Wiktionary:Tea room

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:Tea Room)
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


May 2015

Pronunciation of Latin words using "SC" such as "scisco"[edit]

SC = [ʃ] pronounced “sh” before ae, oe, e, i or y, and [sk] elsewhere

Many of the "SC" words mistakingly show "SK" in the pronunciation.

Interestingly, a word such as "scisco" uses both pronunciations because "SC" occurs at the beginning before an [i] and then "SC" occurs before an [o]

So, when you say "scisco" it is pronounced "SHE-SKO" —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 08:34, 1 May 2015‎ (UTC).

This is an Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Classically <sc> was always pronounced /sk/. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Latin pronunciation is that pronunciation changes over time, and Latin has been spoken for at least a couple thousand years. As ObsequiousNewt says, during the Classical period, when Latin was a major living language with lots of native first-language speakers, the c in sc was always a k sound. I'm sure there was variation even then, but that seems to have been the standard. Since then, the pronunciation has changed differently in different regions. Wikipedia has several entire articles on this issue, but see w:Latin regional pronunciation for a nice table showing many of the differences. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Is there anyone here who's good at Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform and who can add the missing Akkadian terms to Γελλώ#Etymology? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


"the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries recruited cadres of hacks to write potted histories of their nations' timeless values and glorious pasts". p. 641 "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker —This unsigned comment was added by Paulcbry (talkcontribs) at 10:58, 2 May 2015‎.

@Paulcbry: The Oxford English Dictionary entry “potted, adj.¹” (third edition, December 2006), under sense 3.a., has “Of a piece of information, work of literature, historical or descriptive account, etc.: put into a short and easily assimilable form; condensed, summarized, abridged.”, which seems to fit Pinker’s use here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Some dictionaries have a similar, but pejorative sense: "superficial"
AHD has seven senses vs our one:
  1. a. Placed in a pot: potted candles.
    b. Grown in a pot: potted plants.
  2. Preserved in a pot, can, or jar: potted meat.
  3. (informal) Presenting information in a simplified or abridged form: a potted history of Britain.
  4. Recorded or taped for repeated use: potted music.
  5. Unoriginal or hackneyed: potted prose.
  6. {slang) Drunk or intoxicated.
I suppose senses 1a, 1b, and 2 are really in out verb PoS, defined at pot#Verb. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Yes, I suppose the AHD's sense 5 is the most likely, on re-examination, especially given the "cadres of hacks" bit. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"tjod" in Norwegian, Is it dated, archaic or obsolete or is the current entry correct?[edit]

I looked for the word "tjod" on major Norweigan websites but I did not find anything, the Norwegian Wikipedia has no article on it (could redirect to folkeslag or something).

I might be wrong but does the word belong to any of the qualifiers above (dated, archaic or obsolete)? —This unsigned comment was added by Dreysman (talkcontribs) at 14:13, 2 May 2015.

I don't speak Norwegian, but I notice that this dictionary seems to mark it as Nynorsk. If so, it could be current in Nynorsk but obsolete (or something else) in Bokmål. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

שַׁבָּת Talmudic Hebrew[edit]

Can we find an example of שַׁבָּת meaning "week" in the Talmud? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 14:21, 2 May 2015.


The pronunciation given is the one provided by Duden and hence official for Germany. But for the reality of the language, my gut feeling is that every German would consider it wrong. I just wanted to ask if anyone has ever heard it said like that at all (by native speakers). _Korn (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's wrong because there is no unique German pronounciation, although the second z is commonly pronounced like a voiced s in colloquial speech. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't know. I don't often say this word. But yeah [litsɛnˈziːʁən] is more common. (I might even have written it out as lizensieren, maybe.) We should add that as an alternative pronunciation. Kolmiel (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd be willing to go as far as inserting it as the sole pronunciation and putting the official one into a usage note. I was absolutely baffled to find out that it's not spelled 'lizensieren'. _Korn (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

computer programme[edit]

This is described as a British alternative spelling. Can I say (as a British (ex-) computer programmer) that I think it is a misspelling. Is there any evidence one way or another? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's got about the frequency ratio of 10 in Google Ngram Viewer, British corpus, (computer programme*10),computer program. That does not suggest misspelling but rather rare alternative spelling to me. I think {{rare form of}} could be used. The current markup is positively misleading since it suggests that the form is the British mainstream form. I encourage you to place {{rare form of}} to the entry; I would do it myself, but I actually hate revert wars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My instincts are in accord with SemperBlotto's here. I think I read somewhere that, in British English, standard usage is "computer program", but "television programme", "academic programme", etc. (basically, the computing sense is spelt program and every other sense is spelt programme). The most recent ratio of computer program:computer programme is 0.0000823434%:0.0000042311% or about 19½:1; however, Dan Polansky's Ngram shows use of computer programme peaking in 1971 and then declining sharply after 1978, whereas use of computer program peaked in 1986 and thereafter similarly declined. My thinking is that use of program in the computing sense continued to predominate over such use of programme thereafter, too, but that it became less and less necessary over time to include the computer qualifier, owing to increasing public familiarity with computers in general. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget my search multipled "programme" by factor 10. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: No confusion on my part. You had the overall ratio at 10:1; I just had the most recent ratio a ~19½:1. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use the context label "dated" here. I certainly agree with the above statements that we Brits use programme in non-computing contexts, and that the two-word form is dying out. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a search in which I removed the 10 multiplier and narrowed it down to 1950-2000, still in British corpus. In this report, we can see the only period through which "computer programme" outperformed "computer program": shortly around 1960. To me, "rare" seems to be the best qualifier, better than "dated". I might have confused you by using the 10 multiplier in the previous GNV report. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The Computer Programme was actually the punning title of a 1980s British TV show about home computing. AFAIK, it is a perfectly acceptable, though less common and dated, form. Chambers Dictionary agrees. Equinox 19:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
But as you said, it was a pun; spelling "programme" was probably used to ambiguously mean the show itself, hence TV programme, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Then why does Chambers say it's valid? Anyway, puns can use the same spelling: "Mary Rose sat on a pin; Mary rose". Equinox 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The spelling is valid, for sure, and plentifully attested, but rather rare per the above corpus evidence. It's not a misspelling by my lights. The current markup is "(British) Alternative form of computer program", and that looks like it is the British variant of a U.S. spelling, which is positively misleading, IMHO, since the overwhelmingly used British variant is identical to the U.S. variant. I have now placed "rare form of" to the entry; how does that look? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The OED (3rd ed., June 2007) entry “programme | program, n.” has, directly underneath the etymology section, “The more common earlier (and predominantly Scottish) form program was retained by Scott, Carlyle, Hamilton, and others, even after the borrowing of senses directly from French in the late 18th cent. and early 19th cent.; it conforms to the usual English representation of Greek -γραμμα, in e.g. [anagram, cryptogram, diagram, telegram,] etc. The influence of French programme led to the predominance of this spelling in the 19th cent. The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing.” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{form of|rare form or misspelling|computer program|lang=en}}. There's simply no line you can draw in this case (any many other cases) between a common misspelling and a less common alternative form. I quite like misspelling for this one though. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: I agree with your solution. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thai readings of พิพิธภัณฑ์ and พิพิธภัณฑสถาน[edit]

How are Thai words for "museum" -พิพิธภัณฑ์ and พิพิธภัณฑสถาน pronounced? Various dictionaries either transliterate the "ภั" portion or skip it. Using Thai2English transliteration scheme, is it "pí-pít-pan" or "pí-pít--pan" or both readings are possible? Will the rule be also applicable to พิพิธภัณฑสถาน as well "pí-pít-(tá-)pan-tót-sà-tăan"? Calling @Stephen G. Brown for assistance, please. There seems to be no consistency in dictionaries and textbooks about this word (and others) and textbooks don't mention this irregularity - possibly silent ภั (tá). (I am getting much more comfortable with the Thai script but there are some cases that baffle me and I have no fluency as for the tones but it's available in dictionaries and textbooks, so I rely on them). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

พิพิธภัณฑ์ is pronounced pí’píttápan. ภั is not the problem...it is pronounced pa. The problem is whether has a vowel. In fact, it does. Apparently some dictionaries use a transliteration program such as Lua to guess at transliterations, and the guesses are often incorrect. If you write the word in phonetic Thai, it is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน (pí’-pít-tá-pan).
พิพิธภัณฑสถาน is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน-ทะ-สะ-ถาน (pí’-pít-tá-pan-tá-sà-tăan, or pípíttápantásàtăan). Note: the vowel ◌ั is an a. If the ◌ั were not written over the , it would be pronounced po. You don’t need the hyphens. The hyphens only show the end/beginning of individual letters. The hyphens do not mean anything in regard to pronunciation or meaning. —Stephen (Talk) 09:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Stephen! Oops, sorry for the confusion, I have incorrectly broken up the syllables and consonants. So, this is a case when an unwritten vowel is in the middle of a word - I've seen cases when two such syllables occur in a row but it's kind of predictable because there is a limited set of syllable onsets. There is also a word พิพิธ (pí-pít) "various" where is the final and is pronounced as clipped "t" and พิพิธภัณฑ์ can be misread as พิพิธ + ภัณฑ์ (pí-pít pan) - "various products/items". It seems, one just need to know how to read this word, because ธ can be a final, not a syllable with an unwritten vowel. Here it's unpredictable, isn't it?
I prefer hyphens because they help breaking up (usually meaningful) syllables and is quite common - thai2english.com uses hyphens, thai-language.com uses spaces. Thai script being so complicated, any simplification just makes it easier to read and understand. Don't you think? BTW, our Burmese transliteration uses solid forms, Lao - uses spaces between syllables. I find the latter easier, besides, Lao is close to Thai.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is unpredictable. It’s probable that some transliteration programs use a Thai spellchecker to determine the words, and since พิพิธ (pípít) can be a separate word, it makes this mistake.
And yes, it is common to see hyphens used, because of the Thai tradition of using hyphens to mark syllables in phonemic/phonetic Thai. It’s like the English habit of using the period for the same purpose: pro.nun.ci.a.tion. English uses the period instead of the hyphen because there are a lot of words that are spelled with a hyphen (quick-thinking). But the separation of Thai syllables with hyphens is not meaningful, it is merely a Thai habit that indicates phonetic spelling. Breaking Thai up with a lot of hyphens is the same as breaking up Japanese, Arabic, or Russian transliterations with hyphens. Arabic: mu-nā-ẓa-rat al-ḥu-rūf al-ʻa-ra-bī-yah. Japanese: ju-n-i-chi-ro-u. Russian: So-yuz So-vet-skikh So-tsi-a-li-sti-che-skikh Res-pu-blik. It is actually much easier to read transliterated Arabic, Japanese, Russian, and Thai without the hyphens. Arabic: munāẓarat al-ḥurūf al-ʻarabīyah. Japanese: Jun’ichirō. Russian: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik. Thai: pípíttápan.
The problem with using spaces between syllables, as Lao transliteration does, is that you cannot know which syllables go together to make a word. It is not helpful. Spaces should be used in transliteration to delimit words, and hyphens should be used to show a connection between tightly bound words, as in Arabic al-ḥurūf, or English ping-pong. But regular words should not be broken up by hyphens (I’m only talking about Romanizations for English speakers. Using hyphens for phonetic Thai (พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน) is helpful to Thai speakers because it marks the text as a phonetic spelling...without the hyphens, Thai speakers would be confused by พิพิดทะพัน, which appears to be a regular word). —Stephen (Talk) 10:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a pity you don't like hyphens in Thai. Now I got used to them. While I see your point I consider Thai a mostly monosyllabic language (while Chinese lects are more so but standard pinyin doesn't use hyphens extensively). Perhaps, it's just because I'm less confident with Thai and there are so many romanisations, I chose the one I feel more comfortable with. My pocket dictionary - Benjawan Poomsan Becker uses hyphens too. Only one book I have uses solid spellings as you suggested - "Colloquial Thai" but it's mostly in romanised Thai - good for learning pronunciation but not enough exposure to the script. I might switch to your recommended method of romanisation (no hyphens), we have a mess with the romanisation of Thai, anyway and I am not sure how much Thai content I'm going to add yet. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can see how the use of hyphens might make someone feel that Thai is monosyllabic. To me, Thai is polysyllabic. —Stephen (Talk) 12:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant the core native Thai vocabulary with distinct meanings. Of course modern Thai has lots of compound words and layers of borrowings from Sanskrit, English, etc. Even Chinese and Vietnamese are no longer monosyllabic but it still makes sense to break up the majority of native words into meaningful syllables. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown I forgot to mention that there could be problems with the transliteration of words like มะพร้าว (má-práao) without the hyphen. "mápráao" would make it unclear if "p" (also is the final or a part of the consonant cluster - two different pronunciations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. In words such as that, a hyphen is useful. —Stephen (Talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown Another question, please. Is it just a traditional spelling letter in อยู่ (yòo) or a rule I have missed? Letter is always silent at the beginning of a syllable but there should be a vowel after it but here, it makes no difference. Just "ยู่" would have the same pronunciation and would be a correct spelling(?). The phonetic respelling, however, uses "หฺยู่" (on www.thai2english.com). So, low class letter is turned into a high class letter by adding in front of it and with a live syllable we get a low tone as a result. Is used in the same way as in some cases - to turn low class consonants into a high class? Also, what's the purpose of the small diacritic phinthu (like a small cross under ห (หฺ)? It seems rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it’s considered a rule, but it only affects four words. The four words where silent mid-class leads low-class into mid-class tone rules are: อย่า (yàa, don’t), อยาก (yàak, desire), อย่าง (yàang, sort, type), and อยู่ (yòo, stay).
Since is mid-class, it cannot be used to make high-class, as far as I know. You can force the high-class consonant function with a silent leading , as in the following words: หมา (măa, dog), หนู (nŏo, rat, mouse).
พินทุ (phinthu, ◌ฺ) is used like virama in Pali words. It can also be used to mark syllables. Phinthu means dot, from Sanskrit बिन्दु (bindu). —Stephen (Talk) 04:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Stephen. So, ย in อยู่ is turned into a mid-class, not high class consonant? Both mid- and high consonants have a low tone with the low tone marker ◌่ in the live syllable, so it's not obvious to me, which class it belongs to. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, mid-class. The rules for tones and the way they are written makes them seem complicated. —Stephen (Talk) 06:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

etymology yiddish רביצין[edit]

the current page רביצין claims that it's a normal feminized (-in) form of reb, but the explanation for the affrication is dubious. I don't know the policy on wiktionary wrt giving citations for etymologies but one should be found here, I will contact the original editor of this page toward that end. —This unsigned comment was added by Telmac (talkcontribs) at 16:23, 3 May 2015.


I really wanted to RFV this, but as it currently only exists as a derived term in karma I thought it best to raise it here first. If there is a way to RFV this could someone please move it there for me? All the citations I looked at either had it in italics, or are otherwise mentiony so I would challenge whether this exists in English. Also, the proper spelling seems to have a diacritic on the s. SpinningSpark 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding a small amount of use of the alternative spelling dushkarma. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

C cedilla, Phi[edit]

Two questions here;

1. The c-cedilla is said by Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia to derive from Z itself. Everyone else says that it came from C itself being subscripted with Z and then evolving from there. Which origin is correct?

2. Wikipedia and one published source says that Phi probably came from obsolete Greek letter Qoppa, and thus related to our letter Q. This can be explained by observing PIE -> Greek sound changes (i.e. /kw/ -> /p/). Every other source I've seen ignores such a claim and says that the Greeks pulled it out of their own minds. Is Wikipedia's statement an overextrapolation of the Proto-Indo-European sound shifts or is it valid?

Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ç derives from a ligature between C and Z (). — Ungoliant (falai) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I had guessed so. What may have caused the error on WP? Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps WP is edited by human beings. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


I was looking in Category:English articles* and found 𐑞. Do we have a rule on Shavian in mainspace? Should this be changed from article to just letter--there's more of an argument for keeping Shavian letters in mainspace then words spelled in Shavian, given as there's about two publications in Shavian.

  • Certainly shows the limitations of a category, given that it lumps standard English articles in with Anglicized foreign words, foreignized English words and dialectal variants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Circular definition of marines[edit]

We define the noun marine as "a member of a marine corps"; we define marine corps as "a military organization of marines who are trained and equipped to fight on or from ships". A user who didn't already know what a marine was still wouldn't know after reading these definitions, and would probably get the impression that there are some marines who are not "trained and equipped to fight on or from ships", but that those marines do not form a marine corps. I know virtually nothing about the military, but I suspect that isn't the case. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I have expanded the definition of marine to the best of my understanding. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


'seems to me that many of the defs should be moved to the uncap'd corinthian. 'was about to do it meself, but then i get confused about the capitalisation of an adjective and such, English not being my native language. Is anyone up to it ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag for idiomatic sarcasm[edit]

I want to add a sarcastic usage for dürfen (may), but I don't want it tagged RFD instantly. The word is used with a meaning 'to have to do something because of things oneself is not responsible for' (in all the possible ways this phrase can be read). This usage is highly idiomatic and not subject to the usual rules of sarcasm. It is acceptable in higher levels of formality than normal sarcasm and does not simply imply that the opposite of the word is meant but the opposite because of a specific reason. It is also used with a plainer tone of voice than average sarcasm, which can be applied to dürfen as well, giving a meaning of 'being ordered to', expressing anger. Furthermore it contrasts with müssen (must), which does not specify why one must do something, but is more often used for responsibilities one chose or is given justly. Any proposals how to implement that? Korn (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Jetzt darf ich das hier alles wieder einsortieren!" Of course, that's a normal sense and you should just add it. There's no reason to question a thing like this that is so normal. Why not simply:
(said with a sarcastic undertone) to have to, must, implying that the obligation is due to a fault by someone else
Or if you think the tone is not really sarcastic (of which I'm not so sure) then just (said with a certain tone). We won't be able to sufficiently define that tone anyway. Kolmiel (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I now see why you're asking this question. You need to make sure that this "idiomatic" sarcasm, because not every word can be added with a sarcastic sense that it may have. But I agree that this is a thing worth adding: first, because it's so common; and second, because as you say it conveys a very special meaning that is not just sarcastic but defined... So definitely add it, whether you find a really good tag or not. Kolmiel (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


This entry is defined as an SI unit of 100g. Strictly speaking that is incorrect. A 'metric unit of 100g' would be correct. The SI system did away with all the decimal subdivisions other than factors of 1000. So kg, g and mg are SI, but hg, dg are not. The definition uses an SI template and I do not know how to change that other than avoiding using the template

Gunmhoine (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did the SI system include hectograms before it did away with the subdivisions? If so, it might be considered historical or obsolete, but still be valid- we're not limited to the present meanings. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I just expanded the etymology of capital#English using information from the Macquarie Dictionary. According to the dictionary it entered Middle English directly from Latin. Is this enough to remove the stub category? Danielklein (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Found a 10-year-old copyvio here which i undid here. Random House 1987 has it such: "The ropes, chains, etc., employed to support and work the masts, yards, sails, etc., on a ship." --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"odour of Cronus"[edit]

I'm watching Roman Polanski's Carnage and I just heard Jodie Foster's character say "the odour of Cronus is killing me", what does this mean, and how can we include this sense on Wiktionary (if it is attestable)? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but, according to a screenplay online, it's "That smell of Kronos is killing me!" Equinox 11:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head, the Greek god/titan w:Cronus is sometimes associated with time, and then there's the whole thing about devouring his children. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a brand of cologne. This blog post discusses it: [1]. Equinox 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

iron(II) sulfate[edit]

How is the (II) to be pronounced in this English term? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Like two. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't II merit a link in such entries and a definition at II? DCDuring TALK 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (p.s. It is vanishingly rare to hear such terms pronounced.)
I suppose I, III, IV, V, and VI at least need similar definitions. I don't know how high this pattern goes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
VIII is the highest generally accepted, but higher states are theoretically possible, and there are scientific papers suggesting the discovery of IX states. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Why do we use the pronunciation beɪˈdʒɪŋ in the IP and audio file? Shouldn't it be pronounced piːˈkɪŋ? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I fixed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it was due to an editor assuming that Peking is exactly a different spelling of what we now say Beijing instead of a spelling based on some other basis (that is, in this case, a different "dialect" of Chinese), and thus inserted the "Beijing" pronunciation. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ყოფნა - content problem[edit]

First of all, how do you translate "be" into Georgian? Translate.ge and Wikipedia say that this word is the answer. So does ka-WT.

This page has been troublesome to comprehend. There was a conjugation table at the beginning, but Mglovesfun removed it to use a template instead. But then Dixtosa removed every reference to this word ever being a verb and changed it into a plain noun.

And look at ka-WT's version.

I am very confused. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think you can just translate be into Georgian? It's a small function word; those frequently don't have a trivial translation. You need to pick up a grammar of Georgian instead of a dictionary if you need to know something like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hillcrest98 If you haven't checked, User:Dixtosa is a native Georgian speaker, so he must know what is right with this term, in any case, he knows better than us and there is very little info available on the Georgian grammar on the web. The lemma for Georgian verbs seems a verbal noun, anyway. You might also want to look at არის (aris, to be) and "is" (third person singular) - ეს რა არის? (es ra aris?, what is that?), usually replaced with final particle (copula?) " (a)". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


I would be very surprised if this is never intransitive. Does anybody have a resource to confirm its pure transitivity? --Romanophile (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is only intransitive. —Stephen (Talk) 13:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The entry was originally created with an "intransitive" label. It was changed with this edit, which may have been a simple mistake. @Lo Ximiendo, did you accidentally change the label from intransitive to transitive, or do you know something about Friulian that we don't? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed it back to intransitive. —Stephen (Talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

chacun à son goût[edit]

Since 2004 this has been displayed as English, but italicized.

If it is English, why is it italicized? Why isn't it, for example, non-standard French? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It’s French, although somewhat mangled. Compare qué será, será. —Stephen (Talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

chacun à son goût may be used in a French sentence (ils ont décoré leur chambre, chacun à son goût), but is not a set phrase. The set phrase is chacun son goût (à chacun son goût is less common). Lmaltier (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Simplified characters in usage example for 呢[edit]

Just today, I loaded the page for , and its usage notes section had a couple mistakes. I fixed that 著 was said to be the same in simplified and traditional when in the usage of the sentence the simplified character is 着, then I tried to fix the pinyin for it, which is zhe and not zhù. The bold parts in the pinyin are no loger bold, and the simplified characters I gave in the code were simply ignored. How do I get that bold in place and how do I put that 着 in place of that 著 in the simplified characters? For now, the code is:

{ {zh-usex|我們 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '著' ' ' 漢語 課 ' ' '呢' ' '。|simpl=我们 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '着' ' ' 汉语 课 ' ' '呢' ' '。|tr=Wǒmen ' ' 'zhèngzài' ' ' shàng' ' 'zhe' ' ' Hànyǔ kè ' ' 'ne' ' '.|We ' ' 'are' ' ' attend' ' 'ing' ' ' a Chinese lesson}}

and renders as follows:

我們正在漢語 [MSC, trad.]
我们正在汉语 [MSC, simp.]
Wǒmen zhèngzài shàngzhe Hànyǔ kè ne. [Pinyin]
We are attending a Chinese lesson

As you can see, lots of quote marks (') are being ignored, and the "simpl=" part too. Now, I only guessed "simpl", so that part being ignored is probably my error, because I am a complete newbie in Wiki templates, but why are the 's ignored? And how do I fix these problems and get the parts in triple 's to be bold and the simplified characters to be correct? MGorrone (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@MGorrone The problem is fixed. To address this, you need to see the documentation for {{zh-usex}}. In a complex case like this one, when both the simplified form and the pinyin need to be supplied (hard-coded) [着]{zhe} notation is used, which fixes the conversion of to have as its simplified form and "zhe" as its pinyin reading in this particular case. |simpl= is ignored because this parameter simply doesn't exist. :)
This kind of errors happen but are not frequent, thanks for spotting! :)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
At we are missing data for character - pinyin "zhú" and its simplified form . I have fixed it temporarily with this - [烛]{zhú}:
閃爍燭光讀書 [MSC, trad.]
闪烁烛光读书 [MSC, simp.]
Tā jiè zhe shǎnshuò de zhúguāng dúshū. [Pinyin]
She was reading by the flickering light of the candle.
I will fix the module later (for character 燭), when I have time (I'm not very skilled with Lua but I know this far, I think). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected the simpl= parameter didn't exist in fact: chances of guessing a parameter right are epsilon :). Is there a parameter for giving simplified characters explicitly in that module, besides the […]{…} notation? MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Just use the documentation. That notation is for fixing two things in one -trad./simp conversion and hanzi/pinyin conversion. If you need just one, use CHAR{PINYIN} for pinyin and TCHAR[SCHAR] for trad. to simp. It has to follow immediately the character in question. Template {{zh-l}} converts trad. to simp. automatically but you need to use / + simp. character to hard code simplified characters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. As I was on the Wiktionary to see the above messages and see the code edits, I stumbled upon the page for , which was lacking definitions. I went on to the MDBG dictionary ([www.mdbg.com]) and added definitions to the page taking from there. Could someone verify those definitions and maybe add usage examples? Thanks. MGorrone (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

first-degree murder[edit]

Is this term US-specific? Here in New Zealand, the legal definition of murder is slightly different - premeditation does not play as big a role. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs) at 20:45, 9 May 2015.

  • Yes. I'm pretty sure this is a US term. In the UK we have murder and manslaughter. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


Is the pronunciation given correct? Is the j of this word really pronounced /l/? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Danish J is uniformly [j]. I was checking whether it's a copy error from lag, but it doesn't seem so. It's not Sampa either, it's unlikely a slip on the keyboard. Very odd. _Korn (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It was added (February 28, 2009) by Leolarsen, a native speaker, and his next edit was a tweak to the pronunciation of jage- no l there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the Persian قاپیدن (qapidan) a cognate of the Latin capiō?[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium#Is the Persian قاپیدن (qapidan) a cognate of the Latin capiō?.

molt and moult[edit]

A user has added the pronunciation /mɒlt/ to these, tagging it "UK". Quite apart from the fact that "UK" is meaningless in a pronunciation section (there being dozens of different accents spoken across the UK), I can't find /mɒlt/ listed in any British dictionary. The closest I can find is [mɒʊlt] in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, where it indicates a realization of /əʊ/ as [ɒʊ] before [l] in a syllable coda. But I can't find any evidence for /mɒlt/ with the short monophthong of doll anywhere. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's how I pronounce it (Melbourne, Australia), if that helps. (At least, doll and molt have a vowel in common for me.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, is that what the Macquarie Dictionary says for Australian English? Over the years I've grown to be very skeptical of people's own intuitions about how they say things (including my own). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yay for university subscriptions. Macquarie says:
  • doll /dɒl/
  • molt /moʊlt/.
And yet the proscribed spelling doesn't match mine. My pronunciation is a monophthong as near as I can make it. I haven't run my own pronunciation past a phonological analysis, though, to be fair. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I think in Northern England [mɒlt]] is the usual pronunciation. It rhymes with fault. The UK audio file on fault is fine but Southern. From the accent I'd say Bristol. But it's not how we pronounce it in the North. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If it rhymes with fault, then it's [mɔːlt], not [mɒlt], right? Homophonous with malt? Same vowel as thought, different vowel from lot? Is it a complete merger, or just for this word? In other words, do bolt, colt, dolt, jolt also rhyme with fault? And is it verifiable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
For me, bolt, colt, dolt, jolt and fault are all rhymes. Thought has a different vowel. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't pronounce it [fɔːlt], no. Moult and lot for me have different vowel sounds, but I don't know what to call them. Catsidhe where are you from? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, Melbourne, Australia. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This is how I pronounce it, correctly or otherwise. Chambers does not have this pronounciation, but only the diphthong. Equinox 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
How does it differ from malt for you, if at all? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
They're about the same: /mɒlt/. "Malt" might be slightly closer to "mɔlt"... hard to say. Equinox 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you're not even sure whether or not they're homophones illustrates beautifully why I prefer to rely on published dictionaries for pronunciation information rather than users' introspection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
For me they are exact homophones. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Angr by your own admission there are lots of accents in the UK. Dictionaries generally cover upperclass southern accents. [mɒlt] definitely exists if that helps. And I do pronounce it with the same vowel as lot, it just took me ages to work out what the vowel of moult is because it sort of runs into the l. So I tried just saying mo (the bit before the l) and found that it has the same vowel as lot. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There are other sources than dictionaries, though. Linguistic descriptions of middle- and working-class accents and of Northern England accents that explain what phonemic mergers have taken place compared to the upper-class Southern accents would be fine too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that [əʊl] + unvoiced stop is very rare in English – the long vowel makes you expect a voiced consonant. Compare bowled / bolt, cold / colt, fold / fault, hold / holt, old / alt-, sold / salt. I can't think of any other examples of [-əʊlt]. Although I'd say [məʊlt] if I was speaking slowly and carefully, it feels much more natural to shorten it to [ɒ]. Ƿidsiþ 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

integrating resource[edit]

Do we have a context label for terms (such as this) that are used by librarians and the like? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


According to the Aviva multicar insurance TV ad: "Apparently, there are better things to spend your money on than chest waders. Not when you are up to your nicky-nacky-noos trout fishing there ain't." Where exactly are one's nicky-nacky-noos, anatomically speaking? The word appears repeatedly in the well known school playground Nicky-nacky-noo song of course, along with many other body parts. But the meaning, if any, is never explained in the song. SpinningSpark 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the song it seems to be deliberately vague, so it probably was in the ad as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I've created it at nicky nacky noo (both hyphenated and unhyphenated seem to occur) with the best citations I can find on the citations page. SpinningSpark 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I recall a similar usage in a song by Ken Dodd, most of 50 years old. JzG (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That would be Dodd's Nikky Nokky Noo song]. A rich source of new words if someone would care to list them :-) SpinningSpark 21:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Surely in the ad it is a humorous euphemism for "testicles", isn't it?? 21:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


We are inconsistent on vulgar/impolite verbs meaning go away. Some have interjection sections, some don't.

  1. go away
  2. piss off
  3. bugger off

All have interjection sections

  1. sod off
  2. clear off
  3. naff off

All just have verb sections. There are of course a lot I haven't checked yet. For me fuck off and get lost definitely have interjection senses, expressing disbelief ("he won an Oscar? Get lost!") Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Deverbatives by language, Category:Denominatives by language[edit]

How come we don't have that? --Fsojic (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We use deverbal and denominal more than deverbative and denominative. I think the best thing would be to create {{deverbal of}} and {{denominal of}} for etymologies. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it really all that significant what part of speech a term is derived from? —CodeCat 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, overcategorization is a thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I want these categories, and I want them now. Proceed. --Fsojic (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In most languages, the work is done by addition of morphemes, for which we do have categories. In many others, it's done by particles or even by context, so such a category would just confuse things. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

About hypothesizing about coincidences[edit]

Hi, guys. Please let me make a little proposition.

In the article about Korean and Japanese postpositional particles, I think it'd be a good idea to change a few things. It is stated, in the article about the postposition e (へ), that "Japanese and Korean e may be cognates". In my humble opinion, that part should be removed. First, because there is no conclusive evidence. And second, because coincidences like that offen occur:

- Russian and Turkish dative cases are also e. Despite this, this fact doesn't mean that the four languages share cognates.

- Another variant of the Turkish dative case is a, which is exactly the dative in languages as Spanish and French. Again, nothing more than simple coincidences.

I think it is necessary to be as objective as possible, and not hypothesize too much. That is the scientific point of view, and therefore, the only to be trusted. I hope you understand. Thank you for reading up to the end.

--Hatobureika (talk)

I suspect the reason it was mentioned is because there are quite a few similar particles between Japanese and Korean and there's quite a bit of debate about Japanese etymology and possible links to Korean. To people looking it up, that information can be quite useful, even though it is speculative (as long as it's clear that it's only speculative). With the other languages you mentioned, it's fairly certain that the similarities are coincidences, and including that information would not be useful to anyone. Eishiya (talk)
  • Yes, ditto what Eishiya said. In some cases for KO and JA particles, there is even historical evidence to suggest particle borrowing, such as JA nominative / subject particle (ga) possibly being adopted as KO nominative / subject particle (ga).
Aside from borrowing, there is a lot of potential overlap between the two languages, much more so than in the other pairs that Hatobureika mentions. Take, for instance, the now-obsolete Old Japanese nominative emphatic particle (i) and the modern Korean nominative / subject particle (i), counterpart to (ga). I see no harm in mentioning the similarities and possible cognates between KO and JA, so long as such mentions are clear about what is linguistic consensus and what is speculation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To have/throw a paddy[edit]

This is a phrase that is used in the UK, meaning "to throw a tantrum for a minor reason". It's usually used to refer to children, and when used for adults, it implies they're being childish. I don't know how regional it is, or whether it's related to paddy or Paddy, though I suspect it's the latter. There are quite a few results on Google for both versions, but nothing on the ngram viewer, as it's so colloquial. Is this something we could add? What kind of reference would be appropriate? Eishiya (talk)

Yes, we should add it. You can "have", "throw", or "get into" a paddy (any other verbs?), so it almost seems worth including as an extra sense at paddy. Equinox 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Etymology 2 of paddy says from English paddy. That's good to know. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I've added a noun section for the temper sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Rfv of the pronunciation. Tagged but not listed. (RP) [rəʊmɑːns]

The tagger's spot on, it's [æns] even in RP. [ɑːns] doesn't exist in any dialect I can think of. Not for the suffix -ance, but for words ending in -ance like chance it's totally fine. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this tomorrow if there are no reasonable objections. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

casual sex (or casual + sex?)[edit]

Do we currently include the relevant sense of "casual" as in "casual sex"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think senses 2 (without regularity, occasional) and 6 (informal, relaxed) cover it. If anything, perhaps sense 6 could be expanded/clarified to "informal, relaxed, without obligations or commitments" since casual is used in this sense for many things other than sex (a casual lunch with one's boss, for example). Eishiya (talk)
Really? You can have casual sex regularly; you can also have casual sex in a non-relaxed manner. I think it deserves a whole new sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Eishiya's "without obligations or commitments" seems to capture the meaning (whether that's a new sense or not). Equinox 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • casual sex at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that a few other dictionaries find this worth including. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange Loop of patata/batata etymology (Spanish)[edit]

The etymology of patata in Spanish states "Blend of papa and batata." I take a look at batata and see "From patata." What?? It simply can't be that they evolved from each other. Scimonster (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

So I looked them up in DRAE and... it says exactly the same thing! I've found an alternative source saying that Spanish patata is from Taíno batata and the same site says that Spanish batata is also from Taíno batata. Which also sounds right. Why batata would come from patata rather than Taíno batata is beyond me. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I forgot the link, it's http://etimologias.dechile.net/?patata. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the DRAE is wrong in both instances. The TLFi says that French patate is from Spanish patata, itself from Taíno batata via Spanish batata. Batata is attested in Spanish before patata so the older form can't be derived from a more recent form. Also no mention of a blend between papa and batata. I'm gonna check the SOED entry for potato now. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
SOED says from Spanish patata, variant of batata. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"bound up with"[edit]

Sth is bound up with sth else (=sth is relevant to sth else). Do we currently have this sense, e.g. at bind? Or should it go at bound up with? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think including the preposition at the lemma is a mistake, i.e. if anything it should be at bind up or bound up. After all, we don't have entries for annoyed with or aspire to. Equinox 07:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. I've included the sense (plus another one) at bound up because I don't think bind up can be used that way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • bound up with at OneLook Dictionary Search and bound up in at OneLook Dictionary Search show that a few dictionaries have these. Also, I don't think the wording at bound up captures this yet. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

hang out or fall in with the wrong crowd[edit]

He starting hanging out with the wrong crowd. / He's fallen in with the wrong crowd. How would we include this common idiom on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We have hang out and fall in in the right senses. Wrong crowd seems to me to be a common collocation, albeit an SoP one. Why not just add usage examples at the phrasal verbs at least? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Is Wrong crowdreally SoP? A naive reading would imply a crowd that is the wrong one, not necessarily a socially undesirable subculture. Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In this usage I've always thought of it as "unsuitable", or "not in accordance with a behavioral standard" of the speaker or possibly speaker and audience, possibly as "leading a person in a direction (on life's journey) unsuitable etc.". Frankly I think there are several sense of wrong that could be used in interpreting the collocation. "Socially undesirable" seems like a restrictive meaning that, because it selects one definition, wrongly narrows the meaning. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say create wrong crowd, but not create anything longer. Purplebackpack89 04:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And bad company could be added as a synonym. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've added entries at wrong crowd and bad company. It's a start, I guess. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

μὴ γένοιτο[edit]

Is this a genuine Ancient Greek idiom? It literally translates as "may it not happen", so it seems SoP. I did a Perseus collections search and came up with 120 references (eleven from Demosthenes, and then sixteen in the New Testament and thirty-two in Epictetus, who really liked the phrase.) ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


The collective noun for bankers is, colloquially, wunch (a Spoonerism). This word has been nuked a few times but there's some evidence of mainstream coinage now. [2] mentions it, so does [3], it appears in a Mike Harding song from 1979 [4]. I think this is actually not a transient neologism. Obviously it hasn't made the OED yet but neither is it restricted to Urban Dictionary. JzG (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is probably citeable!
Apparently, I also removed my shirt as if performing a malcoordinated strip routine and then introduced bemused spectators to a dance move that was out of place when first revealed at university and was certainly not appropriate at a reasonably formal party surrounded by a wunch of bankers.
That particular wunch of bankers may be mortified to know that Hamm had no connection with [...]
Today, we learn that Douglas Hurd, in a couple of months' time, is set to join those providers of financial services, collectively known as a "wunch of bankers", NatWest, from a bunch of MPs.
I'd have no objection to a page being created. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Does it ever appear on its own, without the "of bankers"? Keith the Koala (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that "wunch" is not a word in its own right, but just an element of wordplay in one specfic phrase. I can't find any evidence of its use outside that phrase. 00:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
A couple of hits/
Meanwhile in the more conventional 'Men Seeking Women' column [of the Financial Times], the guys go to great lengths to make themselves sound utterly loathsome. They're tall and muscular, exceptionally handsome and attractive, loyal, sincere, genuine, sensitive, educated, rich and modest. What a wunch! [Since it's talking about the FT, the newspaper of bankers, the reference is probably intentional.]
Well fuck me sideways with a wooden stake, I realize dismally, I've fallen in a wunch of vampires. [The vampires work in finance. The same author has (in a different book series), a gestalt banking intelligence called "the Wunch", so it's clear he knows the word and its not likely to be a typo.]
Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khan[edit]

@Atitarev I think someone used the wrong language code here. It sounds extremely peculiar that the title of a Mongolian emperor derives from an Austroasiatic language. ばかFumikotalk 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. User:Chuck Entz fixed it. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

residential treatment center[edit]

I've currently run into a problem while creating the term residential treatment center: it keeps getting deleted. I believe this being deleted was incorrect because this is a specific type of treatment center, just like race car is a specific type of car, but no one has deleted race car, so why can residential treatment center not be created? Residential treatment center is a common licensing term: http://dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch18/sec4ch18sub6.htm Regargia (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it not true that a residential treatment center is a treatment center that is residential? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it not true that a race car is a car that races? Cheryl.kristine.johnson (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Perhaps you should challenge the entry for race car. See WT:RFD. But we include race car because it is the more common form of racecar. Can you find attestation for residentialtreatmentcenter?
But we are now talking about the subject User:Regargia proposed: residential treatment center, not race car. So how is a residential treatment center different from a center ("A place where some function or activity occurs.") for treatment ("Medical care for an illness or injury") that is residential ("Used as a residence or by residents.")? DCDuring TALK 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
And please don't use sockpuppets to support your case. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Devil's advocate (since I don't feel this entry is necessary): without a hyphen, I suppose one can't technically be sure whether it's a centre for residential treatment, or a treatment centre that is residential. Seems pretty obvious though. Equinox 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Is a race car not any car that races? Well, no. Cheryl.kristine.johnson will you answer the question asked to you or simply continue to mock other users. Perhaps mocking us is not the best way to convince us you're right, as opposed to say provide evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: If either residential treatment or treatment center were idiomatic (not SoP), there might be something to talk about. There is a lemming case for residential treatment at OneLook Dictionary Search as a medical/psychiatric term. But I don't think it us our obligation to disambiguate every collocation with more than two members because there might be ambiguity. Users can be expected to do something to construct meaning. In this case I suppose that we would need to have residential treatment as a derived term at both residential and treatment. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

pig in a blanket[edit]

The definition pretty much contradicts the related picture because of its incompleteness. GeneralFailer (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Brits and Americans wrap their pigs a bit differently. I've added the American definition which the picture illustrates, and an illustration of the British definition. - -sche (discuss) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think leaving "right top" instead of just "top" will be less confusing.GeneralFailer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a word[edit]

Is there a word in English to describe the tracing of original sources of historical data and materials? For example, a Qing dynasty historian writes an account, but later on we discover that he was merely copying what an historian from a different dynasty wrote. We would then try to find out when the original account was written. This is known as 史源学 in Chinese. I came across the translation historigenesis but it doesn't appear to be a real word. Any help is appreciated. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


I don’t think that anybody would recommend this form over etc. I think that this should be classified as a misspelling, or at least an informalism, not an ‘alternative spelling.’ @Chuck Entz do you have any opinion on this? --Romanophile (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Would be nice to see what other dictionaries say on the matter, Oxford, Chambers, MW, Collins (etc.). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Much to my surprise, Chambers has etc as headword with no sign of a dot. Equinox 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Oxford Dictionaries has etc., but the OED’s entry (headword: “et cetera | etcetera, n.”) hasn't been fully updated since the publication of the 1891 NED entry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

' and -' etc.[edit]

moved from Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/April#' and -' etc.
  1. Why is it English ' (as in e.g. "Jesus'"), but German -' (as in e.g. "Jesus'")?
  2. Why is it English -'s (as in e.g. "Andrea's"), but German 's (as in e.g. "Andrea's")?

There's no difference between "Jesus'" and "Jesus'" and between "Andrea's" and "Andrea's", so it should either be just ' and 's or just -' and -'s. As this possessive/genitive marker can't stand alone, the better choice should be -' and -'s (with "-" as it's also used for suffixes which can't stand alone). -Iftjbda (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, the spelling of the word endings -' and -'s should be just that, and not ' or 's. As for 's, that is the separate and independent word 's (as in 's Gravenhage). When the apostrophe or apostrophe-ess is suffixed to a word, its entry should be spelled with the hyphen, -' and -'s (regardless of language; compare -ed, -ly, -er). —Stephen (Talk) 11:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I've moved -', -s, -'s and -s' to those places (from the variants without the hyphens). - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Can someone put together a better definition for noun one?

I cannot tell if this word is supposed to mean "a high seat that smacks of distinction and authority" or if it is supposed to mean "a tribunal or court". Tharthan (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

stink, noun (New Zealand slang)[edit]

"A failure or unfortunate event. The concert was stink." This looks like an adjective. Should it be, or should the sentence be changed to say "the concert was a stink"? Equinox 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Social Media Networking[edit]

The definition for the term 'social media networking' was deleted and I wanted to know how why and what other information needs to be added?

Definition social media networking: the act of building, creating and leveraging personal or business relationships through social media applications with a goal of providing or receiving support, feedback, insight, resources and information in the future.

Please provide feedback.

SemperBlotto has replied on his talk page, where you also posted this query. Equinox 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
All words in all languages, not all strings of words in all languages. We have social media and networking. No other information needs adding, that's the whole point. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

of this parish[edit]

There's a set phrase "of this parish", usually meaning "working for this institution". See, for instance:

Tiff Needell, formerly of this parish, went everywhere with both the rev counter and the fuel gauge in the red zone. (Tiff Needell, like Jeremy Clarkson, used to present Top Gear)
Other commentators (eg Allister Heath of this parish) have taken the view that the first round of QE was necessary but later rounds a bad idea. Yet others (eg Liam Halligan, again of this parish) have been suspicious of QE from the start. (These are all Daily Telegraph writers)
How long will it be before formidable talents like Nicola Jeal (once of this parish, now of the Times) are allowed to run all of a newspaper, not just its juicy mags and Saturday specials?

Is this a separate definition for parish, or does it deserve an entirely new entry? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not something I hear in the US. I hypothesize it to be an extension of the sense of "neighborhood" (which we also do not have) to include figurative neighborhoods, specifically "figurative place of employment". Is that hypothesis supportable (or easily disproved)? DCDuring TALK 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a set phrase that, in the UK, we only hear in the Banns of marriage so, as an example, for three weeks before I got married the vicar at my church would tell people that "Jeffery Albert" of this parish was to marry Maureen Ann of the parish of St Mary in Stevenage. The above usages seem to be an informal extension to mean "of this locality or institution". SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a very literal usage of the component terms to me. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The original meaning of the phrase is literal. The examples at the top of this thread are not literal. 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation for Japanese マッハ (mahha)?[edit]

@Electric goat, TAKASUGI Shinji, Whym, Aaronsama~enwiktionary, Bendono Can anyone provide the pronunciation of マッハ (mahha)? I wonder if /h/ and [ɸ] are truly geminated in Japanese. I apologize for calling on all of you, since I'm not sure to whom I can refer this topic to. ばかFumikotalk 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take Yes, Fumiko-san. It's geminated. I've listened to it on my NHK pronunciation dictionary. I've added the IPA pronunciation with a reference to マッハ. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev I've listened to the NHK pronunciation too, but I'm not so convinced. It sounds like a glottal stop plus the /h/ sound, rather than a true geminated /hh/. A geminated /hh/ would be extremely difficult to articulate. ばかFumikotalk 11:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Fumiko Take To me it sounds like geminated "h" but I won't insist any more. You can also try User:Eirikr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


Does this word exist? Is it attestable? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

google books:professionality says yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

think of a word to describe the spelling Möeller[edit]

When it's not possible to type a German umlaut ö, the correct thing is to decompose it into oe. I'm looking at an old record where someone whose name should be spelt Möller or Moeller has instead been spelt Möeller. I'm trying to think of the best word for this. I don't think it's just "redundant" — it's redundant to describe a woman who acts in films as both "female" and "an actress", but although the phrase "female actress" is redundant, it's not wrong/inaccurate the way "Möeller" is. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

superfluous? excessive? duplicative? inordinate? Leasnam (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hypercorrection? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Typo? (a) It might be a trema over e, i.e. "Mo-eller" and not "Möller"). (b) Maybe the printer was used to use "oe" (e.g. cause he didn't have on "ö"), and then when he got umlauts, he made the typo "öe" (fusing ö and oe). - 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I like "excessive". "Hypercorrect" is probably also the case, given the context — the record was typed up by someone who didn't speak German and probably thought he was doing the right thing by putting the dots back in, though he didn't know enough to remove the "e" at that point. Side note, it seems there's at least one person whose name is supposed to be spelt this way: Charles Möeller. (I wonder if his name is pronounced with the "Mo-ell-" part as one syllable or two.) - -sche (discuss) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Charles Möeller, being Brazilian, presumably pronounced his name in some Portuguized way anyway, but I assume his German ancestors were named either Möller or Moeller but not Möeller. German doesn't use tremas very often, but when it does (e.g. Bernhard Hoëcker) the trema goes over the second vowel. On the other hand, there are cases like Müesli where the üe is correct because the pronunciation is /yːɛ/. I suppose it's remotely possible (though not terribly likely) that in the old record you have, Möeller represents a dialectal pronunciation with /øːɛ/ or the like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

portmanteau word[edit]

The article portmanteau word gives an incorrect definition, namely the definition for blend (compare w:Blend word). The colloquial meaning of "portmanteau word" should be noted, of course, but not under the description "linguistics". The linguistic definition encompasses morphemes such as English won't (from will "(future)" + not "(negation)") or French au /o/ (from à "to" + le "(masculine definite article)"), but not blends, see w:Portmanteau#Word/morph (linguistics). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about English, but in German these terms are synonyms: German "Wortkreuzung, Wortmischung, [Wort]verschmelzung, Wortverschränkung = Kofferwort, Schachtelwort" and Foreign-German "Kontamination = Port[e]manteau-Wort". Both terms are said to mean "blend" in English, e.g.: "Ein Port(e)manteau-Wort, auch Kofferwort, Wortkreuzung [= Kontamination - at least by others], mot-valise, blend ,Mischung' genannt, ist ein Kunstwort, das aus zwei Wörtern gebildet ist, die inhaltlich zu einem neuen Begriff verschmelzen, wobei einzelne Wortsegmente getilgt sein können. Der Vorgang heißt Amalgamierung, Kontamination oder Blending." (e.g. Blog, jein) and from a google snippet-preview of something called "Beiträge zur slawischen Philologie" "Portmanteau-Wort, Kofferwort, Amalgam, Wortverschmelzung [= Kontamination - at least by others], engl. blending 'Mischung', telescoped word.".
This could imply that English portmonteau word and blend mean the same. Of course, others might somehow differ between blend and portmanteau word, but I doubt that all do and I even doubt that all linguists do.
"Linguistics for Everyone", "Glossary": "blend (portmanteau) word made from putting parts of two words together"
"A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics": "blend /blend/ n. 1. (also portmanteau word) A word formed by blending. 2. See syntactic blend." & "blending /'blend[IPA-i without dot][IPA-ng]/ n. The process of word formation by the combination of arbitrary parts of existing words: smog (smoge plus fog) [...]."
- 06:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear fellow Besserwisser, the German translation for "blend" may be Kontamination/Wortkreuzung/Kofferwort, but a "portmanteau" in the technical linguistic sense is simply a w:de:Portmanteau or w:de:Portemanteaumorphem respectively w:de:Schachtelmorphem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The example sind given in de-WP is very helpful. One could compare similarly irregular English word forms such as are, went, less, mice or pence, which cannot be segmented, either. (Strong past tense forms are effectively portmanteau morphemes/words too now, given that they cannot be predicted anymore after regular patterns the way they could in Old English, where noncatenative morphological analysis might still have been a feasible approach.) As for did, has or could, these forms are highly irregular and unpredictable, but not quite as divergent as the others; but I think they are still prototypical examples of this kind of fusional morpheme. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Besserwisser: "pejorative" - is it a personal attack, or even a personal attack in lack of arguments?
WP: "Mit Portmanteau (auch: Portemanteau) werden in der Linguistik zwei zu unterscheidende Sachverhalte bezeichnet: [...] 1. Als Portmanteau-Wort (Kofferwort) [...] 2. Als Portmanteau-Morphem (Schachtelmorphem)" (i.e. there are 2 things called Port[e]manteau). So even at WP it's (partly) something different than you said. At w:de:Portmanteauwort "Portmanteauwort" and "Kontamination" are also mentioned together.
If the English terms mean the same as the German ones (and they should mean the same), then the entry portmanteau word does not give an "incorrect definition", but it - or maybe just the entry portmanteau - lacks the second meaning.
- 09:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it's only a facetious remark since you seem to be German-speaking just like me, and similarly nitpicky. ;-)
Exactly, my point: There are two definitions, 1) blend (the lay definition) and 2) portmanteau (fusional) morpheme/word (the technical linguistic definition).
Wiktionary gives definition 1) under "linguistics", therefore it is incorrect. It should be given as "colloquial" and 2) as "linguistics". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Which gender does paragraphus have?

  • παράγραφος (parágraphos) is feminine and [zeno.org/Georges-1913/A/paragraphus] has it as feminine. AFAIR there was also a Latin or German grammar book which mentioned that paragraphus is feminine (even thoug it's ending in -us and even though Paragraph is masculine).
    E.g. from a book from 1828 ("1828"): "PARAGRAPHUS SECUNDA."
  • Many translations of paragraph are masculine and -graphus usually is masculine (at least when refering to persons, who wrote something).
    E.g. from a book from 1589 ("M. D. LXXXIX."): "Paragraphus Secundus."

There are even enough results for "paragraphus secundus/secunda" to attest both genders. But:

  • Shouldn't there be a note like "Dictionaries [e.g. Georges and Pons] only mention the feminine" gender, which does imply that masculine gender is most liekely New Latin, rare or considered wrong.
  • Can it be specified, when each gender was used? It might be like: "The masculine gender is New Latin", but maybe it already occurred in Late Latin or Antique Latin, at least in text of not-so-famous athours or in text of foreigners.

- 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Infer and imply: opposites?[edit]

Are infer and imply (and their related nouns: inference and implication, I believe) considered opposites? If so, should they be included in each other's entries under an Antonym header or some such section name? I always found these two sets of paired words easier to envision as opposites.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of working on these sets of paired words myself. Thanks in advance if you can finish this up for me! — Geekdiva (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

One person infers what another implies, in the same way that one person reads (or hears) what another writes (or speaks). They have a sort of mutual-ness but are not antonyms. Equinox 10:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed and a lot of our antonyms either aren't antonyms or need clarification using {{qualifier}}. Postwoman is not an antonym of postman, for example. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Pani (Polish)[edit]


I am trying to edit a declension table for the Polish word "pani." The accusative case should be panią, not "panię." Unfortunately, when I click "edit," I don't see the table- just ====Declension==== pl-decl-noun-ni|pa

Can some help me?

Thanks! —This unsigned comment was added by Bjoleniacz (talkcontribs).

@Bjoleniacz I have restored the manual declension in pani until someone fixes the template or the template usage. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What are the forms of a lexeme that aren’t the lemma called?[edit]

Exactly that: What are the forms of a lexeme that aren’t the lemma called? For example, for the English lexeme go, the lemma is go, and then there are its conjugated forms, viz. goes, going, went, gone, etc. What is the name for such a "non-lemma"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question to be honest. —CodeCat 23:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I think all actual forms of a lexeme are inflected forms or word forms (word form at OneLook Dictionary Search). The lemma is just the word form used in the lexicon to represent the lexeme. AFAICT there is not a commonly accepted single-word term for the inflected/word forms that are not the lemma form. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
A lemma is simply the one form out of many chosen to represent all of them- usually for more or less arbitrary (or at most, practical) reasons. Since there's no real systematic difference between the lemma and the other forms, there isn't really a natural concept to base a term on, except for the fact that they're not lemmas. As far as I know, "non-lemma" is the only term for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@CodeCat, DCDuring, Chuck Entz: You’d think so, wouldn’t you? However, that sense appears not to be attestable. Thanks, anyway, for your responses in assistance. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your claim on the RfV that the hyphen makes the citations inapplicable. The hyphen in this case is not linking words, but is part of non-. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've responded to you in the RFV discussion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


Please fix this template by changing "|plural|mīlia}}" to "|plural|mīlia|plural 2|mīllia}}", as there is the entry millia and as millia can be found (e.g. in grammar books from the 19th century). - 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015


The entry for 民法 defines it as civil law. Does it mean the opposite of criminal law, or the opposite of common law? —This unsigned comment was added by Charlotte Aryanne (talkcontribs) at 16:45, 1 June 2015.

Well, 民法 is linked to Civil law (common law), while it's 欧陆法系 that's linked to Civil law (legal system), so I'm guessing the former. I don't speak Chinese, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Latin month names[edit]

About six years ago, EncycloPetey relemmatised the Latin month names at their minuscule-initial spellings. JohnC5 and I favour lemmatising them at their majuscule-initial spellings, which choice would be in accordance with these words' treatment by Lewis & Short, Gaffiot, and the Oxford Latin Dictionary (e.g., in the case of Aprīlis, that is the spelling used for the lemma by Lewis & Short, Gaffiot, and the OLD [1st ed., page 154/3]). EncycloPetey wrote that he "concluded that Classical and even medieval Latin seldom (if ever) capitalized the names of months when capitalization was used." Apart from the fact that the capital/lower-case distinction didn't really exist then, my experience of Latin texts (Renaissance and New Latin editions) is the opposite of his. Is there evidence that corroborates EncycloPetey's view? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please show us the evidence that you have collected. Dictionaries are reference works, not evidence. If Latin months are often used with first letter capitalized, it should be pretty easy to find some attesting quotations showing them so capitalized, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
As I just posted on my talk page, consider google books:"Aprilis", google books:"Aprili", google books:"Aprilem", google books:"Apriles", google books:"Aprilium", and google books:"Aprilibus"; only four of the Latin hits out of the first sixty hits (the first ten of each search query) are minuscule-initial. (You didn't really give me very long to respond…) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
All the sources listed in the L&S have majuscule Aprilis:
I don't know about the medieval or classical practice, but this does indicate to me that modern scholarly practice prefers capitalization. —JohnC5 20:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect modern scholarly practice has a lot to do with the native language of the editor preparing the text for publication. If your native language writes April, you'll probably standardize on Aprilis, while if your native language writes april or avril, you'll probably standardize on aprilis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: You’d think so, wouldn’t you? And yet Gaffiot (a Latin–French dictionary) has the lemma at the majuscule, even though the month's name in French is avril, with an initial minuscule. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
When I set the lemmata to miniscule, I was following the medieval Latin documents I had seen. These come from multiple countries (including Poland, Hungary, Italy, Spain) and have not not been adjusted to modern editorial norms. For capitalization, I have tried to follow practices from the earliest Latin sources I could find that utilized both uppercase and lowercase letters.
The easiest of the document collections (that I used) for spotting examples is Josip Lučić Spisi Dubrovačke Kancelarije, a series of legal documents in Latin from Ragusa in the late 13th century. Each item is headed with a date in the Latin, in chronological order. All the month names begin with a miniscule, even though multiple scribes prepared the documents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks for explaining. Re that document collection from Ragusa, I assume you're referring to these texts. If so, I don't think it can be said that they "have not not[sic] been adjusted to modern editorial norms". Besides the fact that they show a suspicious lack of sigla, being written entirely in extenso, they have at least two anachronistic typographical features: 1) Hindu–Arabic numerals, which were pretty poorly known in Europe in the 13th century; and, 2) the háček, which wasn't invented until the time of Jan Hus (1369–1415) a century later. We need to see manuscripts or facsimilia for reliable evidence of Mediaeval Latin capitalisation practices. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we ideally need original facsimiles to decide the issue. Unfortunately, we have none at hand. We have modern normalized editions of Classics, edited editions of documents, and dictionaries standardized to modern editorial norms of Classical-period texts. However, the Spisi Dubrovačke Kancelarije is only one of the sources I examined; I named it because it was readily at hand and was the easiest to use. The Słownik Staropolskich Nazw Osobowych (Dictionary of Old Polish Given Names) is a massive collection of citations documenting the earliest forms of Polish names, from records in Polish, Russian, and Latin. The typography there is meticulously documented (in extenso). It is simply harder to find useful information since the text is organized by headwords of given names. I've also got an early Dutch cijnregister, but am not sure whether it contained any dates. Most of the sources I used at the time were in the library at UC Berkeley, and I no longer live there nor have such easy access. I've looked around a bit in my personal library, and the facsimiles I own are mostly for texts in English or Hungarian, not Latin.
Re your comment on the Hindu-Arabic numerals: You may notice that these are parenthetical additions to the text. Most numerals in the text are writted in Roman style, as would be expected. The Hindu-Arabic forms of dates are added for ease of the reader, and are placed in parentheses to set them off from the transcribed text. Re the hačeks: Can you provide an example of where this daicritic appears in something other than a header, footnote, or author's introduction? I'm not seeing them in the transcribed text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Shall we provide both letter cases, then? I think that there is certainly sufficient evidence for majuscule usage. I will have to go through and fix some things unfortunately. If we decide to use both, it will still provide us with the debate of which is the lemma, which will be very exciting. @EncycloPetey: I hope you don't resent my doubt towards your original editing decision too much. —JohnC5 03:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I appreciate that it's difficult to get a general overiew of conventions from a few primary sources. The distinction between original text and editorial addition in the Spisi Dubrovačke kancelarije isn't clear to me, but anyway: volume II, page 4 has “15. Zadužnica”; volume II, page 119 has “523. Zadužnica”; and volume III, page 242 has “640. Ročište zbog duga. Die veneris VI aprilis (1296). C. Blasius Baldella legitimus procurator Thomadi Amiço” (I don't know when ⟨ç⟩ developed from the Visigothic ⟨ꝣ⟩, so that cedilla in Amiço may or may not be an anachronism). The earliest Google Book Search result I could find for Aprilis was this one from 1434; it reads “Latinos auctores Eleutherium, cuius mentio eſt in Martyrologio decimo octauo Aprilis, conſtituiſſe in Apulia: verùm Græci eundem Eleutherium in Illyrico factum Epiſcopum dicunt, quod & Martyrologium Romanum confirmat.”; as a single late-Mediaeval early-New Latin source, however, that isn't very significant. All that being said, I'm not all that convinced that we should treat Mediaeval Latin conventions as particularly authoritative; their usages, where they depart from Classical usages, have often been decried as corruptions and solecisms (read w:Renaissance Latin#Ad fontes, for example). I think JohnC5 is right to suggest that we have entries for both letter-case variants, for the reason that other Wiktionaries will vary in which letter case they choose to lemmatise, and that we shall need both in order to catch all their entries via interwiki links; finally, however, I maintain that we ought to lemmatise the majuscule-initial spellings. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
What you're noticing in the Spisi Dubrovačke kancelarije are the document identifiers. These are assigned by scholars for purposes of labelling the documents for reference, and are not part of the original work. They're a bit like line numbers, but consist of both a document number (given in Hindo-Arabic numerals) and a document title (given in Croatian in this wrok because that is the language of the editor and publisher). You're also seeing those parenthetical dates that I mentioned in my previous post. Years given in parentheses are editorial notes for the reader, and the parentheses allow the reader to spot them as editorial inclusions. So, I see no evidence that numbers or text were modernized, as your criticisms apply to numbers and words that are not part of the transcription.
I agree that we could include both capitalizations (either as entries or redirects), but see no rationale presented for changing all the lemmata to majuscule. That Classicists have denounced later forms as "corrupt" is of no relevance to Wiktionary; we are a descriptive dictionary, not a prescriptive one.
The only capitalized forms presented thus far are from modern editions of Classical texts, and from those dictionaries normalized to match the modern English editorial conventions of those Classical texts, and that is a very weak argument. You yourself wanted evidence based on scans of primary source material, and that's what I'd like to see too. Your 1434 document is not a strong case either, as the work capitalizes more than a few words whose lemma we would not capitalize: Lector, Apologia, Epistolae, Veritas, &c. This appears to be one of those works that capitalizes words for emphasis, which practice can be seen in the works of John Locke in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: You clearly still feel strongly about your original editorial choice. I don't care enough about this to oppose relemmatisation at the minuscule-initial spellings, as long as we retain entries for the majuscule-initial spellings, so that we can catch the aforementioned entries in other Wiktionaries via interwiki links. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


I am really thoroughly unsure that I've captured all the meanings of mulotage or that the ones I've captured are defined correctly. Could somebody with better French than mine take a look at google books:"mulotage" and try to improve the entry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • When cats do this, it is called mousing. Is it the same for foxes? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It seems that foxes can mouse too. By the way, I added the verb muloter with the "mousing" sense, although Larousse gives another meaning for what pigs do around holes (I doubt they pounce like a fox). --Type56op9 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


In Wiktionary:Wanted entries, there is an Aramaic word ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ. I wonder where this spelling comes from. It contains the diacritic ̈ (u0308, combining diaeresis). Although u0308 is not part of the Syriac Unicode block, there are over 5000 google hits for ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ, including some on Wikipedia. The word means Aramean, and the correct Aramaic spelling is ܐܪܡܝܐ (no diaeresis). ܐܪܡܝܐ has over 450,000 google hits, including some on Wikipedia. —Stephen (Talk) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It comes from CAL. I figured out at one point what it means, but I forget now. Either way, I would just add it to the Syriac and Aramaic diacritics in Module:languages/data3/a and Module:languages/data3/s so that it links to the right place. I wouldn't say the spelling is wrong. --WikiTiki89 12:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
w:Diaeresis (diacritic)#Other uses says Syriac uses it as a plural marker, i.e. to indicate the final aleph is rather than . --WikiTiki89 12:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding the diacritics to the modules, so using a template like this: {{l|arc|ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ}} should produce the correct ܐܪܡܝܐ link: ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ. It currently does not, I don't know what is wrong, but I will fix it soon. --WikiTiki89 14:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg fixed. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Wikitiki89: How likely is it that the etymon of the Ancient Greek Ἀραμαῖοι (Aramaîoi) is the Aramaic Syriac-script ܐܪܡܝܐ or the Aramaic Hebrew-script אָרָמָיָא or אֲרַמָּיָא? And what is the relationship between those three forms? Are they all simply the same word (but written in different scripts, like Hindi and Urdu)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The etymon is Aramaic and the script is irrelevant. ܐܪܡܝܐ and אָרָמָיָא are the same word and אֲרַמָּיָא is an alternate pronunciation (perhaps influenced by Hebrew אֲרַמִּי). Keep in mind that these words were written without vowels simply as ארמיא or even ארמייא. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Great, thanks. I note from the left-hand box in the preamble to Category:Aramaic language that Aramaic is written in five scripts; in which script should entries be lemmatised? Also, is it the case (as I assume from their transliterations) that all the vowels in אָרָמָיָא (ʾārāmāyā) are long, whereas in אֲרַמָּיָא (ʾărammāyā), the first two are short and the last two are long? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
We haven't really standardized Aramaic entries yet. I would prefer if they were lemmatized in Hebrew script, but I'm biased. You are right about the vowels in אָרָמָיָא (ʾārāmāyā) all being long, but in אֲרַמָּיָא (ʾărammāyā), the first one is actually "ultra-short" (but ultra-short vowels may actually have been pronounced exactly the same as their short counterparts, no one really knows). --WikiTiki89 20:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I see. Well, I for one do not feel qualified to comment on the matter (except to say that some kind of lemmatisation would be better than none). Thanks for the clarification re vowel lengths; since Ancient Greek (AFAIK) only has two lengths of vowel, I expect that any Aramaic short–ultra-short distinction would have been collapsed into Ancient Greek's short length. Does everything I've done to Ἀραμαῖοι look OK to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The etymology looks fine. I don't know enough about Greek to speak for the rest. Can vowel lengths be directly determined from Ancient Greek sources? --WikiTiki89 21:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Thank you. And re the vowel lengths, I don't know; the Diccionario Griego–Español makes no indication of their lengths. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about directly, but Ancient Greek prosody is based on the contrast between light/short and heavy/long syllables, and there are mora-based constraints on how far the accented mora can be from the final mora, so it's often possible to tell length of vowels in the last three syllables by looking at how the accent changes with inflection, and just about any syllable if you find the word in poetry. Of course, not all of the earlier texts show the accents, and many words have a fixed accent. Also, the circumflex accent can only go on a long syllable.
In this case, though, the length of the syllable in question is irrelevant to the position or type of the accent in the forms given in the Diccionario Griego–Español, and I don't know the details of the prosodic rules even if we had a text to work from. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: If it helps, the DGE cites Strabo (the text of which is present in the entry under Ἀραμαῖοι#Usage notes), T. Flavius Josephus, an AD-2nd-century historian called Abydenus (cf. w:Abydenus (apparently circa 200 BC, but perhaps the one meant, if either Wikipedia or the DGE is mistaken)), and someone named Posidonius who was either a 2nd-century-BC historian, a 2nd-/1st-century-BC philosopher (fully "Posidonius Apamensis"), or an AD-3rd-/-4th-century physician. Might any of that be poetry?
Anyway, the Latin Aramaeī, which is a descendant of the Ancient Greek Ἀραμαῖοι (Aramaîoi), is listed by Gaffiot as Arămæi; I don't know how Félix knew that the second a is short, but it's enough to make me question my assumption that Ancient Greek would have preserved the Aramaic long vowels. I'm going to remove the pronunciatory information from both those entries until I have some better evidence on which to base transcriptions. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
My 2c would be to lemmatize on either Hebrew or Syriac (de facto, most entries and translations I've encountered are in one of those scripts)... although it does seem odd that Aramaic has a titular script and yet I've not seen any entries use it. In any case, I would rule out Palmyrene as dialectal. What script do reference works on Aramaic use? - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I felt that, too. One would expect Aramaic to be written in… Aramaic. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well the thing is that all of these scripts were originally used for Aramaic. What's more is that they are all actually the same script just with letterforms that evolved in different ways; the set of consonants is exactly the same and maps one-to-one between scripts. The so-called "Hebrew" script is really the Jewish version of the Aramaic alphabet that had been adopted for Hebrew as well, replacing the Paleo-Hebrew (a.k.a. Phoenician) alphabet. The Syriac script is a cursive that developed later among non-Jews, since Jews avoided connecting letters (the Syriac script was also adopted in Arabia and evolved into the Arabic alphabet). And Unicode's so-called "Imperial Aramaic" script is just another duplicate set of codepoints intending to replicate the letterforms used during the Babylonian empire. As far as I know, no one uses the Imperial Aramaic Unicode codepoints for serious purposes (although we do have a few entries using them). The Syriac script is really only used for Classical Syriac and its descendants, while the Hebrew script is the only one that seems to be used more generally for any dialect. Which reminds me that Aramaic is a macrolanguage and thus the distiction between languages and dialects is unclear. We have a separate language code for Syriac, but not for Biblical Aramaic or Talmudic Aramaic, whose differences are no less than with Syriac. In short, it's complicated and maybe you should also hear from someone not biased towards the Hebrew script. --WikiTiki89 03:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
<facetious>Wait, wait, wait. We are clearly forgetting the most important and lemmatization-worth Aramaic script: the Samaritan alphabet!</facetious> (I do wish we had at least one Samaritan Aramaic lemma, though) —JohnC5 04:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm annoyed that I still haven't found a font that supports the Samaritan Unicode block. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Is any one of the scripts used to write Aramaic a true alphabet (as opposed to an abjad)? Also, if you find a font that supports the Samaritan Unicode block, please let me know, because I could do with one, too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No, they are all essentially abjads (though not exactly "true" abjads). And like I said, they all have the same core set of 22 graphemes. --WikiTiki89 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: What do you mean by "'true' abjads"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, in a "true" abjad, the letters would only represent consonants. Instead, there is abundant use of matres lectionis. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Gotcha. Which of the scripts can and cannot take niqqud? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Or harakat or analogous marks? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The Hebrew script and the Syriac script each have their own systems for vowel markings. The Hebrew script actually has obsolete alternate systems, some of which are similar to the Syriac system. Syriac itself has a few variations. Imperial Aramaic never had any vowel markings. --WikiTiki89 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Wikitiki89, I'm so meta even this acronym: Re Samaritan Aramaic, I too have wished there were a font. Do we not know of anyone within the wide world of Wikimedia whom we could ask to make use some Wikimedia fonts? I feel like there must be someone... —JohnC5 20:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Font support for Unicode block Samaritan. —Stephen (Talk) 21:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. They all seem to display Samaritan left-to-right, rather than correctly right-to-left, but still they are better than nothing. --WikiTiki89 22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that, they work fine. --WikiTiki89 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
At long last I can view the Samaritan in this etymology! —JohnC5 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling that's spelled wrong anyway (as a reverse transliteration from the transliteration). --WikiTiki89 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Here's the source. I have no idea. —JohnC5 23:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so I was half right. The Samaritans themselves were the ones who spelled it wrong, not us. --WikiTiki89 23:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I'm rather busy of late, but if there are any other scripts you cannot find a font for, I sometimes make fonts. I think Liliana also sometimes makes fonts. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't numerals link to their plurals?[edit]

No link from billion to billions, or from quindecillion to quindecillions, etc. Shouldn't the "Numeral" part of speech support a plural, like "Noun" does? Equinox 11:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Billion is a noun, not a numeral. It's always preceded by some other determiner. —CodeCat 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep. "Billions of dollars", but not "five billions dollars". "the decimal for 1/3 has lot's of threes in it", but not "threes feet". Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
These entries clearly need revisiting, then, to change them to nouns. Equinox 14:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) "Billion" is both a noun and a numeral and should have a separate POS header for each. Chuck gave examples of it being a noun. Examples of it being a numeral are "a billion apples" (not "a billion of apples"), "three billion apples" (not "three billions of apples"). --WikiTiki89 14:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the principal use of billion is as a noun. One large class of such uses is as a component of cardinal numbers (subset of numerals). It is of a class of similar words like dozen, ten, score, trillion, googleplex and an open class of others. This class has a usage pattern that differs from terms like two, forty-three, two billion. Though all numerals could in principle be used as plural nouns (in forty-threes ("in groups of 43")), most have a very, very small ratio of plural to unmarked usage. It seems silly to include noun sections for most numerals. OTOH we are clearly missing something by not including the noun PoS for words like billion. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to have both numeral and noun PoS sections for the simple numeral words and only numeral PoS sections for the compound numerals, like forty-three. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
We went through a discussion on this issue some time ago, with no progress. I'd favor including a Noun section for terms like hundred, thousand, million, billion, trillion, but agree that it would be unproductive to do so for most numerals. We will, of course, also need a Noun section for those numeral terms with additional definitions when used as a noun, such as one referring to a one-dollar bill. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Where does something like threes fit into this? Purplebackpack89 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Plural of three, Noun section. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we would also need thirties, as in "Today's high temperature will be in the low thirties", etc., but not one-hundred-thirties. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the numbers below 200 are probably attested in the plural, either from things like "her heart rate was in the one hundred thirties" (a real example from google books:"one hundred thirties") or "she ordered two seventy-fives" (from the menu), or "he wrote three ninety-ones" (he wrote "91 91 91"), etc. - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
How would one give one-hundred-thirty a definition that was substitutable in the plural? For that matter, how would one define thirty to do so?
It's all coming back to me now: this is why I never got much involved in the PoS header debates about Cardinal number, Ordinal Number, Number, and Numeral. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym:: Maybe I should rephrase: Doesn't threes (or thirties) have the same problem in its relationship to three (or thirty) that billions has to billion? Purplebackpack89 04:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: They're analogous, yes, but what's the problem? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym:: I guess the problem is the problem Equinox posited to begin this thread. Purplebackpack89 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Yeah, but I think that's been resolved now. IMO, we should add noun sections to all the entries for numerals which have nominal usage attested. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
All well and good, but who will do it? The more essential part of this is to get the non-compound number words corrected and to get appropriate definitions for the plural senses. It would be necessary to define thirties as something like "the numbers, usually the integers, from 30 to 39 or the associated quantity, such as temperature or year." I don't know whether a single definition is sufficient even with usage examples for the important instances. DCDuring TALK 15:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think for things like "in the thirties" or "in the three-hundreds", we would need separate plurale tantum lemmas. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: What are your thoughts on the definition I've added to thirties and the similar one I added to nineties? Purplebackpack89 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Wikitiki89: The OED (2nd ed., 1989) has:
  1. twenty, numeral a. and n. B.4. “pl. The numbers from 20 to 29; the years in a century or of one's life, or the degrees of any scale (e.g. of a thermometer) so numbered.”
  2. thirty, a. and n. B.2. “the thirties: the years of which the numbers begin with 30; the fourth decade of a century.”, B.2.b. “attrib. spec. Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the 1930s.”
  3. forty, a. and n. B.1.b. “the forties: the years between 40 and 50 of a century or of one's life.”
  4. fifty, a. and n. B.2.b. “the fifties: the years between fifty and sixty in a particular century or in one's life.”
  5. sixty, a. and n. B.2. “Sixty years of age. Also sixty-one, sixty-two, etc.”, B.3. “pl. The years from 60 to 69 in a century or in a person's life. Now spec. the period 1960–9.”
  6. seventy, a. and n. B.1. “A set of seventy persons or things; †a period of seventy years.”, B.2. “the seventies: the decade 70 to 79 in a particular century or in a person's life.”
  7. eighty, a. (n.) 2. “quasi-n.   a. The age of eighty years.   b. the eighties: the years between eighty and ninety in a particular century.”
  8. ninety, a. and n. 2. “the nineties.   a. The degrees of a thermometer between ninety and a hundred.   b. The years between ninety and a hundred in a particular century or in a person's life; (spec.) the years between 1890 and 1899. Also attrib.”
Notable also are two third-edition (September 2003) entries:
  1. ninety, adj. and n. B.2. “Ninety people or things identified contextually, as years of age, pounds, degrees (esp. Fahrenheit), etc.”, B.4. “In pl. Also 'Nineties. Freq. with the. The numbers from ninety to ninety-nine inclusive. [¶] a. Freq. with capital initial. The years from ninety to ninety-nine inclusive in a particular century (esp. the 19th or 20th). […¶] b. The years of a person's life between turning ninety and one hundred. [¶] c. The degrees of a thermometer from ninety to ninety-nine inclusive Fahrenheit (equivalent to approx. 32–8°C), esp. indicating very hot weather.”
  2. nineties, adj. a. “attrib. Of, relating to, or characteristic of the years from ninety to ninety-nine inclusive in a particular century (esp. the 19th or 20th).”
Perhaps all that can inspire a solution. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον[edit]

What is our policy on proper nouns with an article in the middle? Should the full form be τὸ Πνεῦμᾰ τὸ Ἅγῐον? —JohnC5 07:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Why is this in RFV? Did you mean to post in the TR?
2. I'm pretty sure our informal policy is for pagetitles to be just as Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον (Pneûma tò Hágion) is currently formatted; cf. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (Aléksandros ho Mégas) (which really should created, but I don't feel like doing it right now). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right, it should be in TR. I...well...oops. To be honest, we can just take this down, if you say that's how it is normally done―I was just curious. —JohnC5 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

About the word precedence[edit]

Hi everyone anyone can elaborate to me please the word precedence that we use in making a gantt chart? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 09:35, 5 June 2015.

  • In a Gantt chart, precedence is used to describe the fact that one task needs to finish before another can begin. The first task has precedence over the second. The form of a Gantt chart showing these precedences is called a precedence network. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentience vs. Sapience[edit]

The word Sentient has been used in science-fiction to denote self awareness, i.e. in alien lifeforms and artificial intelligence. -But is this perhaps a popular misnomer?

I was convinced sentience implied the ability to feel through senses, whereas the word sapience more accurately described an entity capable of wisdom and/or self awareness. (i.e. Homo Sapiens).

Is this the case and can we change the corresponding articles?

GH0S7M4N (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Equinox 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into the etymology: sentiēns can refer to feeling through senses, but it can also refer to perceiving mentally- either way, the meaning of the English word is independent of the meaning of the Latin word it came from. My favorite illustration of the problem with your approach is the word nice, which comes from nescius (ignorant, not knowing). English means what speakers of English have used and have understood it to mean, not what its etymology might suggest it should mean. That's not to say that it can't also mean "feeling through senses"- but that would depend on whether English speakers actually use it that way, and it's not the primary meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

driving school[edit]

I've added a few translations for driving school today. Then I thought "SOP?". How about language school? Both seem both SOP and non-SOP at the same time, which is kind of Schrödingerly. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A few lemmings have this. driving school at OneLook Dictionary Search shows quite a few, but some are empty, others are just followers of WordNet. The principal departure from full transparency is that these are not stereotypical schools, but the use of the term school to include training in vocational or hobby skills (eg, cooking, secretarial skills, cosmetology) is common. DCDuring TALK 09:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Collins[5] and Macmillan[6] have it and there are multiple single-word non-compound translations (see edit summary of the creation), I went ahead and created the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    I may be wrong in stating that the translations are non-compounds. Nonetheless, the translations cannot be obtained by word-for-word translation of "driving school"; they seem to be like "car school". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A new taxlink template?[edit]

{{taxlink}} is used in many of the entries that include taxonomic names. I am interested in whether there is any interest in or objection to a new version.

Current version: Microcotylidae
Draft of new version: MicrocotylidaeWP WSp Commons
The draft version in an entry is at microcotylid, but there is no corresponding project page in any of the the three projects.

The differences in the new one are:

  1. missing Wiktionary entries are more apparent and "what links here" works on hovering over the redlink.
  2. it is more clear that clicking on the superscripted items leads on to another project
  3. links to Wikipedia and WikiCommons are added
  4. the links to other projects could remain even if a Wiktionary article existed

All of these differences count as advantages to me personally in working on the entries, but they are by no means essential.

This is a draft version. A more mature version would show a black superscripted link if a parameter were set, as when there is no corresponding article in a project. The link to Commons should be to a category, which almost always exists, not a page, which often doesn't exist. A further complexifying improvement would allow alternative names for each project link, most useful for WP, which often uses vernacular names for articles on taxa. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The redlink is good, since you can't create an entry via the current template's display. Eventually a preload would be nice. The WP link is probably a good idea, since WSp is almost useless to the average user if there isn't an exact match- which is quite frequent with older names. Commons linking is pretty pointless for non-editors more often than not. As for the links staying: I consider those a poor stopgap substitute, since they're normally just guesses at where further information might be. They're often better than nothing, but that's not saying much. By the way: could you make it so your examples here don't add categories to this page? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thanks for the assessment.
I wondered whether Commons was worth the space it takes up. I suppose it would help to display "Images" instead of "Commons", but is that enough to help users get value from the complication?
Wikispecies links are at least usually to the taxonomic name, whereas WP links would need to be to a vernacular name. Another approach is to always put the most common vernacular name (where there is a common vernacular name) or the one used by WP next to the taxonomic name. Then the vernacular name would bear the WP link and the taxon only the Wikispecies link, plus the Commons/Images link, should it be retained.
I wish I could avoid the inappropriate categorization. I can barely manage what little I do with templates. I will attempt to mimic what other templates do, unless it involves Module space. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

different kettle of fish, kettle of fish[edit]

Can anyone confirm that the kettle of fish is rather awkwardly linked to can of worms as a synonym? My reading is that this synonym is listed for the "different situation" (the one with non-negative connotation) meaning while "can of worms" is generally a troublesome situation which carries a negative connotation, right? Sorry for barging in like this, but this is related to some other term I created recently so I'm kind of in a hurry because I'm feeling rather blank. Cheers! --biblbroksдискашн 19:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I basically agree with your assessment. I had noticed the awkwardness of the claimed synonymy but did nothing about.
I agree that kettle of fish is neutral in its application whereas can of worms is used in situations that are negative, especially because they are complex, hard to define, or awkward to deal with. One dictionary defines can of worms as "an intertwined set of problems", which captures a much of the metaphor. I think can of worms is used of situations that can be ignored, ie, they are not worth solving. Another suggested synonym for can of worms is hornets' nest, but that metaphor suggests some danger and accident. Some dictionaries suggest Pandora's box, but that suggests overwhelming difficulties, beyond human ability to control. Each metaphor brings different connotations to a crude, WordNet-like definition which might have them as synonyms. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Glad to know my guess was not wrong. Anyway, I modified the entry which was bugging me because of this situation with the "kettle of fish" (if anyone's interested it is the drugi par opanaka#Serbo-Croatian entry). Don't know if kettle of fish should be adjusted, though. --biblbroksдискашн 12:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


See google books:"bo't of". What's it mean? "he or the Thomas Wright next above, bo't of John Wright" suggests it could mean "brother", but then there are things like "Daniel Cox; [...] bo't of Edward Billing" where that interpretation seems less likely. The plural seems to be "bo't", see google books:"two bo't of". - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say bought. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Aha! That seems likely. Thank you. - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of English words with -ag-[edit]

For dragon and others with -ag- I fail to hear /æ/ for some reason.

Either I forgot the pronunciation myself, or that dialect differences, or that the surrounding sounds just make it hard for my own ears to detect.

I live in Canada. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I hear /æ/ in my pronunciation, and also in standard UK & US pronunciations (I live in the US). I have heard variation regionally where the sound is slightly different, but not so much that I could consider it a different vowel sound. The case may be different in some part of Canada, and I'd not be surprised if it differed in Australia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on where you are in Canada, your accent may have æ-tensing before velar consonants, resulting in pronunciations like [ˈdreɡən] or [ˈdrɛɡən]. —JohnC5 03:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There we go. I knew it was some sort of accent issue. Thanks for the answer. Hillcrest98 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


This entry has no part of speech, it just says "word". Is nothing at all known about it, other than that it is used? What should its part of speech be? —CodeCat 18:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As it is now, the entry should be deleted; it has absolutely no information and is completely useless. If we locate that requested quotation, then it would be worth keeping, and it might help us decide what header to use. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not completely useless. It indicates that authorities have found the search for the meaning to be fruitless. WT:CFI says: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." There is nothing in CFI that says that a term has to actually have a definition or a PoS. If our entry structure and category have no room for such things, so much the worse for them. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be completely useless if there were at least a quotation. --WikiTiki89 18:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Added. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Is more context available for that? DCDuring TALK 13:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: The pertaining footnote (by the editor, Karl Otfried Müller, I assume) reads:
  • 6. Amosio annuo] glossa obscurissima. Scal. contulit: Annos, annua πολυετής, ut legitur in Glossario Labb. et corr. in Paulo: annos, annua. Annos autem vult deflecti in genitivum annotis, unde annotinus.
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I hadn't followed the links in the entry. The entry has as much context as any real Latinist could want. DCDuring TALK 14:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
My Latin is not so great. Could someone explain to me what this book is? If the surrounding lines are relevant, they should be added. If not, this quotation is pretty useless. --WikiTiki89 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The quotation is of the only known use. Attestation in Latin requires but one use AFAIK. You have come to the same conclusion as the three authorities cited without having spent half a lifetime on classical language studies. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you haven't answered my question about what this book is and what the surrounding lines are about. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That's because I can't. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Because you can't, or because no one can? --WikiTiki89 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Wikitiki89: The citation comes from a nineteenth-century edition of Paul the Deacon's epitome of Sextus Pompeius Festus's De significatione verborum (On the meaning of words), itself an epitome of the De verborum significatu of Verrius Flaccus (55 BC–AD 20); accordingly, it counts as a Classical Latin citation (which is why it is cited by the Oxford Latin Dictionary). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So why is this not counted as a mention in a dictionary? --WikiTiki89 16:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: According to WT:CFI#Number of citations, that is neither here nor there vis-à-vis Latin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So is this book in our "list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention"? --WikiTiki89 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: If that source is good enough for Lewis & Short, du Cange, Gaffiot, and the OLD, then it certainly should be for us. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It is an impressive set of lemmings to follow. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Other dictionaries have different criteria from us. If CFI says we have to have a list of appropriate sources for mentions, then we have to have such a list and follow it. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: OK. Well, on its own strengths, Paulus Diaconus' epitome epitomes of Verrius Flaccus' De verborum significatu is one of three major dictionaries of the Latin language to have survived from antiquity; the other two are Nonius Marcellus' De compendiosa doctrina and Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae. A mention in any one of those sources should definitely be sufficient for any one of our entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
If that is the case, then we should have a list and this should be on it. I don't get why this is so difficult. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Where does the list go? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No idea. Maybe we even already have one. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I've put the list in Wiktionary:About Latin#Attestation, for want of a better place for it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that the added quotation is one. Doesn't the original text mean that the word just means annuo? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Yes, but annuo the verb, adjective, noun, or adverb? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I suppose we could look for inflected forms. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Of annuo or amosio? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There’s {{uncertain}} for this type of situation. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As the noun and the adjective are just inflected forms, it should refer to the verb annuo (well, 1.ps.sg.act. is an inflected form too, but some dictionaries &c. use that form as the basic formm and not the infinitive). And if amosio is a synonym of the verb annuo, then it should be a verb too. ... 07:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You would have to look at the rest of this particular dictionary and see if it follows that pattern. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@, Wikitiki89: It doesn't. Compare perfinēs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Are dative or ablative nouns ever used as entries in it? --WikiTiki89 18:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about such forms of nouns, but consider this:
Ulteriōre is an ablative singular comparative adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually meant to say nouns or adjectives. But yes, you've shown that it could be any one of the meanings of annuo. --WikiTiki89 19:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Aye, unfortunately. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Food Broker[edit]

food broker is marked for deletion, fine, Wikipedia didn't want it either. I'd like to know where my citations went though? Like to know why it didn't meet the criteria for a Wiktionary article? —This comment was unsigned.

In principle citations for food broker would be at Citations:food broker, but the "References" don't look like they would meet the requirement of valid citations. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

possible new sense of take?[edit]

From rasselas, prince of abyssinia, by johnson: "Here Imlac entered, and interrupted them. “Imlac,” said Rasselas, “I have been taking from the Princess the dismal history of private life, and am almost discouraged from further search.”" (very beginning of chapter XXX) Take obviously has many senses, but I looked through the existing entry and this doesn't seem to fit any of them.

  • It is a short form of take down - meaning take notes. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on context, I don't think so. They (rasselas and the princess) have a long conversation but there's no indication that he was writing anything and it seems out of place to use that here. If you disagree please read the preceeding chapter, the book is long out of copyright and on gutenberg if you'd like.Telmac (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
      • In this context, I think it means "learn", which is pretty common. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Not so sure, certainly "take a course", but that's intuitively for me not the same sense here, and if you look at the definition given on the current wiktionary page for the "take a course" sense it's definitely not the same. Telmac (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out the deficiency. I agree that we lack the appropriate definition. MWOnline, for example, has "to get in or as if in writing <take notes> <take an inventory>" (emphasis added) among its 80 or so transitive definitions of take. (There are also 11 intransitive definitions.) We don't seem to have a corresponding definition among the 30 or so that we have that are labelled as transitive, nor do we have one that can be imagined to include that definition and usage AFAICT. We also have many definitions that are not labelled as either transitive or intransitive.
Common verbs like take, get, set are among the hardest terms to get a comprehensive set of definitions for. You may want to check with other dictionaries at OneLook.com, eg take at OneLook Dictionary Search, especially the more complete ones available there, such as MWOnline, American Heritage, Random House, and Webster New World. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Another possible definition from MWOnline is "to accept as true : believe <I'll take your word for it>". DCDuring TALK 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I have overhauled take quite extensively. I suppose the quotation above is using the sense "assume, suppose" (I take it from her comments...), "draw, derive or deduce" ("what moral to take from this story"), or "get in or as if in writing" ("took a mental inventory"). - -sche (discuss) 17:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

well, well and well, well, well[edit]

Previously "well, well" said "(dated, US, Canada)", but it is also used in the UK, where it is not dated. I'm not sure how to indicate in the "context" tag that it is current in the UK but dated in the US and Canada. I tried something but it may not be right. Please someone fix it if it's meant to be done in another way. Whatever is done to "well, well" also needs to be done to "well, well, well" which is also current usage in the UK. Thanks. 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Done and done. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! 17:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
well, well is dated in the US ? Leasnam (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, wellX2 was much more common than wellX3 fomerly, but they seem more or less equal according to a quick look at COHA. Both seem in decline. DCDuring TALK 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Can we verify the pronunciation /ˈd(j)uːʃi/, which (depending on the yod-droppingness of one's accent) is either homophonous or rhymes with douchy? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's more like "dutchy" in the UK (ˈdʌ.tʃi/ probably, but I don't do IPA). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In the US, too, which is why I'm skeptical that it's ever pronounced "d(y)ooshey". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ, SemperBlotto: The OED lists only the pronunciation /ˈdʌtʃɪ/, which is the only pronunciation I've ever heard (well, more like SB's /ˈdʌtʃi/, really). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
In the UK I only ever hear /ˈdʌtʃiː/. I'm not a pronunciation expert (far from it), but I have never understood the common dictionary practice of showing -y words pronounced as -ɪ, the same vowel as in "fit" or "hit", for example. For example, if you look at http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/duchy, the pronunciation is given as dʌtʃɪ, but for me the speaker in the sound clip clearly says "-ee" at the end. I don't know if my ears are wrong, or if I am misunderstanding how IPA works. 17:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You should visit the north of England where the short "/ɪ/" ending is common ("city" being pronounced with two identical vowels), though I admit that the Third Edition of the OED is making concessions to your southern pronunciation. Dbfirs 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Dictionaries, especially older ones, often give /ɪ/ for the final vowel of words like pretty and honey, because that used to be a widespread sophisticated pronunciation in upper-class British English (RP), and was also found in other varieties such as Southern U.S. English. Nowadays dictionaries are moving towards using /i/ instead to reflect the most common vowel in current speech. (See Phonological history of English high front vowels#Happy-tensing for more.) However, what I'm interested in is the first syllable of this word, since our article currently claims there's an alternative pronunciation "d(y)ooshey", which I would like to remove if it can't be confirmed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove it. It is not in MW or ODE. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Months in Albanian[edit]

What is correct form and capitalisation of months in Albanian? ie. English Wiktionary has word qershor for June (copied across other languages), but Albanian Wiktionary and Wikipedia has article sq:Qershori. --Mikko Paananen (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The results in google books:"qershor" and google books:"qershori" all seem to be lowercase when in the middle of a sentence. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Is there really a singular noun? Isn't it always used in the plural? 02:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Having written that, I thought of an example: "This surrounding protects the X from the Y", when describing a mechanism or the like. But that's not a sense given in the entry as it stands. 02:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

οὐδείς#Ancient Greek[edit]

Are the dual and the feminine/neuter plural attestable? In several dictionaries (Logeion ~> LSJ &c.; Pape) and grammar books (Smyth (& Messing); Goodwin) only singular and masculine plural are mentioned... - 06:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Now this looks like a noun, but it does not seem to be used alone - only in combinations such as bluntnose sixgill shark and bluntnose minnow. How do we define such words? (may be as an adjective - a form of blunt-nosed?) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It could be a noun that is frequently used "attributively". I can find a few standalone uses, even in the plural, such as
  • 1872, Oneida circular, volumes 9-10, page 235:
    These crested Bluntnoses we found upon all the islands. The slightly crested Bluntnose we found only on Albemarle and Indefatigable.
  • 1872, Our Dumb Animals, volumes 5-8, page 262:
    The Bluntnoses (lizards) were more shy than we had expected.
(curiously both from the same year) - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll define it accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

pale shadow[edit]

Is it, or "pale shadow of", idiomatic? - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

shadow ("An imperfect and faint representation" (Wiktionary sense 6); "an attenuated form or a vestigial remnant" (MWOnline)); pale (feeble, faint).
I think not. DCDuring TALK 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
But the collocation is common enough that it belongs somewhere in a usex. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
See pale#Adjective sense 3. DCDuring TALK 18:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Just made the page kaputski. It's a curious etymology. I'd appreciate it a lot if the page could look like decent. Also, I was rather sad to find that there is no Category:Faux-German faux-Russian English colloquialisms --Type56op9 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Relative newbie here. Doesn't this need citations? 22:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. You are confusing us with Wikipedia. Here a word must meet the criteria of WT:CFI, which in a nutshell is that the word be attested (through clearly widespread use, or use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year). The attestation does not have to accompany the entry unless someone challenges it (WT:RFV). —Stephen (Talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I will give those pages a decent read. It's just that I heard the tem in Peter Tosh's Steppin' Razor on YouTube here and lyrics here, and nowhere else. Chuck, yes, Chucky, no, save where someone sticks a "y" into any random name. 23:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The entry explains that it is a diminutive of the male given name Chuck. Chucky is pretty common in the U.S. Have a look here. —Stephen (Talk) 23:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Google book search. Very good, and thanks again. 23:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The definition says that "Chucky" is a diminutive of "Chuck". But Chuck itself is usually a diminutive of "Charles". Shouldn't Charles be linked at least somewhere? Purplebackpack89 00:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    Good catch. Yes, IMO.
    Interesting (to me, being unschooled in phonetics) that so many male English nicknames are monosyllabic ending in k (also t and p). The ones that don't so end more closely resemble the name they are a substitute for. DCDuring TALK 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How is Chuck a diminutive? DCDuring TALK 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a nickname for Charles, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a diminutive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
      Some of our Dutch contributors seem to toss the word diminutive around in a sense that doesn't seem right to me. In particular it is often inappropriate to use it to characterize many shortened forms of names. Jimmy I can accept as a diminutive of James, but not Jim. Further, both might be nicknames for James, but nowadays they are often used as given names themselves. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
A number of entries, particularly those related to "Charles", appear to use the word "diminutive" where many English speakers would use "nickname". Chuck, Chucky, Chaz, Chas and Charlie are all nicknames whose entries refer to them as diminutives. Purplebackpack89 20:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I could accept Charlie/Charley as diminutives, but not the others. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
According to Wolfram|Alpha, even Chaz is used as a given name for births in the US more than a hundred times per year, Charlie 1551 times a year, Charly 103 times per year, and Charley 89 times per year. Perhaps our assumptions about using nickname as the sole definition is wrong. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a lot, when you compare to Charles or Michael, or to the total universe of boy names in a given year. And while they may be given names now, they all were originally (and still can be) nicknames of Charles. Purplebackpack89 05:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
But birth records are durably archived. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps hypocoristic of as it refers both to nicknames and diminutives? —JohnC5 07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Another contribution toward making Wiktionary less likely to be used by normal folks, but more fun for us. And it doesn't actually solve the problem, just adding an obscure synonym for nickname, that has another definition that is completely inappropriate. DCDuring TALK 10:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring, go with "nickname". Are there any true diminutives that aren't analysable as nicknames? - -sche (discuss) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why we don't have two definitions, by rebuttable presumption, for any name that is a nickname to recognize that it is also "A forename, a name chosen for a child, usually by the child's parents; a first name.", ie, a given name.
BTW, forename is a decidedly uncommon word in both COCA and BNC. Why is it used as a defining term with respect to English names? I can easily understand why we wouldn't want to use Christian name as a defining term. But why not use first name? DCDuring TALK 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Google Ngrams gives "first name" as about eight times as common as "forename" in British English, but the latter is a single word and tends to be used as a field heading in databases. The problem with "first name" is that it is (marginally) more likely to be misunderstood by those who put their "given name" last. By the way, "forename" is about half as common as "given name" in British English. Dbfirs 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

New word[edit]

I would like to suggest a new word in the following category. Chinglish = Chinese/English Tinglish = Thai/English New word: Taiwanglish = Taiwanese/English —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 07:25, 14 June 2015.

  • Feel free to use it. If enough other people use it and it gets into print we could probably eventually add it here. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@ We already have entries for Chinglish and Tinglish. New words must meet the requirements of WT:CFI to be given entries. Fortunately enough, whilst Taiwanglish is rare, the results yielded by searching google books:"Taiwanglish" and google groups:"Taiwanglish" show that the word just about qualifies for inclusion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You could add your word here: Appendix:List of protologisms. - 06:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've created an entry for it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"tuck your stomach in"[edit]

What does tuck mean in "tuck your stomach in"? Does it mean to suck your stomach in? I read about it here. I'm not sure we cover this sense at tuck or suck. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's confusing "suck your stomach in" with "tuck your shirt in". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it definitely means to look sharp while doing so. Simply sucking in your stomach can make your midsection look hollow and concave. Tucking implies making it look neat, like tucking in your shirt. Leasnam (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
"Simply sucking in your stomach can make your midsection look hollow and concave." Maybe for some people. I don't think that's how you can define it. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they're confusing it with ‘suck’ at all – I often hear ‘tuck’. In yoga you hear it all the time – ‘tuck your stomach’. It means to tighten your abdominal muscles, rather than to suck your whole stomach in concavely. Ƿidsiþ 13:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

incorrigable - request[edit]

incorrigable: Can someone make a new page for this word, and add the necessary information? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 22:03, 15 June 2015.

I think you mean incorrigible; we have it. Equinox 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
But in the future, if we really don't have it, you can add it yourself rather than asking someone else to do it. --WikiTiki89 22:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Incorrigable occurs about 1,100 times (1/1,000th as often as incorrigible) in Google books (raw count), not at all in COCA. It may seem to DanP that we must have it as a common misspellling, but not to me. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW: I can find references which proscribe the "-able" spelling since at least the 1850s. With the same searches, I can also find uses of it in Kindergarten Primary Magazine, the documents of the Michigan State legislature, and two dictionaries, viz. Cartwright's 1907 Siamese-English Dictionary and the 1879 Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testament: Or, A Dictionary and Alphabetical Indix to the Bible, but those works all also use the "-ible" spelling, suggesting that their uses of the "-able" spelling are unintentional errors rather than intentional uses of a not-standard spelling. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Do we still limit misspellings to "common" ones? Is this common enough? DCDuring TALK 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That French pphhrrt noise[edit]

When French people are unsure about something or don't care about it, sometimes they do the "pphhrrt" noise. (Close your mouth and squirt air towards the front, so it comes out in a sort of plosive fart.) The usage is a bit like pfft in English, but less sarcastic, and the sound is different. Has this sound got a name, or even a spelling? Is there a writeable interjection? Equinox 00:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The best candidates I found at Wiktionnaire are fr:peuh, fr:pfut, and fr:putt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

must be something in the water/air[edit]

...which is causing people to behave a certain way. Worth an entry? - -sche (discuss) 09:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Also genes, blood, food. Variations on water include drinking water, coffee, and snow (about Minnesota). This often (more than half the time) occurs without must be.
OTOH there are the uses of must be/must have been with other nouns without something in the, mostly variations on water, air, genes, and blood, eg, coffee.
It seems like a snowclone or "construction", the noun representing a mysterious common cause, but it shades into the construction with any cause not known with certainty.
It is easy to understand why, on the one hand, no OneLook dictionary has it, but on the other hand there are titles of authored works that have the form something in the X.
By my lights this doesn't make a good entry. Our efforts to have snowclone-type entries don't seem to have much traction either. DCDuring TALK 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

rip, ripper (CD, DVD. etc)[edit]

Shouldn't the "copy"/"produce (a copy) from an original" senses of rip appear under a separate etymology header as back-formations from (or at least "influenced by") rip off? The usage seems much more common in the context of copying copyrighted material than simply converting from one format or medium to another. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure that it has anything to do with rip off? I always thought of it as a metaphor for physically tearing the content off of the disk, not as scamming someone. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
If I were sure, I would have just made the change. And I am interested in the early uses of the term. Now the terms are so common and much extended to many situations that your reaction may be typical.
One use of the term is with the object being the destination form of the copy. I think that is a development of the early use, which had the source as object.
But why does the use of rip (when the object noun is the source of the copying) even now have a higher relative frequency of use with copyrighted content than with other sources? For example, one might say "I ripped the CD of his wedding photos", but it doesn't seem to me as good a use of the expression as "I ripped all the movie DVDs in his collection". DCDuring TALK 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, "rip" is only used when copying a disk formatted using CD/DVD specific formats onto a file system, regardless of the copyright status of the content. A CD with wedding photos is already a file system, no different from an external hard drive, and is therefore copied, not ripped. Copying a CD/DVD to another CD/DVD is also copying and not ripping, regardless of its copyright status. --WikiTiki89 14:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I had a look on usenet (which is where I'd expect the term to have development), and I can't find much evidence that would suggest an evolution from "rip off". If there was, you'd expect there to be use of "rip" with other media that carry copyrighted material - game floppies or cassette tapes, for instance. There's one use of "rip tapes" that clearly uses it to mean "copy copyrighted material", but otherwise, there's virtually no use of "rip" that I can find pre-2000 that doesn't refer to CDs - the earliest hit for "rip a tape" is someone pedantically explaining that you can't rip tapes because they're not digital! Similarly, one early post makes a pedantic distinction between copying a CD and ripping it (i.e. turning its contents into a computer file). I think the rip off definition may have helped the term stick in the mind, but I don't think it was the main influence on the term. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for stilling the nagging suspicion. It is at most "influenced by" rip off, but not sufficiently or known with sufficient certainty to be worth documenting. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The OED cross-references the CD sense of the verb with "rip off" without actually saying this is the etymology. Its first citation for the verb "rip" in this sense is "1982 Business Week 31 May 28/3 The user who rips off (an applications) software program and makes a copy to give a friend is a different class of pirate." SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It is unclear whether in that quote "rip off" is meant as "to scam" or just "rip" + "off". --WikiTiki89 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It is quite clear from history that by 1982 the "to steal" sense was what was intended, especially by the copyright owners who, then and now, attempt to establish that cpying copyrighted material is stealing. They would probably hav been able to influence the content of the Business Week article to that extent. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Where does the plural -s come from here (and in the related Mädels)? Surely these words are too deeply ingrained in the German language for this to be French or English influence - it seems as unlikely as childs becoming an acceptable plural for child. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a Low German suffix. It's been applied to a number of words, such as Jungs, Jungens, Mädels, Muttis, Lebehochs, Vergissmeinnichts, Stelldicheins and Eingesandts, and words ending in -er and -el that otherwise have plurals indistinguishable from their singulars, e.g. Lehrers, Lagers, Onkels, etc — but it's been the subject of some push and pull. The January 1908 Zeitschrift des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins (23rd year, number 5, page 158) calls it "a desired and, as far as we can see, the only help for making [certain widerspenstige] words plural", and says "North German Sprachgefühl which hasn't been influenced by schoolmasters finds nothing objectionable about it"; the paper pooh-poohs those who pooh-pooh the suffix. But in 1927, Theodor Steche suggests in Die neuhochdeutsche Wortbiegung "that the efforts of the German language to again remove the plural suffix -s should be most emphatically supported and promoted by the linguistic community and schools." In the end, -s has remained the or an acceptable plural of some words, e.g. Jungs, Mädels, Muttis, while it is not accepted in the modern standard language on Vergissmeinnicht, Lehrer, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Some more off the top of my head: Schals, Staus, Uhus; then there are things like Lunchs, Sandwichs, and Generals (attested but less common than Generäle) where the -s is clearly not borrowed from English and French since English has -es and French has généraux. Heide Wegener, a professor at Potsdam, has written extensively about the plural in German and has argued that -s is the most productive plural ending in German despite not being the most common plural ending. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • In case of General the -s can be and (at least sometimes) is borrowed from English (cf. general, plural generals). E.g. Command & Conquer: Generals (censored: Generäle) uses the English plural. Also, though I'm not sure if is uses a plural, Star Wars: The Clone Wars (CGI series) uses the English pronunciation of "general", not the German one of "General" and thus "generals" would be the English form in this case.
  • English lunchs - and most likely also sandwichs - should be attestable, though it might be rarer or non-standard, e.g. from an English book: "The psychologist drove the patient to various appointments, treated her to lunchs and dinners, and let the patient take care of her dog for a week." (Maybe one could argue that it's just a misspelling, but I'm not sure if it is.)
  • Uhu does or at least did also have the plural form Uhu (like (der) Lehrer has (die) Lehrer), similar with Känguruh (spelling reforms spelling: Känguru).
- 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever the individual examples, Angr and -sche are totally right. The plural -s is native German. It's just not High German, but Low German in origin and therefore occurs only in a relatively small number of standard words. Additional examples: Wracks, Decks (both of Low German origin). Kolmiel (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


In the article "ahead" several of the examples use "ahead of" with substantives. Wouldn't these be examples of prepostions as in the article "ahead of". Caeruleancentaur (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Please take a look at both ahead#Adverb and ahead of#Preposition. I've added or split definitions in both. I've moved all the "ahead of" usage examples and citations to ahead of and created usage examples where there weren't any. Feel free to make corrections, additions, or subtractions, or to discuss the entries further here. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Can exoticism also refer to an interest in things exotic? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

a line from Frim Fram Sauce[edit]

Can anyone help me decipher the meaning of this line from the song Frim Fram Sauce? I want the frim fram sauce with oss-en-fay with sha fafa on the side. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Well... according to one version, it's "Ausen fay", not "oee-en-fay", and "chafafa" or "cha fafa", not "sha fafa". But who knows? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • And according to [7] they are just made-up words. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


The usage note says "widely used" but the definition says "obsolete spelling", which seems contradictory to me. Which of these is correct? -- Liliana 11:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any massive contradiction here. The spelling is obsolete in that it was removed from Duden in 1996, but the trademark was not affected and remains in use as another word for hairdryer. These dictionaries say more or less the same thing: PONS, Knapp, Wahrig. I've split the senses to avoid any doubt. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


E.g. werden - "ihr wärt geworden" can also be "ihr wäret geworden" (e.g. it's present at www.canoo.net/inflection/werden:V:sein?lookup=caseSensitive ). - 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that an archaic/literary form? -- Liliana 19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Relevant: WT:T:ADE#Obsolete_inflected_forms. - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Some ("weak") verbs have 2 passive forms and 2 past participles (e.g. lieben and loben). So there should be something like "pt2=" (past tense) and "pp2=" (past participle). - 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:color panel[edit]

Requesting the contents be modified to not involve tables (there is absolutely no need to use HTML tables for something so basic). See Template_talk:color_panelsuzukaze (tc) 22:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:de-noun [edit]

The template needs to be extended. German nouns can have at least 5 diminutives, so just "dim2=" isn't enough.

  • Sack ~> Säckchen, Säcklein; regional also: Sackerl, Säckelchen
  • Boot ~> Bötchen, Böötchen, Bootchen, Bötlein
  • Mann ~> Männchen, Männlein; regional also: Männeken
  • Spaß ~> Späßchen, Späßlein; regional also: Spaßerl, Späßken, Späßle.

So "dim3=", "dim4=" and "dim5=" should be added or Template:de-noun#Diminutive should be extended with a note like "Regional diminutives shall be mentioned in a usage note, not inside the header". - 05:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we should scrap the diminutive line all together. The only time I can it being useful is in strange edge cases like Boot, and explaining the umlauting there is probably too much information to cram into a heading. Many diminutives have become lexicalized to the extent that they're effectively words of their own, and as you say, there are many regional prefixes that have made some inroads into Standard German (in menus, I've seen Brötchen, Brötlein, Brötsche and Brötl, and Google shows that Brötken, Bröterl, Bröti and Brötle are also in use). Put diminutives below the entries, as we currently do for derived terms. A semi-automated template might be helpful. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've created a little demo template. You can see some test cases here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Leave the template as it is. The headline should include the normal standard forms, of which there are (with very, very few exceptions) just one or two. The other forms, if they should be added at all (which depends on the individual form), can be added as derived terms. Kolmiel (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


In entries there are sections like Synonyms, Antonyms, Hyponyms, Hypernyms, Derived terms. It might be that something like "Derived hyponyms" (i.e. hyponyms which are derived terms) and "Derived synonyms" isn't "generally accepted". Thus I'm requesting that such headings become generally accepted.
Sometimes a term is a derived term of another and also a hyponym or a synonym of it, e.g. Ehemann is derived from and synonym to Mann (in the sense of "husband") and e.g. Ruderboot is derived from and a hyponym to Boot. Thus instead of listing terms like

  • Term: Boot
  • Hyponyms: ...
  • Derived terms: Bootsfahrt, Ruderboot, Schlauchboot, ...


  • Term: Boot
  • Hyponyms: Ruderboot, Schlauchboot, ...
  • Derived terms: Bootsfahrt, ...

one could list it like this:

  • Term: Boot
  • Hyponyms: Ruderboot, Schlauchboot, ...
  • Derived terms: Bootsfahrt, Ruderboot, Schlauchboot, ...

In variant II. it's kind of redundant (listing terms twice), in variant I.a and I.b it's incomplete. Thus this is (sometimes) better:

  • Term: Boot
  • Hyponyms: ...
  • Derived hyponyms: Ruderboot, Schlauchboot ...
  • Derived terms: Bootsfahrt ...

There's no redundancy (every word is just mentioned once) and there's no incompleteness. - 06:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that says redundancy is a terrible thing. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

toward towards[edit]

Is the usage note about these words true of other -ward(s) terms? If so, it coul be expanded and used in more entries. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think toward and towards are the only ones that are prepositions, which is where the Usage note appears.
But the usage note would probably apply to most of the others, that are adverbs. I'll see if I can find something in CGEL, Biber, or Curme or maybe in BNC and COCA. DCDuring TALK 03:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing of use in the grammars, but Garner's says that -wards forms are more common in British English and -ward forms in US, which suggests no semantic difference, but since England owns the language, I guess the -wards forms must be correct. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I would hesitate to generalize. I say "backwards" more often than "backward", but "forward" more often than "forwards". --WikiTiki89 15:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That's why we rely on authorities and data.
At BNC: TOWARDS 27,017; TOWARD 1,153
At COCA: TOWARDS 20,767; TOWARD 119,788
It looks like Garner's did their homework. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What I meant is that you can't generalize it the same way to other words that end in -ward(s). Also, counting the number of usages does not tell you whether there is a difference in the way they are used. --WikiTiki89 16:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
COCA and BNC allow skeptics to do the required homework to satisfy themselves with any number of words. They are well worth the time for anyone interested in corpus-based discussion of words, as the allow searches that are impossible on Google. It even has (imperfect) PoS tags for greater selectivity. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
For backward(s) tagged as adverb:
BNC: backward: 179; backwards: 5342
COCA: backward: 5342; backwards; 3382
Not as overwhelming, but still Garner's 1, armchair 0. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you just proved my point that there is a difference between different words. Now the question remains, is there a difference for the same American speaker who uses both backward and backwards in the way he/she uses backward vs. the way he/she uses backwards? Looking just at numbers tells you nothing. --WikiTiki89 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It tells me something, which would be refutable had you any data or anything else to back up your position of no difference. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What position of no difference? --WikiTiki89 22:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The same also holds true for the adjectival use, interestingly, although the difference isn't as severe - although "backwards" as an adjective is usually proscribed in UK use (even the Guardian Style guide, which is less conservative than most, warns against it), it seems to be what British speakers generally use.
BNC: backward: 616; backwards: 1720
COCA: backward: 6810; backwards; 3388
Returning to adverbial use, I'd say that UK -wards, US -ward rule is fairly universal for common words, but it's less clear for rare ones. skywards obeys the rule, but inward, homeward, landward and seaward appear to be outliers in British use - they are more common as adverbs than inwards, homewards, landwards and seawards - but I don't know whether that's simply a function of them being rare and therefore statistically less significant. Bizarrely, all cardinal directions obey the rule except westward (but with 185 "westward"s against 179 "westwards"s, it's probably not statistically significant). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

water as an element[edit]

  • "(alchemy) One of the four basic elements of alchemy."
  • "(religion, philosophy) One of the five basic elements (see Wikipedia article on the Classical elements)."

Are these really distinct from each other and from sense 1 / 1.1, or is it just the case that water (that clear liquid, H2O) was once considered a basic element? (Compare: China is one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, but we don't need a separate sense line defining it as such.) - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In those senses it is part of a system of terms, ie, it has different coordinate terms. I think that makes the senses semantically distinct. Of course, I think iron is not just an element, but has folk definitions that are what the word means to most people in most contexts. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Our entry for water omits the basic folk sense, something like: "the clear liquid that falls as rain, makes up oceans, lakes, rivers and ponds, and is used for things such as drinking and washing"
I think starting our main water definition with "a chemical" is pretty poor (and redundant, since we go on to give its chemical formula). It is more germane that it's a liquid. "Chemical" typically implies something used in a lab, or with corrosive or acidic etc. properties, not something that is all around in the environment. Equinox 12:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what you get with nested definitions. My preferred sequence and structure is this:
1. Clear liquid that humans drink.
2. The substance of which liquid water and ice are various forms.
3. A serving of the clear liquid that humans drink.
4. ...
Those who feel pressed to nest senses turn the most natural leading sense 1 into a mere subsense of 2. A similar bad thing happened to cat entry, whose leading sense 1 "An animal of the family Felidae" is nearly non-nonexistent. We used to have sane water and cat entries, but some sort of people with a mindset very foreign to me prevailed, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been bold, and rewritten sense one. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Great job. Here is your definition, for ease of reference: "A substance (of molecular formula H₂O) found at room temperature and pressure as a clear liquid; it is present naturally as rain, and found in rivers, lakes and seas; its solid form is ice and its gaseous form is steam". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: "That's what you get with nested definitions."
Now there's a non sequitur. I could with at least as much justification say "Dispensing with folk/everyday definitions is what comes from the natural arrogant cryptoprescriptivism of educated amateur lexicographers who arrogantly assert the relevance of scientific-seeming definitions based on current knowledge over the everyday experience of every human."
In everyday experience, water, ice, vapor. and steam are distinct, though related. One set of definitions that focused on liquid water and its everyday use and another, perhaps the one that included chemistry, could focus on water as the underlying material that assumes these forms and exists in less than obvious forms in living things, clouds, and elsewhere. Other structuring could include water as a dilutant, unifying another group of definition.
BTW, the placement of the definition of water with respect to diamonds (or gems more generally?) in Etymology 1 is an endorsement of a speculative folk etymology over the etymology that would suggest it originating as a calque of Arabic for water, which is or was apparently used with this definition. The extended sense used in "of the first water" would naturally belong in the same group, if indeed the sense has any use in the gem trade or elsewhere in expressions like second water.
I suspect that such a structure of definitions would lead to translation targets that were better for some FLs, including dead languages. DCDuring TALK 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Etymology strikes me as fanciful for such a modern-seeming word. Isn't it just a relatively recent un- + green? Did this word really have currency prior to modern English? Equinox 04:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the Old English translation of Genesis (græs ungrene; sweart synnihte, wonne wægas), the Romance of the Rose and the Middle English Romance of the Rose (blossoms ungrene). It's not that surprising that people would recognize (or imagine) when a normally green plant was "ungreen", is it? - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
un-'s popularity has fluctuated up-and-down over the years, and it was arguably more productive in Old English and Early Modern English than in Modern English - nowadays, ungood has a very artificial sound to it, but it turns up in Beowulf and a lot of other Old English writing. Online Etymology Dictionary has a brief history. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


I heard the term fifteen-minuter in the TV series Psych where it was used for the contestants of a reality show (derived from 15 minutes of fame). Is it attestable in any of its forms (fifteen-minuter, fifteen minuter, 15-minuter, 15 minuter)? Einstein2 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A single instance of use counts as attestation of the productivity of -er in this one of its many manifestations. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


'Lähme' seems to be an inflected form of the Estonian verb minema, but it doesn't appear in the conjugation that Wiktionary offers. It does appear here: http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs/index.cgi?Q=minema&F=M. Could anyone expand the entry for lähme to cover the Estonian meaning of it as well? 17:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that verb is particularly irregular and the inflection module we have doesn't support all of its irregularities yet. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed up with Estonian entries still. —CodeCat 14:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


This "word" may become some kind of Internet meme. See this article. If so, and if we have reason to believe that it is real, it would be nice to have an answer to the likely questions about its reality. The "discoverer" (inventor?) of the word says it means "Coming together through the binding of two ropes" and dates from the 17th century. She also states that does not appear on the internet (read web?) at all or didn't before she put the word on a billboard. She says the meaning (use?) was in a 1627 publication housed at the New York Public Library’s Rare Book Division (or the Library of Babel?).

Will anyone be in the vicinity of Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street in New York with the time and will to verify the claimed attestation?

If this is real, how might it have been derived? DCDuring TALK 14:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it is a noun, a plural, not an adjective. Parbunkell is one of many alternative forms of parbuckle, which the OED defines as "A rope, cable, etc., arranged like a sling, used to raise or lower heavy objects vertically; a similar contrivance used to move a heavy object up or down an inclined plane, the object acting as a movable pulley in a rope-and-pulley system."
A tip of the hat to Brooke Russell of the Astor Reading Room for Rare Books and Manuscripts of the New York Public Library Main Branch. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Ouch. I'll make this the next word I overhaul à la take. - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The pdf that dumps on us because of this entry (and others like it) is here, "User-generated content (UGC) in English online dictionaries", by Robert Lew, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, page 14, in Online Publizierte Arbeiten fur Linguistik, 4/2014. The article doesn't say what we shouldn't already be painfully aware of. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of handle, this is also still outstanding from 2013, at least inasmuch as the tag has never been removed from the article. I found the supposed Cornish etymology very surprising too. 02:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't come up with the Cornish etymology, just moved it from a definition line to its own etymology. DTLHS (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Online Etymological Dictionary explicitly addresses the nickname sense and doesn't find a Cornish connection. We sometimes neglect sense development in our etymologies in favor of PIE etc. Most normal users care more about how a word picked up a meaning over the decades and centuries than about its phonetic evolution over millennia. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Cornish etymology was originally added here. That user seems to be no longer active. I am happy to retract my comments if I am proved wrong, but to me the Cornish thing seems like bollocks. Therefore I have been bold and removed it. 11:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Are we missing the verb sense, as evoked in rammed earth? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and others as well. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

auger in, augur in[edit]

Someone has confused the expressions "auger in" (to crash a plane, referring to an auger or drill) and "augur in" (to introduce, e.g. a new era, referring to the "augurs" or soothsayers of ancient Rome). Please fix. -- 21:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You are correct. Moved to auger in. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUScare, now or later?[edit]

Does Scalia's dissent today count as a prominent enough single usage, or do we wait the statutory year to see if the echo chamber is still at it?

On a related note, I have the impression that ObamaCare is not really pejorative anymore, except for those who use Obama by itself as a pejorative, Benghazi means "checkmate!", and so on. Perhaps this bit of information should be relegated to Etymology? Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

seks (Estonian)[edit]

According to see#Estonian, the word seks is also a translative singular form of see, along with selleks. However, since the page seks is protected so I cannot add that meaning by myself. 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

past partciple drunken[edit]

Does anyone know why this is marked as obsolete? "I have drunken water." is what I would say. —This unsigned comment was added by MarloweC (talkcontribs) at 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

That's unusual. The modern form is "have drunk". Where are you from? Do your friends and family also say "have drunken"? Equinox 17:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm from Southern California. My mom does as well. I think most people around here would say "drunk." I've always considered both to be valid, but I say "drunken" myself. —This unsigned comment was added by MarloweC (talkcontribs) at 17:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

I'm from Southern California myself (my grandparents moved here in 1918), and I've never heard "have drunken". If someone said that to me, I'd wonder if they were claiming to be in possession of an inebriated liquid... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I happened to have been discussing this with a friend not two days ago (The friend is from Atlanta and I'm from Nashville). She was uncomfortable with the sentence the can of beer was drunk and seemed to prefer the can of beer was drunken. We both agreed that, while the second sentence sounded better, it was still humorously ambiguous between the meaning of the participle and the adjective. I feel that in my conversation drunk and drunken exist in free variation as a participle; though, I believe prefer drunk most of the time. —JohnC5 01:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, as far as I know, the word "drunken" is only ever used as an adjective before the noun (e.g. "a drunken orgy"). Sentences like "I have drunken water" or "The can of beer was drunken" are not used. 11:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I sometimes catch myself using drunken participially in speech, though I use drunk more often, and would not use drunken participially in writing. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I also wonder whether there are cases where even OP wouldn't use it, e.g. "what have you drunken since last night"? Equinox 16:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@MarloweC: So, are there cases where you don't use drunken participially? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, there are no cases that I wouldn't use drunken as the participle. Normally the adjective is "drunk" for me, but only if the thing it's describing is actually drunk -- I couldn't say "a drunk orgy" because orgies can't drink. MarloweC (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@MarloweC: Would you say "a drunken orgy"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added some generally accepted senses to drunken that reflect MarloweC's usage of the adjective, IMO. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Nice job. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Old Italic script[edit]

So, I know that we don't yet have that many Ital entries for this to affect and thus is not of huge importance, but I recently was editing an Oscan entry and noticed that there was no automatic transliteration. I promptly made Module:osc-translit, but in the process realized that I should have made Module:Ital-translit. For this, I needed a mapping of all the Old Italic script languages to an appropriate transliteration, which led to the creation of Appendix:Old Italic script. Before I begin making the transliteration module, however, I was hoping I could get some other editors to look over these tables and help me clear up some unanswered questions and check that I haven't gone stark raving mad. (I also was hoping to get someone to make me some {{t2i}} PNG's for all the different letterforms so I could list which language used which ones). Please look over this table and tell me if anything is omitted, is unclear, should be changed, etc. Thanks! —JohnC5 02:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

re: "stark raving mad": you're a Wiktionary admin, so you've already long since passed that point... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

body check[edit]

Can body check also mean physical examination? I always thought it was Chinglish, but I suppose it might be attestable. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be attestable, but it seems particularly SoP IMO. It might be common in Chinglish, but it would be recognizable from its components and understood as SoP except in some sports contexts, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Are we missing a sense here? As in skull bossing, frontal bossing, parietal bossing, etc. Wyang (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be a subsense of the first sense, or that sense could be expanded or given a couple of usage examples. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Should it be a verb sense? Wyang (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think bossing is more certainly a noun = boss (noun) + -ing (Used to form uncountable nouns from various parts of speech denoting materials or systems of objects considered collectively). boss#Verb does not seem to have a corresponding intransitive sense, so a deverbal derivation seems implausible. Attestation could show otherwise of course. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Etymology here says "bant + -er"; etymology at bant says "clipping of banter". Anyone know any better? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Online Ety D says: "banter (verb) 1670s, origin uncertain; said by Swift to be a word from London street slang. Related: Bantered; bantering. The noun is from 1680s."
Century 1911 offers no origin other than saying the noun is from the verb. For bant it offers a completely unrelated definition and origin. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Collins has 2 unrelated Lancashire definitions for bant. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
IOW, I didn't find an old (pre-1670s) sense of bant. Perhaps the OED or Middle English Dictionary or [] . DCDuring TALK 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You could ask @Nbarth: for his source or the grounds for his belief. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested entries[edit]

If the page for the language does not exist yet, you can either create it yourself or put up a request for it at Wiktionary:Tea room.CANUPL.CREATdutch1?
gratenkut http://www.seniorennet.be/forum/viewtopic.php?t=167187
Yes check.svg Done Page already existed but wasn't linked. Equinox 17:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the word lordosis is used to mean "hyperlordosis" but this is incorrect use of the word.[edit]

Sometimes the word lordosis is used to mean "hyperlordosis" but this is incorrect use of the word. SURELY, wicki dictionary IS using the word incorrectly, according to this quote here, from Wikipedia, which seems much more complete and authoratative. I think wiki dictionary is misleading. Thanks, P McL

Incorrect according to who? —CodeCat 21:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"according to this quote here, from Wikipedia" —suzukaze (tc) 23:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with the OP here - there should be two medical senses of lordosis: "normal inward curvature" and "hyperlordosis". Wyang (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Links for "chill" in Walloon wiktionary[edit]

It leads to "Category:medicine", and not to "chill". What to do ?

--Lucyin (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with English Wiktionary, but I fixed it anyway. One of your templates at Walloon Wiktionary had </noinclude> before its interwikis, so they were all transcluded into the entries, and the system only uses the first interwiki for each language on a given page. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


I can't find much apart from this one article. Does it have another spelling? DTLHS (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

kittely - kittely at OneLook Dictionary Search - Google "kittely" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive)
Solanum macrocarpon - solanum macrocarpon#English - solanum macrocarpon#Latin - Special:WhatLinksHere/Solanum macrocarpon - Solanum macrocarpon@WSp - Solanum macrocarpon@WP - Google Solanum macrocarpon (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive)
 Solanum macrocarpon on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons: Solanum macrocarpon
Other Common Names: small bitterball, nganngan, kittely. DCDuring TALK 05:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of the few mentions I could find just lead back to Mr. Gbolo, but here are a couple of leads: this 2007 article (paywalled here), where another New Jersey farmer refers to kittley as one of his "Jamaican crops" (!), and this New Jersey Extension Service publication that contains these somewhat illuminating sentences: "West Africans also use a pea-sized, red eggplant for medicinal purposes. Known as the Ghanan pea in most countries, it is called Kiteley in Liberia while Kitley describes Bitter Ball in Ghana." If Liberians in places other than New Jersey use this term, they don't seem to do so online.
There are apparently a bewildering variety of "African eggplants" (cultivars of Solanum macrocarpon and Solanum aethiopicum) known by a bewildering variety of names. See here for some learned discussion that however does not mention "kittley" or anything similar.
On edit conflict: "kittely" does seem to be the overwhelming favorite as to spelling. -- Visviva (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how seriously to take the physical description at first website given as apparently the appearance of the fruit of many of the species of Solanum including S. macrocarpon is highly variable, like Brassica oleracea or Cucurbita pepo. DCDuring TALK 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

changing tense with person[edit]

I'm curious if anyone can tell me more about this phenomenon. In certain senses, English speakers will change the verb tense based on the person of the sentence, even when there is not an apparently logical reason for it.

Consider She had been living here long enough that she had a right to make the room her own.

I was told in English, if you make this first person, it would be more right to say I have been living here long enough that I have the right to make the room my own. Even though I had been living here long enough is grammatically correct. Why is this?

—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 15:41, 29 June 2015.

It's not to do with person. It's just tense/aspect. If you "had" done something, you suggest that other things have happened since, in between then and now. ("I had lived in London before moving to Athens.") If you "have" done something, you might have finished it right this second, or it might be ongoing. ("I have lived in London all my life.") Equinox 15:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On the other land, suppose you lived in South Africa ten years ago but have lived in the UK since then. You could still say "I have lived in South Africa." - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That is because the reference time in that case is the present. If the reference time were in the past, then one has to use the "past perfect", past tense, perfect aspect:
"By the time of the South African World Cup I had already lived in the UK for eight years."
or better to my ears because of the durative nature of live:
"By the time of the South African World Cup I had been living in the UK for eight years." DCDuring TALK 09:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse[edit]

Should we have a sense pertaining to things, such as pancakes that are shaped like his face? I believe that a definition pertaining to just the shape could be attested if need be. And if so, should it be a noun or an adjective? Purplebackpack89 22:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would this be different to objects in the shape of any other famous creature, thing or maybe even symbol for that matter? I could say "yes, I ate that Yeti with marmalade", or "the cogwheel with cheese on top was delicious"? Don't know if "would you like to try some Eurocrem swastika" could be appropriate for the symbol shaped example, though. Symbol-shape semantics, I'd say. Cheers, --biblbroksдискашн 09:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Is this really Translingual? It looks like a word in English to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. I've converted it to English and added the largely unrelated Translingual entry for Coccus. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Lovely, thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


We have heavy-duty, but should we also have light-duty? Is it attestable? ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
(We are also missing the figurative sense of heavy-duty that OED includes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC))


I'm trying to clean up the entry on India, which was previously badly formatted and possibly had a bit of a nationalist bias. One thing I'm not sure about is the claim that "Indies" is a plural of "India". The words are related, but is it really a plural? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • My understanding is that the term Indies meant India together with those parts of the world, originally thought to be linked, that were discovered in the 15th & 16th centuries. The name lives on in West Indies and East Indies. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Searches like google books:"(various|several) Indies" India turn up a small number of hits which are from 100+ years ago or are discussing discussing documents from 100+ years ago. in other words, it seems Indies may have been rarely construed to be a plural of India in the past (or perhaps even the cites I find can be explained by Semper's comment), but that usage is now obsolete. Recalling the BP discussion which concluded that it was more appropriate to list obsolete alternative plurals in usage notes than on the headword line, and recognizing that a usage note explaining the other connection between India and Indies (that the Indies were thought to be Indian) is in order anyway, I would move mention of it from the headword line to the usage notes.
  • 1905, Journal of the American Oriental Society, page 22:
    Whether India was the real source of the story, I shall inquire presently. But first, [...]. Indies (plural) implies the various Indies of India itself. [...]
  • 2013, Kathryn L. Lynch, Chaucer's Cultural Geography (ISBN 1135309523), page 57
    To document this assertion we should note, first, the classical tradition of various “Indies”; second, the existence of one India on the African continent in a region (Ethiopia) that in the fourteenth century was contested by the Egyptian Mamluks, [...]
- -sche (discuss) 18:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether "(the) Indies" ever meant "the Americas" is a separate question. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between "wast" and "wert"?[edit]

Is "wast" the general form and "wert" for hypothetical use?

For instance:

Thou wast once alive.


Thou art a good man. Now, if thou wert a bad man, I might not have helped thee.

Is that how they work? Tharthan (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Yup, you've got it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Oh good. Thanks! Tharthan (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
AFAICT Jespersen agrees. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The technical terms are "indicative" for wast and "subjunctive" for wert. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You can think of it as the equivalent of "he was" and "he were". —CodeCat 12:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jespersen didn't think it split so neatly. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression there was no grammatical difference--that wert was the older form coming from Old English wǣre + -t under influence from art or inversion (were thou > wert thou); and wast was the same, just using was as the base... The subjunctive form for the old second person using thou was simply were (i.e. (if) thou were...) Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015


My Chinese-English dictionary thinks this is a word in English as well. Any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a nestor that means something close to "nester", used as a coordinate of squatter, farmer, and miner, as opposing the open-range cattlemen in the American West of the late 19th century. A Nestor (sometimes nestor) is an old, and possibly wise, man, like w:Nestor (mythology) in Homer, whose advice may or may not be good.
Other dictionaries sometimes define it as "patriarch" or "leader", but perhaps "elder" is better. DCDuring TALK 04:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We have Nestor. The OED says it is not always capitalised. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What does it give as the Chinese translation? That should help us figure it out. --WikiTiki89 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
My Chinese dictionary translates nestor as 鼻祖... ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

to let[edit]

I tried my best here, but I'm sure I stuffed something up. Anyone care to take a look? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to me (added Italian translation, don't know any other). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


What is that musical-note stuff in the pronunciation section? If it has some kind of meaning, it ought to be better explained, and it probably ought not to be on the IPA line (unless it really is some kind of new IPA-recommended notation). This, that and the other (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I removed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd guess it was supposed to indicate a gradually falling pitch. Equinox 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
See User talk:Strabismus#ouch. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


For anyone interested in words derived from fictional languages, I've created an English entry for silflay, with four citations from sources independent of Watership Down and which don't even mention the book. I believe it thus meets WT:CFI. If anyone knows of more cites, feel free to add them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

to do with[edit]

We call this a preposition. Some of the fuller expressions that use it redirect to it and appear in usage examples.

The two problems I have with it are:

  1. it fails in the subsense definitions to fully cover use with forms of be.
  2. the sense definition is not substitutable in uses with forms of have, thus confusing translators and language learners, IMO.

AFAICT, it is not possible to have a single substitutable definition that covers both uses with have and uses with be.

I am having trouble finding references that cover this in a way that corresponds to our preposition treatment (which I don't object to, but am not committed to), so I'd like the thoughts of others. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Doesn't "this is to do with learning English" and "this has to do with learning English" mean the same thing? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, but although in "This is '(relevant|related) to' learning English" "relevant|related to" is substitutable, in "This has '(relevant|related) to' learning English" it is not. "Relevance to" or "association with" would be substitutable with have. Although neither reads like a definition of a preposition, they seem otherwise satisfactory to me. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We could:
  1. have two definitions, one for use with have, another for use with be
  2. have two entries, one for have to do with, another for be to do with
  3. decide substitutability is not necessary in this case.
I favor option 1 and would be happy to explain why if asked. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Probably shouldn't have "niggerize" as the definition, but I'm not sure what else I would place there. Also, needs real citations. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 03:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed def to "To convert to the black race or culture." This is, of course, long-time abuser PaM. I say nothing about the attestability but I agree that we don't want "nigger" in definitions if we can reasonably avoid it. Equinox 05:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

one-year-old, 1-year-old[edit]

These, and many other terms starting with a different number, seem to be well attested in English. They have unhyphenated, single-word translations in Italian (see Category:Italian words suffixed with -enne) and possibly other languages. We have a definition of the suffix (-year-old), but not (unlike with other suffixes) the actual words. Is their any objection to their inclusion? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New Hart's Rules has some helpful guidelines, stating that "hyphenation often depends on the word's or phrase's role and its position in a sentence." (2005 edn, p. 52) This leads to approved usages such as "They had a one-year-old daughter" and "Their daughter was one year old". The rule in English is that compound modifiers following a noun do not need hyphens. —This unsigned comment was added by Bjenks (talkcontribs) at 21:17, July 4, 2015.

is that the time[edit]

Would appreciate some help writing the definition here. It's hard to word. BTW, any idea why it doesn't appear in the category "English questions" - just like at is that so.... ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just an RfD? It doesn't seem like a good entry for even a phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 04:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it idiomatic though? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it is as idiomatic as "[I've got|Don't you have] work/school tomorrow.", "Look at the time.", "<Yawn>", "I've got to walk the dog.", "I've got a long drive.", "The sitter has to be home by eleven." DCDuring TALK 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

piazza, pizer[edit]

  1. Is British use of piazza to mean "covered gallery" dated or still current?
  2. Does piazza mean anything else in Britain, besides what it means everywhere ("public square, especially if Italian")? WP says "In Britain, piazza now generally refers to a paved open pedestrian space, without grass or planting, often in front of a significant building or shops." Is this distinct from sense 1 of our entry piazza, "public square"?
  3. Can anyone provide additional information (from DARE, other references, or personal experience) on where in the US piazza and pizer are used to mean "porch"? Dictionary.com says piazza is used in the Inland South, and I found a reference that pizer is used in eastern North Carolina and Appalachian Autauga county in Alabama, two rather disparate places.

I've expanded the entries with as much information as I could find. - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know when I will get to it, but I've inserted {{DARE needed}} on the talk page for the entries. Only five pages now carry the template. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

American Icelandic[edit]

See kar, etymology 2. What is "American Icelandic"? (Icelandic spoken by Icelandic Americans?) - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it. According to the U.S. Census, as of 2010 there were 5170 ± 849 people in the United States who spoke Icelandic at home. I guess this entry would have us believe that some portion of them says kar instead of bíll for 'car', which seems plausible enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

quicumque vult, Athanasian wench, etc[edit]

Notwithstanding Jerome Charles Potts's bizarre appeal to the sublime authority of Google, there is no doubt at all that quicunque is the correct spelling. If Latin Wikipedia was adopted as a supporting source, JCP clearly failed to make this search and make a careful examination of the results. Is it not damning that such a facile error could be perpetuated for nine years in a purported work of reference? Yet, on his user page, JCP candidly informs us "Rule of the game : i keep from consulting dictionaries". Is this perhaps symptomatic of a new-world "US Latin" to parallel more familiar US improvements of the English language? Bjenks (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Lewis & Short give "quīcumque (or -cunque )", so quicumque must have been more common in Classical Latin. Ecclesiastical scholarship virtually universally has quicunque vult as the first two words of the Athanasian creed.
Apparently quicunque vult/quicumque vult are synonyms for Athanasian wench, a sense we lack at quicumque vult. Some sources for the slang term "correct" it to quicumque vult. I suppose one should check for the relative frequencies of the two forms in print in the slang sense, but that seems like a long run for a short slide. So one is an alternative form of the other in that sense, provided both meet RfV (WT:ATTEST). DCDuring TALK 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In English works that use either Latin word, Ngram Viewer suggests quicunque was the considerably more common form until about 1910, when quicumque just barely overtook it. The story is similar with q. vult, and in German texts, where, however, quicumque overtook quicunque about a decade earlier (in 1900). - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

reductionist pronunciations are still here[edit]

A discussion last September established both anecdotally and through scholarly sources that pronouncing cull, cole, etc as /kl̩/ is not (as it is currently labelled) a GenAm or general US phenomenon. However, quite a few such pronunciations are still given in entries. These need to be removed (or given an appropriate label, but the problem we ran into in September is that it's not clear what that label should be; "reductionist pronunciation used by only a handful of people in miscellaneous not-obviously-connected parts of the US" isn't a great label). The entries can be located by searching a database dump for English entries which contain after a consonant. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be removed, and I do remove them wherever I see them, but what should not be removed are cases where /l̩/ is found after a consonant in an unstressed syllable, e.g. battle, bottle, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed all the ones I could find except the one in told; it's labelled "Pacific Northwest" and IIRC we did find sholarly evidence that "the 'bull'-'bowl' merger (/ʊ, o, ʌ/ before /l/)" (to /l̩/?) was present in the Pacific Northwest, even though the speaker who added the pronunciations was not from that region. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)