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
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

Oldest tagged RFTs


Contents

January 2017

to glow - Etymology wording[edit]

The section says it's disputed whether ME glowen comes from OE glowan because OSX has gloian. That does sound rather wrong. Does anyone have any idea what it's supposed to say there or shall I just delete that part? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. Leasnam (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

dog[edit]

Is there really a meaning 'coward'? Are dogs associated with cowardice? Is the ux really different from the general insult? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is, especially when meant as "dog (with its tail between its legs)" Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "you dog" "you coward" finds quite a lot, e.g. (2012, Wyatt, Lady Mechatronic on the Cannibal Island) “You dog,” snarled Bardon. “If you are a man, release me and face me in combat.” Okay, that could still be the generic insult, but it is used a lot near accusations of cowardice. Equinox 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

come on down[edit]

"A catchphrase used on the television game show "The Price is Right," inviting a member of the audience to come to Contestant's Row to play the game." I was going to delete this, but should it be changed somehow, if used more generally in parody of the TV line? Equinox 06:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have heard it used in parody years ago. Is the show still going? I don't watch TV any more. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

repaître[edit]

I'd like to add the past participle repu (which is, incidentally, the only form still in use, though as an adjective only). How am I supposed to do that? And paître has the same problem. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a template wiz, so I can't really help here, but as a stop-gap solution I've added repu and pu under "Related terms". OK? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

cowardly[edit]

In the media I constantly hear the word "cowardly" used to disparage criminals and criminal acts that may be many bad things but do not seem the least bit "cowardly", in fact often the exact opposite. For example, someone punches someone in the face or blows up some people. How is that "cowardly"? Is this a new meaning of the word that has developed, or just a misuse? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that it refers to the fact that they resort to violence to solve their problems, as opposed to resolving them within the law / societal norms. DTLHS (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a new meaning, it's just a different understanding of what constitutes cowardliness from yours. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's considered cowardly to attack somebody unexpectedly without giving them a chance for a fair fight. Equinox 19:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I also have found it hard to swallow the application of cowardly to, say, a suicide bomber or gunman risking or giving their life for their cause. Just as I find it hard to accept the use of hero to, say, someone giving CPR to a person. Both are instances of semantic bleaching. At what point should we recognize that semantic bleaching has rendered a strong word weak. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing new under the sun:
  • Why on earth do the newspapers, in describing a dynamite outrage or any other political assassination, call it a "dastardly outrage" or a cowardly outrage? It is perfectly evident that it is not dastardly in the least. It is perfectly evident that it is about as cowardly as the Christians going to the lions. The man who does it exposes himself to the chance of being torn in pieces by two thousand people. What the thing is, is not cowardly, but profoundly and detestably wicked. The man who does it is very infamous and very brave. But, again, the explanations is that our modern Press would rather appeal to physical arrogance, or to anything, rather than to appeal to right and wrong.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton, All Things Considered, 1915. --Droigheann (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Green’s Dictionary of Slang[edit]

See here This work is now available online and has over 500 years of slang "Totaling 10.3 million words and over 53,000 entries, the collection provides the definitions of 100,000 words and over 413,000 citations." This seems like a great reference to link to with a R template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text stop[edit]

this was deleted. it should be restored. the term "text stop" is used to refer to some rest areas, used to encourage people to pull in there to text and not text while driving. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22text+stop%22#q=%22text+stop%22+%22highway%22&tbm=bks&start=0 99.101.56.68 12:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@99.101.56.68: These terms are sometimes called "hot words"--where they have the potential to really become a part of the language but they may just fizzle out. It's a fine line sometimes between slang, "hot words", neologisms, nonce words, etc. We need more attestations across different sources and time. Do you have more? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

one million[edit]

i've been trying to redirect one million to million and my edit has been disallowed as being "harmful". it should be redirected to million similar to how one hundred, one billion and one trillion redirect to hundred, billion and trillion. one thousand should not be redirect to thousand as it has another use. 99.101.56.68 13:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you felt the redirections were needed in the first place? IMHO, they're all redundant and should be deleted. I'll propopse them for deletion and open a discussion in WT:RFD. Feel free to participate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

exilarch[edit]

One of the definitions here is "The term applied by Greeks to the head of a community of Jews in the diaspora." But what terms the Greeks use seems completely irrelevant to the English language. What does this term mean in English? —CodeCat 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's a historical term (which it appears to be), that is everything but irrelevant. Crom daba (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The term still refers to something in English, otherwise it's not a term in English and we shouldn't list it as a definition. What terms the Greeks used is not relevant for whether this meaning exists in English, as this is not a term the Greeks used. The Greeks spoke Greek, not English. —CodeCat 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm RFVing it (minus the Greek bit). Equinox 15:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The first definition looks sufficient to me. Also, (1) is רֹאשׁ גָּלוּת an actual Biblical phrase, and (2) are we sure that the Greek comes from the Hebrew, rather than from Aramaic ריש גלותא? JulieKahan (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the Hebrew; I just took it off Wikipedia. The answers to both your questions are "I don't know", so feel free to remove it or change it as necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

bookfell[edit]

Are there sufficient attestations of the first definition; parchment or paper (particularly for the latter)? Tharthan (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

extractible, extractable[edit]

These are clearly different forms of the same, so how should this be handled? —CodeCat 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The -ible seems to be the alternative form of the -able. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've made it an alternative spelling. —CodeCat 15:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

schifo[edit]

I am not certain that the 'dingy' meaning belongs to the entry's current state etymology which says: "From Old French eschiu(shy, timid), from Frankish *sciuh(shy, timid, fearful), from Proto-Germanic *skeuhaz(shy, frightened)..." Besides common sense the information at skif#Etymology asserts me that this word's lineage is closer to Old High German. Any suggestions? I suppose WT:BOLD should apply if without input from other fellow Wiktionarians in some reasonable time period. I'm asking because I'm not that versed in Italian, but like always I'm keen to improve our project. Cheers everyone, --biblbroksдискашн 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Per the etymology given at skiff, the term was loaned via Lombardic, which I'd already come to suspect on my own. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the entry needs to be split into 2 etymologies Leasnam (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

incorrigible[edit]

Apparently incorrigible is often used in a softened, positive or only mildly reprobative, sense: "having character flaws or quirks that do not make one unlikeable or even make one downright likeable". Is this connotation or use worth mentioning?

This kind of mitigation is admittedly seen frequently in terms that used to have a strongly negative, critical tone, such as rascal or naughty, probably as a result of changing morals and opinions about parenting. A word such as rascal was, apparently, initially applied mainly to adults and adolescents, then children (initially as little rascal), and applying it to an adult (where little is now implied) is now felt to be meant in a cute, amusing and harmless way and does not cause offence anymore, as it is not perceived as a serious criticism. Essentially what we have here is an instance of melioration. I suspect the melioration actually happened in the little rascal stage, which was initially a serious complaint about children, but cultural changes and increased lenience then caused children's antics to be seen as rather amusing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our entry lacks what is now, IMO, the most common sense, the one you have identified. It may seem like a connotation only to some linguists. It seems like a denotation to me. Some of the other senses seem archaic or obsolete. Are some redundant? Should they be grouped? DCDuring TALK 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well spotted, and interesting. A quote suggestion as an example for this soft use of incorrigible could be in the graphic novel “Scott Pilgrim and the Infinite Sadness” by Bryan Lee O’Malley (a piece of dialogue also adapted in film):
Envy (affectionately): “You are incorrigible.”
Todd: “I don’t know the meaning of the word.”
Narrator: “He really doesn’t.”
Perhaps even self-referential in a dictionary. Have a good night. Nclm (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mythopoetic definition seems wrong[edit]

The definition of mythopoetic does not give what I had thought was the usual meaning, "giving rise to myths". However, I notice that the synonym mythopoeic (no "t") does have that definition. I double checked a couple other dictionaries and I'm pretty sure the definition of mythopoetic should be updated. However, I'm new to wiktionary and am cautious to start willynilly. (I don't even know what order the definitions go: most common usage first or age of first known use?) Would someone with more experience please investigate and make the change, if it is warranted. Thanks! Hackerb9 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hackerb9 Just so you know, there is no policy on whether oldest or most common definitions should go first, or if they should simply be in the order that they were added. There have been a few attempts to reach a consensus on this, but without success. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

literacy[edit]

Could someone add the British English pronunciation? It differs vastly from its American counterpart. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the British pronunciation generally omits the "e", and adds a glottal stop (preglottalises the t): /ˈlɪˀtɹɘsi/
How does it differ? The one on the page is how I say it. Equinox 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the difference the above user means, but I do find intervocalic /t/ problematic in American transcriptions. That should be /d/ in my (possibly mistaken) opinion. Of course, it's a general thing. Kolmiel (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

twig and berries[edit]

Not quite sure how to "template" this one: it's already plural ("his twig and berries are"), but has a further plural, "twigs and berries", for more than one man's genitals. Equinox 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO: twigs and berries. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

toothypegs[edit]

The oldest reference on the page is 1984, but I heard it in an episode of The Goon Show from September 28, 1954, 'The Whistling Spy Enigma':

Hee-Hee. Look at Old Eccles. He has blown all his toothy pegs out of his mouth. Hee-Hee. What a funny! Hee-Hee

What proof do I need to put this as an etymology? Apparently my grandmother used to say it to my mother and she would have been listening around the same time, so I suspect it's another word similar to lurgy. —This unsigned comment was added by DoctorLore (talkcontribs).

@DoctorLore: You can cite audio/visual media--citations don't have to be print or Web. Are you wondering how to use a template to cite it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well, if it would just be a source then yeah I'd like the template but I was more wondering if the massive age difference plus anecdote would be enough to qualify it as an etymology like in lurgy rather than just a source/footnote? All the pages I've found about the etymology of the word link back here or just have the same information with no credit. DoctorLore (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorLore: In the case of "lurgy", there is another source which says this is the first usage. Do you have any sources which make this claim? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have heard the word used back as far as the 1950s. The OED has a usage from 1840. Feel free to add further usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I have changed it to a plural of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

but for[edit]

This should be two broken into two separate definitions, right? "Except for" is not the same as "if it were not for". ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is women an adjective?[edit]

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=“women+anarchists”&num=100

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=“women+communists”&num=100

I can’t tell if this is truly adjectival or simply a noun used as such. It sounds unusual to modern ears, though. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to me. It may sound a bit dated, but it's still possible to say. Compare women warriors. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: To answer your question properly, the fact that the singular has woman warrior but the plural women warriors indicates that women is not an adjective, but a noun adjunct. Adjectives in English are not inflected at all.
A digression: Blond(e) and brunet(te) may seem like exceptions from the rule I've just posited, but the fact that people struggle with the gender distinction imported from French (I find that people usually simply write blonde, because the term is much more frequently used for women, and same with brunette), which doesn't even make sense in English (if a woman has blonde hair, does a man have blond hair, but why should the adjective agree with the sex of the – possibly not at all mentioned – possessor instead of with the noun hair as in French, which has no grammatical gender in English, and what if the sex of the possessor is not known, to say nothing of nonbinary gender identities?) indicates that the rule is effectively still in force (and likely would even if blond and blonde were not pronounced identically), and blonde should only be used as a noun.
That said, I'm puzzled by the tendency in Wikipedia to analyse (what looks like) noun adjuncts as adjectives. Is there a general syntactic test available? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If it can't be modified by an adverb, it's probably an attributive noun: *very women warriors, *more women warriors (i.e. [more women] warriors, not more [women warriors]), etc. And they have to be truly ungrammatical, not just difficult to understand; contrast those examples with the true adjective female. It's hard to understand what very female warriors and [more female] warriors might mean, since "female" is usually interpreted as something binary rather than gradated, but they're still grammatical. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that proves my point. I can't come up with any examples right now, but I definitely seem to remember cases where bog-standard nouns (like woman) were (suggested to be) analysed as adjectives (on Wiktionary or Wikipedia outside article space) just because they can be used attributively, as I recall great confusion on my part about this, and the fact that Romanophile even considered this analysis in this case does seem to support my observation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I can think of a different test in this case, namely whether the word can be used predicatively: This warrior is female vs. *This warrior is woman. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And shouldn't the question have been "Are women an adjective?" SemperBlotto (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. You'd say "is babies a word?", not "are babies a word?", unless you were very confused about the nature of things... Equinox 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

one's, someone's, somebody's[edit]

Shouldn't these be determiners, rather than pronouns or adjectives? Equinox 14:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but: Why? They're pronouns followed by a particle or case ending (whatever your definition is). How does that make them anything else than pronouns? Are man's or people's adjectives then? Kolmiel (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't any possessive a determiner?
What do dictionaries that have such terms call them?
If some dictionaries call them determiners and some call them pronouns or adjectives, then we might want to have both. I doubt that we can claim consistency as one of Wiktionary's strong points. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do we even have these entries, if we agreed to disallow words suffixed with the possessive -'s? —CodeCat 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think one's is very similar in usage to possessive determiners of the kind his, her, its, so it might be worth of an exception. I don't know. But I do agree concerning somebody's and someone's; they don't seem be special at all. Kolmiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think these were considered special exceptions.
Collins COBUILD includes one's and calls it a possessive determiner. Longmans DCE does not include it. OED probably includes it, but I do not have convenient access. Neither ComprehensiveGEL nor CambridgeGEL mention one's specifically, but do count the determinative use of all possessives as first among the structures involving possessives. One's does not readily take part in some of the other constructions.
I think we don't have separate entries for any genitives other than these. Accordingly, we might call these determiners because the determinative function is their main one. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Possessives For what it's worth, I think we should have possessives. Just make something like {{en-possessive|dog}} which would produce something like (plural [[dogs']] possessive form of [[dog]] at dog's. These are all valid words. But barring that, one's and his are definitely not simple standard constructions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never quite understood why we have banned possessives, but not plurals (not that I'm suggesting removing plurals from Wiktionary; I think it's quite useful to keep them). Entries for them could be used to document such usages as Jesus' vs. Jesus's, or boss' vs. boss's, making entries for them potentially no less useful than those for plurals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
But aren't possessives totally predictable (i.e. you add 's, but if it ends in s you have the option of merely adding the apostrophe)? Plurals are far less predictable: stadia, cacti, amakosi... Equinox 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Almost always (minus pronoun-based "his", "your", etc.) But since this isn't print, it's not like it hurts to have a more complete list of all words. And since they are so predictable, they could be made by a bot. We could even have them made by one with admin rights who can lock the pages in case you are afraid of them being some breeding ground for nonsense. Seems like an idea which is impractical in print (of course, quadrupling the size of a dictionary needlessly is a bad idea) but one that is completely doable digitally. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case we might do better to have an automatic software extension that creates them "on demand" (i.e. dynamically, without an actual database record) where the noun exists. Creating actual page entries for them in the database seems a bit silly. Equinox 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the reason we decided against allowing entries for possessives in 's is that the 's can be added not only to the noun that's doing the possessing; it can be added to literally any word that can be final in a noun phrase. Consider The King of Ireland's Son, where it's actually king, not Ireland, that's in the possessive (he's the son of the king, not the son of Ireland), or the boy I was talking to's mother (very common in speech if avoided in writing). Examples like these prove that 's is really a word (a clitic) in its own right, not just as case ending the genitive -s of German and the Scandinavian languages is. So it would just as much be a violation of rules against SOP constructions to have entries for possessive 's forms as it is to have entries for any word followed by the 's that's a contraction of is/has (The boy I was talking to's interested in chess; The boy I was talking to's played cello for three years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the -s of Scandinavian behaves similar to the English clitic. —CodeCat 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The King of Ireland's son is "Kongen af Irlands søn" in Danish. Kolmiel (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a good way of looking at it, thanks Angr. Arguably, something similar could be done with plurals though. For example: We don't need two Star Treks...I'm not sure why they decided to reboot it, where the plural applies to the whole title, not just the second word. This could conceivably occur with any title, in which a whole phrase would be essentially pluralized (and could end in any part of speech). Not exactly the same thing, but nonetheless similar. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Star Trek" is not a good example, is it? This would seem to be a spaced compound word: star trek = a trek along the stars. So it would be entirely regular to pluralize the defining component "trek" in order to pluralize the whole compound. -- But if you take another title like "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" or whatever, then yes, there would be a certain similarity with what Angr mentioned. Kolmiel (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Spanish] Similaridad[edit]

I found the entry to the word "Similaridad" in Spanish, which is an incorrect translation/calque of "similarity", even though is commonly used. I don't know how to edit this to show that the correct translation is "similitud" or "semejanza".

Can you find any Spanish language authorities that specifically discourage usage of similaridad? If so, a label proscribed or sometimes proscribed may be added to the entry as needed. — Kleio (t · c) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not in the RAE. It could be marked as nonstandard. I think it would easily pass an RFV. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This word is proscribed by the Diccionario de dudas and Hacia una gramática del español del Río de la Plata, which says it is used in “some technical language”. Indeed, the Google Books hits show that it is most often technical and scientific-looking works that use it; for this reason, I feel it’s better to use proscribed rather than nonstandard. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to improve it a little. It is becoming less used as time goes by. It's not real Spanish, and it only came about because of translating mistakes from English. Most -ity words can be translated by changing -ity to -idad, and that's what was done, but it was incorrect. I don't think it's really nonstandard today, but it should be discouraged in favor of similitud. —Stephen (Talk) 05:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

牛子[edit]

Does this word mean anything else in the non-Mandarin 'lects? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've added to the entry (mostly based on 漢語方言大詞典 and 漢語大詞典). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Abscond[edit]

In the entry for "to abscond", none of the quotations/examples under either sense marked as "reflexive" show the word used reflexively. Should new, accurate examples be found, or should the "reflexive" tag be removed? Dylanvt (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

shitpost[edit]

The definition of shitpost (as a verb) is essentially a "worthless" post on an Internet discussion board.

I think this is correct and encompasses all uses of the word. But I am wondering if this would be worth splitting into two definitions. Because there are two different types of "worthless post."

For example, there is the Reddit post on /r/GetMotivated or such, that posts some trite overused and un-nuanced quote as an image and somebody will respond with the one-word commend "Shitpost." and get a ton of upvotes. The connotation here is that a sincere effort was made but that effort was in fact shitty.

Then there is the concept of deliberately "shitposting" which means something like, "in good nature to make a snarky comment or to mildly troll with a very short comment."

Both of these uses of the word fall under the current definition of "worthless" but I would argue that they are actually different things, and different uses of the word, and perhaps deserve different definitions. Mbarbier (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the "deliberately shitposting" definition you mention (which I'm also vaguely familiar with, though mainly deriving it from context) actually similar to the original sense of "trolling (for newbies)", which was more like an insider joke in the group where you would (typically) pretend to be a newbie and post a stereotypical newbie question (or statement), and this way provoke real newbies? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

submissive[edit]

Heh, wikdictionaty; where's the word 'submissive' in your extensive list of sub words?

It's not in the prefix list because it wasn't formed in English as "sub-" + "missive". Equinox 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't "do" nice[edit]

Wondering if do covers this meaning of the word. I'm not sure I can find it there. More examples: I don't "do" mornings. (I'm not a morning person, I can't stand them, I don't function well in the morning etc.) He doesn't "do" nice. (It doesn't suit him to be nice. It's not his natural personality.) I don't "do" boyfriends.

Always requires special emphasis on the word "do". Airelivre (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The closest sense is #12 "To perform the tasks or actions associated with (something)", but that doesn't seem to cover the informality of this usage. I think it might deserve a separate sense. Equinox 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Airelivre -- the classic example of "do" in this meaning was "I don't do windows" (i.e. a maid saying that she doesn't clean windows as part of her duties), which was kind of a catchphrase or standing joke in the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semantically definition 12 is OK IMO. But one distinctive characteristic of the use of do under review is that do is followed by an adjective. As many adjectives could appear after do, it seems silly to add noun definitions for each of them. Thus we might need a separate definition or subsense, possibly under 12, with a substitutable definition that in effect nominalizes the following adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Validity of speechify?[edit]

The word "speechify" bothers me a bit.

1) While I can find references to it in nearly every online dictionary, it simply doesn't feel like a proper word. 2) I can find some references to the word in use dating to "The Coryston Family" a novel published in 1913 and written by Mary Augusta Ward. The references I can find use the words in the context of speech by characters, not by the author to literate. 3) The word feels to have the legitimacy of making something up like "Discombobulatify". Maybe something Doofinschmertz would name one of his devices. It's certainly something Sarah Palin would use.

I'm not an expert in the English language, and I have to admit I would very much like to better understand whether this word would classify as slang and if not, then why not.

Additionally, I'm extremely interested in better understanding the origin of the word. I don't know how best to research this. I would imagine the word rears its ugly head occasionally from people trying "to be cute" or from people lacking the ability to express their thoughts intelligently. Therefore, I suspect the word probably has references dating quite far back.

- Does the use of a word in a novel published in a "Reader's Digest" style magazine justify the legitimacy of the word? - Is this word slang? Should it be? - Is there a way to research the origin of this word better? - When was it first added to the dictionary? - Does the word have to be used in the context of politics or can it be a presentation by a 2nd grade teacher?

Thank you to anyone reading.

P.S. - I far better enjoyed the page for this work on Wiktionary than I did in the other dictionaries I checked. All dictionaries felt as though "they were winging it" but at least Wiktionary winged it with effort.

What exactly does a "proper word" feel like ? Usage (by real human beings) dictates whether Wiktionary considers a term a word, not dictionaries necessarily. Languages are always evolving. Slang is definitely part of that process. Leasnam (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
As usual our definitions don't do the term justice. It usually conveys a denigration of the person doing the speechifying and of the output of the speechifying. In contrast very few people would use speechifying to characterize Nelson Mandela's delivery of his 1964 three-hour long I Am Prepared to Die speech. Our definition would not exclude that possibility. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Would simply labelling it "pejorative or humorous" solve the problem, or is that a misuse of the way we usually use pejorative? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No. The word carries a connotation of pomposity and hot air- speaking for the purpose of making a speech, not for actually saying anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

txtspk[edit]

The IPA seems really, really dubious. —suzukaze (tc) 05:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Arktos, bear, Ursa Major, North, Arctic[edit]

Hi, there seem to be several problems here, and there are several places where the etymology might be relevant. Greek arktos of course primarily means "bear", and only indirectly is the name of the constellation, so the entry for "ἄρκτος" seems to me somewhat misleading. Arktos is thought by some linguists to be cognate with Latin Ursa, but not by others; those who think so may derive "arctic" from arktos, while others derive it from the Proto-Indo-European root *Rtko that appears in Sanskrit rksas, "North": in which case the Greek for bear comes from the constellation, and not the other way around. (Becker, Carl J. (2004). A Modern Theory of Language Evolution. iUniverse. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-0-595-32710-2) The matter does not appear to be settled. Since Wiktionary does not seem to use either citations or entry discussion pages, it's not obvious how to document anything subtle or controversial. Perhaps there are linguists here who could clarify the etymologies for some of these terms. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word, too, means "bear". Compare *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Reposting my response from my talk page:
I do not see any uncertainty in this issue, after looking up the Sanskrit word you mention. As you say, the Greek word ἄρκτος(árktos) is cognate with Latin ursus and Sanskrit ऋक्ष(ṛkṣa), derived from Proto-Indo-European *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. But according to the entries on the Sanskrit and Latin words, the words only have the meaning "bear", not "north". The meaning "north" only arose in the Greek word, presumably because of the constellation. I guess Sanskrit must call the constellation Ursa Major something other than "bear". According to the Translations table in the entry for the noun north, the Sanskrit word for "north" is उत्तर(uttara) (though there's no entry on that word yet).
Eru·tuon 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

кг[edit]

Hi all, I think we need to make this page "Translingual" - this acronym is used in many Cyrillic-based languages. This is the first Translingual page I'd like to make. Can someone please make it Translingual for me? I'm not quite sure how to put things in a Translingual page, and how to break things between the Translingual entry and the separate language entries. LAter on, I will use it as a model.Borovi4ok (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Al dente -> no Italian entry?![edit]

I would like to suggest that someone create the Italian entry for the expression [al dente]. Only English it there! Besides this expression being used in several countries and with that same meaning, it should surely have an entry in Italian, its natural language.

Rapidim (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It's probably sum of parts in Italian. Note - the Italian Wiktionary does not have an entry for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If it has the same meaning in reference to pasta, I'm not sure that could be considered SoP. At least, I certainly wouldn't know from "to the tooth" that it referred to a specific consistency of pasta. —CodeCat 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Likewise. Looking at the English definition, I wonder if in Italian it is a shortening of a longer phrase: "firm to the tooth" (or "firm to the bite" if dente also means "bite"). — Eru·tuon 06:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The French Wiktionary entry has an Italian definition with an (unreferenced) Etymology section added by fr:Utilisateur:Aelmvn. I can't quite understand it. --Kakurady (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

provokácija?[edit]

I was listening to an interview with a British reporter (Paul Wood, BBC) and he said the following when talking about the Trump dossier which has been in the news lately:

"This may be a classic example of provokácija (провокация?) ... a provocation which Russian intelligence services have been doing all the way back to Czarist times."

I was not familiar with this word. First of all, did I find the right word? Secondly, has anyone heard this used in an English context before? - TheDaveRoss 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Google books:provokatsiya. Crom daba (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is the right word. The case that you citing appears to be a one-off foreignism. Hope this helps. Borovi4ok (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
provokatsiya seems well attested in English, adding it would be a good idea. Crom daba (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks guys. I will add it when I have a moment, assuming no one beats me to it. - TheDaveRoss 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've heard "provokatsiya" used ironically a few times in the English speaking news with the meaning "provocation" in reference to overuse of the word in the Russian media and blogs. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

imago[edit]

Is there a sense in the context of sociology we are missing here? Compare imagology. DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Imagology is also known as image studies, so the term is derived from image in the sense of reputation or perception (compare sense 4). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

wereld[edit]

I have long often noticed that Dutch wereld sounds more like /ˈʋi.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋiː.rəlt/ as opposed to /ˈʋeːrəlt/, especially in casual speech. Anyone who is a native Dutch speaker, can you confirm this ? Leasnam (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Spectrograms or bust. Crom daba (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I’ve been told that /eː/ is [ɪ:] in Netherlands Dutch. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case at least it is, /ˈʋɪ:.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋɪ:.rɔlt/ is how I and others I know tend to pronounce this word (Hollandic). But I think it is as CodeCat said, only in this position (before an r); in lezen for example it doesn't do that, but in leren it does. — Kleio (t · c) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It's an allophone. Long mid-vowels are raised to near-close before /r/. —CodeCat 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Should the allophonic pronunciation be shown ? Leasnam (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It could, but it's not always the same for every speaker. —CodeCat 15:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool. What then would be the best way to show it ? Would we add a tag or other such (I don't quite remember ever seeing labels like this); or just place it beside the current pronunciation ? Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
On Dutch wiktionary this showing of allophonic pronunciations seems to have led to a lot of inconsistency, ambiguity, and in some cases inaccuracy. This does not concern the matter discussed hereabove so much as the pronunciation of g, ch, r, as well as the diphthongization/monophthongization of ee, oo, eu, ei, ij, eu, ou. Also in German, I've always been in favour of giving regional pronunciations only when they are phonemically different. This is already complicated enough. Everything beyond is likely to lead to a mess. But that's just MHO.Kolmiel (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Like clockwork I must point out that there is no non-regional pronunciation of German. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true, of course. I've never denied that. (Actually it's something I always tell my wife, who is from Hannover.) But I mean differences from the standard you find in Duden and other dictionaries, which is well established and recognized, if slightly imprecise.... let's not get into this. Kolmiel (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't mean to start a discussion. Just helps to say it now and then since most active foreigners here don't have the overview you and I have. I'm not opposed to listing both Dutch variants. Raising of eːr to ɪːr seems to be common everywhere and in all registers. People might wonder, we can help 'em. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

思明[edit]

Is there an actual distinction between the first two senses? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The first one looks like a ~市 instead of ~州 to me. --Kakurady (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

555[edit]

rfv-pronunciation, especially for Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly wrong, if it's 5-5-5, then the pronunciation listed at (5) is "ng" (Cantonese) and not "wu" (Mandarin); but it is an alt form for crying slang, so it should be originating from Mandarin, and would need a gloss and qualifiers, since it doesn't make sense unless it's Mainlander slang, as it wouldn't be for those who don't use Mandarin. It should be entered as "Mandarin" instead of "Chinese", since it isn't really anything except Mandarin. Other dialects would need etymology and explanations on why this make sense -- 65.94.168.229 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

bear (adjective)[edit]

Bear as an adjective seems dubious to me. It seems to be based on the analysis of bear market as an adjective-noun phrase, and not a compound written as two words. The OED appears to consider it a compound: it does not label bear n.¹ as n. and adj.. Bear as adjective seems to originate from the Random House Dictionary at Dictionary.com.

I don't have a great grammatical sense of this meaning of the word bear, but it sounds ungrammatical if I try to use it in a predicate: *The market is bear right now, *Events are turning the market bear. The entry acknowledges that the term is not comparable (*more bear, *bearer, ...), but that doesn't exclude it from being an adjective.

Anyone have any thoughts? — Eru·tuon 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think bearish is the adjective used to describe something akin to a bear market. Bear sounds strange to me as well. Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Put "often attributive" on the financial noun sense of bear instead? Equinox 04:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I like that idea Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see it as an adjective but as an attributive noun. Mihia (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia[edit]

talk:wikipedia seems to indicate that this should be created as an alternate form entry. The page is edit protected -- 65.94.168.229 04:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Created a barebones entry. — Eru·tuon 05:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ʒʊʒ[edit]

My mother (Jewish, born mid-century, lived in New York City) calls the use of an immersion blender "to /ʒʊʒ/" (and the blender a "/ʒʊʒ/-er"). I always thought that was her idiosyncrasy until today, when I heard someone else (also Jewish, born mid-'90s, lived in Montreal), whom I'll call X, use "/ʒʊʒ/" for the action of stirring a pot. We got into a brief discussion about /ʒʊʒ/, and someone else wondered whether it's a Jewish (perhaps Hebrew- or Yiddish-influenced) word, to which X replied that she'd once heard a non-Jewish Briton use it with the same meaning. While of course it's onomatopoeic and could appear in individuals' lexicons completely independently, I wonder whether there's more to it than that. Anyone know (or have any ideas)?​—msh210 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could it be related to zhuzh? — Ungoliant (falai) 11:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Possible (though I guess unlikely for the North Americans), and thanks for the link. But it seems very unlikely to be zhuzh ("To tweak, finesse or improve (something); to make more appealing or exciting. Usually with up"), as it's used with such a specific meaning (blending/stirring food).​—msh210 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've heard Americans use zhuzh/zhoosh in the sense of "spice up, make fancy" too, although it's possible I've only heard it from gay Americans, who probably got it from Polari. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A possibility: The Brit said zhuzh and X thought he/she was saying X's /ʒʊʒ/.​—msh210 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would connect it to Russian жужжа́ть(žužžátʹ, to buzz, hum), through Yiddish, referring to the sound of the blender. In Yiddish, there seem to have been several variants of this word, including זשוזשן(zhuzhn). --WikiTiki89 16:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! זשוזשן itself gets no hits on bgc (or indeed Google's Web search), and I don't know enough Yiddish to be able to conjugate it for searching for forms. Why do you say it exists?​—msh210 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@msh210: I guess the spelling זשוזשען(zhuzhen) is more common, which gets a good amount of hits. Anyway, I'd think this word would be much more common in the spoken language than the written language. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much.​—msh210 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added the food mixing sense (to "zhoosh", where "zhuzh" directs). "zhuzh", "zhoozh" and "zhoosh" are all used. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Mihia: Did you find citations that these all three of those spellings are used with this meaning? --WikiTiki89 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
In Google results, yes. Mihia (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mihia: Can you link to them? --WikiTiki89 16:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is one example for each:
Throw it all in a blender and zhoosh it until it’s creamy smooth. [1]
Just zhoozh that lot up together in the blender and serve with ice and a curly straw. [2]
Mix well with a fork or zhuzh with a hand blender if you have one. [3]
Mihia (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I did notice in passing that /ʒʊʒ/ is given as a pronunciation of "zhoosh" (along with /ʒʊʃ/). I question whether this is correct. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

galvonic[edit]

I recently tried to get w:galvonic corrosion deleted on Wikipedia as an implausible redirect. However, so many examples of this have now been shown to me (including books, universities, government departments, and believe it or not, the proceedings of an international congress on corrosion) that I am starting to believe that not only is it plausible but it might actually be a proper word. Any thoughts? SpinningSpark 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I would still call it a (common) misspelling of galvanic. DTLHS (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

phonematize (phonematization)[edit]

Could this word mean something along the lines of "to make out, to draw out the phonematic system of a language; to analyse which phones should be counted as phonemes in a given language"? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It could. I see exactly three uses of "phonematize" on Google books, so it's very rare. DTLHS (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The usual word is phonemicize; likewise the adjective is usually phonemic, not phonematic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

мишка#Bulgarian[edit]

Is this term also used outside of zoology, and does it refer to a computer mouse too? —CodeCat 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging by w:bg:Мишка_(хардуер), yes. Crom daba (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

連れきたる, 連れ来たる[edit]

These are defined as alternative spellings of each other, while also having a definition. —CodeCat 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sramana[edit]

Would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable in Buddhism could make some improvements to this entry I just made. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RIP[edit]

The first point in the usage notes says "Usually pronounced letter by letter, not as rip." However, in sentences like "I've got two exams on the same day, RIP", it's often pronounced as rip. I think there should another sense as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a distinct slang sense that is pronounced /ɹɪp/. In fact, I just added that to my "words to add" list yesterday. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I can also attest to this. —suzukaze (tc) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As can I. —JohnC5 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the responses here, we only have representation from North America. Is this used outside of North America by any chance? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I have never heard it in the UK. Mihia (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Neither have I. Equinox 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A wife?! Huge problem with the Wiktionary definition of 'whore'.[edit]

Noun change:

The problem with these tertiary definitions of 'whore' is that they confuse what a 'whoremonger' is. In the Bible, a 'whore'/'harlot' (Wiktionary agrees a harlot is a female prostitute) appears to be a female prostitute, unless about certain cities. The final definition of the noun 'whore' on Wiktionary is very off, a 'mistress or WIFE'?! Why would someone's wife necessarily be a whore? The quote from Shakespeare might be about a mistress, I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but it makes no sense to think all wives are whores. A whoremonger is one who has sex with prostitutes, female physical whores. The wiktionary entry about 'whoremonger' is basically right, though it is not just a British term, but is very much also American: (Britain, vulgar) A frequent customer of whores. Notice the word 'customer'. That implies 'whores' are 'prostitutes'; a 'prostitute'- a female who has sex with males for money or similar compensation. A pity whore, loot whore, an attention whore, etc isn't really a whore. The reason for the word 'whore' in those terms is that they are like prostitutes with many sources of pity, loot, and attention. For the same reason, a sand dollar isn't a dollar/currency, it's a sea urchin/sea creature. A sea monkey isn't a monkey/primate, it's a shrimp/crustacean. A dust bunny isn't a bunny/rabbit, it's dust.

Verb change:

I believe the verb 'whore' should be modified to include to have sex outside of marriage (to fornicate or to commit adultery). The verb isn't just about sex with a prostitute, similar to how 'the verb' is in Hebrew and Greek in the Bible. Evidence is seen in Webster's 1828, and 1913 dictionary. In Webster's 1913 dictionary are the words for the verb 'whore': 1. To have unlawful sexual intercourse; to practice lewdness.


Similar words: Whoreson/Hurensohn

I suggest 'whoreson' is possibly from a verb, 'whore'/'hore'/'horen' (see horcop/whoreson in Middle English), to commit fornication/adultery. The verb would then be used as an adjective. Why do I think this is the case? 'Whore' traditionally meant 'prostitute', and in the Bible 'whore'/'harlot' means female prostitute (the entry 'harlot' here agrees, a harlot is a 'female prostitute'), and the entry itself here says literally 'son of a prostitute'. However, a bastard is not necessarily a son of a prostitute, but rather a female who had sex outside of marriage. This etymology of 'whoreson' isn't necessarily right, but it makes more sense to believe 'whore' in this case came from a verb, not from the noun 'whore'. It is also possible that horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hore' meaning 'moral foulness'/'corruption'/'sin'. This is actually the suggestion here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED21181 . It is also possible horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hor' meaning adultery/fornication. In German, Hurensohn is a synonym for whoreson in English, and 'huren' sounds quite similar to the Middle English verb 'horen' which means to commit adultery/fornication.

The only fully satisfactory way to check the validity of definitions is to examine citations. In the case of the "wife or mistress" sense (or senses) of whore, we have to try to find usages in older English texts as the definition is considered obsolete. The citation from Shakespeare does not unambiguously support that definition, IMO. It would also be useful to consult entries in older dictionaries, such as whore in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 and the OED. I have not yet found a dictionary that includes such a definition, though I have yet to consult the OED. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OED doesn't have it either, and I can't find it anywhere else. I've removed the definition, and moved the citation to the definition prostitute. Someone's wife can be aimed at when referring to someone's whore, but then it is simply a dysphemism meant to insult. Many vulgarities can be used as dysphemisms of other words, but those uses rarely deserve a mention, just like euphemistic uses of certain words rarely merit inclusion. — Kleio (t · c) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

of fame, of shame[edit]

Are these actually productive adjectives? Where would they be used other than hall of fame / hall of shame? DTLHS (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's walk of shame and walk of fame, too, but otherwise I don't know any examples either. I don't see why those two would merit entries though, seems SOP to me (it's just of + [shame/fame]). — Kleio (t · c) 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean there are more of them like "wall of fame/shame". But I think this can be handled at [[fame]] and [[shame]] themselves. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

어떻게[edit]

We have discussed with User:TAKASUGI Shinji some extended meanings of the Korean 어떻게 (eotteoke, “how”) at User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게. In my opinion, the term covers more than just "how" (and "what", added later) in various formal situations. Dictionaries don't cover these senses but real life examples show the term is used broadly. I'd like them to be added. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게:

I’m afraid I don’t understand your edit well. Could you explain it? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My edit was inspired by a recent video I watched where 어떻게 was used to mean various questions. I can't find the exact moment now. Since you know Korean better than me, do you know cases where 어떻게 is used in the polite speech to replace various question words, also "what". If you strongly disagree, feel free to revert my edit. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just added an expression, which is probably what you learned. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji Thanks. The example from my Chinese-Korean video was 송호 씨는 가족이 어떻게 되요? (how many or how is made up??) [4] Other examples from the web where 어떻게 has different meanings: 이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?, 아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
They are all the same. 어떻게 되다 means “what is …?” or “what about …?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji I disagree. They seem like expanded meanings of 어떻게. In "이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?" it's "how much". 어떻게 = 얼마나. In "아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요?" it's "how old". "연세가 어떻게" = "몇살". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
어떻게 되다 is a set phrase. You can’t use other verbs. “연세가 어떻게 되세요?” is “what is his age?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji (Moved the topic) Yes, it seems that these meanings are used with the verb 되다 (doeda). How should we handle this, add a new entry for 어떻게 되다 (eotteoke doeda), expand 어떻게 (eotteoke) or 되다 (doeda)? I think it can and should still be handled by the Wiktionary. @Wyang, KoreanQuoter, Eirikr - are you intersted in this topic? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I quite like the format at the moment - having a separate sense (어떻게 되다) for that. I'm not sure it on its own would merit an entry. We can redirect it to 어떻게. Wyang (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

theatremaker[edit]

Is this equivalent to a director, a playwright, or some combination of the two? Or something entirely different? DTLHS (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I've added a definition that seems to fit the usage. But I could be wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

reception center, reception centre[edit]

Is the term reception center used in the US for non-human items such as waste? If not, it can be included at reception centre. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

on ice[edit]

Neither the definition nor the example of the idiomatic sense are very useful. Is it synonymous with on hold? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I believe so. Expanded a little according to my understanding. If anyone wants to dig up real citations that would be even better. Equinox 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Got some cites, interesting phrase. — Kleio (t · c) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Barytonesis (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of coepi[edit]

This is currently given with a single diphthong "oe", but is this accurate? —CodeCat 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's attested as both a two-syllable and a three syllable-word, so it should probably have both /ˈkoe̯piː/ and /koˈeːpiː/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

with a fresh eye, with fresh eyes?[edit]

Isn't there an idiom resembling this? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember seeing it before. I just googled "looked at it with" "fresh" and immediately found relevant hits. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the most common phrasing is "with a fresh pair of eyes". --WikiTiki89 20:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a fresh pair of eyes: A fresh pair of eyes can provide new perspectives and ways of thinking that offer alternatives to how you plan to tackle a situation. —Stephen (Talk) 02:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Google N-Gram results: with fresh eyes is nearly 3 times as common lately as with a fresh eye. GNG won't do searches for n-grams with more than 5 tokens, but with a fresh pair of looks about a fifth as common as with a fresh eye.
But the expression does not need with. For example one could need any of the fresh eye NPs. In any event I see that none of the professional lexicographers at the OneLook references, which include books of idioms have found it inclusion-worthy. DCDuring TALK 02:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Narrow phonetic transcriptions[edit]

A bit of a rant here. To all the experts in IPA and phonetics: I wonder how you guys do to be able to come up with very narrow transcriptions of natural spoken language. How did you train your ear to be very acute and perceptive of slight variations, and how did you develop an awareness of sounds to the point of being able to transcribe anything, regardless of the language/message?

My problem is the following:

  • as a speaker of French, I feel I would be in no position to make a narrow transcription of it, because I'm biased in two respects:
    • I understand what is being said, so I cannot be completely detached of the message being conveyed/got across, and don't really hear it "with fresh ears";
    • I can write/read it, so I already associate the sounds with certain letters/spellings, which are rather phonemic in nature (isn't any writing system of any individual language, for that matter?). This is almost like a bad habit I would have to unlearn, isn't it? The spelling outlines the gross features, but I'm sure I overlook certain details of my own speech, which I am not even aware of and thus don't notice (let's say the unvoicing of [ʁ] when next to an unvoiced consonant: I've always heard a single sound in the pair prison~brisons, for example).
  • on the other hand, take Mandarin, which I don't speak a word of: I simply cannot parse/make out any individual sound, because my ear is not attuned at all to these kinds of sound.

And if there are any musicians here (@Angr, am I right?): funnily, it makes me think of ear training and interval recognition somehow. It takes time to learn to recognise an interval without being influenced by the context in which it is played... I mean, take something as simple as the major third between the tonic and the mediant in any major chord: it doesn't leave the same impression as the major third between the mediant and the dominant of a minor chord, and if you aren't trained, you might be too "context-dependant" and not recognise that it's the same interval. I'm still at that stage, actually!

I feel like the more languages you know, the better, because many sounds, many phonetic traits/details will have been "relevantized" to you, and they won't only be theoretical matters; and you will apply your aptitude to distinguish certain features which are relevant in a certain language, to another language where they don't matter.

I wonder to what extent writing is an impediment to getting good at this. It would be interesting to me to have the occasion to learn a language without resorting at all to writing... I wonder how differently I would conceive it. Now, let's imagine I had to devise my own system to write it; wouldn't I naturally come up with a phonemic system rather than a narrowly phonetic one? because the brain is designed in such a way as to recognise patterns, rather than getting bogged down in the details?

Then again, wouldn't I be biased by the fact that I already know how to write another language, and wouldn't I try to fit this language to the writing system I already know, even if it poorly suited it? --Barytonesis (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I might be able to give you some insight. A lot of it just has to do with reading up on and learning about the IPA. The greater your awareness of different sounds and how tongue position affects their quality, the better able you will be to recognize and differentiate between them. For instance, I would never have noticed that the R in tree is voiceless, had I not read it. After reading up on partial voicing, I was further able to recognize that the R was partly voiced because of the following vowels. For some sounds, you might really have to train your ear to hear the difference, especially for sounds that aren't found in your first language. I find that learning how those sounds are produced, and practising saying them makes it easier for me to then recognize them when I hear them. I've also found that my ability to differentiate between and identify different sounds is gradually diminishing, due to lack of review, so it is definitely a learned skill for most people. I imagine it also helps to have exposure to a large variety of different sounds from a young age. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to Wiktionary entries, I'm generally opposed to narrow transcriptions anyway, because they tend to conceal more than they reveal by making it impossible to see the forest for all the damn trees. But when I do use a narrow transcription elsewhere (when I used to be a phonologist for a living and writing papers), I generally relied more on published phonetic descriptions and (when I could get hold of them) spectrograms than on my own ear. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

kutiaa[edit]

The "Nominal forms" part of the inflection table is borked. Can anyone fix it? Because I certainly can't. (I think it's broken because no infinitive I form was provided? But the point about this verb is that such a form doesn't exist for it – it is defective.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried using {{fi-conj-selvitä}} (pretending for the moment that an infinitive I exists), which appears to be a newer template, but it has no documentation and isn't exactly intuitive, which proves the point I made over in the grease pit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hekaheka might be able to help. —Stephen (Talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit tricky: there's an option of defining constant "inf1_longa", which is substituted for "inf1+kseen" on this line. See Template:fi-conj. Another trick is that the conjugation of "kutiaa" is only defined for part of the forms in the conjugation table. For other forms, forms of "kutista" are substituted. That's why "fi-conj-selvitä" -template does not produce a proper table. I added an explanation over the table. Hope it makes sense now.. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine now! Thank you! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

eine Nummer zu groß für jemanden[edit]

This should be moved to eine Nummer zu groß, that is without the "für jemanden" ("for someone"). Thanks a lot. Kolmiel (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it possible for you to move it yourself? The new title is unoccupied. I agree, though, especially considering that it is usually used with dative, not für (das ist mir eine Nummer zu groß, originally referring to clothing). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to move stuff. I could create the new entry and have the old one deleted. Is that the way things are usually moved? Anyway, it's what I'll do. Kolmiel (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: Most content can be moved (other than categories) using the "Move" tab at the top of the page or pressing Shift+Alt+M. See mw:Help:Moving_a_page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

uzhe/yoozh[edit]

+ possibly other spellings(?), abbreviations of "usual". Some Google hits, especially for "the uzhe/yoozh"; do these merit entries? Mihia (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I remember Equinox posting a similar question here. AFAICR, the discussion bore no fruit. But clearly, if they can be cited, they warrant an entry. Tag 'em as informal or colloquial or slang, and Bob's your uncle. --Quadcont (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Good memory! I tracked down the previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2013/September#The_yoozh.3F. The existence of the Uzh river (also a redlink), and of "us" and "use" as common words, makes searching for those likely spellings hard. I found two citations of Citations:uzh. I tried the collocations "per uzh", "as uzh", "the uzh". - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Brexiteer[edit]

Discussion moved to RFV here. Mihia (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

epitome[edit]

The second of the audio files

(file)

sounds to me like /iˈpɪtəmɪ/ (treating the medial flapped stop as an allophone of /t/), rather than /ɪˈpɪt.ə.mi/. Can we verify this pronunciation?Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

misprint[edit]

Typo is given as a synonym and the example sentence treats it that way, too. I'm sure this use is very common. But isn't there also a distinction, i.e. that a typo is when a typist or a typesetter makes a mistake, and a misprint is when the printing machine disfigures a letter or adds a dot where it shouldn't be? Kolmiel (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's a distinction made outside very specific fields at best (typesetter's jargon?). In non-specialist usage, a misprint is simply an error found in a printed product, like a newspaper or book. I wouldn't call a typo or spelling mistake I made myself (as a non-professional writer of non-edited texts) a misprint (nor when found in anything in electronic form), but especially considering that to print can also mean "to write clearly, non-cursively", that usage wouldn't surprise me one bit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

English nook and nock[edit]

English nook developed from a sense of [interior] corner, angle. A nock could be viewed as essentially a tiny nook. Are these words related? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a question better asked at Etymology scriptorium. Anyway, the etymology at nook does suggest Old English hnocc as origin, which looks more like straightforwardly the ancestral form of nock. Etymonline also suggests that the two words are related. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Should I move this post?
(FWIW, the descriptions of the Tea room and the Etymology scriptorium leave it rather unclear which is the better venue for questions like this...)
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

mollymawk, mollemoke and forms[edit]

Is mollemoke an obsolete form of mollymawk, or should they be kept separate? "Mollymawk" seems to refer to albatrosses exclusively, and "mollemoke" to petrels. Are there two different etymologies? DTLHS (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mollemoke is not much used. The Webster's 1913 definition is much copied, not just by us. Century 1911 has "same as mallemuck. OED? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

""mallemuck in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 looks helpful. DCDuring TALK 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

About Catalan "ditxós"[edit]

I was adding a translation for the Catalan usage example of ¡! here on the Wiktionary, and "ditxós" was not to be found on the Wiktionary (English or Catalan), and Google Translator didn't know it. So I googled for it, and found glosbe saying it means "damned". However, the context of the usage example (along with the context of the song over here and the fact it's listed as synonym of pròsper on the Catalan Wiktionary) suggest it means "lucky" or "blissful", which is rather different. So what does it mean? Where does it come from? Can someone create an entry for it?

MGorrone (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@MGorrone: DIEC has nothing for the term and wikt:ca:ditxós doesn't exist but the fact that it is linked wikt:ca:pròsper as a synonym is helpful. Also, instances of the word at w:ca: seem to be consistent with the happy/fortunate meaning. This Catlan–Spanish dictionary lists "dichoso", which means lucky as well as damned. Sorry if that's not conclusive but it seems like that is probably the correct definition. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

自然語言處理 and 自然言語処理[edit]

These two computing phrases, one from Chinese and one from Japanese, definitely look related (there's a lot of sharing words in the zh/ja STEM lexicon); where would be a good section in their entries to add links to each other? --Kakurady (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The relationship isn't entirely clear, so I am hesitant to add these as cognates when they may be independent coinages / calques. I've added them to each other's pages using {{also}} at the top of the page. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I think this is what I'm looking for. --Kakurady (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

гнусавый[edit]

Yes check.svg Done гнусавить

гнусавый голос often indicates that person is sick in Russian.

Is there a noun or adjective in English similar to гнусавый?

Dictionaries suggest these, but I'm not sure about English usage:

What word is the best to use in casual conversations? d1g (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Two words pop to mind: stuffy, snifflyStuffy would apply to a nose, sniffly to a person. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I should say: I don't know what word гнусавый(gnusavyj) derives from, but these ideas were based on the word nasal, which has to do with the nose. So if the Russian word is about the common cold and a runny nose, those are good words. — Eru·tuon 21:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "гнусавый голос" is about voice during common cold and runny nose, ОРВИ is the most common causation.
There are other factors, complex scenarios can be fixed by surgeon; simplest by логопед (example) d1g (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sick in what way? Why doesn't sick or sickly work?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

have designs on[edit]

Should we have an entry for this? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, IMO. Also see have designs on at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless it's SOP with sense 4 of design, which actually shows this collocation in one of its quotes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't usually second guess the lemmings. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

風邪 example[edit]

The example sentence for this term - "風邪を引く" - uses the kanji meaning "pull" for the word "ひく" - to catch, in this context. A quick Google search of the phrase in all hiragana brings up "風邪をひく" much more frequently, and the Genki 1 textbook prefers this too, although said book does render other terms in hiragana that are often written in kanji. The top answer on this page likewise suggests that the kanji rendering is, at least nowadays, uncommon, but I don't feel that I have solid enough evidence, with my limited Japanese, to make the judgement call myself. Can anyone confirm or deny that the word should be written in hiragana? --Ichigoichigo (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it since the kana spelling has twice as many Google Books results. —suzukaze (tc) 20:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
As also noted in this Chiebukuro thread, there are several kanji that could be applied to the term ひく, but only 引く is appropriate in relation to 風邪(kaze, a cold, an illness). For instance, 挽く(hiku, to saw, to cut something with a saw) is clearly the wrong kanji, and likewise, 碾く(hiku, to grind, as coffee or flour) is also clearly the incorrect sense.
The 引く entry could certainly benefit from expansion, in which case a usage note would be appropriate to inform the reader that the 風邪を引く expression is often spelled with ひく in hiragana.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

وجب[edit]

I'm curious about the syntactical characteristics of وَجَبَ(wajaba). My impression is that one of the senses, “to be necessary”, is impersonal: it always occurs in the third person singular masculine and never has a subject, or in another analysis perhaps the subject is a clause introduced by أَنْ(ʾan). But I'm not at all sure about this; Wehr doesn't give more than two examples. Both examples can be analyzed as impersonal, but it's conceivable that other uses are personal. The second sense, “to be one's duty”, could also be impersonal. Does anyone know more about this? — Eru·tuon 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, here are Wehr's examples:

  • وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ أَنْ
    wajaba ʿalay-hi ʾan
    it is his duty to ..., he is in duty bound to ..., he has to ..., he must ...
  • كَمَا يَجِبُ
    kamā yajibu
    as it should be, as it must be, comme il faut

Eru·tuon 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The verb can be personal and impersonal, and it isn't always singular masculine. You can say, for example: يجب إعدام هذا الرجل(Yajibu ’i‘dāmu hāḏā r-rajul., This man must be executed., literally This man's execution is necessary). And with a feminine noun: لا تجب الصلاة على الأطفال(Lā tajibu ṣ-ṣalātu ‘alā l-’aṭfāl., Children are not required to perform the [Islamic] obligatory prayer., literally The prayer is not necessary on the children). When it's impersonal, it is always masculine. And I think that the subject is, as you proposed, the following subclause. Kolmiel (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

accredit the fact[edit]

Hello.

I was writing a message and was looking for a way I had in mind to say “You can at least mention that you know about the matter of…”, or “You can at least tell that you have in mind the fact that…». I couldn’t remember the expression anyway, so I sent a message with one of these longer forms (and it was in French anyway, so it would have been quite useless to remember it, and it’s also probably the reason why I couldn’t get hold of it).

I found it afterwards: “accredit the fact” (“You can at least accredit the fact that…”). I went to read the accredit entry, but nothing matches really. There’re still 79,300 results on Google.

Is it wrong? Was I thinking about another expression from which “accredit the fact” is deformed? Can someone put some light on this? Thanks!

Nclm (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't sense 2 ("To put or bring into credit; to invest with credit or authority; to sanction") the appropriate meaning of accredit for your purposes? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant acknowledge rather than accredit? Equinox 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, acknowledge is closer to what I had in mind (and shorter since “the fact” isn’t needed). Thanks! Nclm (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
"Accredit the fact" is very uncommon, judging from Google Books (10 hits for all inflections). I'm also not sure how common the sense of accredit that Angr identifies is in current English. I wouldn't have been sure what you meant by accrediting a fact, except perhaps from context. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Some instances of "accredit the fact" might be errors for "credit the fact". Mihia (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

sheep#Scots[edit]

This doesn't look right to me. Wyang (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nor to me. I've never heard sheep pronounced with a "t" sound, and I don't see how Scots would be any different. It was added as part of one of User:Embryomystic's typical everything-at once edits: when you make dozens of several different kinds of changes all up and down a complex entry, it's too easy to overlook details Chuck Entz (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ay, it was obviously unintentionally copied from tuip somehow. Anyway, Metaknowledge set it right. --Droigheann (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how I managed to do that. I've added the actual pronunciation now; significantly simpler and less controversial. Thanks for catching the error, folks. embryomystic (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

dzaye mystery fruit[edit]

I need the help of those who are better at Googling than I am, in order to identify the dzaye fruit. None of the native speakers I know have been aware of any English name for it, but one non-native speaker calls it the "elephant-orange". I would like to find the scientific name of the tree from which it comes for our entry, but neither the native name nor the supposed English name have produced anything! Nearly all the hits on Google are of a popular proverb which mentions this mysterious fruit. @Chuck EntzΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you find this page? It narrows it down a little bit: "same family as passion fruit or granadilla". Equinox 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I found but a single scholarly article that says it's Strychnos spinosa (w:Strychnos spinosa). DCDuring TALK 14:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DCDuring, I do believe that looks right! I'll show the photos of it to a native speaker to confirm. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Slangy word for convenience store?[edit]

In French (possibly only in Belgian French, I don't know), we often speak of a paki ("Est-ce que vous savez s'il y a un paki dans le coin ?"), because this kind of shop tends to be owned/managed by Pakistani people. Do you have a similar word in English, that would refer to the supposed origin of the owners? And we also speak of night shop (again, possibly only in Belgian French), but you don't have such a word in English, do you? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that we don't have categories for pseudo-anglicisms. Would Category:Pseudo-anglicisms in French be suitable? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Beware that "Paki" in English is an offensive racial slur. Mihia (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"Paki shop" is a familiar collocation in British English but it sounds racist and will not make a good impression! I also doubt it's commonly/ever used for shops not actually operated by Pakistanis. Equinox 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: To build upon what User:Mihia said above, "Paki" is offensive only the United Kingdom (and possibly other places which have a strong cultural affiliation with the UK) but not in (e.g.) the United States, where the term is not used at all. For what it's worth, as an American, there are definitely stereotypes of South Asians owning convenience stores, gas stations, hotels, and a few other businesses but I can happily report that I am pleasantly surprised that I don't know of any ethnic-based terms for these types of businesses. The only slang term that I can recall for a convenience store is a "c-store". —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Here in the US, I've quite often heard the terms bodaga (or bodago) and hindu mart used to refer to these stores. Leasnam (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's spelled bodega. And I think I've heard Korean market in the States, but maybe only when the owners are actually Koreans. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Just want to point out the coincidence of the word packie(liquor store). --WikiTiki89 19:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As another speaker born and raised in the US, I've never heard of any ethnic labels referring to convenience stores. I have heard use of slev as a contraction of Seven-Eleven, but that's the only slangy term I know of for convenience store. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Nor have I. I have sometimes heard these shops called bodegas or corner stores or occasionally delis (a misuse of this term), but often simply referred to by their brand (7-11, Circle K, Wawa, etc.). Benwing2 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
FWIW the entry on corner store claims it's a Canadianism, which I don't believe. Benwing2 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The only general informal term I've heard is minimart- not exactly slang... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This looks like a job for DARE. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

cockblock, and first occurrences of words[edit]

I read on the Wikipedia article that this word "appears to date at least back to 1972, when Edith Folb documented its use by urban black teenagers." This seems like relevant lexicographic information to me. Two questions spring to mind:

  • what's the habit around here? Do we generally try to find the earliest occurrences of words, especially of slangy ones?
  • is there any kind of tool to help us in this quest? (@DCDuring?) --Barytonesis (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
If there isn't an actual quotation, you can put this information in the etymology with a reference. If you're looking for quotations Google Books is useful, in which case the quotation can go under the relevant definition. We also have {{defdate}}. DTLHS (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: Another good resource is Google Scholar, especially for technical terms but also for academic literature about slang terms. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The main 'tool' is Google Books which allows searching in a date range. For slang you can restrict the search to fiction ("subject:fiction"). Also slang dictionaries often have a citations and/or a date assigned. It's not in DARE vol 1, (1985), but might be in the recently published catch-up volume or online. I not familiar with AAVE dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The 1972 reference is here http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066758.pdf . Will add cite. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

chant (verb)[edit]

I feel like we're missing a sense here of a large group of people saying the same thing in the same rhythm, e.g. an angry mob chanting "Down with so-and-so", or a stadium of soccer fans chanting "Block that kick!". Both of our current senses of the verb refer to singing, but this kind of chanting isn't singing at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have added a sense. Feel free to improve. Equinox 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

great ape[edit]

As the definition notes, sometimes this term includes humans, and sometimes it does not. Is it appropriate to split that into two senses, along the lines of animal? (Note that none of the senses at great ape are "scientific" senses per se like the first sense at animal is; biology has largely abandoned the use of great ape except for popular writing.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of citations. Can we find instances of usage such as "man and other great apes"? DCDuring TALK 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Given that, what's your answer to my question? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Our definition makes it sound as if the term is very closely associated with specific scientific terms. Maybe it is, but to me the scientific terms seem less stable than the core (typical) membership included in the groups. Perhaps we could be intentionally vague about the exact relationship to the current "correct" taxonomic definition of Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, etc. Putting the linkage to taxonomic names in a usage note might be handy. Even that note should probably not lead with the taxa IMO.
I am also skeptical about having the list of morphological characters.
Most other dictionaries have a single definition excluding humans, some include humans. I think it would be useful to pointedly make the distinction between the two uses by having two definitions, one with humans, one without.
If you want, I'll take a run at it, but not today. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would. I agree that the characters ought to go and that a usage note would help. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring, a reminder. (Of course, if you don't do it, I suppose I'll get to it eventually myself.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

µm, µg, etc. (U+00B5) → μm, μg, etc. (U+03BC)[edit]

Currently the pages with μ (U+03BC, Greek small letter mu) are redirected to the pages with µ (U+00B5, micro sign). However, the latter is a legacy character for backward compatibility and we should use rather the Greek mu. I would like to switch the real pages and the redirects. I did so on French Wiktionary in 2013. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I never realized that. I thought the micro sign was intended for use as the SI prefix. I certainly didn't know it's deprecated, especially since it's available as AltGr+m on my German keyboard. But reading the link you provided convinced me, so I have no objection to your switching the direction of the redirect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Since there are dozens of pages to rename, I have to wait for an answer for my problem. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, last I heard, even the Unicode Consortium recommends using the letter mu to represent "micro" instead of the micro sign. However, I still think the micro sign is useful, since it allows a string search to specifically find the letter mu as used in units, as opposed to other scientific uses such as a variable, the symbol for a muon, etc. (e.g. a mu can be a muon or a micron, but a micro sign can only be a micron). Since Wiktionary should be as comprehensive as possible, I would recommend following the Unicode recommendation to use the letter mu for units inside pages, but still leave the micro sign for page names as synonyms, especially since that is how the units were previously coded (even though they are visually identical on most fonts). Entries using the micro sign can simply be labeled as "former encoding for," or something like that. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I will keep them as redirects. The difference between μ (U+03BC) and µ (U+00B5) is only in encoding and negligible for human eyes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I support using the Greek mu in all these entries and keeping redirects wih the legacy character micro. I was already thinking of doing that, but I focused on doing other redirects and left that for later.
In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/October#Proposal: Redirect many single-character entries, I had suggested redirecting the µ (micro) itself to μ (mu). I did that today, if that's OK. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought about it too but I was too busy. Good job. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

蛋蛋[edit]

@Tooironic, Wyang, the definitions needs some labels (childish, colloquial, etc.). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Tooironic has added some. I think the senses "egg", "fruit", "spherical object" and "very" may be dialectal. Wyang (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Wyang: thanks for your input! Hanyu Fangyan Da Cidian only mentions "boy's testicles" (SW Mandarin: Dafang), "fruit" (Jin: N. Shaanxi) and "very" (Jin), but are these just used in these regions? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
My feelings are: "boy's testicles" (colloquial: pan-Mandarin, Jin, and potentially others; often childish), "egg" (dialectal or childish), "fruit" (dialectal), "spherical object" (dialectal) and "very" (dialectal). Wyang (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I've made some changes accordingly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

fear and loathing[edit]

Def and usex are very politically charged. Is it accurate? Can it be toned down a bit? Equinox 07:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The usage example indicates that the definition is wrong. The first question is whether fear and loathing is not SoP or more like milk and honey. What does it collocate with? Eg, NP in "fear and loathing of [NP]". From that we might be able to sort out meanings to determine if any of them are not SoP. The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing is the only OneLook reference that has the term (FoLDIS has copiers.). It has a similarly tendentious definition, but in IT. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

final illness[edit]

I created this but User:SemperBlotto deleted it. The reason given was just nah. I assume the actual reason is sum of parts. However, I would argue the phrase isn't simply sum of parts–suppose Bob has a cold, from which he completely recovers, and then two weeks later he is murdered. That cold was the last illness he had in his life, but few people would call that cold his final illness. final illness means the illness which kills you, which might not actually be the last illness of your life if you die from non-illness related causes (such as murder, accidents, natural disaster, war, etc). Yet, since one of the senses of final is "last", a person (especially a non-native English speaker) might think "final illness" just means "last illness in ones life" not specifically "illness from which one dies". Given this, the term isn't simply sum of parts, therefore I think it should be included. 180.181.102.164 10:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not found in any medical dictionary and all usages that I can find (in a short search) were sum of parts. We do now have terminal illness that has the same meaning, but has lots more usage (and a Wikipedia entry as well). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
That’s a reasonable objection. I have restored it. @SemperBlotto: Please go to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion to delete it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
terminal illness and final illness are used in different ways. When a historian talks about the death of a historical figure due to illness, they will usually say "Mozart's final illness" not "Mozart's terminal illness". That is because "final illness" is more non-medical (such as historical or literary) terminology than medical terminology. Compare Google searches of "Mozart's final illness" to "Mozart's terminal illness", you'll find the first phrase is significantly more popular, and also the results for the second phrase tend to skew in a more medical direction. "Terminal illness" also (often) implies an illness that contemporary medicine cannot cure (or at least its attempts to cure it are very hit and miss), e.g. many forms of cancer, whereas in history many "final illnesses" would be things which would not be considered a "terminal illness" today. Historically many people's final illness was syphilis, but it seems strange to contemporary ears to call that a "terminal illness" since today it is quite easily treatable and very rarely fatal. The term "terminal illness" is often (but not exclusively) used in ways which focus on the type of illness a person has–a common cold is not a terminal illness but certain aggressive cancers are–while you can talk about a particular person's terminal illness, you also often talk about particular medical conditions as terminal illnesses without reference to any particular person suffering them–whereas the term "final illness" is used in ways which focus on the person whose illness it is, even when (as in many historical cases) the specific medical condition they had is unknown or can only be guessed at–i.e. one can talk about a specific medical condition (without reference to any person who has it) as a "terminal illness", but to call such a condition a "final illness" sounds very odd. 180.181.102.164 21:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this should be deleted as SoP even though the two words could theoretically have another meaning. Context and common sense are probably sufficient. Even our classic textbook example of "brown leaf" could mean something else (the brown old page of an ancient book). Equinox 21:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Appealing to "common sense" is a poor argument because what is common sense to a fluent speaker of English may be confusing or unclear to someone with less fluency who simply doesn't know the "common sense" which fluent speakers possess. I don't think "brown leaf" is a good counterexample, because using "brown leaf" to talk about a brown page of a book is not a usage which anyone would say is wrong or particularly confusing; whereas, saying "Bob's final illness" when talking about the chronologically last illness of Bob's life when he died from non-illness related causes is something which very many people would consider at least confusing or even just downright wrong. There is nothing wrong with the sentence "The brown leaves of the book were faded". There is something wrong with the sentence "Bob's final illness lasted six weeks" if Bob was murdered 6 months later. The first sentence doesn't deceive or confuse, the second sentence does, for it implies the illness killed him even though it didn't. ("Bob's last illness lasted six weeks" isn't necessarily as confusing because "last illness" doesn't have as strong an implication of death as "final illness" does–I might say "Bob's last illness took him a long time to recover from" and there's nothing wrong with that sentence but "Bob's final illness took him a long time to recover from" sounds potentially contradictory since "final" implies no recovery.) Where some of the plausible SOP readings are actually ruled out by common usage, the phrase isn't purely SOP any more. 180.181.102.164 01:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

trait#English - Different uses of the two pronunciations?[edit]

My impression in Australia is that the pronunciation /treɪt/ is the usual pronunciation, and the pronunciation /treɪ/ is typically only reserved for genetic or other academic uses. For example, one speaks of “sickle cell trait /treɪ/” and “thalassaemia trait /treɪ/”, never /treɪt/ (saying this in this situation may cause others to wince.). Wyang (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard /tɹeɪ/ in en-US at all; I'm pretty sure /tɹeɪt/ is the only pronunciation in all uses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. I would wince only at hearing it pronounced sans t Leasnam (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the fact base or methodology we use to determine or confirm the existence and relative frequency of pronunciations? DCDuring TALK 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, apparently some dictionaries show the other pronunciation without the t as secondary. Leasnam (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
So, is it a pronunciation used by French-trained doctors? DCDuring TALK 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I note that some OneLook dictionaries have the silent-t pronunciation as UK. Medical dictionaries usually don't have pronunciations. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes UK Leasnam (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
John C. Wells in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary gives both options for UK English but gives preference to /tɹeɪ/. He says nothing about the two pronunciations being used in different contexts. For US English he lists only /tɹeɪt/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

mute h[edit]

This definition seems too narrow. I'm sure the term is also used to refer to unpronounced h'es in Spanish, etc. And what about English? What do you call the "h" in hour or honour? Kolmiel (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Hmm, I was a bit overhasty (again). I wasn't aware of the term silent h. However, I've also found "mute h" as a synonym, for example referring to English. I'd create that entry and make a link, but the problem is that any letter can be silent or mute. Kolmiel (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The difference between French and English is that the "h" in hour is silent while the "h" in house is actually pronounced. But French phonology distinguishes between mute h and aspirated h by their behavior, even though both of them are in fact silent: le héros is pronounced /lə e.ʁo/, not */lə he.ʁo/. So mute h in this sense is something English and Spanish don't have, because English just has ordinary silent h’s opposed to pronounced h’s, and in Spanish there's no different behavior between two different kinds of silent h. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the more familiar English term is silent h, with mute h being used more when referring to the traditionally silent h in languages like French (mute h always makes me think of French), but that may not be universally true. Leasnam (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

live in, live out[edit]

Where are these used? They sound unnatural to me (an American English speaker). DTLHS (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not in Canada... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The terms are used with reference to household servants, domestic help, nannies, etc. A "live in nanny" vs. a "live out nanny". Or cook, gardner, maid, butler, cleaner, chauffeur, whatever. Once you understand the context (I didn't at first since the entries really don't make the context clear) the terms don't sound unnatural at all. 180.181.102.164 01:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not how the entries present the terms. They are defined as verbs. We have live-in which matches the adjectival sense you describe. DTLHS (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Imagine three nannies talking. The first nanny asks the other two, "Do you live in or out?" The second responds "I live in". The third says "I live out". To read "live in"/"live out" as verb phrases seems a very natural reading of such a conversation. (The stuff about "My commute is two minutes" in the example for live in is stupid though, since if you have a two minute commute you don't reside at your place of employment – e.g. maybe you bought an apartment across the street from your employer's offices, so you only have a two minute walk to get to work in the morning, but you don't actually live in your employer's offices.) 180.181.102.164 01:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Some dictionaries restrict these to the UK, but others do not. In the US live in seems common enough to me, but not live out. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
(Incidentally, live out probably needs another sense. Can't you live out a dream, or a fantasy?) Equinox 06:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. More importantly, some idiom/phrasal-verb dictionaries do too. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

niggerette[edit]

I've heard in Urban Dictionary it's also "cigarettes niggers smoke", so should that be another definition here?

If it can be cited, that is, if three durably archived usages can be found (see WT:CFI). -Lücht (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Added with three citations. I defined it "as an inferior cigarette" (the term is used e.g. to complain about menthols); not sure whether it really has anything to do with black people's smoking preferences; def may need tweaking. Equinox 06:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
In my long-lost youth "Kool" was a brand of menthol cigarette that was reportedly popular among American blacks. More recently in the US, there have been brands of cigarettes whose popularity was principally due to their low prices relative to the traditional brands like Marlboro. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I found a blog post discussing this: [5]. Equinox 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"1/100th" when discussing currency subunits[edit]

Many of our currency entries describe a unit as "1/100th" of another. This always looks wrong to me. It's 1/100, or one hundredth, but not one slash hundredth. You wouldn't write "1/3rd", would you? Do others agree these should be changed? Equinox 19:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems a bit weird yeah, I'd change it if I saw it. — Kleio (t · c) 19:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is an error. The correct way to write such a measurement is either as 0.01 or 1/100. A hundredth (one hundredth) can be written as "a 100th" but not "1/100th," since 1/0.01 = 100. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Got rid of all "1/100th". There are probably still a few instances of other numbers than 100... Equinox 15:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It is rare and dated but attested: [6]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

farmly[edit]

I can't seem to source the 1990 George Bush citation (from a speech), which actually just seems to be Bush mispronouncing "family values". Did he really mean farmly as defined? If not this should be removed. Equinox 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that he followed it immediately with "family", the implication is that he either used it as a one-off pun (he got a laugh) or it was a slip of the tongue. As for the second quote, "farmly" is immediately followed by "farm", which would be rather awkward if it was intended to be used with the challenged sense. It looks more like a typo for family influenced by the similarity to the following word. As for the third quote: it's in a poem, and modern poets are well known for bending vocabulary into unnatural shapes for artistic reasons. I don't think any of them really supports a word with any existence independent from the specific circumstances of each instance, and three times nothing is still nothing. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
2 additional cites with clear "farm"-related meaning. Leasnam (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I mean, the cites are pretty awful (including an odd poem that may not support this sense, one that seems to be a very clear mistake, one making fun of a half-educated Japanese immigrant's English, and what appears to be a classic Bushism). That said, under the normal interpretation of CFI, these would indeed pass if RFV'ed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about cloud ear, Jew's ear, 雲耳 and 木耳[edit]

After reading the descriptions and seeing pictures of Auricularia polytricha and Auricularia auricula-judae, if cloud ear is the same thing as 雲耳, then cloud ear should be Auricularia auricula-judae (or Jew's ear), the softer of the two, instead of Auricularia polytricha, the harder, crisper one, contrary to how Wikipedia names these. The Wikipedia article named cloud ear fungus says the Chinese name is 雲耳, but this is not supported on the Chinese Wikipedia or by any sources. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This calls Auricularia auricula-judae "cloud ear mushroom". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

fiddle about, fiddle around[edit]

I thought these terms suggested unskilled mechanical fixing activity, e.g. fiddling around inside the back of a TV set to try to make it work. The given definitions (from the same IP) suggest they just mean idling, lazing around. Is that right? Equinox 19:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem right to me (or at least it isn't a definition I was aware of). The sense you mention is the only one that is familiar to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I now see that the same IP initially defined "ferret out" as "to fatten by feeding"!! Their entire contributions merit sceptical investigation. Equinox 20:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Fiddle about strikes me as the UK version of US fiddle around. What our definition lacks IMO is the notion that the "fiddler" is engaged in a pointless, valueless activity, the sole result of which is the waste of time. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it can go either way. E.g. "Quit fiddling around with that TV!" would mean that the person is wasting their time with an unproductive or detrimental activity (in the opinion of the person speaking). However, "I spent the afternoon fiddling around with the TV to improve its color balance" would mean a productive activity. Whether fiddling around is productive activity or not obviously depends on context. I think that "fiddling around" specifically just implies a mechanical or repetitive activity (by analogy of instrument-playing), and not so much as whether that activity is productive. Though in most cases, it is used either in a pejorative (for nonproductive activities) or tongue-in-cheek (for productive activities) context. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

invasive carp[edit]

I'm intrigued about this being glossed as a euphemism. It sounds worse than "Asian carp", doesn't it? What's the story? Equinox 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Asian carp. DCDuring (who created invasive carp) seems to classify it as euphemistic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
What has happened is that certain laws and regulations seem to use invasive carps where the carps in question are more usually called Asian carps. I believe that this is done not as a euphemism for the fish but for Asian-descended voters, whom some considered to be offended or potentially offended by the association of their continent of ancestry with these invasive species, against which extensive control efforts were or are to be undertaken (revocation of visas?). The invasive Asian carps are bighead carp, silver carp, black carp, and grass carp.
Does anyone know of a better term than euphemism, which term seems to actually fit this situation by our definition. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
That makes more sense to me now, although perhaps the entry could benefit from an explanatory usage note? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Or a citation or two. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Politically correct? — Ungoliant (falai) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid that label by using something more generic, less political, but that may not be possible. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ensemblist is not a word[edit]

Why are there entries for words that don't exist? Ensemblist is not a word. Using Soloist as an example is not valid. So why is this entry on the Wiktionary?

Of course it's a word: [7]. Equinox 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

About njeri[edit]

The current article is lacking two things:

  1. A translation of the usage example;
  2. A different section (maybe with alternate etymology) for the pronominal use, which at present is only mentioned in a quotation in the references.

So I wonder:

  1. Is it correct that "atë njeri e njihja" means "I knew that man"?
  2. Does the pronoun "njeri | anyone" share the etymology of the noun "njeri | man" or is it distinguished from it not only "semantically and grammatically" (quoting the reference) but etymologically as well? And in the latter case, where is the pronoun from?
  3. Could someone add these things to [the article]?
  4. Is the TR the right place to bring up such issues (of articles lacking info) or is there a more appropriate place for this?

MGorrone (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is one place to discuss it. Usually the best place to discuss language-specific details is the talk page to the "About" page for the language (in this case, Wiktionary:About Albanian), but I don't see much activity there, and the talk page is a redlink. Albanian isn't very widely studied by non-Albanians, and it has a sad history of heavy-handed interference by various parties for various political reasons, so we get a lot of Albanian editors with agendas working on etymologies and not a lot of basic dictionary work. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

premier[edit]

In English this is also pronounced PREEM-ee-er, right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Here in Canada, I've only heard /ˈpɹimjɚ/. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not in the UK. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, it's only /pɹiˈmɪɚ/ in the U.S. —Stephen (Talk) 09:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of presentation[edit]

Is the pronunciation of presentation as /ˌpɹizənˈteɪʃən/ actually used in the UK? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I've heard it used in at least one British movie/TV show. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

predicate[edit]

Looks like we need a new entry for predicate in the sense of criminal predicate. And here's a quote: "Those require a criminal predicate, or reasonable suspicion. New York TimesJan 25, 2017" --Espoo (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

artifice[edit]

I have been using the word "artifice" as a verb for years, in the sense of "to make artificial (from something natural)," e.g. "to artifice a mine from a mountain," or "to artifice trees into paper." However, I can't seem to find any citations for this. Have I been using this word incorrectly all this time? It does have a nice poetic ring to it. Nicole Sharp (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • It does seem a little odd, but the OED has the verb sense "trans. To make or shape by artifice; to apply artifice to; to construct, contrive. Now chiefly of immaterial things." (with citations from 1652 to 1995) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Oxford University Press OxfordDictionaries.com came up on a Google Search for "artificing," but it still only lists "artifice" as a noun. If you have any citations or usages, see if you can add them here on Wiktionary, since they don't come up for me on Google. Nicole Sharp (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, shouldn't there be an uncountable sense? DTLHS (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of uses of artificed that seem to be adjectival and of artificing that seem to be nominal, though some could also be interpreted as verbal. I found three uses that seem to me to be clearly verbal. They are in the entry, but I have not provided a definition. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

take over[edit]

I wonder why every single sense has been labelled "idiomatic". DonnanZ (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Because none of them can be deduced from the definitions of "take" and "over". A example of a non-idiomatic use would be "I took the horse over the bridge". Siuenti (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, but I still wouldn't class it at being idiomatic, implying an idiom, even though there's a different sense. Saying "company X took over company Y" is the same as "company X took company Y over". It's just a phrasal verb that can be split, nothing remotely idiomatic about it. DonnanZ (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Lexicographic idiomaticity is principally in the semantics, not the grammar, at least as we consider it. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I question the value of labelling every idiomatic sense as such, though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've inserted {{&lit}} which, arguably, obviates the need for all those "idiomatic" labels (which I did not remove). DCDuring TALK 00:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
They're removed now, the note "used other than as an idiom" is enough to indicate an "idiomatic" phrase. It is still recorded as an idiom after the labels are removed, so the labels are / were actually superfluous. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"help" meaning "do for"[edit]

I've met some African speakers who use the word "help" in the sense of "do for", e.g. "I'll help you wash the car" would mean "I'll wash the car for you". I'd like to add something to "help" to point out this is non-standard in most varieties of English, but I'm not sure how to proceed. (Chinese people also do this [8]) Siuenti (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

girl[edit]

Daniel C added two curious senses, with idiosyncratic cites that might not reflect normal usage: (i) a person, regardless of their gender, who is perceived as conforming to female stereotypes; (ii) a man who does not have a healthy penis. To me this is deliberate playing with language rather than mainstream dictionary senses. Imagine a woman saying: "My father was never home, so, growing up, I had to be the father in our house." Equinox 21:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To me, these senses are OK. We have the sense "A person who plays the role of a father in some way." at father. If we found the sentence "My father was never home, so, growing up, I had to be the father in our house." in a book, I'd support using it as a quote for that sense. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that sense of "father" really surprises me! I mean, it's like having a sense at "spaceman" for "a child playing at being a spaceman" (as in "this time you be the spaceman and I'll be the alien"), or at "teapot" for "a small model of a teapot belonging to a doll's house". I feel the same about "catgirl" defining a cosplayer, as I once mentioned before. Sometimes one just refers to something as X because it is a simulacrum of X, even though you know it's not a real X. Equinox 20:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Quite. --Droigheann (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Or Shirley Temple at teapot... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Allright. I removed the 2 senses from girl. I only left the quotations there, if that's OK. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

heel of a hand[edit]

We don't seem to have this either under heel or as a separate entry. Could someone who's - unlike me - quite certain which part of the hand it refers to add it? --Droigheann (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the term...for the area of the palm nearest the wrist Leasnam (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say add it under heel. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Added by DCDuring - special thanks for finding a picture which made it crystal clear! --Droigheann (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

indefatigably/indefatigable[edit]

The entry shows the stress on the third syllable, which jibes with most usage I've encountered ... but I've occasionally heard the adverb stressed on the antepenult: AmE /ɪndɨfəˈtɨɡəbli/. Can anyone confirm whether that's considered a standard variant, or a solecism? If the former, can anyone attest a similar pronunciation of the adjective (e.g., /ɪndɨfəˈtiɡəbəɫ/)? —This unsigned comment was added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) at 14:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC).

It's obviously stressed on the penultimate, because it rhymes with Clark Gable. —CodeCat 15:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't tell if CodeCat is joking or not, but I've certainly never heard either the adjective or the adverb stressed on any syllable other than fæt. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the existence of what seems to be the standard pronunciation.... I'm only familiar with /ˌɪndəfəˈtiɡəbəl/ and /ˌɪndəfəˈtiɡəbli/. It's possible my pronunciation is idiosyncratic though, and I've never actually heard the word (although that seems unlikely). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

following[edit]

Noun sense 2, the plural form should be following, or there should only be a singular form.

For the sense defined as “Something to be mentioned immediately later”, I believe that it is incorrect to use the form followings, even when referring to several things. For example:

The following are common words:

  • list,
  • item.

However, when referring to several things after this fashion, I do not know if we actually use the plural of following—although with an identical spelling—or if the word in this sense has no plural and we actually use the singular form here too. Either way, the definition for this sense should belong to a different section. --Anareth (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I added a note "singular only". I think this is worth mentioning, for one thing because "the followings" is an error sometimes made by non-native speakers. I also took the liberty of adjusting the heading of this thread. Mihia (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry, I need to revisit this as, of course, we can say "the following are ..." as well as "the following is ...". I have just reverted my edit for now, as I have to go and have no time to look at it now. Mihia (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I had another go. Please anyone change it if you prefer different wording. Mihia (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Calques and translations[edit]

Where is the line drawn between translations, translations that feature word order that is identical to the source word/phrase, and calques? Like Red Square, which currently claims to be a calque. —suzukaze (tc) 23:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A calque is a translation, specifically a loan-translation. That means that it's translated, but then this translation becomes part of the language's idiom rather than being a one-off. —CodeCat 00:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

-tastic[edit]

-tastic, is this really a suffix ? If so, then is -tel a suffix (motel, boatel, floatel, etc.) ? Leasnam (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Same for -tacular, -riffic, -licious Leasnam (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the OED calls -tastic a "combining form" and defines/describes it "Forming adjectives designating someone or something perceived as excellent or remarkable as regards that which is denoted by the prefixed word. Cf. POPTASTIC adj. In early use freq. punningly used to create a word phonetically similar to fantastic." [9] They also have a "combining form" -riffic [10] but none of the others. --Droigheann (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's officially recognised on Oxford Online as an informal combining form, "Forming adjectives denoting someone or something regarded as an extremely good example of their particular type" in words such as poptastic and funtastic.
  • As for -tel, I think this is just a blend based on hotel, and not a suffix as such. DonnanZ (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Welll, my point is: isn't poptastic just a blend of pop/popular and fantastic in the same way that boatel is a blend of boat and hotel ? A combining form is a suffix, is it ? ok, I see it now. Thanks Leasnam (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it depends on how old and well-established it is. The first few words in -athon would have been regarded as blends, but now it's easy to use that on new words without particularly thinking about the root word marathon. Equinox 21:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

in places[edit]

Meaning only in some places and not everywhere. It may be worth an entry: I have just found a translation for this, e.g. "... that in places has led to the establishment of grass cover". DonnanZ (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Spatial equivalent of at times — though there are other similar versions like in spots. Equinox 20:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not to be confused with in place either. Anyway, I have created an entry for in places; I have classified it as an adverb for now, but someone will surely reclassify it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused by first definition of agency[edit]

The first definition of 'agency' reads: "The capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power..."

This expands to:

   1. The capacity power, or
   2. The condition power, or 
   3. The state of acting power, or
   4. The state of exerting power

The last one is the only one that I understand. Maybe an additional 'of' or other preposition or word went missing. Are the following meanings what are intended for the first three?

   1. The capacity also called power, i.e. 'agency' is a synonym of 'power'
   2. The condition of power, i.e. the state of being in power, or the effects of being in power
   3. The state of acting while in power, i.e. availing oneself of one's power, i.e. the state of enacting one's power
         or the state of acting (pretending to be) powerful

—This unsigned comment was added by 75.115.90.84 (talk) at 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

EDIT: Oops, now I see that it may have meant

   1. "The capacity, condition, or state of acting, or the capacity, condition, or state of exerting power..."

—This unsigned comment was added by 75.115.90.84 (talk) at 21:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

It can be read in still other ways too. Thanks for bringing the lack of clarity to the attention of the community. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

oi[edit]

Are there really four distinct senses of ety 1? Mihia (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've encountered all four of those. Equinox 13:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
So how is #1 different to #2? #1 definition is "hey", and, as far as I can see, "Oi! Stop that!" means "Hey! Stop that!". Mihia (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Those two could probably be merged. Equinox 14:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree; I have merged them. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

definition of subdural[edit]

Hello, the definition for subdural seems wrong:

The definition for 'subdural' is: "(anatomy) located beneath the dura mater and above the meninges"

When I clicked on 'dura mater' it said: "(anatomy) The tough and inflexible outermost of the three layers of the meninges "

And the definition for meninges was: "(anatomy) The three membranes that envelop the brain and spinal cord."


These three definitions obviously aren't self consistent. It seems more like the definition for subdural ought to be " located between the dura mater and the arachnoid mater" or perhaps, since 'arachnoid mater is a pretty obscure word: "located between the dura mater and the next most inward layer of the meninges"

But, I'm no expert, I'm just basing that suggestion on what makes sense from the three definitions above.

DlronW (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, subdural has been modified accordingly. Wyang (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Olomouc[edit]

Is there an established English pronunciation of the city of Olomouc? Can the one given in the entry be verified in some reliable sources? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

hase?[edit]

haze says that hase is an alt form. Is that real? If so, does it need marking as archaic or obsolete? Equinox 12:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's obsolete (of course).
    • 1721, Bailey:
      "A Hase, a thick Fog or Rime."
I've added a label Leasnam (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

-ga#Estonian[edit]

A relative newbie, Mr. Yazar, just added this as a preposition, but the leading hyphen makes me doubt this analysis. @Strombones, Hekaheka, Hyark, Puisque, Tropylium and anyone else who knows Estonian: what is this really? A preposition? A postposition? A suffix? A case ending? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd call it a clitic. Compare -kin and -kaan in Finnish. —CodeCat 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a case ending for the comitative. Strombones (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
We usually call case endings suffixes, don't we? Do we have entries for other Estonian case endings? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Should be a case ending, yes. Category:Estonian inflectional suffixes only has a few members so far though. --Tropylium (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, everyone. I've changed the POS to suffix, and CAT:Estonian inflectional suffixes now has one more member. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I missed this. Yeah, I haven't taken a full course in Estonian, but I would say it is the comitative case ending (tema sõidab autoga "he/she drives a car", lit. "he/she drives with/using a car"). (CodeCat, -gi/-ki is the clitic cognate with -kin and -kaan. :) -- Puisque (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that -ga is the suffix for the comitative case. ¦ hyark digyik 20:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)meyh₂-[edit]

Two questions:

  • Why is this reconstructed with a laryngeal? Derksen, who is quite laryngeal-happy, reconstucts *smey- without a laryngeal and specifically says the acute tone in Balto-Slavic is an innovation. Sanskrit smita would seem to preclude a laryngeal. The long ī in Latin and Germanic can in both cases come from -ei-.
  • Why the s-mobile? The only languages without the initial -s- are Latin and Greek, and both are known to have dropped initial -s- in *sm-. Furthermore, Homeric φιλομμειδής(philommeidḗs, smiling gladly) seems to specifically indicate a former -s-.

I think this should be moved to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/smey-. Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat Benwing2 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
LIV has indeed just *smey-. No need to assume s-mobile or a laryngeal, as far as I can see. --Tropylium (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gloucester[edit]

The audio file is not working for me, is it working for anyone else? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not working for me either. It probably needs to be recorded again. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I fiddled with the audio and it should work now. —suzukaze (tc) 06:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, it's working for me now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not working for me though, just a little phut is heard. I have found many audio files don't work properly; I would like to export them to Norwegian, but I won't do this with broken audio files. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edit about "Spock" gesture[edit]

@Equinox, Chuck Entz. This was discussed here a bit: User talk:Equinox#Spock.

I'd like to revert diff. I believe the word "Spock" meaning basically "a gesture in rock paper scissors" is a common noun, not a proper noun. In this sense, we are not talking about the fictional character named Spock. I believe all words for gestures are common nouns, including RPS handshapes (rock, paper, scissors), and other handshapes such as shaka, hang loose, thumbs up, corna (no English section), facepalm, fig (sense missing).

This was pointed out in the discussion linked above: "The hand gesture is named after Spock, but it isn't a direct reference to him, any more than an axel is a direct reference to w:Axel Paulsen." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

But that's a countable common noun: "an axel, two axels". In the finger game, you don't call "a Spock"! It's just the name Spock, a proper noun. More like Old Kent Road in the board game Monopoly. Equinox 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pedophocracy[edit]

Please add this word: "Pedophocracy". I'm not a word smith. I don't know Latin or how this word came to be. I wrote an article about it here with lots of references for you if needs be: infogalactic.com/info/Pedophocracy Full disclosure: I was banned from Wikipedia for a year. I'm a truther. I don't believe everything the government or corporate media tells me. Nor do I believe much of the independent media. I believe in letting people know all sides if possible and that nothing should be censored, hiding not only the truth, but the crimes and criminals. Nuf said. Though I'm not happy with the anti-"fringe" fascists at Wikipedia, I've only got good things to say about Wiktionary and Wikiquotes, and most Wikipedians for that matter. Thank you in advance. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be added if you can find three independent sources (not your own website) using the word and meeting WT:CFI. Looking on Google Books and Scholar it looks like D McGowan is the only one to use it and therefore it should not be added. DTLHS (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks for the prompt response. McGowan coined it some time ago, but it seems to be catching on. Is Wiktionary like Wikipedia when it comes to "fringe" sources? For example, I learned about it from independent journalists who have used it recently, likely due to the Pizzagate stuff. FYI, InfoGalactic is not my site (terrible name) - it is an encyclopedia forked from Wikipedia intending to grow in ways WP refuses to. Because I just finished that article including living persons, it was moved back under my user page until legal can go through it, whatever that means. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't care about fringe sources, just that they are durably archived and demonstrating usage (in practice this usually means we rely on Google Books and Google Scholar). DTLHS (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this info, though I'm a little confused and I'm sorry to bother you again. Many independent news and other sites use the term, (pages and pages easily found: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Pedophocracy) and many are well archived on their sites as well as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Does this count? Also, if "pedo" means child and "cracy" means rulers, what does "pho" mean besides tasty soup? ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like the word is formed by adding -cracy to a clipping of pedophile (with the interfix -o-). I disapprove of the way the word is formed; I would prefer pedophilocracy, but I guess people find that to be too long. Anyway, this means that the -pho- part has nothing to do with soup; it's just the first digraph in the morpheme -phile plus the linking vowel -o-. — Eru·tuon 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Duh. I feel embarrassed I didn't see that. Thanks. The longer version is better, more clear, and less confusing. The shorter one might be confused with a ruler of feet. Or a ruler in feet. Not inches. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

wigwag[edit]

I've seen this specifically refer to two alternating lights at a railway crossing. Should this be added? —CodeCat 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. I've found several cites supporting this usage Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think two alternating flashing lights were used originally, just one light suspended on a pendulum-like device which swung from side to side, hence the name wigwag. DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it's obviously an extension of usage, much like using torch for the electrical variant. But we don't even have a sense for the mechanical wigwag, let alone the electric one. The current definition is overly broad. —CodeCat 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Or electromechanical? DonnanZ (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added a nice image, maybe they are still used in the USA. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/amare[edit]

Why do we have a reconstruction for this when it's very obviously attested? —CodeCat 01:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume some of the conjugated forms are unattested. DTLHS (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a reconstruction for Vulgar Latin, so many of the forms are probably unattested. Do we have a ruling on this? Reconstructing a word which is attested in a language for a poorly attested dialect of that same language? At least I think the argument shouldn't be that it would be allowed if the infinitive happened to be something other than amare but this way it's not. Kolmiel (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
If we needed it, it should be at Reconstruction:Latin/amo, since we use the 1st person singular present active indicative as the lemma for Vulgar Latin just as for Classical. But IMO we don't need a reconstruction page for an attested lemma just to show its unattested inflected forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, it may be interesting to have those Vulgar Latin inflections somewhere on the main entries where applicable? — Kleio (t · c) 22:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Angr. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I also agree, kinda, but having the inflections is nice, while putting them on the main entry -- I don't know. Kolmiel (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not create an appendix with Vulgar Latin inflections (compare with the appendices in Category:Latin appendices)? Then one could conjugate Vulgar Latin amo by knowing that it stayed in the first conjugation and then one wouldn't need Reconstruction:Latin/amo. -84.161.3.60 01:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

ying-yang, yin-yang[edit]

ying-yang means 1. anus and 2. penis; while yin-yang means vulva. That seems odd. Can't both forms mean all three things, in slang? Equinox 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why??? This is a sacred Chinese concept. This needs to be explained in the etymology (of one or both entries). Wyang (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with ’[edit]

What's the correct response to this strange category? I noticed it when someone changed Dollo's law to use the curly apostrophe (I prefer the plain one, and it prevents this category happening!). Equinox 19:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The pages should be moved. DTLHS (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

suck off[edit]

Is it always until the ejaculation? I think I've read some instances where it was not the case. --Barytonesis (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added "usually" to it Leasnam (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
What do citations say? UseNet and Google Books (fiction) would be the sources.
It seems like suck + off to me. DCDuring TALK 13:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Could it also be a blend of suck and get off, with the off added alluding to the latter ? Leasnam (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that off has the same meaning ("achieving orgasm") in combination with any of several verbs. See WT:RFV#suck off for other problems with the definition. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Same could be asked about pull off and jerk off (though we don't currently define them as reaching orgasm). Equinox 18:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

adaption[edit]

Calling this term 'rare' is a bit of a stretch I think. I have heard native speakers use it from time to time. Any thoughts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You have? I've only heard Germans use it as a mistranslation of Adaption. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OED labels it "now nonstandard" and comments that "despite the long history of adaption in English, adaptation is now the preferred form". (Their quotations range from 1615 to 2007).[11] --Droigheann (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
In light of that, I have changed the label to "proscribed". ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

tautology and pleonasm[edit]

I wanted to edit these because they sound very negative. Of course, according to our present "capitalistic" stylistic norms we should say everything as fast and simply as possible. But tautology and pleonasm are rhetoric figures, not defects as such. Depending on the language and age they may be regarded as signs of great eloquence. And even now they are used for emphasis etc. — Now the problem that I have is that I might do this wrong because the German use might be different from the English. German wikipedia describes Tautologie and Pleonasmus as synonymic per se, with different not generally accepted attempts at distinguishing them (e.g. that there's a tendency to use Tautologie when the two are of the same part of speech as in "fright and fear"). English wikipedia's Tautology_(rhetoric), however, is a very different and somewhat strange entry. Thanks for your input! Kolmiel (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't think of an example off the top of my head where it makes a difference (if there is one), but my impression is that a tautology is a repetition of either the whole term or just the meaning, while a pleonasm is unnecessary extra verbiage, whether it's a repetition or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds very similar to what my mother's old Advanced Learner's English dictionary says. Kolmiel (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That would make tautology a hyponym of pleonasm. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Oxford perceives tautology as negative, "a fault of style" [12][13], while being kinder to pleonasm, "a fault of style, or a rhetorical figure used for emphasis or clarity" [14][15]. Then again, the entries may have been dealt with by different editors. --Droigheann (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

sectary[edit]

In Act 1, Scene 2 of King Lear, Edgar asks Edmund, "How long have you been a sectary astronomical?" Does "sectary" mean "believer" here? If so, we are missing that sense on Wiktionary at the moment. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that means "member of a sect". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

暗算[edit]

Does this never mean "to plot against; to scheme" in Japanese as it does in Chinese? If so, this would appear to be a false friend. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tooironic: According to the monolingual JA resources I've consulted, in Japanese, this only ever means "to calculate in one's head, without using tools or writing anything down". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

tax return[edit]

I seem to have seen Americans using this to mean the amount that is refunded if you have overpaid. To me it refers only to the form that you fill in, does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to mean the amount that's refunded; that's tax refund in American English (at least). I wouldn't be surprised if some people get confused because of the similarity in sound and because of the ambiguity of the word return, though; nor would I be surprised if such confusion is occasionally found in permanently archived sources. But I would still call it an error. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Twitter, though, most of the recent tweets using 'tax return' are from Americans using it to mean the refund: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%22tax%20return%22&src=typd There's even memes about spending your tax return, which was what confused me at first. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of people misuse the term. Though I noticed that it wasn't only Americans, since some people were talking about their tax "returns" (i.e. refunds) in pounds sterling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe it should be cross-linked to a new entry for tax refund, or a note added saying a tax return is not to be confused with a tax refund, which is the return to a taxpayer of overpaid tax. DonnanZ (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

classical conditioning[edit]

What sense of classical is invoked in this term? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

nootropic[edit]

Nootropic should be added to the derived forms of -tropic, which (going by a peek at one word that is) is apparently done with a confix template in the etymology. But there is no entry for the other half noo-, and the only other word I can think of beginning with that is noosphere. I have exhausted my small knowledge of templates. Should we do it anyway? --Hiztegilari (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

noocracy! I suppose we'd best create noo-. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

ooch[edit]

The current entry for ooch seems to be a French usage. But there is a good English usage of the term and it should be added to the wictionary:

Ooch move in small steps

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ooch http://www.thepalife.com/ooch/ http://andyburkhardt.com/2014/02/17/ooching-cultivating-an-attitude-of-experimentation/

See ooch at OneLook Dictionary Search. It is a redirect to scrunch in a single dictionary of American slang. We need citations, which IMO may include usage examples from DARE. DCDuring TALK 17:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

several[edit]

It's also used as a pronoun, but we have no entry.

As a determiner: Several people got on the train.
As a pronoun: Several of those waiting got on that train.
DonnanZ (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
We would not have to include a pronoun L3 header if we could count on our users to know what a determiner is and that (almost?) all of them can be used in "fused head" or pronominal constructions. I don't know whether the duplication of definitions in Determiner and Pronoun L3 sections is more or less confusing than eliminating the Pronoun L2. Some modern UK dictionaries do a pretty good job of handling this question, eg, Collins, Longmans DCE, probably Oxford and Cambridge advanced learners, etc. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, having the header "Determiner and Pronoun" is totally lame. --Quadcont (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, OK, I have made a combined L2 header [16], and added {{en-pron}}. Will that be OK in an odd situation like this? Usage examples can be added, of course. DonnanZ (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'd do it that way, but we should get reactions from others. This should probably go to WT:BP (or WT:AEN). DCDuring TALK 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
As you wish. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I take it this should also mean changes to many, few, either and probably others. What about those like some where there is only a partial overlap? --Droigheann (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The broader the reach of the changes, the more we need some kind of broader consensus. Someone is going to have to wade into the contemporary distinction between pronoun, adjective, and determiner both in function and as word classes. They should also remain aware of the incompleteness of acceptance of "determiner" as a word class rather than "pronoun" or "adjective" among many humans. As an indication, MWOnline, AHD, and RHU (all "US") do not include "determiner" among the word classes of several. One US dictionary even has several as a noun not a pronoun. In contrast most UK dictionaries do.
Some "UK" dictionaries have determiner and pronoun as word class labels for all almost all definitions of several (excepting true adjective usage as in "the several states"). Others distinguish by individual definition. One includes "quantifier" as a word class.
Hardly any dictionaries dispense with word class labels entirely, so we need to address the question to be taken seriously as a dictionary, IMO.
And, of course, older reference grammars, older dictionaries and older editions (pre 1980?) did not have "determiner" as a word class.
Do WP's articles cover the lack of historical consensus very well? Can we rely on them to even show what the contemporary consensus among grammarians is? Should we rely on a single reference grammar, eg, Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) or also consider learner's grammars and older reference grammars (Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Houtsma, even Jespersen)? CGEL distinguishes its more controversial positions from more settled matters. Is that reliable enough for us? Can we stretch the Usage notes header to include the mostly academic question of word class membership? DCDuring TALK 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

frei[edit]

One of the synonyms gives the sense "unbound". However, none of the actual senses in the entry is "unbound". Which sense does this synonym belong to? —CodeCat 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

cat[edit]

Similar to the German entry above, here it's also not very clear which senses the synonyms belong to, as the given senses do not appear listed. Moreover, the translations also give senses which do not actually exist in the entry. At the very least, I would suggest moving many of the translations to a more accurate synonym, e.g. put the translations meaning "member of Felidae" at felid. —CodeCat 21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

pie#Norman[edit]

There's a sense label for "sex" here but there's no such sense listed in the entry. —CodeCat 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

aesthetics and massage[edit]

What does aesthetics mean in the context of "massage and aesthetics" or "body work and aesthetics"? (google these phrases to find uses). DTLHS (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It means they offer the services of an aesthetician (= beautician). Equinox 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Forcouth: English?[edit]

There is currently no citation for "forcouth" in the English language, but only in Middle English (dating from 1200). Should this entry be relabelled as a Middle English word, or is there a citation of it in Modern English (post-1500)? Dylanvt (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely only Middle English. DTLHS (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

nolle prosequi, nolle prosequis[edit]

Both nolle and prosequi are Latin infinitives, and the 'nolle prosequi' entry is OK.

'prosequis', however, does not exist in Latin. It is at best an informal English plural. It is, therefore, wrong to say that 'nolle prosequis' is a 3rd person singular.

They are English entries, and as English entries they can be correct even if for a Latin entry it would be incorrect and nonsense. -Slœtel (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cosar[edit]

Is the entry correct?
The mentioned book contains for example: "כוזרי [?] Liber Cosri" (title page), "Liberum Cosri", "Cosri pars prima" (p.1, followed by Semitic characters), "[number] Cosri"; "Regem Cosareorum" (title page), "Regem Cosar" (p.6), "nomen viri Cosroes" (p.6), "Regem terrae Cosar" (p.6), "[...] [5.] Socii, h.e. sapientis cujusdam Doctoris Judaici, qui agebat apud Regem [6.] Cosar, qui annis abhinc quadringentis amplexus est Religionem nostram [...]".
I would guess that Cosri could be a proper noun and a book title, known in English as Kuzari (w:en:Kuzari) - which is already present at Cosri. The German wikipedia (de:w:Jehuda ha-Levi) writes: "Der Titel „Kusari“ bezieht sich auf den gleichnamigen König der Chasaren", i.e. "The title 'Kusari' refers to the king of the Khazars with the same name". So even if "Cosri" appears without "Liber" or "pars", it could have another meaning than Khazars.
As the entry Cosar explicitly mentions the title page as a source for the meaning and as the title page only contains "כוזרי [?] Liber Cosri", "Regem Cosareorum" and "Cosareorum Historia" (it's "Cosareorum", not "Cosrōrum" as in the entry) (or did I miss something?) the entry would be unsourced. -Slœtel (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For a better comprehension of the Latin text I compared it with an English translation of the original text found at wikisource. As the English translation is a translation of the original text and not a translation of the Latin text, it does not translate the Latin annotations of course.
"Regem Cosar" = "King of the Khazars", "Religione Cosaritica" = "Khazar religion", "populus Cosariticus" (precided by "multus") = "Khazars", "Rex Cosar" = "King of Khazar", "[number] Cosri = "[number] Al Khazari" and "the Khazari" etc., "Posthaec ergo dixit Cosri in corde suo" = "After this the Khazari said to himself", "tibi" = " to thee, a Prince of the Khazars", "Sabaeis, Indis, Cosareis (Persis)" = "peoples of Sind, India, and Khazar", "Rex Cosar" = "O King of the Khazars"
So it should be:
  • Cosri = 1. Kuzari (book title), 2. Al Khazari, the Khazari
  • Cosar (indecl.; pl. in meaning, but could also be a collective singular) = Khazars (pl.)
  • Cosarei (-orum, m.) = Khazars (people of Khazar), hence: *Cosareus (-i, m.) = Khazar
  • Cosariticus (-a, -um) = Khazar -
It seems like no singular Khazar occurs in the English text, so the Latin text could miss it too. Latin "Cosroes" in "Ego puto esse nomen viri Cosroes, quod Perficorum Regum olim fuit." in an annotation would miss a translation, but should be a name of a man ("nomen viri").
-Slœtel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@JohnC5. As for the etymology:
On the Latin title page is written "כוזרי" which without adding unwritten vowels should be kvzry or kuzri in an English transcription. This should be the origin of Cosri. A vocalised Hewbrew spelling and a proper English transcription could however be "כּוּזָרִי" and "kuzari" (from Khazar#Translations, cp. English Kuzari). Compared with the text from here English [number] Al Khazari: should be ":אמר הכוזרי [number]" [number] 'mr hkvzry: which could mean "[number] The Kuzari said:" (cp. אמר, ה). As Latin has no article it's omitted and like in the English translation said is omitted too, so only Cosri remains. Thus the Latin origin for both meanings should be an unvocalised כוזרי.
"King of the Khazars" could be "מלך הכוזרים" mlk hkvzrym in the Hewbrew text (cp. מלך). So Cosar could come from a vocalised כּוּזָרִים without the im (cp. ־ים).
So how about "From an unvocalised {{etyl|he|la}} {{m|he|כוזרי}}" and "From a vocalised {{etyl|he|la}} {{m|he|כּוּזָרִים|tr=kuzarim}} without ''im''"? -Slœtel (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. Hebrew is normally written without vowels, but it always has vowels. The entry at Hebrew כּוּזָרִים(kuzarim) gives the singular as Hebrew כּוּזָרִי(kuzari) . The -i at the end is an adjectival ending that's often used with places and nationalities (think of Israeli from Hebrew יִשְׂרְאֵלִי(yisr'elí)), but such adjectives can be used as nouns, as well. As for Hebrew כּוּזָרִים(kuzarim), it's simply the plural, so "כּוּזָרִים without the im" is just the singular, Hebrew כּוּזָרִי(kuzari). As for whether to include the vowels or not: the links module generates a link to the correct lemma whether you supply vowels or not, so either way is fine inside most templates. It would be best IMO to write it with the vowels, as I have. There's no entry yet for the singular, so it's a redlink, but if there were an entry, it would link to it correctly. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Diacritics in Middle English[edit]

Randomly browsing the Wiktionary, I bumped into this page. I saw the Middle English part, and I was wondering: what are the dot below and the breve below denoting in those Middle English words? E.g., in what is "hẹ̄rest" different from "hērest"? Or "ẹ̮̄rde" from "ērde"? Or "hē̱rd" from "hērd"?

MGorrone (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Those were added by User:Doremítzwr, who is no longer active here. User:Doremítzwr had a special love, or obsession, with diacritics. I believe that he added the macron to indicate a long vowel. To that, he added a dot below (ẹ̄) for an open vowel (bate, pate, late), or a breve below (ē̮) for a closed vowel (bet, pet, let). To my knowledge, Middle English was not written with these things. At the moment, I'm at a loss to explain ẹ̮̄ and ē̱ . —Stephen (Talk) 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful to indicate the distinction somehow. In Proto-Romance or Vulgar Latin transcription, I think the underdot (, ) is sometimes used for the close-mid vowel and the hook below (ę, ǫ) for the open-mid vowel. Middle English has the same distinction in long vowels, so it would be nice to mark this somehow. I wonder if there is an existing convention for how to mark it. — Eru·tuon 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Scholars could use diacritics, even if Middle English was originally written without them. But different scholars could use different diacritics. Wiktionary:About Middle English#Diacritical marks mentions that dictionary editors used different diacritics to indicate "length and stress of vowel sounds". Maybe some dictionary editors or some grammar authors also used other diacritics.
Germans use phoentic transcriptions with diacritics to mark close- and openness, and besides systems in the late 19th and early 20th century which could be individual systems used by single authours there is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuthonista . But Teuthonista is intended to be used for German dialects and could likely be insufficient for Middle English. -84.161.3.60 00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This information is best shown in the =Pronunciation= section. Ƿidsiþ 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments in the 'discussion' sections in entries of Arabic in https://en.wiktionary.org/[edit]

Hi community, I've been added comments on some entries for arabic terms on the 'discussion' tab. Obviously, and I am terrible sorry for it, I've learned of the 'tea room' a bit too late, so I'd like to know whether somebody can check my history and automatically transfer them all on the 'Tea room' so that those entries can be discussed and improved. Thank you so much in advance. --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Backinstadiums: You can check your own history at Special:MyContributions. You can select "Talk" from the dropdown menu labeled "Namespace:" to see only your contributions to entry talk pages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: May I post them all in one single post in the 'tea room' --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Backinstadiums: You may, but you might be more likely to get good responses if you don't overwhelm us with a bunch of questions at once. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanskrit words in "bahuvrihi"[edit]

Hello, could someone familiar with Sanskrit kindly check if I indicated the two Sanskrit words in the 1825 quotation in bahuvrihi correctly? Much obliged. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Look good to me. —Stephen (Talk) 17:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

naturalist[edit]

Sense 1 is given as "dated", but no indication is given of a "more modern" term. Is it really dated as stated? DonnanZ (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not dated in BrE. As far as I can guess from Google results, it is not dated in AmE either. I don't know where the idea that it is dated comes from. Mihia (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
My impression too. I'll probably end up removing the label, but I'll give it a few more days. DonnanZ (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Webster 1828 has: "One that studies natural history and philosophy or physics; one that is versed in natural history or philosophy. It is more generally applied to one that is versed in natural history."
I think the underlined portion is dated, but not our definition. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have attempted a new def to cover the dated part; criticism/improvement is welcome. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
There is yet another (current) sense relating to art and literature: "a person who practises naturalism in art or literature" (Oxford); "a person who writes, paints, etc. in the style of naturalism" (Cambridge). DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We have that ism at naturalism. We could replace our current second def. with "One who adheres to or practices naturalism." That would include even more usages (even future ones) without requiring more definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

mob cap[edit]

It's labelled "chiefly historical". Is this true and if so, what are the similar modern head coverings prevalent (not only) in food production usually called? The term should be there as a synonym because clearly people do use mob cap [17]. --Droigheann (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This supplier, at least, still refers to them as "mob caps". Mihia (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is worth a read, it mentions both historical and modern senses. The original mob cap wasn't meant to be disposable, unlike the modern mob cap. I think the entry could be amended accordingly. DonnanZ (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added the modern sense, and left the "mainly historical" label in, it may still be possible to buy the historical type. DonnanZ (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that there's also a modern sense that may or may not meet CFI. DTLHS (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

revenue[edit]

We are missing, aren't we, the reading and sense of rev-EN-yoo (sometimes spelt revènue)? E.g. in King Lear, et al. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

have been in the wars[edit]

The form "be in the wars" is also used, but I'm not sure how to handle it. Should the entry be made at in the wars? Mihia (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. I've added it. Some paper dictionaries have "be in the wars" but I think such forms are SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ... Do we need both in the wars and have been in the wars? While I feel that "in the wars" can't mean exactly the same in both, I wonder if it would nevertheless be clearer to treat everything under one entry. Mihia (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The OneLook lemmings speak with three weak voices: there is is one dictionary for each of in the wars, be in the wars, and have been in the wars. Though I have not yet investigated, I feel that one could say was in the wars in the sense in question, but not use the present tense or any infinite form. One could say in response to "How did he get all banged up?", "In the wars". One common expression is that one "like one was in the wars". That makes me think that the core idea is that a metaphorical war (some arduous struggle) is the cause of some injury. Perhaps we should just have the metaphorical "definition" of in the wars and redirect everything else to it. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That is my feeling too, but I also feel an uncertainty about "have been in the wars" meaning damaged/injured (now) and "be in the wars" also meaning damaged/injured (now). Mihia (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the fatal flaw of the in the wars entry as it now stands. How can it be an adjective if it's used with a past participle to describe present condition? If it were an adjective, you could say "that hat is in the wars", or "it will be in the wars when I get through with it".
It's also more complicated than what we've discussed so far: I can find usage for "been through a few wars", "been through the wars", "been in a few wars", "been in the wars", "been through a war", even "been through war". There's also similar usage for "through the mangle/wringer/ringer". It all points to "war" as something metaphorically difficult or horrible that leaves its marks on anyone/anything that goes through it or has been in it. The only commonality is a verbal expression in the past perfect indicating being or experiencing + a preposition indicating location or movement inside + a noun phrase including war. This seems like a metaphor that's given rise to a few set phrases, but is still live in its own right. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is a "fatal flaw" the in the wars entry as it now stands. People do say things like "He's in the wars", for example, to talk about present condition, which matches that definition. I just think the different interpretations (present condition versus past experience) make it a little more difficult to reconcile both uses under one heading, in terms of the actual wording and presentation used (which is where I came in). Mihia (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

tweeter-in-chief[edit]

This was (and maybe still is) a generic nickname for a Twitter user who is also a leader (used for Barack Obama and Kevin Rudd). Since July 2016 it has increasingly become a personal nickname for Donald Trump. The generic sense maybe a little hard to cite under CFI and the personal nickname would have to be a hot word. Worth adding? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If attestable by three durably archived cites (WT:CFI), it should be worth adding as "all words of all languages" (WT:Main Page). If not attestable by durable arcived cites, one could at least add it to Appendix:List of protologisms/Q–Z. -84.161.3.60 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

looking for a word[edit]

How would you describe countries like BRIC that are surpassing the economic development of other countries? Surpassing development? Is surpassive an attestable word? (I'm trying to translate 趕超發展.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you use faster here? Faster-growing, faster-developing. DonnanZ (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
outpacing, surpassing? It's a bit out of date, though, only India and China are outgrowing the rest of the world now. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like this would be best translated by rephrasing – there isn't a good adjective that does this job in English, AFAIK. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

German genitive of Olmütz[edit]

I created the entry Olmütz and the template {{de-proper noun}} has automatically created its genitive. However, it seems that this word has never been used in genitive, at least I failed to find such an example. If it is true, what can I do so that the template did not form the genitive? I found there only possibilities of adding alternative forms, but not how to turn it off. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The expected genitive is Olmütz' (with an apostrophe) before a noun, e.g. in Olmütz' engen Gassen. In other contexts the genitive is probably identical to the nominative, e.g. die Häuser des alten Olmütz or wegen Olmütz. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: There are three expected genitives: Olmütz' <thing>, Olmützens <thing>, <thing> des Olmütz. But an expectation does not attest a genitive.
Genitive in - but with article does exist: "Ruhm des alten Olmütz", "Bauwerk des alten Olmütz", "Mauern des alten Olmütz" (post 1945).
Genitive in -ens does exist: "von der Belagerung Olmützens", "sich Olmützens zu bemachtigen", "hatte Olmützens Bischof Bruno" (Der Spiegel, so post 1945).
Genitive in -' I did not find as google ignores the apostroph and as e.g. "Olmütz' Bischof" or "Olmütz' Belagerung" did bring up unfitting results.
"wegen Olmütz" alone does not attest a gentive as wegen is also used with dative and already occurs with dative in the 19th century. Only if the author uses wegen with genitive elsewhere, one can assume that he uses it with genitive in "wegen Olmütz" too. Anyhow, two texts I arbitrarily picked used it with genitive.
@Jan Kameníček: You could use {{head|de|proper noun|g=n}} which does not create a genitive form. One could also replace {{de-proper noun|n}} by {{de-proper noun|n|?}} to indicate that the genitive is unknown, but it would be better if the template wouldn't link and maybe wouldn't show the question mark similar to {{en-noun|?}}.
-84.161.3.60 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for explanation and for fixing it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

gouttière[edit]

Judging by the definition "gutter (duct for water)", one would think this refers to a gutter in a street, but it looks to me like it refers specifically to a rain gutter or eavestrough in a roof. If I read the entry at TLFI correctly, it also has a number of other senses that mostly don't overlap with those of English gutter. I had two years of college French three decades ago, so I don't feel comfortable fixing this myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I wouldn't use it to refer to a street gutter; that would be a caniveau. --Barytonesis (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Guianan [edit]

Is Guianan OK? --Quadcont (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

See WT:ATTEST and Guianan at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

pozzed[edit]

What does that mean? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In modern slang, HIV positive. There may be older meanings. DTLHS (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

roof over one's head[edit]

How should we configure the plural form here? roofs over one's head? roofs over their head? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Whichever one(s) you can find usages of. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to complicate things, my preferred plural is rooves. DonnanZ (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

боҙтау[edit]

This word does not exist in Bashkir. How do I have it deleted? Borovi4ok (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Make an entry in RFD (Requests for Deletion). DonnanZ (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Better yet, make an entry in WT:RFV (Requests for Verification). Sometimes, people assert that a given word "does not exist" in a certain language, but it turns out that the word is used in that language, but isn't standard or is looked down by language purists, or that sort of thing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)