently coined or, at least, adopted by UMTA, the US Urban Mass Transit Administration, in 1972. DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If this weren't specific to the US it would probably be SoP, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This isn't specific (or, at any rate, unique) to the US. Melbourne, Australia, used to have light rail lines (as opposed to trams), and Adelaide still does. In Australian use, it's something in between trams and trains: using tram-style stock and rails, but on dedicated lines rather than along streets and roads. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


(French and Middle French) A street-seller of drugs. I got the wrong impression when I first read this, would drugs be better defined as quack medicines or remedies? DonnanZ (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Changed to "medicines". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Manchu for knee[edit]

If anyone happens to know how to write Manchu, could you add it to the translations for knee. It currently has just Manchu: {{t|mnc|tobgiya}}, which produces the interesting effect of the transliteration tobgiya running vertically and red-linked, like this in fact: Manchu: tobgiya (tobgiya). --Hiztegilari (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it. Wyang (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
There's more. (@Wyang) —suzukaze (tc) 03:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to check all of these... If anyone is interested, {{subst:mnc-Latn-translit}} can be used to convert from Latin-script Manchu to Mongolian-script Manchu. Wyang (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Access to Wikidata data will be enabled on September 7th[edit]

Hello all,

You may have followed the discussions during the last months about enabling the access to Wikidata data for English Wiktionary. This request from the community will be implemented on September 7th, from when you will be able to include data from Wikidata in all your pages. For example, in order to improve the citations by taking the information about the work from Wikidata. (last discussions: June, August)

A special page has been created to coordinate the efforts around Wikidata on English Wiktionary: Wiktionary:Wikidata. You can find here a lot of useful resources, and on the talk page, announcements, questions and requests can be made.

Important note: Wikidata is not ready to store information about words yet. This part of the plan is currently in development and the team is working actively on it, to provide in the next months the possibility to describe Lexemes, Forms and Senses in Wikidata. In the meantime, Wikidata only stores information about concepts, and this is how it should be used on Wiktionary as well.

If you have any question or concern, feel free to share. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to announce that the access to Wikidata data is now enabled :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

peel me a grape[edit]

Could someone please clarify the definition, and maybe provide a usage example as well? The entry as it stands is not very useful. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What I understand from the entry is: if someone asks you to do something that they could perfectly well do themselves, this is a retort. Maybe like "no, you should do it yourself!" I haven't heard it in real life. Equinox 14:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if the expression is used this way (an open question), why does it need a separate sense line? Or even a usage note? Rare is the expression that cannot be used sarcastically or ironically (or suggestively, interrogatively, etc)). DCDuring (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

batten as in cotton batten a.k.a. cotton batting[edit]

Cotton batten gets about 2000 hits in Google Books vs. ~100K for cotton batting but I think they mean the same thing? I don't think batten shows this sense. Facts707 (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Old High German houwan[edit]

Would anyone happen to know what the past tense forms of this verb were? —Rua (mew) 20:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

According to Braune Althochdeutsche Grammatik it's singular hio, plural hiewun in Frankish and singular hiu, plural hiuwen in Upper High German. I've added these to the headword line. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. —Rua (mew) 20:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WOTD: wigwag[edit]

The Sept. 2 Word of the Day entry wigwag makes me think of zigzag. But I am not sure how to set up a "link" between those two words (I edited wiktionary only a few times, and I can't find anything that resemble a editor guide for wiktionary). I believe these words will be listed under Synonyms in both pages. Thanks for consideration and responses! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

They're not exactly synonyms, but they do have some sort of a link. I listed it under 'See also'. You can read more about these kinds of headers at WT:EL. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
They are rhymes at least. DTLHS (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


In 2015, User:Tweenk has removed a number of senses in diff, which I don't agree with. E.g. a Russian translation Ре́чь Посполи́тая (Réčʹ Pospolítaja) doesn't refer to the modern Poland but to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also called "Rzeczpospolita", even though the English name is less common than the Eastern European cognates. I suggest reinstating senses, not sure how many are required but the translations refer to various historical regions, not the modern Poland. Perhaps all three Rzeczpospolitas can be combined into one sense. Maybe the endonym sense needs to be verified. Is "Rzeczpospolita" used in English to mean the modern Polish state? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"the+rzeczpospolita"&oq="the+rzeczpospolita"&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...7770.9114.0.9460. Almost all mentions refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I re-added the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" sense. --Tweenk (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Passion flower[edit]

With a capital P? There is another entry for passionflower, the two have different definitions. Oxford has passion flower (small p) [1]. DonnanZ (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Added one; I'm sure there are more, as the Passion of Christ is often written with capital P. Boring to search through all the small p results though. Adding old words like "thou" may help. Equinox 17:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, fine on the quotation, but shouldn't it be treated as an {{alt form}} of passion flower? DonnanZ (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Another odd entry is Passion, plural of Passion flower. It doesn't say why. DonnanZ (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I added that in 2016. We may never know why. Removed. Equinox 18:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Per Google N-Gram viewer the order of frequency of the alternative forms is passionflower, passion flower, Passionflower, Passion flower.
Main entry at [[passionflower]]; others are alternative forms, translations and other content merged. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the quotation Equinox added should be moved back to Passion flower.
I don't place too much faith in N-Gram viewer. I did find mixed results in dictionaries, which I have added to passion flower and passionflower. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Passion flowers are not strictly of North American origin either, as far as I can make out. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to make any changes you are confident about. DCDuring (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/September#User:TNMPChannel.

as it were[edit]

It currently reads "more likely, using an obsolete sense of were (“would be”)". Why is this sense considered obsolete? Isn't it just the imperfect subjunctive? (were, sense 5). – Jberkel (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're referring to part of the etymology, not the definition itself. The modernity of the subjunctive is a tricky issue: for large numbers of speakers it's obsolete, for some prescriptivists, it's something that should be used regardless of whether you or the person you're communicating with understand it, in order to preserve "proper English", and then there are the people who just use it and don't understand all the talk about it being obsolete. @Leasnam doesn't strike me as someone who would be confused by an old subjunctive construction, so there may be more to it than that. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Much of the contemporary usage I've seen is to draw attention to a metaphor or a metaphorical sense of a term, often one that might be confusing, eg:
She gave all of the women seated at the restaurant food for thought, as it were.
[T]heir [Neanderthals'] cancer-causing wart viruses evolved with them–until that fateful moment when Homo sapiens and Neanderthal came together, as it were.
Our definition and citations are remarkably unhelpful. DCDuring (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Regarding the modernity of the subjunctive, this is very interesting usage information, maybe we should add it. – Jberkel (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jberkel:, it's not really sense 5 (--grammatically it is, but it's a special usage and meaning which might warrant its own sense). It's the were we find in the KJV passage in 1st Corinthians 12:17 "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?" --this is an obsolete usage meaning "would be". It survived into EME, but it is quite obsolete everywhere that I am aware of, and has been for quite some time, except in fossilised expressions like as it were. Leasnam (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the explanation! – Jberkel (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

芽菜 (yacai)[edit]

Wiktionary translates 芽菜 as bean sprouts. Wikipedia describes 芽菜 as pickled mustard greens, and a native Chinese speaker just used it in that sense talking to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya_cai

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The characters themselves would allow either, so it's probably a regional issue. I wouldn't trust the IP that created the entry as far as I could throw them (I could recruit lots of volunteers for the toss, though...), but I believe I actually bought soybean sprouts in a Los Angeles-area Chinese market under that name, eons ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I added the second meaning with a (regional) label, assuming it's an originally Sichuan term with inconsistent adoption elsewhere. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT it's basically only used in Sichuan (and in the Sichuanese cuisine context). Being a Cantonese speaker, I am only familiar with the bean sprouts sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope you realize that most North American English speakers are unaware of any kind of bean sprouts other than mung bean sprouts, so saying bean sprouts implies that 芽菜 is just another way of saying 綠豆芽. Is there any way to clarify? 00:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: It actually does usually refer to mung bean sprouts. I've put an example to show that it could be used for other beans. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:English internet slang[edit]

1. This used to produce internet slang as a gloss in entries, but now it just produces internet, which makes it easy to confuse Internet slang with technical terms about Internet infrastructure. 2. I think we should capitalise Internet in such categories, since it's the Internet, not just an internet. Equinox 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Carrero (talkcontribs) has merged the labels Internet and Internet slang. Although Category:en:Internet had a lot of terms that belonged under Internet slang (or Networking), I think it would be better to try and clean up the category and maintain the distinction between words related to the Internet and slang used on the Internet. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this is an important distinction. Couldn't this be modeled by combing the internet and slang labels, {{lb|en|Internet|slang}}? Just {{lb|en|Internet}} would then be about networking protocols. The template code could figure this out and produce the right categories. – Jberkel (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Insufficient: there might be a word that is slang, and refers to Internet technicals, but is not slang used specifically on the Internet. Equinox 20:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with undoing my change and letting {{lb|en|internet}} categorize again into Category:en:Internet. Should this be done now or is there something to be discussed here first? Do we even need a tag "Internet" in entries like breadcrumb, barnstar, etc.? Maybe just categorizing these entries without a tag would be enough. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This is symptomatic of the failure to distinguish among topic, register, and usage context. We might be able to get away with combining register and usage context for categorization. Failing to categorize by register/usage context is a problem and failing to distinguish topical from register/usage context categorization is a problem. But why don't we just once more kick the can down the road? It's not going to go nuclear on us. DCDuring (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The ongoing, large vote Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories suggests a way to fix that problem by renaming many categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Swabian defined as a dialect or a language?[edit]

It has happened again, this time with Swabian. According to the defintion, Swabian is "[o]ne of the Alemannic dialects of High German". However, we treat it as a language and it even has its own language code. So, what is it going to be? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's both. It's a German lect. That's a jargon term that I'm not a real fan of using in the dictionary proper, but it is the best term to use here. Depending on how verbose we like the definition, we could point out that it's treated as both, but I see no particular reason for what we treat as a language for our purposes to be called a language in its definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. The reason I asked is because of a controversy relating to the German entry Schwäbisch. There, it's defined as a language with a link to Category:Swabian language, but the English entry for Swabian defines it as a dialect. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


Anglosphere claims that "Coined by science fiction writer Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, published in 1995." and provides http://wordspy.com/index.php?word=anglosphere as a cite. I don't feel that's an incredibly solid citation. A Google Books search was frustrating. One, it seems absolutely clear that the word Anglosphere appeared in English texts prior to 1995. (Or at least "Anglo sphere" or "Anglo-sphere".) Two, the snippets seem to be a slightly different sense. And three, like many searches on Google Books for works published before the electronic era and after 1922, I can't see what I need to see, even so far as to figure out original spellings or correct dates in many of these cases. Nor do I know how to do a newsgroup search for pre-1995 posts--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Ngram shows some usage around 1900 and then a slow increase starting around 1992. Stephenson definitely didn't coin it, but maybe the use in Diamond Age helped to spread it. – Jberkel (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that's less reliable than Google Books. I'm not seeing any hits in many of the period links below, and the link that has pre-1995 hits, there's one in the introduction of a misdated recent edition of a 1935 work, and two that are virtually identical: "Chicano Studies, because of its nature, was radical* and was not an Anglosphere." (* "new" in one edition.) That's a different sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


Synonym of Norway. Never heard of it; I am guessing you wouldn't see this on modern maps or in tour guides. Does it need glossing somehow, e.g. archaic? Equinox 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it even pass RfV? It doesn't strike me as archaic, especially after doing a Google Books search; the one clear use for the nation (as opposed to a boat or part of another geographic feature) is from a modern work that looks like a vanity work. I think it's most likely to see use in the modern world where some people are making a big deal about local names instead of the older names entrenched in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I have definitely heard of Norvegia, from Latin Norvegia. DonnanZ (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Hybrids (biology)[edit]

Should we have a category for wholphins, ligers and grolar bears? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There are hybrids that aren't animals too, e.g. youngberry. Equinox 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


The Wiktionary and Wikipedia entries for ponerology don't line up exactly. I'm not familiar with the word enough to correct or adjust anything. The WP could use a Wiktionary link too (I'd do it but I've been censored/banned for a year ending in December). I'd also appreciate seeing ponerology added to other articles in the sections below, like "Related Terms", etc. Ignore this or jump on this as you see fit. Thanks for you attention. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there are two senses- Andrzej Łobaczewski revived / reinvented the word in 1998. I am going to RFV the newer sense. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


The (5-year-old) usage note about its use in Cantonese to mean black is kind of dubious. I personally have never heard of such usage. 廣州方言詞典 does say it is used to mean “black” and lists 青衣轎, but it doesn't mention anything about 乞. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


"Technical term in Hinduism used to classify..." That's not a definition. What does the word really refer to? Equinox 11:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox: About to fix. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 19:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


(Dutch) I imagine it should be sense 2 of amnesty, not sense 1. DonnanZ (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it was an old Tbot error. Fixed. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:English three-letter abbreviations[edit]

I removed sci (science) from this category, as it doesn't appear to fit the intent or current contents (which are initialisms like BBC). However, "sci" does have three letters. Was I right? Equinox 17:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's also an abbreviation... —Rua (mew) 17:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, this category looks like it wants to be Category:English three-letter initialisms (which doesn't exist for some reason). Why the inconsistency? Equinox 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

About the apparent negative "s'" in the examples at mirë[edit]

I just opened mirë and saw the example: «S'flas mirë shqip», «I don't speak Albanian». Now "mirë" means "well", "shqip" (which should be capitalized IMO) means "Albanian", but "S'flas"? I tried looking for it, and found "flas", meaning "I speak". So it appears "S'" is some kind of (informal?) negation. Trouble is, neither the translations at not nor the page nuk mentions it. So is "S'" an informal equivalent of nuk along with the jo mentioned at nuk? Should we create an entry for it? Also, based on the above analysis, the more literal translation of the sentence is «I don't speak Albanian well». Since it's supposed to be an example of mirë, it is pretty sloppy IMO to not even translate mirë, so maybe we should change the translation too? MGorrone (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, s' as a negator exists, it very well should deserve an entry. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 23:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


I feel like the first three definitions are all really the same thing and should be merged into one:

  1. (phonetics, phonology) A process whereby a vowel or a consonant is pronounced farther to the front of the vocal tract than some reference point.
  2. (phonology) A phonological relationship where a front vowel is found in place of a relative back vowel in an inflected form of a word.
  3. (linguistics) An analogous relationship between the vowel sounds in a dialect of a language relative to the language standard or an earlier form of the language.

--WikiTiki89 19:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

They each differ. Nardog (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? It seems that the second and third definitions above are just situations where definition #1 applies. At the very least they should be given as subsenses. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the first def is supposed to be referring to the (diachronic) sound change itself, the process by which the other two (synchronic) kinds of fronting arise. But then, the third one also includes some diachronic considerations (‘...or an earlier form of the language’). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles Thomas definination of members.[edit]

We recently just admitted Charles Thomas into our political discussion group. I attempted to engage hombre in discussion, as is our group guidelines. He continually insulted me and made dirogatory comments, though I just was expressing a personal common view.

Then he went into Wiki, and created a very humiliating false derogatory profile in Wiki.

The irony is, I was quoting your site, as a source of information. He used his power here to create a fake horrible definition of me on this site.

Thank you for your time —This comment was unsigned.

I understand why you were vague, and, fortunately, there was an attack page sitting there that needed to be deleted, but in general I can't fix something I can't find. I hope what I got was what you were upset about.
It's times like this I wish I could activate a cattle-prod in the users seat, but we'll have to settle for deleting the entry, protecting it from re-creation, and permanently blocking the cretin who did this. Wiktionary is a dictionary, and we don't allow articles about named individuals, let alone infantile attack pages like that. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ln (and log)[edit]

Where should the pronunciations for these two mathematical symbols be put? In Canada, we usually say /lɒn/ and /lɒɡ/. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Never heard of /lɒn/... usually el en in Australia. Wyang (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
el en in America as well. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 14:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's an interesting reddit post about this. /lɒn/ does seem to be a Canadian thing. Here is an example of such a pronunciation. Some people also say /lɒɡ/ for ln. There seem to be other ways of pronouncing it elsewhere, like /lɪn/ or /lʌn/, but I've never heard of those. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


(Indonesian) This was queried by Mglovesfun, I think it can safely be changed to an adjective. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The word for autonomous in Indonesian is otonom. I think autonom is a misspelling or at least an alternative form of otonom. Look here and here. -- Heydari (talk|contibs) 07:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Heydari: Ah, I can't read Indonesian, should it be moved to otonom? There is an entry for otonomi. DonnanZ (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Besides this, these are 54 pages in Category:Requests for attention concerning Indonesian. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

your call will be answered in the order it was received[edit]

The literal interpretation of this is, more or less, that "your call will be answered from its beginning to its end", though it is clearly intended to mean the "calls, including yours, are answered in the order in which they are received". I don't think there are any definitions of order or it that allow this to be properly interpreted.

The expression is very common (I'm listening to it now.), but I haven't yet checked for attestation.

If we do not want to have this as an entry, what is the rationale? Wouldn't almost any rationale for excluding it also catch many entries that we now have? DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not understanding- surely a single call doesn't have an "order" and therefore there is no ambiguity? DTLHS (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Perhaps, but what is the appropriate substitutable definition? DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
A number of singular nouns have an "order": argument, parade, team, program, development. It takes only the most modest mental effort to break anything that occurs in time into constituents. DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This is sloppy thinking, where people confuse the order of a collection of telephone calls with the index (or specific position within the collection) of one particular call within the collection. People being sloppy isn't usually a reason to give a new definition for a word. Equinox 22:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is like the misspelling questions, where if you cornered the writer of I like dogs and I like cats to and said "is this what you really meant to write?", they would probably admit "no, it was my mistake". Our own SemperBlotto has a certain grammar error I have frequently corrected, along the pattern of "either of two organic compounds that reacts with carbon". There are two compounds that react (plural form) with carbon, and then "either" is an additional grammatical component on top. To turn this error into a new sense of a word would make us even more of a comical farce than we already are. I am playing the long game and I have a huge bookmarks menu of misspellings that I will some day challenge vote-wise. Equinox 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that "sloppy thinking" may actually be forcing a word that's almost right into a slot that no other word fits. The merit of "your call will be answered in the order it was received" is that it is fairly brief (14 syllables vs. 18 for my alternative), includes the word your, involves no interruption of flow, and is not too informal. Apparently the advantages of the shorter expression are compelling as it is almost always part of call-answering systems in the US.
IOW, call-answering systems demand a word with a definition that does not exist, so an almost-right word is pressed into service. In the expression, no old definition quite fits. Ergo, a new definition is required.
Obviously, this is all speculative. It may be that contrary evidence against one element in the chain of reasoning destroys the argument. DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A definition for order#Noun like "position in a sequence" rather than "sequence" would be sufficient. The extension of meaning is by metonymy (synecdoche), a not uncommon mode for semantic change. DCDuring (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    I have added such a definition and provided what I think are suitable citations. Please take a look. DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


I understand this is possibly Old Dutch for bamboo, which is close to modern Dutch bamboe. Can this be confirmed? DonnanZ (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A couple of sources: “bambus” in Den Danske Ordbog and “bamboo” (US) / “bamboo” (UK) in Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press.. DonnanZ (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Duden (Herkunft). DCDuring (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz Yes, it was the common form before the early 20th century. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Great, I see you've added an entry. Was it the original form, going back to Middle Dutch? DonnanZ (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz It indeed looks like it was the original form, but I don't think the word goes that far back. I haven't come across anything older than the 17th century on either Google Books or DBNL. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure when Middle Dutch evolved into modern Dutch. I think the 17th century may have been the heyday of Dutch explorers. DonnanZ (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Arabic dialects "borrow" from the standard Arabic?[edit]

User:عربي-٣١ has been creating quite a few entries in Hijazi Arabic, which "borrow" from MSA, such as موقف. Is this correct? In fact, most such entries only differ by the regional pronunciation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If they are in fact borrowed, then yes it's correct to say that. But just because he says "From Arabic" doesn't mean necessarily that it was borrowed, because inherited words would also be "from Arabic". It's an important distinction to make, even though it is sometimes blurred. For example, in Syrian Arabic there was a word kaddāb (liar), but today for most speakers, it is pronounced kazzāb, due to influence from MSA كَذَّاب (kaḏḏāb). Now is this a "borrowing" or just an influence? In some cases it's clearer than others, but borrowings do exist. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand but in my opinion, the majority of those words are cognates, not borrowings. Your example كَذَّاب (kaḏḏāb) is interesting, I was going to suggest the same in showing how dialects pronounce words with the same spelling. My Hippocrene dictionary (ISBN-10: 0781806860) actually says that the Syrian pronunciation is kizzāb and Egyptian is keddāb. Of interest here are the consonants, not the short vowels, though. I think what happens here, dialects retain the standard Arabic spelling but pronounce them differently, so ذ () may be realised as /z/ or /d/ in dialects, which can also be seen in Persian or Urdu borrowings from Arabic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
But if you look at it from a chronological point of view, in Syrian, this word also used to have -dd-, until it was influenced by MSA (whether spoken or written, I'm not sure). A cognate would be when a dialect has natively inherited the word, but if the dialect didn't have a word and took it from MSA, that's clearly a borrowing rather than a cognate. So I don't know what you mean by "a majority of these words", because I didn't try to give any number of how many borrowings there are. --WikiTiki89 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


@I'm so meta even this acronym (and anyone else who knows Welsh): Does this form actually occur, or is mutation suppressed for miliwn and biliwn? It would be bad if dau filiwn were ambiguous between "two million" and "two billion". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

biliwn doesn't seem to soft mutate. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


The usage note says:

In reading education, "rime" refers to the vowel and the letters that come after the eventual initial consonant(s) in a syllable. For example, sit, spit, and split all have the same rime (-it). Words that rhyme often share the same rime, such as rock and sock (-ock). However, words that rhyme do not always share the same rime, such as claim and fame (-aim and -ame). Additionally, words that share the same rime do not always rhyme, such as tough and though (-ough). Rhyme and rime are not interchangeable, although they often overlap.

How much truth is there in this statement? AFAIK the distinction between "rime" and "rhyme", if made, is usually that they are used in linguistics and in poetry respectively. For the record, the kind of distinction explained above does seem to be made at least in some circles,[2][3] but how common is this? Is it something universally agreed upon in "reading education" everywhere? If not, the note seems to be too broad of a statement and creating confusion that wouldn't exist otherwise. Nardog (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the distinction is between linguistic & non-linguistic use. Reading education, at least in recent times, gets a lot of its vocabulary from linguistics, so I don't think it merits special mention. Actually, I'm not familiar with any usage of rime in modern English (ignoring the "Rime if the Ancient Mariner" as archaic) except the linguistics sense, which is well established in discussions of syllable structure. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT the ‘reading education’ sense as given above isn’t the same as the linguistic use; it’s purely orthographic. So if such a sense actually is in use, it would merit special mention. However, the first link Nardog provided makes a mess of confusing orthography and syllable structure, so it’s hard to tell what’s intended there. Maybe the ‘reading education’ sense is just a rare misinterpretation of the linguistic sense? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


I was not familiar with the term agelast -- someone who never laughs. Following the synonym links led to hypergelast.

I don't edit in Wiktionary, don't want to tinker. But on the hypergelast page, the same definition seems to be given for hypergelast, its antonym (agelast) and a synonym (cachinnator).

thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The entries all seem to be correct as they are. It appears to me that you have misinterpreted the qualifier showing which sense the synonym and antonym apply to. To remove this confusion, I will reformat the entry a bit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

black swan[edit]

A black swan, in the figurative sense, can refer to a person or animal right? It doesn't have to be an occurrence AFAIK. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it can. Added a reference from Oxford. DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The three "Oxford" examples given do not unambiguously support the third definition they give. Occurence can easily be interpreted as including the occurrence of a (kind of) person or (kind of) thing. DCDuring (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? I wouldn't say a person is an occurrence. A person doesn't occur - an event occurs. Animals don't occur either. But I think the entry is OK as it stands now "something believed impossible or not to exist". For us translators, these distinctions are really important. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I occur as an instance of human, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The last time I saw a black swan it was a bird. But the term was apparently coined before this species was discovered. DonnanZ (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:First person pronouns, Category:Second person pronouns, Category:Third person pronouns[edit]

Hyphenated names (...-person) instead? Wyang (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and with "by language" at the end, i.e. Category:First-person pronouns by language etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't this adequately addressed by Category:English pronouns and what should appear under the synonyms heading in each entry? At most a user has to guess that I rather than, say, you all is first person. If there are languages with scores of first-person pronouns, perhaps they merit such a category. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

minus (mathematics) Conjunction[edit]

Most dictionaries tag the use of minus in sentences like 'seven minus two is five' as a preposition, not a conjunction. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines in wiktionary on how to differentiate between a preposition and a conjunction? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: A preposition introduces a noun phrase. A conjunction introduces a clause.
@TAKASUGI Shinji You're the one who changed the original header "preposition" to "conjunction". You referred to Wiktionary:Tea room/2010/March in the edit summary, but I couldn't find anything about "minus" there. I know you're keen on accurate parsing, so I'm curious as to what lead you to that decision. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Tea room/2010/March#times was moved to Talk:times#Preposition?. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: I am strongly in disagreement with what you seem to imply about prepositions not introducing clauses. Similarly, and and or can obviously link words and phrases as well as clauses. Or did you mean something else? DCDuring (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: No, I write loads of crap in here... --Barytonesis (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


How was this word pronounced? Tharthan (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that it’s a learned borrowing used in very few written works, I’d think it’s doubtful it was used in spoken language at all. Were I to pronounce it, I’d say IPA(key): /saɪl/. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


There is a nasty mix-up here, I reckon. If you are creating a myth, you are mytho-poietic; that's totally different from being mytho-poetic, which would be myths plus poetry. Our entry seems to conflate the two. Anyone got the energy, NAY, THE CHUTZPAH, to untangle this? Equinox 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Matters are further confused by entries like mythopoet and mythopoeic. Maybe we should just delete all the M-words and start again. Equinox 00:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Etymology isn't destiny. Besides, a poet is, etymologically speaking, a maker, so it's not as far-fetched as you might think. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:English elongated forms[edit]

How do we feel about this excellent use of somebody's time? All words in all languages with all durations? Equinox 00:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about most of them, but categorizing redirect pages is a really bad idea, so I stripped the cats from all of those I could easily find. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"a break in the case"[edit]

"I think we've got a break in the case!" somebody said in The X-Files, and I can find it elsewhere too. Seems to be a point in a (criminal?) investigation where something changes, allowing sudden progress, like a metaphorical break in a dam perhaps, but I don't know if that's the origin. Is there a sense we are missing at break, or is this a set phrase of its own, or...? Equinox 02:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Shortening of breakthrough ? Leasnam (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Or the 7th noun sense: "A significant change in circumstance, attitude, perception, or focus of attention.". There are example sentences referring to a "lucky break" or a "big break". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
MWOnline has a few senses of the verb we don't have AFAICT, though they could be deemed to be included in senses we have as they are metaphors based on the same base meaning.
All of the verb senses are included in the first definition of the noun: "an act or action of breaking". Two or three of the verb senses which we lack are:
1 a :to find an explanation or solution for: solve the detective broke the case
Also, do we have the following?
2 a :to make known: tell break the bad news gently
b :to bring to attention or prominence initially radio stations breaking new musicians break a news story
MW omits some of our noun senses, apparently because they are covered by "an act or action of breaking". DCDuring (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Our only definition is "filled beyond capacity", but I don't think that's true of overstuffed chairs. Certainly the chair in the picture at the entry is not filled beyond capacity, because it is still successfully containing its stuffing. I don't know whether this warrants a separate definition line or whether overstuffed chair is a non-SOP idiom or what, but I think we're missing something. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How about "filled beyond normal or recommended capacity"? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The usual meaning when modifying a noun denoting upholstered furniture is something like "(of a piece of furniture, such as a chair or sofa) Covered completely and deeply with upholstery". "Deeply" is intended to include a top layer of stuffing that is soft/cushiony. DCDuring (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for adding it! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"rout" again[edit]

The article lacks two common meanings: (1) a disorderly retreat (except in the etymology) and (2) to retreat in disorder (for example, "the cavalry pursued the routing opponent.") 15:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded noun sense 3 and added another verb sense, I hope that will do. See rout. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

About hyphenation and inflection of newly-created mindannyiuk[edit]

Just copypasted the code from mindannyiunk and tweaked it to create the current mindannyiuk. The inflection template should be checked by someone more template-savvy than me, though taking the template from mindannyiunk and removing the "n" from the parameter where "mindannyiunka" was given should logically produce the right table. Also, the hyphenation "mind-any-nyi-uk" doesn't convince me, nor does "mind-any-nyi-unk". While "mind-any" instead of "min-dany" might be due to etymology (as in, "mind" is a prefix that stays separate in hyphenation - correct me if this is not the reason), what doesn't convince me at all is the "any" part: does "nny" really get hyphenated with an extra "y" as "ny-ny" instead of as "n-ny"? Also, is the "i" never reduced to a glide, justifying a hyphenation of "mind-an(y)-nyiunk"? MGorrone (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Whoops! I misspelled the title as mindanniuk. How do I change the title? MGorrone (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I’ve moved it to mindannyiuk. For future reference, hovering over the ‘More’ tab next to the search bar will reveal a ‘Move’ button and let you move the page. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

to neighbour[edit]

Sense 1: "To be adjacent to (more often used as neighbouring)". What is that parenthesis supposed to mean? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It means the verb is more commonly used in the participial form than the other forms. — Eru·tuon 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I've moved it to the Usage notes, to avoid confusion as part of the actual definition Leasnam (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabic آخر[edit]

Is the pronunciation file for آخِر (ʾāḵir) (Etymology 1) or آخَر (ʾāḵar) (Etymology 2), or is it not possible to tell? Currently it is under Etymology 1. Wyang (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's completely wrong. I looked at a few other examples at the original shtooka.com site, and found some wrong ones, such as استثمار. —Stephen (Talk) 10:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For the file for اِسْتِثْمار (istiṯmār), the speaker is from Tiznit, Morocco, and in the case of آخر, the speaker is from Rabat, Morocco. The issue for اِسْتِثْمار (istiṯmār) appears to be the same as the one discussed today at Talk:امرأة, which was that initial iCC developed into CC in Moroccan Arabic, hence the loss of the initial vowel (although the /t/ also seems to be largely elided?).
With آخر though, I'm just not sure what the speaker is trying to say as the second vowel. Our entry says it corresponds to MSA /i/, but to me it sounds more like an /a/. Wyang (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
They share the basic (unvocalised) spelling but it's "a", not "i" and I can't hear the final "r". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Lojban je[edit]

"ro lo nanmu je ninmu" doesn't make sense. It means "all the hermaphrodites" (those that are both men and women). I'd say "ro lo nanmu ja ninmu" or, more verbosely, "ro lo nanmu .e ro lo ninmu". PierreAbbat (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@PierreAbbat: My own lojban is very rusty, but I think you’re right; feel free, of course, to change or remove the usage example. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


"a year of the duodecennial Jovian orbital cycle or of the sexagenary cycle based upon it, (particularly) used in discussion of age." This seems overly specific and encyclopedic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

... I support just replacing it with “year (of age)”. Wyang (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


How is this pronounced? We may also be missing a sense, for a style of music. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

/ɡɑ̤ːːː/. Wyang (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how experts familiar with this word pronounce it, but if I encountered it in my reading I would pronounce it /ɡəˈnɑːwə/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

long for and ache for[edit]

Could I create pine for, yearn for, hanker for, yen for, spoil for? Also, is there a verb "to cream for"? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Translations at double check[edit]

Can someone please fix the presentations of the translations in the title? At the moment, they look like this: "复查 (zh) (fùchá) (traditional: 複查)". The traditional should be a parameter, but I don't know what the name is. Also, I'm not entirely sure about 雙槳, given to me by the keyboard as the traditional form of 双将… or well, now I'm certain it's wrong. Seems the keyboard doesn't know about the word. What it's giving me is actually traditional for 双桨, "two oars". Will fix now. MGorrone (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: There is no parameter for traditional. It should look like {{t|cmn|雙將}}, {{t|cmn|双将|tr=shuāngjiāng}}. —suzukaze (tc) 00:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Does "a footpath, usually paved" mean that sidewalks are usually paved or that "sidewalk" usually refers to a paved footpath? In some US state laws, "sidewalk" seems to include even strips of grass on the side of the road in the public right of way, which might be quite numerous. But I'm not sure how often "sidewalk" is used this broadly outside of these laws. Germyb (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call an unpaved surface as a sidewalk as an American; it's strikes me as sort of a "ketchup is a vegetable", letting local governments claim sidewalks where there are none.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I might be wrong about whether these laws classify such grassy areas as "sidewalks". Some people on the internet think they do, but I'm having trouble finding significant court cases that support this view. Germyb (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

a rolling stone gathers no moss[edit]

The only known passage of this sense I found is in this video. part of Pebbles Proverbs 09:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation of fascismo[edit]

Can someone check the automatic pronunciation? (Castilian) /fasˈθismo/, [fasˈθizmo], (Latin America) /fasˈsismo/, [fasˈsizmo]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sub judice[edit]

I think that the entry "sub judice" should have a pronunciation given. When I see the term I'm inclined to pronounce it as if it were ecclesiastical Latin, but I'm sure the Englishis different. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

malloot (Dutch)[edit]

Copied from the discussion page which I just started on the malloot entry: On this page, 'malloot' is listed as an adjective. However, I thought it was a noun, and the Dutch version of Wiktionary actually does specify it as being a 'zelfstandig naamwoord', which translates to a noun. 607 wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Added while unaware that the person who was asking had already posted the above
The question has been raised on the talk page as to whether this is an adjective or a noun. The revision history shows that it was created by a Dutch IP as an adjective, but with the definition for a noun. The same day was its only other edit by a human being, but one who doesn't speak Dutch. Since then it's only been edited by bots. Would someone familiar with the term either fix the entry or confirm that it's correct? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely a noun, but possibly also an adjective in a use that's not familiar to me. —Rua (mew) 20:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It's normally a noun, but it's occasionally used as an adjective. Not very common though. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


Paper that is cream in colour and wove: but we have no adjective "wove". Is the paper "woven"? (How does one weave paper?) What are we missing? Equinox 22:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • It is real and in the OED. I have added an appropriate adjective sense at wove. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


It seems we are missing a sense at cut (verb) meaning "switch" (i.e. "stop filming over here and start filming over there"). I just heard someone say "Then they cut to the woman in the front row" meaning the camera folks "cut over to" the woman. We have a similar (i.e. root) sense at sense 4, which is repeated somewhat again at sense 16, but how should this best be treated ? It's really a shortening of cut over (to) Leasnam (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

MWOnline handles it as a sense of the intransitive verb: "to make an abrupt transition from one sound or image to another in motion pictures, radio, or television" - The film cuts from the ballroom to the garden.
Ok, added right after sense 4, since the two are related. Leasnam (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

shaddock-plant brought to Jamaica or Barbados[edit]


in shaddock Captain Shaddock introduced its seeds (of the shaddock plant) to Barbados.

While in en:w:Grapefruit: a certain "Captain Shaddock"[6] brought pomelo seeds to Jamaica as well as : Grapefruit is a hybrid originating in Barbados as an accidental cross between two introduced species, sweet orange (C. sinensis) and pomelo or shaddock (C. maxima).

Could somebody explain whether the captain has first brought pomelo-seeds to Jamaica and then by accident hybridised shaddocks on Barbados? Thanks, B Lemeukx (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to understand this a while ago and only got confused. Crossing and re-crossing of fruits with hybrids of hybrids. And then this mysterious Captain Shaddock... Jberkel (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"You gotta put yourself out there more"[edit]

How do we parse the phrase, "You gotta put yourself out there more"? Where do we put our definition? At put oneself out there? Or out there? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I parse it as you gotta put yourself out there ("out of one's comfort zone"). The sense of out there is related to the "crazy, insane,unconventional" sense. DCDuring (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added the relevant sense now. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That is a definition I don't find in other dictionaries, but it fits my understanding of the usage. Other English speakers, especially, EN-N or EN-4+ resident in an English-speaking country should review. DCDuring (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it actually an adjective in this case? What is it modifying? DTLHS (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also... I can't conceive of "out there" being used in this way with any other verb but "put"- so maybe the best place would be put oneself out there? DTLHS (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Well one could say "you should be out there more", couldn't one? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also get (one)self. Possibly have (one)self, get, and go. DCDuring (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's my understanding of these phrases. "Get yourself out there" can refer to getting you or your product/business/etc. out into the public eye so that they know about you. It can also just mean getting yourself out into a place (such as a public place), but "out there" here is probably more of a SoP.
"Put yourself out there" can probably also mean the same thing about putting yourself in the public eye. A more nuanced sense has to do with making yourself vulnerable (or going out of your comfort zone), especially by putting yourself in a position where others will judge/critique you. These two senses can overlap. And then finally, there's a separate idiom "put yourself out for someone", which has to do with inconveniencing yourself, and it is possible that this sometimes appears in the form "put yourself out there", although I am not sure.
I am not confident that my understanding is correct.
Germyb (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you could also interpret "out there" as "visible to others". So "put yourself out there" is like "make your presence known". --WikiTiki89 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Are there words in Russian, Greek etc (or even in English) that correspond to English words such as P-shaped, but refer to letters in other alphabets? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Relatedly or perhaps unrelatedly, Chinese has words like 一字 (一-shaped), 八字 (八-shaped), 丁字 (丁-shaped), 十字 (十-shaped), used in e.g. 十字架 (十-shaped frame, i.e. the Cross), 八字腿 (八-shaped legs, i.e. bowed legs), 金字塔 (金-shaped pagoda, i.e. a pyramid). Russian has words like п-обра́зный (p-obráznyj), I believe. Wyang (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've certainly seen Russian texts that describe things as П-shaped; it gets translated into English as U-shaped! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, Russian texts that describe things as Г-shaped get translated into English saying L-shaped. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
English has one or two for Greek letters, e.g. ypsiliform. Equinox 12:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Also: deltoid, lambdoid, sigmoid, upsiloid/ypsiloid (and hyoid), and omegoid. -Stelio (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto The suffix for such word is -обра́зный (-obráznyj), e.g. Т-обра́зный (T-obráznyj, T-shaped), pronounced тэобра́зный (tɛobráznyj), not to be confused with о́бразный (óbraznyj) with a different stress. Most such letters have some equivalent in Cyrillic but if it isn't, one can say - в фо́рме бу́квы ... (v fórme búkvy ...), ie. in the shape of letter ... --09:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese bomba[edit]

Does/Did this have any meaning of “fire brigade/firefighter” by itself?

Its derivative bombeiros means firefighter, but several loanwords of bomba in other languages have meanings of “fire brigade, firefighter or fire hydrant”. For example, bomba in Malay is the fire brigade, and Gujarati બંબો (bambo) is fire hydrant. Wyang (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn’t find any evidence of this sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ten to[edit]

This, as well as half past, quarter to etc., is classed as a noun. I don't feel too convinced by that...--WF on Holiday (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we gonna create an entry for every number: five to, six to, twenty-three to? --WikiTiki89 18:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed before that these entries are problematic. Sometimes the definition suggests no hour ("it was already ten to, when I arrived") but then there's a usex like "ten to three" underneath. Quite different. Equinox 18:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Even when there's no explicit hour, it's understood- "ten to" is really "ten (minutes) to (the hour)". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As to the original question, terms of this form, when they omit the hour, seem very noun-like to me. They could be a subject "Five to is when the bell rings", an object of a preposition, "The bell rings at five to", etc.
When the hour is present, I would parse it as five + PP, where PP = to + [number designating hour]. Ie, ten to is a non-constituent and is SoP.
A reading that ten to was an adjective when the hour number is present, if that's the alternative, would somehow say that the hour is always the head of an NP that includes it. But that substitutes semantics for grammar, which seems particularly wrong because, even semantically, the minutes could be more important than the hour, as they clearly are in the case of the elliptical use. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

the man different sense[edit]

(I've also posted this at the phrase's discussion page)

Legendary humorous British writer P.G. Wodehouse (and no doubt others of his era, not necessarily fiction-writers) occasionally used "the man" immediately before a proper name to show that the character in question was an object of suspicion. For example,

"The point I am trying to make," I said, "is that the boy Glossop is the father of the man Glossop. In other words, each loathsome fault and blemish that led the boy Glossop to be frowned upon by his fellows is present in the man Glossop, and causes him--I am speaking now of the man Glossop--to be a hissing and a byword at places hike the Drones, where a certain standard of decency is demanded from the inmates."[4]

There's another instance (I can't remember which of his books at the moment) where the character in question is wanted by the police. I strongly suspect that in those days, "the man Smith" as a phrase would have been used by the police, but unfortunately I don't know of any documentation of this (not having access to such things except what's on the web) so if anyone else is aware of this usage and can help that would be wonderful.--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. The example you gave is merely referring to the phenomenon of character traits in a boy giving rise to the character traits of the man he becomes. It refers to "the boy Glossop" in order to make clear that the references is to Glossop as a boy, not to Glossop as the man he later became. You're reading a lot of unnecessary subtext into a very straightforward passsage. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, Chuck Entz. As already stated, the quote above is only one example of several instances of Wodehouse using this (with no "the boy" or similar involved). Being unfamiliar with the writing under discussion is fine, but jumping straight into aggressive accusations is just a bit odd.--Philologia Sæculārēs (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

English depot[edit]

This is currently missing a medical and pharmacological sense (or several), relating to a form of injection that results in the slow release of drugs. It can refer to the injected body area where the drug accumulates locally, the injection itself, the drug given by the injection, or the injection regimen (e.g. "put someone on a depot"). Not sure how to include this in the entry though. Needs EN-+++. Wyang (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

English diagnosis of exclusion, working diagnosis[edit]

Worthy of being created, or nah (< SoP, etc.)? Wyang (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Spanish translations of clique (1st sense)[edit]

Could someone who's rather good at Spanish check whether mundillo, bando and bolita should be kept as translations under "small, exclusive group" and whether the entries should be expanded?

I've removed the following examples from the translation table (some might make nice usage examples though):

mundillo m as in "El libro solo fue bien recibido por el mundillo literario". bando m as in "La convención se dividió en bandos que nunca se pusieron de acuerdo". bolita f in México city, as in "Acabo de ver en la cafetería la bolita de Juan" means I have just seen in the coffe shop Juan's group of friends. (Needs revision)

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation of Weds[edit]

How is the abbreviation Weds to be pronounced? --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

/ˈwɛnzdeɪ/, /ˈwɛnzdi/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

bus driver "on a bus" vs. "in a bus"[edit]

<<A person employed to drive people around in a bus.>>

I've been trying to change the "in" to "on". However both times I have I got reverted. "on a bus" is correct. The word "on", not "in" is used for buses. 2602:306:3653:8440:E4:5197:B84B:3729 17:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Both on and in are used with different verbs and/or shades of meaning. The people on the bus are being driven around in a bus. There's a very real distinction here that you're ignoring, which is leading you astray. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

("I was hardly" / "you're not exactly") Miss Popularity, Mr Popularity[edit]

Should we have entries for these? Are there other similar ones with different nouns? Equinox 20:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a property of Mr / Miss? "Mr. X" signifies someone who exemplifies the properties of X. DTLHS (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Mr. Handsome, Mr. Clumsy, Mr. Stupid, Mr Right. DTLHS (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 2010, Muhammad Cohen, Hong Kong on Air, page 120:
    “Like a hole in the head I needed you then, too, Mister Too-Good- For-the-Beach-Club. So you spent what, fifty thousand dollars, sixty thousand dollars . . .” Actually $112,000, Ma. “. . . for a lousy boat.
I think Mister is highly productive of novel expressions of this kind. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


where does the vowel /ʊ/ come from in Abdul? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

عَبْد (ʿabd, slave) is in the construct state, which is عَبْدُ (ʿabdu), and then the following epithet of God has the definite article, the vowel of which is elided following the /u/. Some English speakers substitute /ʊ/ for /u/ in that environment, although in my experience, such substitution is rather uncommon in the US. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As an American, I pronounce the name /æbˈduːl/ to rhyme with pool, not /æbˈdʊl/ to rhyme with pull. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

that way[edit]

Can that way also be a conjunction or adverb meaning "so that, therefore, thereby"? For instance: Do it now, that way I won't have to wait for it later. Leasnam (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a run-on sentence, so I don't think it can be a conjunction. Not sure about adverb. See "this way", where someone has added the same sense, but incorrectly as a noun! Equinox 18:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
(In) this way and (in) that way seem to me to be noun(prepositional) phrases that are ellipses for a subordinate clause: something like Were you to do it (in) this/that way, [] . of If you were to do it (in) that/this way, then [] . But the ellipsis could be in just about any aspect, mood, or tense.
"Thereby" might be substitutable, though I wouldn't have used it (until now?). So I suppose that way is as much an adverb as thereby, which to me seems like an archaic form of a deictic prepositional phrase. DCDuring (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"That way" might be particularly conducive to this kind of run-on sentence. But in a standalone sentence like "That way I won't have to wait", there is nothing special about "this" or "that". You can also say "The other way, I won't have to wait", and similar substitutions would be "my way", "his way", "one way or another", "either way", etc. Germyb (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

senso stricto[edit]

Is this really the main form of this phrase (not just an adverb?) in English? I thought the sensus in the ablative here was always understood to be the fourth-declension noun sēnsūs (which is sēnsū in the abl. sg.), not the participle (which does yield sēnsō in the masc. abl. sg.). Sēnsū strictō certainly appears to be far more common also in English (spelled without macrons, usually). — Kleio (t · c) 18:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also senso lato. — Kleio (t · c) 18:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@KIeio: I can't answer your original question, but it is and it has to be the noun sensus (syntactically speaking, since stricto is already a participle), and so it has to be sensu. All the other forms are wrong. Btw, in French, the most common ordering is stricto sensu. --Canonicalization (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The most common spelling is sensu stricto in taxonomic/biological usage, AFAICT. The other spellings seem uncommon in such usage, though probably attestable. DCDuring (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabic هاتف[edit]

Any difference between senses #3+#4, and #5 apart from number? current version Wyang (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Benwing, aka User:Benwing2 (his current account) must have misread H Wehr. The plural form is هَوَاتِف (hawātif), which applies to most senses where plural is applicable. In the dictionary, the plural was added only against senses where it's used. Fixed, reference added. If you paste "هتف" in the search, you'll find the entry in the Hans Wehr dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

teenagehood and teenagerhood[edit]

Is there a difference between those two? --Canonicalization (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Being a teenager and being teenage are the same thing. Equinox 16:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

infatti vs. in fact and actually[edit]

At infatti, the explanation for the adverb sense is "indeed, in fact, actually". Now, indeed is OK to my ears as a translation of infatti, but the others are not. Indeed, when I look at their entries, I only see usage examples showing a contrastive meaning, that is, where in fact and actually show a contrast or contradiction. As far as I know, infatti does NOT have that meaning. Indeed, looking at the translations for in fact and actually I find in realtà, which is indeed often used contrastively, whereas infatti matches to indeed, so it gives either a cause (=because, essentially) or an explanation/proof (=indeed) of what comes before. Now, I am bringing this up here to ask:

1. Is it possible to use in fact and/or actually in the way I described the usage of infatti above? That is, are there contexts where indeed can be substituted with in fact and/or actually and indeed is not used in the sense of truly (as in the second sense of the indeed entry)? 2. Is my impression of infatti not totally accurate, that is, can infatti in fact be used in a contrastive sense like in fact and actually? If so, examples please?

MGorrone (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

French speakers have similar problems when they want to translate en fait, de fait, en effet (≠ in effect!), effectivement and so on.
Anyway, I've removed the translations "in fact" and "actually" from infatti. But indeed is still glossed by "Truly; in fact; actually" in its own entry. I can understand why, but it's confusing. --Canonicalization (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, we might consider creating in actuality. --Canonicalization (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

nothing to report[edit]

Does it deserve an entry? --Canonicalization (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that it has any meaning not obvious from the meaning of its components. How and why this particular expression rather than others of similar meaning is used is a matter beyond the scope of any dictionary that I know or can conceive. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I recall as a young girl , ( I'm 75 now ) my GrandMother in Ireland often used the word Dotard , when describing some one she found to be totally absorbed in themselves ( He/she so full of themselves ) ! She said they were so in love with themselves with their own delusional ideas, much better than anyone else's ideas. According to her, this person had wee white sugar mice running around in this person's head that made made him/her fly higher than any kite in the Sky ! She called them shallow people with no love for anyone but themselves ! I remember wishing she hadn't told me about the sugar white mice with two little red eyes , it was my favourite candy, sadly I never ate another one , so frightened I would fly up to the sky ! But I am sure she pronounced the word more like Dodard -- to my ears anyway at that time ! However it certainly would apply & describe Mr Trump !!!


Can this also mean mantou? Or just Korean mandu? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely, in a Chinese context. Wyang (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

English dotard[edit]

Also pronounced with /-tɑː(ɹ)d/ (e.g. CNN), as if suffixed with English -tard? Wyang (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That's a spelling pronunciation for what is clearly to them a newly encountered word. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

to uninvite vs. to disinvite[edit]

Both entries include this usage note:

The prefix dis- gives a more negative implication to disinvite than the neutral implication un- gives to uninvite. One might "uninvite" guests because one had more than an anticipated number of acceptances. One might "disinvite" someone for a reason specific to the person.

However, this merriam-webster.com article doesn't make a distinction. (It appears to be a fairly recent article since it includes a usage example dated December 14, 2016.) Thoughts? ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This is what Google is for. DCDuring (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I guess I should've made my question explicit. Is there a reference for the usage note? I see you're the editor who added the usage note to both entries, coincidentally. ‑‑Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't support the usage notes. I did find a relatively extensive discussion of the two words at MWOnline. DCDuring (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
In my idiolect the usage note applies. I think it reflects a weak tendency based on the relative meanings of words with same stem that have derived terms with both prefixes. But I don't find much support for that simplification of the complexities of the uses of these prefixes either. DCDuring (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I have just added the following at Quora in response to a question about these words.
“Grammaticality” is not the issue, semantics is.
The words seem to have no difference in meaning. “Uninvite” has been somewhat more common over the last 10 years, but “disinvite" was much more common in the 70s and 80s. Complicating matters is the other meaning of the adjective “uninviting” (‘an uninviting dish’) which has assumed a meaning rather different from that of the participles “disinviting” and “uninviting” (‘I was in the process of uninviting them when you called.’) Many dictionaries show “uninvited” as an adjective and have no entry for the verb “uninvite”. To me, the prefix “dis-” seems more negative and more active than the prefix “un-”, but I don’t know whether many share that view.
Nowadays, “uninvite” may seem more appropriate for the sense of “invite” used in social media. In fact, that might account for the usage of “uninvite” surpassing that of “disinvite” in the last decade.
I think the talk pages for the two words would better suit this matter than usage notes, given the absence of authoritative support for them.
I will investigate further the recent use of uninvite vs disinvite for social media. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
More than 90% of the contemporary usage of uninvite on Google Books is not in the context of social media, though the social media usage may account for preferences having flipped. DCDuring (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

falla = fa + la?[edit]

... falla un'altra volta (La bella lavanderina, Canto tradizionale infantile). --Edward Steintain (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Non capisco il tuo punto. Puoi spiegare con maggiore chiarezza? C’è qualcosa di sbagliato con la voce falla? —Stephen (Talk) 19:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
"fai la giravolta, falla un'altra volta". Il significato di falla (= fa + la?) non viene spiegato come un composto in falla. --Edward Steintain (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabic أعطف, عاطف[edit]

Both pages need to be fixed. Wyang (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang: Can you specify what is at odds? --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Well... the original form of the adjective is using the wrong template in declension, and on both pages the elative form has ṭāʾ taking a fatḥatayn, which doesn't make sense. Wyang (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fixed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Anatoli! The declension on the page عاطف is still incorrect. Could you please take a look as well? Wyang (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. Fixed that as well but I don't know the broken plural form, so it shows "???". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong French audio file for "moins"[edit]

In the French article for "moins" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moins) the audio says "de moins en moins", instead of just "moins".

There is a discussion page from 2012 on taht article where someone noticed the same, but the audio has not been fixed.

The file should be renamed as well, so that there is no further confusion. —Rua (mew) 18:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The Stewards in charge of commons do not rename or delete bad files. You can upload a new file using the same name, if you like, except that you change the extension from .ogg to .oga. —Stephen (Talk) 19:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The Stewards don't, but the admins do. I think even non-admins can rename files on Commons, and anyone can nominate a file for deletion there. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Which I have just done, instead of merely discussing it... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

enthaltt, enthältt[edit]

Errors or real forms? —Rua (mew) 22:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Errors. – Jberkel (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
And not even common typos or anything, just template/bot errors. Deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Spandrel, spandril in evolution and architecture[edit]

1: I have added the following proposal to the discussion page of spandrel and would be grateful for comments.

Spandrel as an intellectually significant contribution is more important (and creative) in the evolutionary sense than elsewhere. I think the definition could be improved as follows, but did not wish to do so without inviting discussion:
An attribute, commonly functional that originated as a side effect of adaptational natural selection, most obviously phenotypic, but potentially also as a structural or functional effect within the genome.
This concept is not easy to express as a helpful dictionary definition, and I am tempted to split it into some explanatory sentences, but have not yet worked it out. Discussion welcome. JonRichfield (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

2: WonderWheeler added the following.
(architecture) A horizontal member between the windows of each storey of a tall building
I think it would be helpful if someone could supply an illustration, preferably in wikimedia commons. I have difficulty finding one that fits precisely and is available for copyright permission, especially as the google images seem to be rather vague and variable in their application of the term.JonRichfield (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added an image that is also used on Wikipedia. It is very basic and not elegant, but it makes the meaning clear. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added a link to w:Spandrel (biology, which should suffice to give a greater understanding of the biological use of the term than would be appropriate in a dictionary. I think that the entry's biological definition needs to worded more simply. Perhaps the target reader should be a college freshman coming across the term in a work referring to Gould's. Gould's work itslef provides more than enough explanation. DCDuring (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ute, a bit hand-wavy?[edit]

The ute entry, though generally good, contains the phrase: "similar but not identical to a pick-up truck". Though this is not inaccurate, it is unhelpful, giving the impression that there are specific differences by which one can tell the differences. Not being Australian, but South African, where our usage "bakkie" is very similar indeed, I hesitate to zap it boldly, but propose instead something like "The usage in common speech is similar to pick-up truck" in the hope that some obliging Ozzie will step in with somethingmore generally acceptable. JonRichfield (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of what?[edit]

Doesn't exist the English expression (kind-of-idiom) speaking of the Devil or is it my imagination? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 06:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It does, it is included as speak of the devil. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I added a couple of redirects to [[speak of the devil]]. DCDuring (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew: צילום[edit]

This Wiktionary gives the meaning of צילום as "a copy, a photocopy", but the corresponding article on the Hebrew Wikipedia is about photography. Can someone with knowledge of the language check that? Thanks.

--ValJor (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


The link in the second sense ("Irmin") doesn't lead to an English lemma and it seems more like a proper noun. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

public bus[edit]

Why a city? Can a "public bus" not be a rural service? Equinox 19:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  • And aren't all buses public? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping a private citizen from owning a bus. DTLHS (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There are both public and private bus companies. Think tour buses for example. But this is definitely SOP. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This user also created commuter bus, city bus, stage bus, and transit bus, all with the same definition. I suspect that a look through their contributions will yield a number of other similarly simple-minded definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

heart of glass[edit]

The definition as it currently stands is not very detailed. What does "heart of glass" really mean specifically? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Easily broken-hearted, I think. Equinox 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Prevailing opinion about live metaphors, especially phrasal ones, would have this be included, but it seems silly to me. See also heart of stone. DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
heart of glass means something like hypersensitive, or wearing your heart on your sleeve. It isn't about love. For example, there is a popular Chinese athlete named Sun Yang (an Olympic swimmer). When a Western athlete accused Sun Yang of using performance-enhancing drugs, the people of China went wild. The internet is blocked in China, and it is illegal to get around it. The Chinese were so enraged that a large percentage of the population obtained VPN to get access to the internet so they could defend Sun Yang. As a result, the Chinese are said to have hearts of glass. —Stephen (Talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindi हवाला (havālā), हवालात (havālāt)[edit]

Is the Arabic etymology correct here? Is it related to حَوَّلَ (ḥawwala)? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are related. The same root letters "ح و ل". I don't know why the transliteration didn't work, I have replaced it with the spelling حَوَالَة (ḥawāla) (can't tell visually) but it means, according to Hans Wehr dictionary "assignment; cession (jur.), bill of exchange, etc." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For future reference, questions like this are better raised at the Etymology scriptorum. Just off the top of my head, if it really is from Arabic, I'd think a Persian intermediary would be more likely. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's always a choice editors should make whether to show the ultimate source (here: Arabic) or the intermediary (here: Persian) or show the full path. If a reference exists for one source only, then that should be provided. Also, "likely" doesn't mean "only". Urdu/Hindi borrowed from Arabic directly as well and sometimes in a different way from Persian. Also, the question "which one is older or original - Hindi or Urdu?" will never be answered, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but my impression was that contact with Arabs was mostly in the context of trade, but parts of Indian were ruled by Persian-speakers, so legal terminology would be more likely from Persian. I found a plausible candidate here, though I don't know enough about the history of the terms in Persian or in Hindi to do more than guess. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thanks, you have confirmed the Arabic origin with this link, not sure if you realise that :) Please see what I mentioned about the letter tāʾ marbūṭa below. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Thanks! Preferably Persian should also be there; however, in this case it is probably Arabic since the Persian is حوالة (havālat) with enunciated ta marbuta... As for Hindi/Urdu, I don't bother at this point. Consider though that every Urdu word can be used in Hindi, but not all Hindi words (I mean Sanskrit borrowings post-Partition) are there in Urdu. Modern Standard Hindi is pretty young; the Khadiboli dialect only took off late 1700s, while Classical Urdu flourished under Mughal and south India patronage (as Dakhini) as early as the 1500s. Before, Braj (which can be considered a dialect of Hindi) flourished 1300 onwards, and Awadhi (same situation) flourished in the 1500s, but Awadhi absorbed lots of Perso-Arabic words. It's a complicated situation... —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Chuck, Arabic is a language of Muslims, so Muslims learned Arabic through Qur'an and other religious texts even if they didn't have any direct contact with Arabs. Urdu and Hindi often follow Arabic in genders and the pronunciation of many vowels, which may not be natural, if the words were native to Hindustani and the vowels would follow closer the Persian, not Arabic. Persian is genderless. I don't have a source for that, just some observations. Perhaps some adjustments were made to match standard literary Arabic or Persian was different in the past.
Aryaman, Persian doesn't use tāʾ marbūṭa at all! It's a bad mistake but common, unfortunately, even some Ottoman Turkish "experts" start using it in terms like رَاحَة حُلْقُوم‏‎ (rāḥat ḥulqūm). It's a relatively new letter.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: Whoops! Forgive me, I meant ت... my point being that हवाला (havālā) would be *हवालत (*havālat) if it had gone through Persian. I believe Classical Persian had a more Hindi-Urdu-like system of vowels; apparently modern Dari retains the old vowel system more than Iranian Persian. But it should be clear now that I know very little about Persian. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Aryaman: No worries at all, BTW, you have removed Chuck's comment in diff! It can be ت or ه, it really depends on the pronunciation. The final ه in Persian can be silent after short vowels and is often used in Arabic loanwords. हवाला (havālā) sounds more like Arabic than Persian but the Persian spelling حواله (havâle) should be checked as well, which may be the immediate source for हवाला (havālā). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


Verb sense: "To assault a blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition; to besiege." The reference to a blockade in the first part seems incorrect and I guess it was meant to refer to fortifications instead; isn't this word fully synonymous with "besiege"?

Also, is this type of use considered standard? It is less common than "besiege" and is absent in many dictionaries, but it goes at least as far back as the 18th century. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


This little fellow is about to become part of the English language. In the meantime, it apparently already exists in the Marovo language (note: we don't have an entry for Marovo). Add it, somehow? bd2412 T 17:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

{{hot word}} DTLHS (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we have an entry for Barack Obama?[edit]

Dictionary.com and Merriam-Websters have entries for such http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obama?s=t, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Obama should Wiktionary? 2602:306:3653:8440:B104:F902:6507:79A6 11:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good question, but no, it's not our policy: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." Barack Obama is also included under Obama, by the way. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
No. Equinox 09:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


I've added the verb form of blacklegged. (See, for example, Collins and Oxford dictionaries.) I don't see an adjectival form of blacklegged in a dictionary, but it is in use as part of a common name for a species: the blacklegged tick. Is this kind of use (an adjective meaning "having black legs" but only in a species name) added to Wiktionary or not? -Stelio (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


I have a quotation, but no meaning for the word scoparil:

  • 1939, Philip George Chadwick, The Death Guard, page 184:
    Haggard had told me to get some hell into me and this was the novel method which had presented itself. In Yorkshire dialect I was as bright and active as a 'scoparil'.

No other context in that source text to help. All I find on the internet are references to a chemical (which I assume is derived from scoparone). Presumably no direct link to scoparius. Perhaps a local name for the plant Cytisus scoparius? Without any evidence, there's nothing more for me to do with this word. -Stelio (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good call! Thanks for that pointer. The English Dialect Dictionary demonstrates it as a Yorkshire term, which fits (and also gives various other spellings). Looks like there are more definitions to add as well. Notes to self: Chamber's, Middle English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. I'll get around to expanding that out at some point. -Stelio (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

put into words[edit]

SOP, but is it entry worthy anyway? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

make good time[edit]

Is it worthy of an entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... There's also "make bad time", "make great time", "make terrible time". --WikiTiki89 19:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Romanization for "spouse-to-be"[edit]

@SemperBlotto, the word-by-word transcription of both 許婚 and 許嫁 is 言い付け. Which is preferred, ii or ī? POKéTalker (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


Should we add to slughorn a definition as a musical instrument? As per W:Slughorn this was an incorrect usage by Thomas Chatterton in the 1700s (five occurrences of slughornes), but was in this sense used again by Robert Browning in 1855 (as slug-horn). Terry Pratchett then references it jocularly in 1989's Guards! Guards! (slug-horn again). That's three sources over an extended period of time... but only three sources, the latter of which is a deliberate reference to the first. -Stelio (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Making coßike, cossike, & cossick for cossic[edit]

What is the preferred way of adding archaic spellings to a page and of creating pages for those archaic spellings?

I want to add lines about coßike, cossike, and cossick on the page cossic. These words are used in the 1557 mathematics book famous for first introducing the equals sign, The whetstone of witte, whiche is the seconde parte of Arithmetike: containyng thextraction of Rootes: The Coßike practise, with the rule of Equation: and the woorkes of Surde Nombers. They are archaic modern English spellings of cossic. I also want to make the pages coßike, cossike, and cossick. I don't however want to do these things improperly because I really don't want to rub anyone else the wrong way. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 04:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

coßike is not an archaic English spelling. The ligature of ſs is a ligature in English, not a letter like in German.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thecurran You can create links to cossick and cossike in an "Alternative forms" section (see WT:ELE for more) which is either the first 3rd level header of a language section or the first 4rth level header of a PoS section. You can then add the entries and use a form-of template like {{obsolete spelling of}} for the definition line. One example is the pair magic and magick. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

as we know it[edit]

Any earlier collocation than R.E.M.'s 1987 "end of the world as we know it"? It needs a page but most every subsequent usage prefaces it with "end". Lysdexia (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Plenty to be found at you (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) with pronouns other than we. Even more with we. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd parse that as "the end of (the world as we know it)" rather than "(the end of the world) as we know it". Equinox 16:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Season names for a person's coloration[edit]

Is there anyone here who understands the way season names are applied to a person's coloration? Along of the lines of "I'm a summer, you're a fall, she's a winter"? It has to do with a combination of hair color and skin tone. If anyone reading this knows how they work, could you add relevant senses to spring, summer, fall/autumn, and winter? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally new to me, but it seems that "seasonal color analysis" is the term to search for. Equinox 19:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
WP has this: Color_analysis_(art)#Prominent_systems_of_seasonal_color_analysis_since_the_mid-1970s. Equinox 19:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


An anom has changed the definition from "wife of one's child" to "wife of one's son". However, in the case of a woman married to another woman, the former would be more inclusive, right ? Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I almost want to change it to read "The wife of one's son or daughter", but should we make separate senses for the traditional vs. the more progressive sense ? I'm not 100% sure about the best way to approach this Leasnam (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It should be "child". If we are just reflecting actual reality (where women can, indeed, marry women, at least in some jurisdictions) then we aren't being "progressive" or pretentious by saying this, and would be inaccurate if we didn't. (Lemming test: Cambridge has "the woman who is married to your son or daughter".) Equinox 00:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I think "child" is the least POV choice: those who don't believe in same-sex marriage don't believe that a daughter can have a wife, so it doesn't contradict their beliefs. If you say "son or daughter" or "son", you're making a statement that contradicts one belief system or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
One other option I considered was to add a separate sense with an LGBT tag, but I cringe at this...it just doesn't seem right, but I agree that I think there should be a traditional definition and then a non-traditional (?) one (if that's even the correct term for it) Leasnam (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any need for two senses. The wife of one's child is one's daughter-in-law. If you accept the validity of the marriage, then it's obviously true. If you don't accept that two women can marry, then it's still true.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The same IP has been POV-pushing their heteronormative definitions of inlaws since March, and doing nothing else here. I've rolled them all back and would not be opposed to a block. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
"Child" per the good arguments for it above. DCDuring (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I also see no reason for separate definitions. Just "child" should do it.__Gamren (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


Same logic Leasnam (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Vanessa etymology[edit]

The girl's name comes from an invention of Jonathan Swift, for a lady-friend of his named Esther Van whatever. But it's also a butterfly genus, from Greek Φάνης. Are these totally unrelated? Could, for example, Swift have borrowed the butterfly genus name (if it existed at that time!) because it happened to fit with his lover's name? Or is it all a coincidence? Equinox 00:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, the butterflies were named Vanessa decades after Swift died. To rub salt in, Swift died the year Fabricius was born. I also found some paper relating to this: [5] Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 00:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

sporty sense 2, of cars[edit]

"Flashy in appearance. My new car looks sporty but is actually very practical." Maybe sporty cars are flashy, but is this the actual definition? Doesn't it mean more like "intended for racing, like a sports car"? Equinox 01:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not "like a sports car"? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

'Phags-pa script letter names in Chinese[edit]

@Prisencolin has been adding these in a few Chinese entries, like and . Are these valid? @Wyang, any thoughts? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Well... it is modelled almost entirely after the Middle Chinese initials system. I would change it to:
  1. () a Middle Chinese initial and the 'Phags-pa script letter ...
Wyang (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: OK, that'd work. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright sounds good.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

sex industry[edit]

Would sex industry be SOP? I noticed we don't have an entry for it. We do have sex work. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but i'd say the same regarding sex work and several terms at sex#Derived terms. But as there are other SOP-like terms and as e.g. Sexindustrie wouldn't be SOP (as it's a single word, cp. WT:COALMINE), i'd say it should be okay. - 00:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

content; sleep[edit]

I'm wondering whether "content" needs an additional sense in the Web 2.0 sense of media available for downloading from a website. That might do as a definition. The existing senses don't seem to cover this meaning. — Paul G (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Web 2.0 is far too specific. The sense is something like "the actual useful material on a site/in a book/magazine/etc. that people come for, rather than structure or filler". Our "subject matter" sense comes closest but could perhaps be broadened. Equinox 14:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Sleep" is used informally as a unit of time until some future event, as in "Two more sleeps until Christmas". We already have "An act or instance of sleeping", but I'm not sure whether or not that would include this. Should this be considered as separate sense? — Paul G (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Singapore English?[edit]

Looking at the entry for lim made me wonder - is there such a thing as Singapore English, or is it actually a Malay word? DonnanZ (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that there is a Singapore English, and I can't see why you'd doubt that a large Anglophone community would have its own dialect. See w:Singapore English for more. (Also, the word is not Malay; as the entry states, it's Chinese.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, the word kopi fooled me, which occurs in Malay. I have never been there, although my father was taken as a POW there. DonnanZ (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Singapore English does exist for sure, but I have doubts about this word in particular. I've sent it to RFV. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion between Singapore English, the official form, and Singlish which is unofficial, and use of it in the media is frowned upon by the government. Both categories are listed in this entry. DonnanZ (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a dialect continuum between standard Singaporean English and Singlish. This word would definitely be considered Singlish. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


There's a sense missing here, with a technical name I can't remember. It's the sense in "If you're hungry then we have chips". The chips exist regardless of whether or not the addressee is hungry - rather, the then is short for something like "then you'll be interested to know that...". Does anyone know the term for this? Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like adverb sense 4. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 00:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't specific to the word "then", though, since "then" can always be omitted in "if...then" pairs. You often hear waiters say something like "If you need anything, my name is Mike", and every Sunday at church our priest invites people to coffee hour after the service saying "If this is your first time here, the parish hall is around the back in the neighboring building." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: [[If]] has a definition that uses the term relevance conditional to cover what we are talking about, but the associated WP article and the works that article references don't seem to cover the ordinary-language phenomenon in a way I find useful. CGEL calls the clause following if a protasis and briefly discusses relevance protases:
One further special case where Q is not a consequence of P involves 'relevance protases':
[6] i If you need some help, Helen is willing to lend a hand.
    ii If you're interested, Dick's coming to the party too.
Here Q is true independently of whether P is true. Nevertheless, such examples are consistent with the invariant meaning of if, which excludes only the case where Q is false and P true. In uttering [6] I'm asserting Q, with P ex[ressing a condition on the relevance of Q. Such examples might be regarded as a shorthand was of saying something like If you need some help you will be interested to know that Helen is willing to lend a hand or If you're interested it is worth telling you that Dick is coming to the party. There is thus some implicit predication in the actually expressed Q is an argument.
HTH. It helped me. DCDuring (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I added a Discussion post on "caelum" page. When the noun means "sky/heaven", I found that the plural is irregural (it follows the masculine II decl.). But I am not expert in Latin, so I would like a confirmation. Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It's true; the plural of caelum is masculine caelī. I don't know how to fix it. I think we may have to add a word-specific declension to Module:la-utilities, but I don't know how to do that. @Kc kennylau? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't think module edits are needed - gave it a shot. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 19:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

stroke of luck[edit]

This may be entry-worthy, considering the presence of stroke of genius, and stroke of work. See this. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather delete those two entries. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not impressed by that view either. DonnanZ (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

dog hunter[edit]

It might be a pseudo-anglicism. I created it based on the Russian: догха́нтер (dogxántɛr). At the Russian Wiktionary they want to know. Ringing @Cinemantique. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See dogcatcher, who is not necessarily an exterminator. DCDuring (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The original post sounds like it's a question for WT:RFVE to determine whether or not English dog hunter (or maybe dog-hunter, doghunter?) does exist.
The mentioning of dogcatcher could imply that dog hunter is unlikely to exist.
Searching for "dog hunters" brings up some results which might be relevant. However, the term might (also?) refer to people who hunt (animals) with dogs instead of people who hunt dogs. For example, www.alabamadoghuntersassociation.org seems to be an organisation of US-Americans who hunt with dogs. - 13:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Latin superprehendo[edit]

Is this an actual attested word that needs its own entry? Or was it later created on the basis of the (internally formed) Romance "cognates", particularly French surprendre / Old French sorprendre? It seems like all the other Romance words for surprise ultimately came from the French, not this supposed Latin word. I see some mention this Latin word as "Medieval Latin", but I'm not sure if it's legit. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a 17th century occurrence of "superprehendit". I doubt it's found in Classical Latin though. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

make a pig's ear of[edit]

(This is just one example.) Is it correct to call this "transitive"? Equinox 18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say so. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


I know that there are more senses and sg/pl patterns exist, e.g. شِقَّة (šiqqa) -> شِقَق (šiqaq), just fixing the apartment sense for now. What should I do if I already know that not all senses, etymologies, pronunciations are covered but I can't be bothered or don't feel confident, busy, etc. to do that? Should the entry be marked for attention? It is sometimes very time-consuming to do a comprehensive entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is standard Wiktionary practice: leave an {{attention}} with its first parameter being a brief explanation of what needs to be done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I got around adding missing senses/readings but I might just use {{attention}}, if other entries seem too complicated. I actually made quite a few Korean entries with complex etymologies in the past covering just one etymology but I knew there were more. I will try to avoid it. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Search vrång, find vrang?[edit]

I just searched for vrång and was sent to vrang. One would assume that this is a just "fuzzy match". Except there is a Swedish word vrång, as documented on Swedish Wiktionary at vrång. Could someone create that entry and make sure this redirect does not take place any longer? MGorrone (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(PS If there is a way to avoid an external link's look to the Swedish Wiktionary link, as is possible with w:Wikipedia links, please notify me. Bracketing "wt:sv:vrång" and "sv:vrång" gives me "wt:sv:vrång" and "sv:vrång" respectively.)

@MGorrone: When you search with diacritics and the entry does not exist, it will send you to the version that does exist with the same letters (though different or no diacritics). This is obviously a useful feature. If you notice a missing entry and want it to be created, this is not the place to request that. Instead, you can add vrång to WT:RE:sv.
You need to type [[:sv:vrång]] to get sv:vrång; this is because such links create interwiki links otherwise. I modified yours above accordingly, because it had added such an unwitting and unwanted interwiki link in the sidebar. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

scoprire l'acqua calda vs. reinvent the wheel[edit]

One or two days ago, I looked for an Italian translation of reinvent the wheel and found scoprire l'acqua calda. That didn't seem right to me, so I posed the problem ad Italian Stack Exchange, and two out of three who commented on the issue (or rather, one commenter and the answerer) agree with me that the idioms are different. Quoting the answer, which I agree with, «'Scoprire l'acqua calda', which I usually hear in the form 'la scoperta dell'acqua calda' (the discovery of warm water), has always meant to discover something that some, or even most, already were familiar with. It is used as a dismissal.». I do not think this is the meaning of the English idiom, so this translation is incorrect and should be removed. That leaves us with the question: is there a matching idiom in Italian? And what about the other way, that is, is there an English idiom matching the above-explained meaning of 'scoprire l'acqua calda'? MGorrone (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

hairy eyeball[edit]

An IP edited the use example back in June, swapping genders (except in the last part) and adding a claim that it was first used in the sitcom Hazel. I can't find any verification of that last one online, so does anyone know whether it is correct? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation of Latin book title[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable about Latin kindly translate the following book title and publisher name which appear in a citation at philematology? Thanks.

Speculum φιληματολογίας [philēmatologias] cum Sacræ tùm profanæ: Per quæstiones aliquot ex variis multorum monumentis non minus ad voluptatem quam utilitatem S.S. Theologiæ & Philologiæ Studiosorum concinnatum operâ & studio, [Wittenberg, Germany]: Sumptibus Friderici Bergeri Bibl., 1659.

SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Done. Whom could I tag to better format it and verify that name at the end? MGorrone (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have the impression that 'speculum' here doesn't literally mean 'mirror', but rather 'sum-up', like 'specchietto' in Italian refers to a sum-up table. And should we really keep those & for "et", that circumflex on operâ and that grave accent (which makes no sense if you ask me) on tùm? MGorrone (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It was not uncommon for older books to be titled Mirror of []: see, for example, "w:The Mirror of Justices". The idea, I suppose, was that the book reflected the type of proper behaviour described in the work. I'm not familiar with Latin, so I think it's best to retain the original diacritical marks that appear in the original work. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone edited this, and the code looks like before my edit: "< references />" (no space after"<"), yet the translation appears! What in the world…? I don't get that code… —This unsigned comment was added by MGorrone (talkcontribs) at 18:38, 7 October 2017‎.
Thanks very much! I tidied it up by inserting the translation into the citation which is in the "Etymology" section: see this diff. The "References" section usually just contains the code "<references />", and this causes all text that appears between "<ref>" and "</ref>" tags to appear as footnotes. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @MGorrone (or anyone else), would you like to try your hand at translating this Latin book title at carol into English as well?

Piæ cantiones ecclesiasticæ et scholasticæ vetervm episcoporum, in inclyto regno Sueciæ passim vsurpatæ, nuper studio viri cuiusdam reuerendiss: de ecclesia Dei & schola Aboënsi in Finlandia optimè meriti accuratè à mendis correctæ, & nunc typis commissæ, opera Theodorici Petri Nylandensis. His adiecti sunt aliquot ex psalmis recentioribus [Pious Ecclesiastical and School Songs of the Ancient Bishops, Used throughout the Glorious Kingdom of Sweden, […]] (1582)

Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw Maybe that is how the Italian "specchietto" arose. As for the diacritics, I find that grave accent pretty weird. Was it actually in the original or was it just a digitalization error or some accidental ink blot? I'm fine with the circumflex, though I guess a macron would be more standard. The & is just a scribal abbreviation, should we really keep it? Coming back to the grave accents, those in the other title look like log vowel marks, maybe they were meant as acute accents? After all, the Romans occasionally marked long vowels with something similar… the grave accents look really weird, I'd go for either acutes, circumflexes, or macrons. In any case, if no-one beats me to it, and if I remember, I will translate that title tomorrow. MGorrone (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Regarding the use of diacritics in the title of Speculum φιληματολογίας, as far as I can tell they are true diacritics and not merely digital artefacts or smudges. However, feel free to look at the original title page and see if I've made a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw I moved the diacritics and abbreviations matter to Latin Stack Exchange. Let's see what they think. Time to translate that title now. MGorrone (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, while looking at the cover of the now newly completely translated title Piæ Cantiones etc, I noticed whoever copied the title converged the "long s's" ſ into regular s's. If we want to keep things as in the original work, why not keep the ſ's too? MGorrone (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation! I usually preserve long esses for the quotation proper but not for the title and imprint information so it is easier to read the latter. However, now that you have highlighted the point, I can't say that it is a particularly good reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
What does it mean to "keep things as in the original work"? We're changing a lot of things in transcribing it, and the long s is a font feature that has not historically been copied in citations. It seems best to transcribe it as "s" instead of trying to preserve that typographically historical feature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

稻草人: spelling of usage example, and meaning of 通 therein[edit]

I recently looked up 稻草人 here to find out what the first character meant, and I saw the usage example. Now in there, we have a "ná thang" spelt 那通. I have two questions about this:

1. Shouldn't "ná" be spelt 哪? After all, the translation makes it appear interrogative ("How can you …"), and that, AFAIK, suggests as the correct spelling, since this is interrogative while (the current spelling) is not. Also, 台湾闽南语常用词辞典 suggests 哪会 as a spelling of "ná ē", which AFAIK has the same interrogative "ná" in it. 2. The translation suggests (as the 台湾闽南语常用词辞典 confirms) that "thang" 通 means "can". However, said meaning is not present in the entry at . Shouldn't we add it? —This unsigned comment was added by MGorrone (talkcontribs).

Regarding 通, please feel free to add it yourself, of course. —suzukaze (tc) 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the first question, it's because that's what this uses. It's our best bet as to what the original orthography is. The orthography of quotations should not be changed to fit a particular standard. This is more of a "problem" for Taiwanese, since the MOE recommended characters are quite new and many people continue to ignore the recommendations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


"An equal exchange" seems like a terrible definition. Can we improve this entry? DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I've replaced the noun definition, using the verb as a model. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


"A member of the king's council." Which king? DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the long dead variety. The definition apparently derives from this text via Webster 1913, but Burrill only uses senator as a Latin word there. "A member of a privy council" may be a better definition, but I'm not sure that it is citable either. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Are we not missing the common sense in advertising? ---> Tooironic (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"(marketing) The output of copywriters, who are employed to write material which encourages consumers to buy goods or services."? DTLHS (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I must have missed that. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


I know we already discussed this. Isn't the example question "C’est la combientième fois que je t’ai dit ça ?" transformed from an assertion? (which I understand possible in French, and I attest in Spanish and Galician for all my teenagehood É a enésima vez que che digo que ordenes o teu cuarto / Es la enésima vez que te digo que ordenes tu habitación : "It's the **** time I tell you to tidy your room" < C(u)antas veces ch/te digo que... "How many times I've told you that..."). Then wouldn't it ("****") be able to be translated as umpteenth? (whath is mostly interrogative) Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what it's getting at, but grammatically it's a rhetorical question parallel to the English "How many times have I told you to stop doing that?!" So combientième doesn't really mean "umpteenth" even though both terms can be used in exasperation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Is this layout for synonym correct? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically, except that #* rather than #: is used for quotations. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Moved from WT:RE:ko

Moving missing sense requests from requested entries page. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
All added. Wyang (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Circles in the corners of characters in older Chinese texts[edit]

like on 長 at s:Page:First Lessons in the Tie-chiw Dialect.pdf/41. I remember seeing these on 上 and maybe 好 too; do these indicate the different pronunciations/tones? Is it this what these Unicode characters are for? —suzukaze (tc) 05:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The circles are a variant of the ꜀/꜁ notations. Wyang (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: The link is broken. Could you fix it, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev: It should be better now. —suzukaze (tc) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is getting into Wikisource policy territory, but is it worth transcribing them? On one hand it would be more accurate, but on the other hand font support is poor, people might not care, and I've skipped over such things countless times alreadyI'd have to find all the instances I ignored (which is probably not a simple task; if only there was a magic button to add them all for me) [22:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)]... —suzukaze (tc) 18:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I would certainly transcribe them at Wikisource. Here at Wiktionary they might be worth a hard redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

schedule, route, router[edit]

schedule, route can be pronounced both the American and the British way in Australia, especially the former. It seems some people are not clear about how to pronounce correctly route, As for router, I never heard /ˈɹuːtə/. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've also never heard /ˈɹutɚ/ in Canada. In fact, I would pronounce it as [ˈɹaʊɾɚ] without Canadian raising for some reason. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example. I think she doesn't have Canadian raising in router, but she does in household. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This and this do have Canadian raising most of the times the word appears. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

phrases of non-English origin are not translatable?[edit]

How to figure out that they are equivalent?

Compare to lost soul. d1g (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The Russian translation of the French phrase should be put in the French Wiktionary: wikt:fr:cousu de fil blanc. -- 08:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't only go there actually. It belongs here and there. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 10:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In this particular case, since the Russian phrase is calqued on the French one, it can and should be found in a "descendants" section on the French entry (as is now the case). But that doesn't mean we should add a translation table for French words that are accurate translations of Russian words, just because there is no accurate English equivalent. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
They are idiomatic translations of each other and English has nothing to do about it.
But more about Russian calques French phrase.
There is no agreement not to use calques in translation tables. d1g (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we're really disagreeing here. What I'm saying is this: there's no accurate English equivalent of dépaysement. But let's imagine there were an accurate Navajo equivalent (totally unrelated etymologically): well, too bad, we're not the place to provide that translation, and we're not going to add a translation table to the French entry for the translation in Navajo, or conversely.
The only reason why we're mentioning the Russian phrase шито белыми нитками on the French entry cousu de fil blanc is because it's etymologically related to it: i.e. it is calqued from it. But it is not a translation table. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis well I'm clueless what is wrong in "an accurate Navajo equivalent (totally unrelated etymologically): well, too bad, we're not the place to provide that translation"
On other hand we would place Navajo translations at French wiki? And this would be okay?..
Multiple wikis make things complex.
This is a serious complication, but what problem is solved by this, really?
For example English verb "drift" in racing now can be translated with slang "валить боком" (валит боком, etc).
Should I remove this translation just because they are irrelevant etymologically?..
This would throw away all neologisms and slang.
What is "translation" exactly then?.. d1g (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense.
Translations of veni, vidi, vici
Should be at veni,_vidi,_vici#Latin
Not at I came, I saw, I conquered
Not at Latin wiki d1g (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"It should" doesn't work here. It has been decided that translations only go to English entries to centralise the contents. It's a policy for a good reason. If there is no English equivalent then there are no translations. Derivations can go to the original language entry, as in abat-jour and in some cases English "translation target" entries are created, as in little brother. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
> If there is no English equivalent then there are no translations.
Exactly this make no sense at all.
All languages (language pairs) can avoid English entirely.
Many of French phrases and words were derived into Russian.
Same about other interactions.
English has nothing to do about it. d1g (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an English dictionary for English speakers or learners. Translating cousu de fil blanc into Russian is out of scope. You should probably think more carefully about what it would mean to translate between all language pairs. DTLHS (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
veni, vidi, vici can't be an English phrase. Try to understand why it is so.
"translate between all language pairs"
I said from original language to others.
Efficiently it is the same thing as this 1
So paragraph "#Project_scope" doesn't make sense if we don't follow it. d1g (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"This is an English dictionary for English speakers or learners"
Not only English dictionary.
veni,_vidi,_vici#Latin described using English
I see no problem to place translation at most appropriate place and not at I came, I saw, I conquered d1g (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

rinse and repeat[edit]

This links to lather, rinse, repeat, which, while meaning the same thing, is just a variant of the phrase rinse and repeat. The latter should be a page in its own right, not a redirect page.

relation between агнец agnus?[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

I don't understand why it is only Old East Slavic and not Latin borrowing.

Compare to agnello in Italian. d1g (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a Latin borrowing for both linguistic reasons (the diminutive -ец suffix is pure Slavic and is unrelated to the Latin ending -us) and sociological reasons (both Russian and Bulgarian fall into the Eastern Orthodox sphere of influence, so borrowing words related to Christianity is expected from Greek but not from Latin). Still, the words are related, since Proto-Slavic *agnę and agnus come from the same source, Proto-Indo-European *h₂egʷnós. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have no idea how to reflect relation to Proto-Indo-European correctly.
Maybe russian "агнец" should refer to агнѧ? d1g (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Everything is fine, link to PIE is here agnę (agnьcь) present at агнец. d1g (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Is sideburn a back-formation? --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually an anagram of burnside, named after General Burnside, who was famous for them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
But the singular probably is a back-formation from the plural. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure the recent changes to that entry are an improvement. --Barytonesis (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Barytonesis (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Russian words by interfix[edit]

@Atitarev, Benwing2 A lot of these should just be suffixes. —Rua (mew) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this and USer:Benwing2 has been very unavailable, even via email. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:affix template should get update to name suffixes as suffixes and not as "interfix". d1g (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
E.g. Russian language uses only 2-10 interfixes, rest are suffixes and compound suffixes (or even parts of compound words like -строительный). d1g (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
{{affix}} determines whether something is a suffix by looking at where the hyphens are. A term with hyphens on both ends is considered an interfix. —Rua (mew) 12:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Well in current setup "-тельн" is less ugly than "-тельн-"
-SUFFIX is possible just as -SUFFIX-
Ideally they should get individual symbols. d1g (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Suffixes are lemmatised the same way as the part of speech they form. Since adjectives are lemmatised to the nominative singular masculine in Russian, a suffix that creates adjectives is lemmatised that way too. So it should be -тельный (-telʹnyj). —Rua (mew) 14:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not correct to claim "-тельный" as Russian suffix, because it is a suffix and n-sg-m ending.
It is useful to have -тельный and -строительный, but it is wrong to call them as "suffixes".
No linguist or morphological dictionary would call them "suffixes"... d1g (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's nice, but it is how it's done on Wiktionary, for all languages. —Rua (mew) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why wiktionary is a useless resource about actual morphology.
It pretends to explain word formation, doesn't succeed.
I presents readers with wrong information like -строительный as suffix
Disaster, not less. d1g (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I sort of agree with you, and think we could do a better job of distinguishing derivational suffixes from inflectional suffixes, but this is hardly the way to convince people. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think any words will help with @Rua
Everything is said at Suffix d1g (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


Does this citation qualify as Modern English? It's barely understandable. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Chaucer wrote in Middle English, so no? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 15:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Right; Chaucer can be used to cite Middle English, not Modern. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora, Angr: what do you think of this? I've chosen the uppercase Sol, and translated it by "Sun", not "gold". --Barytonesis (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: Seems good to me (not that I know much of Middle English). It also means "gold" apparently, as a lowercase common noun. Entry in the Middle English Dictionary. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis Based on the surrounding context, it definitely seems to mean ‘gold’ there, and not ‘sun’, although it’s a mention, not a use. AFAICT the Middle English means more or less this: “‘Sol’ is gold, and we term silver ‘Luna’, iron ‘Mars’, we call quicksilver ‘Mercury’, lead ‘Saturn’, and ‘Jupiter’ is tin, and ‘Venus’ copper, by my father’s kin!” The passage is in the middle of a list of alchemical substances. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Vorziblix: mh, I don't know now... I see it simply as the names of celestial bodies that are metaphorically assimilated to a specific metal; that doesn't mean they've become anything other than the names of celestial bodies. mercury has really "taken off" though, since it even replaced quicksilver; and saturn sort of as well, since we speak of saturnism. --Barytonesis (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: In alchemical works you can find them commonly used in place of the names of the metals, with no apparent celestial reference, and even simply named as metals; it seems to have gone beyond metaphor. By way of example, some quotes, although more recent than Chaucer:
  • 1688, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, trans. Chr. Packe, Some Phylosophic Rules or Cannons, Concerning the Stone of Phylosophers:
    Luna cannot be transmuted into Sol, except it return into running Mercury (but by the physical Tincture) the same is to be judged of the other Metals. ... Sol ought to be put to Mercury, that he may be dissolved into Sulphur, and then cocted into the stone of Phylosophers.
  • 1611, attributed to Arnoldus de Nova Villa, A Chymicall treatise of the Ancient and highly illuminated Philosopher, Devine and Physitian, Arnoldus de Nova Villa who lived 400 years agoe, never seene in print before, but now by a Lover of the Spagyrick art made publick for the use of Learners, printed in the year 1611:
    The common Sulphur is found in Sol and Luna, in Mercury more fugitive, in the body water.
  • 1688, Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont, trans. Chr. Packe, One Hundred Fifty Three Chymical Aphorisms:
    And Gold, as hath already been said, ought to be more perfectly Tinged by the Mercury of Phylosophers. This Mercury cannot be had of Antimony alone; But by it, as a Medium, from other imperfect Metallick Bodies, which abound with the Tincture of Gold; Of which sort there are found only two, to wit, Mars and Venus... Antimony, Mars and Venus, consist of Sulphur and Mercury.
  • c. 1480, George Ripley, The Mistery of Alchymists:
    When our Medicine thou wilt assay,
    Thou maist make both Sol and Lune,
    In lesse space then in one day.
Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 09:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

mess at упоительный[edit]

contributors: @Benwing, Rua

I'm dead serious this word is from упое́ние (upojénije).

Both can quit project if don't have sources for ety. d1g (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a very wiki-like atitude. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora indeed, it isn't friendly to revert without any meaningful discussion.
It is just asocial, so I created a topic here to settle all questions.
Problem is that any idiot can open RG-80 and see "упоение".
@Atitarev is not an authoritative source of Russian morphology. d1g (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
упое́ние (upojénije) is only a related word. Morphologically, it's упои́ть (upoítʹ) + -тельный (-telʹnyj). @D1gggg, you're just not good at this, you should just leave the grammar and etymologies alone and I am dead serious about it. Also, there is no point making multiple similar topics.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Sources for ety?
Imagination of Atitarev? d1g (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
While the suffix part can still be argued - inflectional suffix -тельный (-telʹnyj) vs suffix -тельн- (-telʹn-) + ending -ый (-yj), you can't be "dead serious" about упои́тельный (upoítelʹnyj) being derived directly from упое́ние (upojénije), which itself has a suffix -ние (-nije). The full decomposition of the word is у- (u-) + -пои́- (-poí-) (the stem of [{m|ru|пои́ть}}, which we shouldn't lemmatise) + -тельный (-telʹnyj). The suffix -тельный (-telʹnyj) is a choice, lemmatised in it masculine nominative singular form. Of course, it can further decomposed into -тельн- (-telʹn-) + -ый (-yj). The source is Большой современный толковый словарь русского языка. 2006, Ефремова Т.Ф. Courtesy of User:Vahagn Petrosyan in Talk:умопомрачительный. I am OK to continue using the long form of the suffix, even if the Russian Wiktionary lemmatises -тельн- (-telʹn-). There is no point, just like there is no point to have entries for verb stems like -пои́- (-poí-). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I recognize work by "Ефремова, Татьяна Фёдоровна", but I also have to add that this person never worked at any of RG editions. This makes my life hard from time to time.
First, en.wiktionary seems correct in:
"упоение" = "упо(ить)" + "ение" (further analysis of -ение is possible, -ие is just ending)
Then we have:
"упоительный" = "упо(ить)" + "-ительный" (or whatever you want to do with -ый)
It makes perfect sense why "и" is in suffix when "упоение" is used as base word
Do I forgot some rule how words can be derived? d1g (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see big difference between trimmed "упоить" and trimmed "упоение" if resulting word is the same. d1g (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Analysis not by makes assumption about поить as root
I see some relation between "упой" "упоение" but cannot explain every translation d1g (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This is crazy, but also say "до упоя" and "с упоя" and this is shorter that "поить" d1g (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This is crazy, what is root here: "с перепоя"? d1g (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
-пои́- is indeed useless and unrecognized by anyone d1g (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

mess at -строительный[edit]

I wounder if @Rua able to provide a single source for "-строительный" as "prefix" d1g (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You created the entry. —Rua (mew) 17:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't a suffix.
Try to read a single book about Russian before you make edits. d1g (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Try to learn the definition of suffix before you claim that things aren't suffixes. Both this and -ный (-nyj) are clearly suffixes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Find a book where -ный claimed as suffix/prefix/affix. d1g (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Find a book where -строительный claimed as suffix/prefix/affix. d1g (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Find a book where a bound morpheme that's attached to the end of a root to form a new word is described as anything else besides a suffix. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Angr try to answer without questions or learn German or Russian. It will help.
Real name for this thing is "inflectional suffix" or ending. d1g (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You know why they're called inflectional suffixes? Because they're suffixes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This is strange motivation to use ambiguous words over unambiguous words. d1g (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

there be[edit]

I don't think that "sum" is the proper Latin translation for 'there be. "Sum" specifically means 'I am'. Latin uses the verb "esse", to be, to express 'there is'. "Tres pueri sunt", There are three boys. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The lemma for Latin verbs is the first-person singular present active indicative. So sum stands in for the whole verb. —Rua (mew) 18:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

mess at любознательный[edit]


  • removed -о- interfix
  • "Russian words suffixed with -тельный" is less precise than "Russian words suffixed with -тельн"

As if this person not trying to penetrate information given to them in Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/October#Category:Russian_words_by_interfix by several users. d1g (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can @Rua discuss their changes?
edit 23:33, 13 10 2017
PS. I doubt this person is able to discuss anything (and above) d1g (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed interfix -о- is just insane:
from люби́ть and лю́бят:
so common part can be only "люб"
next letter is "о" and next thing is also root, so it must be interfix between two roots
RG-80 says both are verbs, so no need to worry about POS
This isn't some random letter "о" inserted here by magic as "любо" d1g (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Similar edit at speedometer reverted by @Aryamanarora.

At least one user here has sense of what interfix is.

No luck with @Rua, Benwing. d1g (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Leave me out of your feud. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 11:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to remove Russian interfixes. @Rua explain how removal of interfix is helpful to anyone. d1g (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

mess at -тельн[edit]

Creation lock from @Rua...

It is a proper Russian suffix.

I don't understand edits from this user at all. d1g (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


In my experience, this term typically applies to English speakers who live abroad, and not foreigners. For example, we would call Chinese people living in Australia migrants or immigrants, and rarely expats. Should we add a usage note to that effect? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought there is a difference between the two- (im)migrants have the intent of permanent settlement in the new place, where expats refer to anyone living outside their native country. Is this correct, or is this a stereotype-influenced impression? Wyang (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
For me (as an American expat living in Germany), there's considerable denotational overlap between the two terms, but their connotations are rather different. The word immigrant connotes a person from a relatively poor country who's moved to a wealthier country to make a better life for him- or herself (or perhaps to escape persecution, in which case there is again overlap with refugee), while expat connotes a person from a relatively wealthy country (not necessarily an English speaker, though) who's moved to another country (regardless of its wealth) to live and work either temporarily or long-term. (For example, Germans living in Spain are expats even though they aren't English speakers.) Technically I meet Wyang's definition of immigrant, because I have no intention of living in the U.S. again, but I would rarely use that word to describe myself, because my home country is quite affluent, and although I did come to Germany for a job, I never felt like I had to leave the U.S. in order to find a job. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really agree with your definitions. In my experience as an Indian permanently living in the United States, Indians who live abroad can and are often called expats or immigrants (usually though they're called NRIs, for "Non-Resident Indian"), and I'm sure you know India is not a wealthy country. Furthermore, I really don't think immigrant and refugee overlap. I do agree with Wyang though, IMO immigrant usually means permanent settlement outside of one's country, while expat means anyone living abroad. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

So megahertz translates to γιγαχέρτζ?[edit]

I just opened megahertz to see a Greek translation (I'm answering this Quora question and the other answer says μεγαρτος means megahertz, so I wanted to see if Wiktionary confirmed it), and I got γιγαχέρτζ. Reaction: um, what? You serious? Let's check this out! Loading γιγαχέρτζ, and of course it means gigahertz. So is the translation at megahertz wrong or can γιγαχέρτζ very ambiguously mean both? And if the former, is the correct translation μεγαχέρτζ as I would guess? Time to create that entry then! MGorrone (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. [6] --Barytonesis (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Just created μεγαχέρτζ. MGorrone (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


The template "&lit" generates this wording:

Used other than a figurative or idiomatic meaning.

Is it just me or is this incorrect English? Can something be used "other than a meaning"? Mihia (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be "used other than with...", but that sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps a complete rephrasing would be better. Equinox 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
It once read "Used other than as an idiom".
It now reads as Equinox suggested, pending reversion to the earlier wording or another revision. DCDuring (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

make a case for[edit]

Can I create an entry for that? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:EC8B:A545:AD92:AE89 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO, you could make a case for creating it. DCDuring (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
But see make a case at OneLook Dictionary Search, which suggests that many other references don't find it a good case. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I create an entry for my old clarinet? I believe I could make a case for that. Mihia (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


B&T shows there to be an English fornim, but I can't find any quotes in Google Books so I've left it out of the descendants. A quote would be much helpful to prove the existence of fornim. Anglish4699 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

*if there even is a quote. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Google Books is one of the best resources we have that is available for citing, but it's not infallible nor all encompassing. But it's very adequate, because not only we can access it, but Wiktionary users can as well, and they can cross check the citations for reference :). That said, we used to have an English entry for fornim, but it was removed (i.e. moved to Middle English fornimen) because satisfactory English citations couldn't be found. Leasnam (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


At some point in the past, somebody was obsessed with the word "blee" (I think it's some sort of Anglo-Saxon alternate-universe version of "colour") and added it to all the "colour" entries in a matter-of-fact way, without appropriately glossing it as a weird word that NO HUMAN EVER USES. I have removed it when I see it. I now want to challenge Citations:blee, which is some kind of weird poetry(?) that talks about "stale poppy-cods blummered in blee / From the willy-wad over the way". What is "blummered"? We have no entry. Why should we trust this weird text to support "blee", especially when that word has a history of agenda-pushing on this project? Equinox 07:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust Citations:blee. It might be there just to go with the rhyme like "rattatattoo," though I don't know for sure. Indeed a better citation should be found. About the "Synonym: ..." sections, they look a little ugly. There are WAY too many of them. A smaller synonym section would be better. Anglish4699 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the word blee as a whole is not attestable? What about the other quotations on the main entry page? I moved the poetic quotation to the citations page as it wasn't clear what sense the word blee was being used in – in fact, I think it was just a nonce word there. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


If boner is a noun, how horny (adj.) can be a synonym? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Where do you see that it is? The entries don't link to each other. Ultimateria (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: Sorry, my mistake: if hard-on is a noun, how horny (adj.) can be a synonym? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. Ultimateria (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Can a good lexicographer do something about these definitions? I find them really lacking and I need glosses for other languages. Ultimateria (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

king cobra[edit]

In this phrase, which word is the nucleus? --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cobra", unless you're differentiating between types of cobras. Ultimateria (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bottle of Dog[edit]

Bottle of Dog is a Geordie synonym for (a bottle of) Newcastle Brown Ale. I've added a definition to Dog as a (sourced) synonym for Newcastle Brown Ale. It looks to me as though that makes Bottle of Dog redundant as SOP, yes? -Stelio (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Dog attestable in other collocations? DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, yes. In particular, it's derivative from the phrase "taking the dog for a walk" such that to "walk the dog" means to drink Newcastle Brown Ale. Here are some examples from websites... -Stelio (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 2008-01-25, Chronicle Live: The brewery’s most famous brand is Newcastle Brown Ale, or "Dog".
  • 2011-04-04, Beverage Industry: Tied to a tradition in the United Kingdom, Newcastle Brown Ale is asking beer drinkers to “Walk the Dog,” which is a British euphemism for visiting a bar. Newcastle is offering “Walk the Dog” tasting events in select on-premise venues in various cities around the nation. While visiting their favorite establishments, curious “Dog Walkers” will be greeted by Newcastle brand ambassadors who will expound on the virtues of “Walking the Dog,” while offering samples of Newcastle Brown Ale.
  • 2013-06-18, Facebook (The One and Only - Newcastle Brown Ale): It's only Tuesday but who needs a Dog?
  • 2015-02-06, Telegraph: The ale was also dubbed "dog" by drinkers, as they would make the excuse of going to "walk the dog" when nipping out for a sneaky drink.
  • 2015-02-07, BBC News: The beer is one of the best selling in the United States, where, as in the UK, it is also nicknamed "Dog".
  • 2016, Tesco: Did yee knar... ...NewCastle Brown Ale is affectionately known as 'Dog' by those in the know. "I'm gannin' to see* a man about a Dog" and "I'm taking the Dog for a walk" were often used by Geordie men as an excuse for visiting their local to sample their beloved tipple.
  • 2016-03-28, Drinking got me thinking...: I usually went for a bottle of Dog. Dog being Brown Ale. Why Dog? It’s called Dog as a reference to someone telling his wife that he was going to walk the dog and nipping to the pub for a pint instead, it’s a real old fashioned Geordie flat cap and whippet image isn’t it. This was part of an old advertising campaign for the beer and the reference has stuck ever since.
  • 2017-02, Beer Advocate: “The Dog,” as it’s popularly known in its home, is one of Britain’s last old-school Brown Ales. But at the same time, it’s very atypical.

go to[edit]

"He went to the University of Kansas for almost two years before he dropped out." Is this American English? I don't know if we say this in Australia. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's used in the US. It's used in Canada as well, but I thought it'd be more widespread. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
We always say it in the US. It's not even a low-register term. Ultimateria (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It never occurred to me that there would be varieties of English that didn't say this. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That phrasing is perfectly fine in British English too. What would you say in Australia instead? -Stelio (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. I guess we might say that. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fairly common in Australian English: google:"went+to+Sydney+Uni", google:"went+to+Melbourne+Uni", google:"went+to+ANU". Wyang (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we say this in Australian English. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

skepsis in Ancient Greek[edit]

I have come across this in both Den Danske Ordbog and Duden for skepsis and Skepsis (scepticism) respectively. At the moment σκεπτικός (skeptikós) is given for both scepticism and sceptic. Is there an entry anywhere for this? DonnanZ (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Also listed under Origin at “sceptic” (US) / “sceptic” (UK) in Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press.. DonnanZ (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. There is an Ancient Greek word σκέψις (sképsis, examination, observation, consideration). It doesn't actually mean "skepticism", just as σκεπτικός (skeptikós) doesn't actually mean "skeptical". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
There's also σκῆψις (skêpsis, pretext), but that's unrelated to these words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Sense 3 shows "doubt, hesitation" for σκέψις (sképsis). That could be it. DonnanZ (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

take the helm[edit]

Could I create that? @Mihia --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 08:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

to canvass - to fish for compliments[edit]

Are these two words synonymous? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 08:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, no, but canvass could be used to metaphorically solicit compliments, but presumably only from multiple potential sources of compliments, to make the metaphorical meaning close to the basic ones.
The meanings of this word have migrated pretty far from "To toss on a sheet of canvas". For now, "fish for compliments" may be off the reservation.
Metaphorical idioms, like fish for compliments, are not good for definitions, even when synonymous.
Perhaps fish for compliments is a hyponym of one of the existing definitions. Or perhaps it could be under a "See also" header. DCDuring (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Transitivity of bork[edit]

Could someone please have a look at bork (etymology 2)? I had a bit of trouble deciding whether it is transitive, intransitive or both, and may have borked the entry somewhat. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you find citations for the infinitive / forms that aren't borked? Many of your citations could be construed as adjectives. DTLHS (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, borked in "the computer is borked" is an adjective rather than an intransitive verb? Could you help move the quotations using the word as an adjective to borked? I'm struggling a little to identify them. It's surprisingly hard to find citations for the word; I'll try again tomorrow. Also, is bork (etymology 1) transitive or intransitive? It seems to be both. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I would say there is no support for an intransitive sense. "Bork/borks/borking/borked itself" doesn't get any hits. DTLHS (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the etymology 1, 2004 quotation an intransitive use? Also, the 2006 ("was borked") and 2008 ("is being borked") quotations? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

can't talk[edit]

The expression "You can't talk" means "You are guilty of the same thing that you are accusing others of". The entry for talk has a definition "To criticize someone for something of which one is guilty oneself", but does this fit "You can't talk"? If it does, what is the explanation of "can't"? If it doesn't, what does "talk" actually mean in the expression? Mihia (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) .... It just occurred to me that, even more confusingly, "You can talk" means the same ...

I don't know if I've ever head either "You can't talk" or "You can talk" used this way. The usual expression in my experience is "You're one to talk". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Where are you from? Mihia (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Texas. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D75:DF3:C5B4:2D49 10:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe these are BrE only then. To me here in the UK, "You can't talk!", "You can talk!" and "You're one to talk!" are all familiar expressions. Mihia (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"You can talk!" is by far the usual form in the UK. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Tangentially, the definition as currently stated has some ambiguity in it: the use of "one" may allow the definition to be read as though the speaker is guilty (which may be true, but it not necessarily true). Person A: "He's a lazy arse." Person B: "You can talk!" Perhaps replace "of which one is guilty oneself" with "of which they are guilty themselves" (enforcing the third person)? -Stelio (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Ignore this. I wasn't thinking clearly. ;-) -Stelio (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


@Aearthrise, Algentem, Lingo Bingo Dingo: Does this Coptic word really mean ‘gate’ as claimed? It’s a loan from Ancient Greek προβατικός (probatikós, of or relating to sheep). The connection to ‘gate’ apparently comes from a biblical passage, John 5:2. It looks like the Coptic translator just transcribed the Greek word directly here, so if this is the only attestation I doubt we can make any conclusions beyond what the original Greek word implies. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

προβατικός in Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press has this: προβατικὴ [πύλη], the sheep gate. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Its use is as a nominalised adjective: "προβατικὴ πύλη" (dative following ἐπὶ) for "sheep gate", dropping to "προβατικὴ" for "sheep gate". But saying "προβατικὴ" means just "gate" is pushing one step too far (keep the sheep!). Here is a photo of John 5.2 in the original Greek (left) and a 1925 translation into then-Modern Greek (Katharevousa, before the 1976 shift to Demotic Greek); note the "[πύλης]" in the modern translation. -Stelio (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a proper noun, referring to the "Sheep Gate" in Jerusalem, so I have changed the part of speech and the definition. The etymology should probably also reflect the form προβατική used in John. This transcription is also used in at least one Sahidic version. It is notable that both dialects have borrowed it as a feminine proper noun. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Algentem, Barytonesis, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Stelio, VorziblixThe Bohairic Bible translates ⲡⲣⲟⲃⲁⲧⲓⲕⲏ as 'Sheep Gate'; the ⲡⲣⲟⲃⲁⲧⲓⲕⲏ noun entry must be changed to 'Sheep Gate'.
(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ) 11:52, 19 October 2017‎(UTC)

Thanks all! The entry’s looking much better now. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Says the sense of "attendant, usually an expert swimmer, employed to save swimmers in trouble or near drowning at a body of water" is "Chiefly US". Is that true? If so, what are lifeguards called in other English-speaking countries?

In British English, a lifeguard. Here is an example. -Stelio (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
They would be called surf lifesavers in Australia if they were at a beach, but still lifeguard for pools. Other dictionaries note the sense originated in the US rather than being chiefly restricted to it. Pengo (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
"lifeguard" is standard in (modern) BrE, as far as I know. As a BrE speaker, I wouldn't even have known that it was originally US, if indeed that is the case. 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of Swedish word slut[edit]

I was curious about the etymology of the Swedish word slut. It's not on the Wiktionary page, and its English homonym dominates web search results even if I include "Swedish" in the search terms.

Can any Swedish speakers help?

Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: I'm not a Swedish speaker, but there's no doubt in my mind it's from the same origin as German Schluss, which has the same meanings. Schluss is from the same root as schließen (to close), which is from Proto-Germanic *sleutaną. That page lists a related term *slutą, which I suppose is the source of both the German and the Swedish words. However, since *sleutaną appears to be only a West Germanic word, I suspect that Swedish slut is not inherited from Proto-Germanic via Old Norse, but rather a loanword into Swedish from Low German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Until May, the word Na'vi was a nonexistent entry in Wiktionary. Then in last May, it was deleted altogether. Most of the citations referred explicitly to Avatar, and therefore did not pass FICTION.

However, searching through Usenet I can find several hits for the word "Na'vi" that do not mention Avatar. Not for the Na'vi species themselves, but for the constructed language Na'vi:


"I don't know what the figures are for Lojban (nor how they might be arrived at) but, at the moment, at least Klingon, Dothraki, Na'vi, and toki pona that I know of claim followings in the hundreds (again, I have no idea where the numbers come from)."


"And maybe we could take some words from Toki Pona and Na'vi too! Let's take all their words! One conlang to rule them all, le'avla!"


"At the moment I can only think of four conlang creators paid specifically to create a conlang- Dothraki, Klingon, Na'vi and someone got af few thousand to write a language for a video game whose name I can't remember."


"Lots of people will be willing to learn Na'vi, and if Dnghe was proposed as a conlang and not as an auxlang, people would be quite happy to adopt it. Its problem is that it is marketed as an auxlang."


"Tolkien is famous for creating languages for his different races. He’s not the only person to create languages, of course; Klingon and Na’vi are two recent examples of thoroughly created “conlangs,” constructed languages (I find the term conlang a bit fanboyish – sci-fi fans have an absolute fetish for syllable acronyms – so don’t count on seeing me use it much)."

Could these be used as citations? Khemehekis (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure all those would count, but it hardly matters — google books:"Na'vi" conlang shows that there are more than enough cites for the language sense to recreate the entry, which I have done. (The deletion summary claims that it failed RFV, but the debate was evidently not archived on the talk-page.) As for the term referring to the people, I think finding cites that pass WT:FICTION will be harder, although by no means impossible. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, your entry looks great! And I see that now we have some new categories that need to be created. Khemehekis (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

crew neck[edit]

This entry has an adjective and a noun sense, but the wording in the definitions doesn't necessarily match. I know nothing about clothes, so am skipping it. --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


At the entry for flagship it insists that flagship is not an adjective, although it looks like one. I'm a call a spade a spade type, and I disagree. All online dictionaries agree with our entry, though. Why on earth could there not be an adjective definition here? --P5Nd2 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@P5Nd2: [7] --Barytonesis (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's just the attributive use of the noun. The OED has " b. attrib. or as adj. Representing the leading product, etc., in a range; specially promoted." in its noun entry. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

burnt out[edit]

Does one not say this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This should be a straightforward addition, in the same vein as burned out. Compare burnt and burned. -Stelio (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the entry. -Stelio (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


Can this also mean 'to let someone know; to inform', e.g.: 연락처 좀 알려 주세요, "Please let me know your contact information." ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The verb in the sentence, 알려 (allyeo), is 알리— (alli-, “to make someone know; to let someone know”) in its infinitive. The infinitive of verbs combines with 주세요 (juseyo), the informal polite declarative honorific of 주— (ju-, “to do something for someone”), to form the Korean equivalent of “please + verb” (when requesting a favour). 알리— (alli-) is the causative of 알— (al-, “to know”), and 알려지— (allyeoji-, “to be made known; to be found out”) is (derived from) the passive of 알리— (alli-, “to make someone know”), thus the causative passive of 알— (al-, “to know”). Wyang (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Usage example at tung[edit]

Just tried my best at translating the usage example at tung#Middle_English. I am fairly confident of the first part, save for that "bieð", but the second part? I'm not at all sure about it. Someone to check? Also, I had the impression this is more like Old English, but that may be just me having seen only Chaucer as an example of Middle English (well, besides Middle English Wikipedia, one of whose article had a discussion going on about whether it was Old or Middle, but that was way more "Old-looking" than that example). MGorrone (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: I believe alswa here means as, and cann is the ancestor of ken (to know) rather than can. I’d render it something like “He who is God’s wisdom, through whom all wits and all wisdoms and all speaking tongues come, he lay as the child that knows no good and can’t speak” — referring, I suppose, to Christ being incarnated as a human child. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

homity pie[edit]

Is this actually a "traditional British dish"? It seems to have been invented sometime in the latter half of the 20th century. DTLHS (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


A classic Shakespearian insult is "rump-fed ronyon". I see little about this on the Web; most of what I do see suggests that it means "fat-rumped" from overeating. This is supported by an 1830s German commentary. [8]

However, I don't believe it. Shakespeare's insults tend to focus on poverty, and I have a hard time believing that a fat rump would even classify as an insult. A runyon is a mangy (scabbed) creature. I believe the real explanation is to be found here: "Some fighting to establish teat order continues during the first week of life and the smaller, weaker pigs may be forced to nurse the less productive rear teats. This further reduces their chances for survival." I think that Shakespeare's viewers were in a position to understand this easily.

Is there a chance to get a definition set up for this ... and if so, is there a way to sneak in the right definition? Wnt (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

curly apostrophe ( ’ ) vs. printer's apostrophe ( ' ) in Finnish[edit]

In the Finnish orthography an apostrophe is used between two same vowels (e.g. tiu’ut) if the vowels belong to two different syllables, or to indicate omission as in yht’äkkiä. By the rule it is precisely the curly apostrophe and not the printer's apostrophe.

However, in the English Wiktionary the printer's (also typewriter -, straight -) apostrophe seems to be used as standard. I was in the process of substituting curly apostrophe for the printer's apostrophe in the Finnish entries of the English Wiktionary when I found myself in disagreement with the user @Angr who thinks that printer's apostrophe should be used as standard.

I have these arguments to support my opinion:

  1. Here is a link to a very good source for correct Finnish[9]. Unfortunately it's written in Finnish. In it one can find this statement: "Merkki ' ei kuulu suomen kielen normaaliin kirjoitusjärjestelmään, joskin sitä merkistön rajoittuneisuuden vuoksi voidaan joutua käyttämään heittomerkin korvikkeena". When I drop this sentence to Google Translate I get this: "The character ' does not belong to the normal language system of Finnish, although it may have to be used as a substitute for a punctuation mark because of the limitation of the character set". GT translates kirjoitusjärjestelmä (writing system) and heittomerkki (curly apostrophe) erroneously to "language system" and "punctuation mark" respectively, but otherwise the translation is good.
  2. Lemming principle: MS Word Finnish language version, the Finnish Wiktionary and Finnish newspapers and book printers use the curly apostrophe.

Angr backs his case with the following:

  1. It is Wiktionary's in-house style to use the straight apostrophe.
  2. Curly apostrophe and straight apostrophe are functionally equivalent in all languages.
  3. We have entries for don't, j'ai, Türkiye'yi, δ’ (d’), and so on, and many such entries have hard redirects from the spellings with the curly apostrophe. I don't see any reason to treat Finnish differently.

While I understand the strive for standardization, I don't think Wiktionary standards should overrule language-specific otrhographic standards where they exist. I agree on the functional equivalence, but we use all sorts of language-specific signs.

We agreed to bring the issue to the Beer Parlor in order to let the community decide which way we choose. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I would prefer the whole of Wiktionary to use proper curly apostrophes (unless definitely inappropriate in a particular language). They look more polished and professional. Of course, I understand that they can be a nuisance to type. Mihia (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer curlies, if used at all, to be applied in some mechanical way at display time, without affecting the underlying markup. I don't know if that's unambiguously possible across all languages. Equinox 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that some kind of automation in the website software, however it works, would be desirable. Mihia (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I think curly apostrophes should always be used in text. But that is separate from what should be in titles. Titles should use one or the other, and straight apostrophes are already used in entry titles of many languages that prefer curly apostrophes in text (see Angr's list above), so it would be the least confusing to use them in Finnish as well. That does mean that we need 1. redirects from curly to straight and 2. entry-name replacements that replace curly with straight (so that one can type curly into {{l}} or {{m}} and their sisters and automatically link to the correct entry). — Eru·tuon 21:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Aside from any technical issues, which in theory should be fixable given resources, why would we want to use a different style in titles than in text? Mihia (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. My personal technical reason is that Windows doesn't let me easily type a curly apostrophe. So if I were creating a new entry for a term with an apostrophe, I'd have to look up the curly apostrophe online to type it into the address bar, or find the alt-code (apparently Alt + 145). I doubt that is going to be fixed. Hmm, never mind: actually you can type the HTML entity &rsquo; into the address bar and get to the correct entry. Nifty. — Eru·tuon 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

printer's apostrophe[edit]

Apropos of the above, is "printer's apostrophe" a known term for the curly straight apostrophe? The Wiktionary definition reads "An apostrophe (punctuation mark) indicating elision". I don't really understand whether "indicating elision" is supposed to differentiate a "printer's" apostrophe from other types, or whether it is just general extra information about the purpose of an apostrophe. Anyway, the definition makes no reference to curly vs. straight. Should it? Mihia (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mutation of personal pronouns in Irish[edit]

In Irish, do first and second-person pronouns ever mutate? Thus, is it Ar mhé/mhise or mé/mise, Níor mhuid/mhuidne (or shinn/shinne) or muid/muidne, ba shibh/shibhse or sibh/sibhse, etc.? Esszet (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)