Wiktionary:Tea room

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For Translation requests, see Wiktionary:Translation requests. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations
Tea house party in Japan (not tea ceremony)-J. M. W. Silver.jpg

A place to ask for help on finding quotations, etymologies, or other information about particular words. The Tea room is named to accompany the Beer parlour.

For questions about the technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Tea room archives edit

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


July 2015


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

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

to let[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

to do with[edit]

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

The two problems I have with it are:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

is that the time[edit]

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

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

piazza, pizer[edit]

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

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

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

American Icelandic[edit]

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

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

quicumque vult, Athanasian wench, etc[edit]

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

Lewis & Short give "quīcumque (or -cunque )", so quicumque must have been more common in Classical Latin. Ecclesiastical scholarship virtually universally has quicunque vult as the first two words of the Athanasian creed.
Apparently quicunque vult/quicumque vult are synonyms for Athanasian wench, a sense we lack at quicumque vult. Some sources for the slang term "correct" it to quicumque vult. I suppose one should check for the relative frequencies of the two forms in print in the slang sense, but that seems like a long run for a short slide. So one is an alternative form of the other in that sense, provided both meet RfV (WT:ATTEST). DCDuring TALK 03:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In English works that use either Latin word, Ngram Viewer suggests quicunque was the considerably more common form until about 1910, when quicumque just barely overtook it. The story is similar with q. vult, and in German texts, where, however, quicumque overtook quicunque about a decade earlier (in 1900). - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Taking the start of modern English back to 1550, I tried this search which reveals that quicumque first appears in the early 18th century. I would speculate that the misspelling derives from the appearance of the slang term and its rendering by a writer or writers with no Latin. I understand that the age's foremost slang lexicographer Francis Grose "received a classical education", and his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (3rd edn, London 1796) uses quicunque in the definition of "Athanasian wench". Next time I'm near a decent library, I'll look up what justification those Americans Lewis and Short give for their contrary interpretation. Bjenks (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved quicumque vult to quicunque vult per the evidence that the latter form is more common in Church Latin. I've left quicumque where it is (per Lewis and Short), but created quicunque pointing to it. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Latin editors User:JohnC5 and User:I'm so meta even this acronym and User:Metaknowledge. Which form, of quicumque and quicunque, should be lemmatized? - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: It doesn't matter very much. Quīcumque reflects the word's etymology (quī + (cum + -que)), whereas quīcunque probably reflects the more "natural", assimilated pronunciation: The consonantal cluster -mq- only occurs in compounds (contrast -nq-, thrice as common) and is frequently subject to assimilation (see, for example, the variation in the accusative singular and genitive plural forms of uterque). Insofar as a speaker or writer is aware that quicũque is a three-word compound, quīcumque makes most sense; insofar as this is not at the forefront of his mind, quīcunque makes most sense. As for Lewis & Short's choice of lemma, the note at the beginning of the “Orthographical Index” in (the edition I have of) A Latin Dictionary reads “A list of the principal words which are variously spelled in MSS. and editions. From Brambach’s ‘Aids to Latin Orthography.’ (In most cases the form approved by Brambach is that preferred by recent editors; but there are still several words on which high authorities differ from him or from one another. For particulars, see the Lexicon.)”, and in that index's central column I read the pithy prescription “cumque, not cunque.” I don't know the reason for that choice (be it Brambach’s or Lewis & Short’s), but they supposedly choose the forms that predominate in the best manuscripts, codices, and editions (however they determine which are best). I note that, besides Lewis & Short, Gaffiot and the Oxford Latin Dictionary also both lemmatise quīcumque; in the absence of any authority that lemmatises quīcunque, I am happy to follow those three lemmings. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What a good analysis! In view of that, and especially the Cicero citations made patently available in Gaffiot, I humbly withdraw my earlier comments and acknowledge that I was misled by the 17th century English occurrences. Bjenks (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bjenks: I am still somewhat unclear as to why the current etymology of Athanasian wench even mentions quicu(m/n)que vult in the first place. The two lemmata appear to have no etymological beaning on one another. —JohnC5 15:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's explaining that the reason a woman who has sex with "whoever wants to" is called an "Athanasian wench" is that the first words of the Athanasian creed are "whoever wants to". I think it's an important explanation; without it one would be left to wonder why a word for something Christian was being used for someone of un-Christian behaviour (irony, perhaps?). - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, but it could do that in English: "From the first words of the Athanasian Creed, 'whoever wants'." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no reason to give the Latin. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

reductionist pronunciations are still here[edit]

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

I agree they should be removed, and I do remove them wherever I see them, but what should not be removed are cases where /l̩/ is found after a consonant in an unstressed syllable, e.g. battle, bottle, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed all the ones I could find except the one in told; it's labelled "Pacific Northwest" and IIRC we did find sholarly evidence that "the 'bull'-'bowl' merger (/ʊ, o, ʌ/ before /l/)" (to /l̩/?) was present in the Pacific Northwest, even though the speaker who added the pronunciations was not from that region. - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we found scholarly evidence of a bull/bowl/hull merger in the Pacific Northwest, but it did not say that they merged to /l̩/, and I find that extraordinarily unlikely. They probably merge to /ʊ/, but that's just a guess. The citation is Squizzero, R. (2009). Bulls and bowls in china shops: A perceptual experiment investigating pre-lateral vowels in Seattle English. Undergraduate thesis, University of Washington. I'm trying to think if I know anyone who could put me in touch with someone who's read that or has access to it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that the user didn't speak Pacific Northwest dialect, and only use the label because it's we'd found which seemed to corroborate the pronunciation he wanted to add, I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


I came across a phrase "tenderloin districts". This word is only in the dictionary as a cut of meat. An alternative definition should be added. It seems to be referring to US city districts of a dubious nature.

"Clustered in tenderloin districts in virtually every metropolitan area, peep show “movie machines” can also be found in suburban porn shops and the truck-stop adult markets that skirt highways throughout rural North America."


QuentinUK (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

[so called fr. its making possible a luxurious diet for a corrupt policeman]: a district of a city largely devoted to vice and other forms of lawbreaking that encourage political or police corrupions ⟨the dives and shady ~s of the underworld —H.E. Barnes & N.K. Teeters⟩

Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary: "The slang meaning 'police district noted for vice' appeared first 1887 in New York, on the notion of the neighborhood of the chief theaters, restaurants, etc., being the "juiciest cut" for graft and blackmail." DCDuring TALK 13:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I took a stab at a definition. Feel free to improve it as slightly or as comprehensively as you deem necessary. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. See also Tenderloin and Combat Zone. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

fōrmō v fōrma v μορφή etymology claims[edit]

fōrmō seems very confident of its etymology, claiming “From fōrma (“form”), ultimately from Ancient Greek μορφή (morphḗ).”

But fōrma is less sure of itself, claiming “Perhaps from Ancient Greek μόρφα (mórpha, ‘bodily form, build’), from μορφή (morphḗ, ‘shape, fashion, appearance, outward form, contour, figure’), via Etruscan.”

While μορφή is uncertain, denying its only claim, “Unknown. Many attempts have been made to connect it with Latin forma, but the proposed relationship is problematic.”

What's the best way to unify these? Josephholsten (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


The definition for memoir only includes autobiography and neglects to mention that it can also be a biography written by someone intimate with the subject. I personally have read many memoirs written by one person about a friend, and they are labeled as such. Merriam-Webster, Oxford English, Random House, and Collins English dictionaries mention both autobiographical and biographical meanings. As it could be seen as a significant change, I wanted to bring it up here first. Also, the limited definition has been making its way through various wiki projects which has hampered efforts to correct it so I'm trying to clear it up. I appreciate any help. Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

After realizing that this is a change I should make, I went ahead and made the change based on the definitions from the four dictionaries cited. It may require clean-up to meet Wiktionary standards though. Hazmat2 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Can anyone confirm the use of 馬達 to mean "policewoman" in Hong Kong (etymology 2, Chinese)? Justinrleung (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging @Octahedron80 who added this definition) —suzukaze (tc) 08:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Chinese characters that are only used in compounds[edit]

What should the definition/part of speech be for characters that are only used in compounds? Examples:

    • All three of the references in the Chinese section first start off their definitions with "(~䁂)" (in other words, they define 睌䁂)

suzukaze (tc) 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

English has something like this: fossilized morphemes that no longer have any independant meaning, but are found in compounds. The linguistic term is w:cranberry morpheme, named after the cran- in cranberry. A pet peeve of mine is how we tend to treat these as prefixes or suffixes in English. Of course, Chinese orthography is based on morphemes, so it's not possible to ignore them like we do in English.
I'm not really sure what to do with these, but there are an awful lot of them on the Chinese character pages- figuring out how to deal with this would get rid of almost all of the {{rfdef}}s in those pages, so it's worth the effort. Chuck Entz (talk)
suzukaze (I love your name!) and Chuck Entz, here are my ideas in a couple formats. These are influenced by my 2 years of college Japanese, the caveats being that that was a while ago and I have no experience with Chinese.
Combination-only character, used only in combination, idiom-only, used only in idioms, legacy character used only in set phrases, literary character, obsolete or archaic with the following exceptions, archaism, word containing outdated character, single-use character, legacy usage, throwback, aphorism, historical word fragment, historical text fragment, obsolete reading except in certain phrases, rarely used character, rarely used reading, rarely used combination, special character, uncommon, rare...
Okay, I'm repeating myself, so that's my brainstorm! I hope something in there gives you a useful idea. --Geekdiva (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if we define a character as {{non-gloss definition|used in compounds, what should the part-of-speech be? It's hard to say that it should be "verb" or "noun" or "proper noun" because they are not stand-alone. —suzukaze (tc) 00:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have a template for this, {{only used in}}. But I have no idea about the part of speech, it has been an issue with existing entries using that template too. —CodeCat 00:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Would it be suitable to use Category:Chinese syllables? —suzukaze (tc) 23:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Since they're called cranberry morphemes, we could use ===Morpheme=== as a header. We already have a category for them, too. —CodeCat 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Wyang, Bumm13: Thoughts? —suzukaze (tc) 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Wyang, Bumm13 (trying again:I get the feeling that it failed)—suzukaze (tc) 04:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
ping 病吗? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
For single characters we already use ===Definitions===, which suits them fine because single characters usually have very generic senses and PoS is hardly relevant. If characters are only used in a limited number of compounds, like , which is only used in 咖啡 (kāfēi) for pronunciation "gā" and 咖喱 (gālí) for pronunciation "gā", plus derivatives, we can use {{only used in}}, as CodeCat suggested but otherwise define as "a phonetic component" (if it's a phonetic component, used in, e.g. loanwords) or "a component meaning ...". We can leave the |cat= section empty, if nothing suitable can be found or choose the part of speech, which is suitable for the translation, e.g. 绿, 綠#Pronunciation_2 is only a rare compound, I made it adj. PoS for non-inflected languages like Chinese, are artificial, anyway, you need to understand this concept in a Chinese sentence, not when looking at words in isolation, let alone single hanzi. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Asian carp[edit]

This term has become the object of legislation in the state of Minnesota. Fortunately, Equinox added it a few weeks ago, but a year after the legislation was signed changing the name for official purposes in Minnesota to invasive carp. I request that others hasten to add any such terms at first news of such public interest, so that we can include them while they are still topical. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any online source that pays close and timely attention to such things? DCDuring TALK 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WordSpy? Equinox 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That looks like a site worth watching, but I think I am interested in euphemisms. I'd say political correctness, but I'm really interested in all euphemistic tendencies, not just those of the leftish. A search for "euphemism + watch" got a few sites. For example, fact witness means what witness once may have meant. But that isn't really a euphemism, it's just a differentiation required due to the prominence of other types of witness. Zwicky blog has some. "Protologism watch" gets more. I'm going to try Gmail alerts for neologism and euphemism and add filters until they are useful. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

put off[edit]

I am trying to add the sense of put off as it is used in the example "I'm too busy to see Mr Smith today. I'll have to put him off." However, another editor has removed this, believing that it is the same as the existing sense "To delay (a task, event, etc.)". I disagree that it is the same (I am not insisting that my definition cannot be improved, however). Collins dictionary [1] and Macmillan Dictionary [2] and M-W Dictionary [3] all agree with me that it is a different sense. Please can some other people take a look. Also, while you are looking at this, you may as well also look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Feedback#put_off. Thanks. 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the senses are related, but we often have separate definitions when the objects of a verb are different in kind, as a person (in your definition), rather than an event as in "To delay (a task, event etc.). The acceptable synonyms are different, for example, postpone is a synonym for the "event, task" definition, but one cannot "postpone a person". In the example you offer, though, it is easy to read Mr. Smith and, therefore, him as meaning "appointment with Mr. Smith", an example of metonymy.
OTOH, the definition that you offered is much too wordy and is not "substitutable", that is, you could not insert it into a sentence where put off is used. Furthermore, "communication" is not the essence of the matter. For example, locking the door and turning out the lights is how I "put off" trick-or-treaters at Halloween. It is not communication in the usual sense.
A wordy, but substitutable definition might be "To frustrate (someone) in achieving a goal that required one's participation, as by delay or evasion.". DCDuring TALK 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Your Halloween example is sense #4. The sense I am talking about always involves communication (though I'm not necessarily saying this word has to be used in the definition). You (or someone) has to tell Mr Smith not to come. That is how you "put him off". Perhaps people are not so familiar with this sense, but I assure you that it exists. 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not if I don't say "put someone off from something". Please direct me to one of the dictionaries at put off at OneLook Dictionary Search (or other online dictionary of your choice) that makes putting off a type of communication. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


Is there a better way to define this than "brownie points from Allah", which I think belongs in WT:BJAODN? - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Observation: the plural in -s looks very rare indeed. I suspect this word might already be plural, since it comes from Arabic and ends in -t. Equinox 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Another observation: I've never seen PAM make fun of Islam before- I wonder if it's unintentional? PAM is definitely clueless enough to make that kind of mistake. As for the plural: you're right- see حَسَنَات ‎(ḥasanāt). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
PAM just wrote "points from Allah"; it was Zeggazo who added the word "brownie". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I think those two usernames were the same person. Equinox 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Zeggazo was one of PAM's main alias accounts. They started out as PAM, then got a rename to North Atlanticist Usonian, then switched to Zeggazo. I think they sincerely believed that changing their account would cover their tracks, but their edits are just too obviously theirs: nobody else would ever think to create the kind of entries they do, or make the same kinds of errors in judgment (but I'm repeating myself...). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the entry at حَسَنَة ‎(ḥasana), it looks to me like hasanat refers to the good deeds themselves, not the credit one gets for them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Quotation templates using both date and year[edit]

What is the purpose of this category? It is also wrongly named - the members of the category are not templates. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a maintenance category for entries with one of the quote templates having values for both date and for year, which makes the year value redundant- not something I would lose sleep over. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Is there a worthwhile difference between sense 1 and sense 2? Could I just merge sense 2 into sense 1 by expanding sense 1's label to "dated or dialectal" or "dated or eye dialect"? - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a dictionary that has drempt as a spelling, but a few that have it as a representation of the pronunciation (RP and US). The OED may have it.
I would have hoped that pronunciation spelling was the right term for this, as it would seem to be from AHD and RHU definitions: "A spelling that is supposed to represent a pronunciation more closely than a traditional spelling, as lite for light, or wanna for want to." But our definition insists "Spelling intended to represent a pronunciation not corresponding to a standard spelling", which seems to be an attempt to follow w:Pronunciation respelling. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The "dated" label on sense 1 implies that it used to be a standard spelling but isn't anymore. (Sort of like shew.) I doubt that's true; the very citation we use for "drempt" also uses "undreamt" just a few words before. To be eye dialect, it would have to be used to suggest a lack of education on the part of the person using it, which might be the case in the 1935 quote (since it also has "they was chokin'" to suggest nonstandard usage), but does not seem to be the case in the 1939 quote. I don't think we need to have separate senses for 1 and 2. We could just call it a {{nonstandard spelling of}} and have done with it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

egg roll[edit]

Is this what the second sense is describing? —suzukaze (tc) 04:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Justinrleung (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
According to w:Biscuit roll, this second sense is a literal translation of the Chinese 蛋卷 ("egg roll"), so it should probably have its own etymology. Pengo (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Is the sexual intercourse sense of tap exclusive to American English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I never heard of it, though I could see a metaphorical sense derivation. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


Definitions 1 & 2 (as of this writing) are mathematically and logically equivalent so far as I can see, and in my judgment should be merged. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Your merger seems reasonable. I can't make head or tail of the third def (the new #2): "The angle of seeing of the astronomical unit."? Keith the Koala (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding welsh verbal nouns[edit]

Verbal noun such as eisiau, shouldn't they have their own category?

Eisiau is a special case since it doesn't behave like other verbal nouns. For most verbs, we treat the verbal noun as the lemma, meaning they're all in Category:Welsh verbs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)



  • I think this term can also refer to a Chinese herb, 白芨. 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

suzukaze (tc) 03:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can, but I've always known it as bai ji. I created an entry for bai ji and added a second etymology with an alternative form section for baiji. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


The definition of the interjection is currently "Yes, of course." When anyone I know says it, they don't mean "of course," they mean it as a weak yes. If I asked someone if I should put something in such and such a place, and they responded "Sure!" I would understand from that that they hadn't intended to put it there, whereas if they responded "Yes!" I would understand that they likely had. If they responded "Of course!" I would understand that they thought it obvious. I'm not sure how to reword the definition, or if "sure" can mean "of course" regionally.

I'd also like to know how one would express it in French, as that is what I wanted to find out when I looked it up (the current translation, "bien sûr" means "for sure" which is not the same thing). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the intonation when you say it. We can have the weak yes as a separate sense. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The meaning of almost any word can be said to be different based on the intonation. I don't think we are helping any normal user when we get into explaining such things at the expense of brevity.
I agree with Andrew's entire substantive discussion and believe the "of course" part of the misnamed "Interjection" definition is probably wrong, ie, could not be attested. I would prefer to see "Yes" as an additional sense under the Adverb header and the Interjection section removed. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced the definition with what I believe is a more accurate one, but I think it still needs work. Currently, the definition looks like this:
1. (Discuss(+) this sense) Yes. (Expresses noncommittal agreement or consent.)
I'll leave it to others to remove the tag if they think I've defined it well enough. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me, except that is a stretch to call it an interjection. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, and a look at the definition for the English word on the French Wiktionary, I decided that the original sense exists. I agree that it's a stretch to call it an interjection, but Wiktionnaire does, so I haven't made any changes to the header. Currently, the definitions are:
1. Yes. (Expresses noncommittal agreement or consent.)
"Do you want me to put this in the garage?" "Sure, go ahead."
2. (Discuss(+) this sense) Yes; of course.
"Could you tell me where the washrooms are?" "Sure, they're in the corner over there."
I think I'll leave the entry as it is now. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Isn't there another kind of book that we call "almanac" that we don't list here? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely what's specifically called a "farmer's almanac", which has a lot to do with when to plant things, etc. That's the only sort of almanac I've been exposed to, actually. Either the definition is too specific, or one is missing. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added a second definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the sense I meant. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Albanian term or terms for sworn virgins not on Wiktionary, & terms from Balkan languages[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins begins:

"Albanian sworn virgins (Albanian: burrnesha or virgjinesha) are women who take a vow of chastity and wear male clothing in order to live as men in the patriarchal northern Albanian society."

I think the word "or" being in italics is an error that implies the entire phrase is the Albanian term. I think both burrnesha and virgjinesha are separate words that can both be translated "sworn virgins." However, neither word was on en.Wiktionary and I'm running out of energy to look elsewhere for proof.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing this myself. Thanks in advance if you can work on this, here and/or WP! — Geekdiva (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are other synonyms in the WP article's introduction that might not be on Wiktionary yet. See below.

Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the italics from the word "or" in the Wikipedia article. Equinox 02:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! So you had verification that that was correct? Everything I had found so far could have been referring back to the Wikipedia article itself, and so wasn't a good enough source. That's the reason I didn't make the correction myself and one of two reasons why I brought the question here, the other reason being, "Here are some words that maybe should be in Wiktionary!" — Geekdiva (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I found one of the two terms being used being on its own in a Google Books search. Also, or doesn't seem to be an Albanian word. Equinox 02:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice! Thank you very much. As for adding the words to Wiktionary, I'll leave doing or discussing it to others. — Geekdiva (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Sense: rood screen (etym 2)
The accented (and currently uncited) form jubé is referred to as the primary form. Is it, and how do we know? — Pingkudimmi 13:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


(is this the right discussion room?) It appear that this user doesn't know what they're doing in regards to Japanese; could someone please check the definitions of 接觸感應#Japanese/接触感応#Japanese and 感應#Japanese/感応#Japanese? —suzukaze (tc) 00:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, you've only scratched the surface: I would guess that three quarters of his thousands of edits have been reverted or deleted, and all the rest have required varying amounts of time-consuming salvage work. I block him on sight most of the time, but he just switches to a new IP. The blocks do slow him down, though. I left a message on Eirikr's talk page, but he's pretty busy in the real world and may not get to it for a while.
For future reference: if you see an IP making questionable edits, go to their contributions page and click "Geolocate". If it says Sky Broadband or Easynet in the UK, you can undo just about anything they've added with a clear conscience. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at my latest comment on Special:AbuseFilter 40. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Could a Japanese-speaking editor please check the translation given in the Japanese entry? In Chinese this is accurately translated as "movable type". Thanks ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Old French entries and Template:oblique singular of[edit]

Old French uses the oblique singular form as the lemma form, so any uses of this are probably errors. Could someone with the necessary knowledge check all transclusions of this template? —CodeCat 01:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant, can you take a look? It's only a dozen entries. The problem in the entries I looked at is that the entry with "-s" and the entry without it disagree with each other on whether the nominative singular or plural is the nominative form which has an "-s", and likewise whether the oblique singular or plural is the form which has the "-s". - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


can i do a page of a Suprapubic Catheter, and put some inages of a suprapubic catheter on the page The images will be of my own suprapubic catheter, I call my self Catheter2 I will talk about this too. —This unsigned comment was added by Catheter2 (talkcontribs).

suprapubic + catheter is the obvious meaning of those two words together, and does not need its own entry. You can upload an image to Wikimedia. Equinox 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

judgement/judgment possible alternate etymology[edit]

I would like to suggest that the etymology of judgement/judgment could also be judge + -ment and judg + -ment respectively. It seems to fit okay with the definitions of judge/judg and -ment.

blur (computing)[edit]

In the context of computing, an in particular HTML, "blur" refers to the opposite of "focus" i.e. to focus an input field (currently definition 7 on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/focus). Since this definition for "focus" appears on its page I feel the definition for "blur" should also be on its page. e.g. the input field was blurred. 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 19:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Partikel, Pluraletantum, Singularetantum[edit]

"Partikel n. = particle (linguistics)" and the plural forms "Pluraletanta" and "Singularetanta" are attestable.
E.g. a few google book results for "das Partikel" in linguistics:

  • "sowohl wie um einzelne Wörter wie das Partikel (Adverb oder Präposition) mhd. umbe handelt"
  • "und in beiden Fällen unterstreicht das Partikel "nun" nicht nur den Imperativ, sondern führt als Adverb"
  • "Das Partikel chik zeigt an [...] Auch hier verliert das Partikel chik seinen auslautenden Konsonanten"
  • by a non-German: "[Title:] Am Rande der Grammatik (das Partikel und Postfix god in serbischen und kroatischen Grammatiken)"
  • "Die Verklammerung der Verse ist hier besonders eng. Die wenigen Fälle, in denen das Partikel ausgefallen ist [...] Die Partikel fallen bisweilen aus [...] Die Partikel fallen bisweilen aus [...] Die Partikel SCHON, NOCH, DANN [...]"


  1. Does "das Partikel" also have the plural "die Partikeln"?
  2. Should there be some note that those forms are sometimes prescribed and labeled incorrect?


  • Pons' "Die große Grammatik Deutsch" states: "Auch in der Physik gibt es den Fachausdruck Partikel, aber es gibt zwei Möglichkeiten: Man kann wie beim Grammatikbegriff im Singular die Partikel sagen; häufiger ist aber das Partikel (Neutrum)" - i.e. "Partikel = particle (physics)" can also be feminine. Is this true? Or is the statement good enough to include it anyway? (E.g. one could add a usage note and state "According to Pons ...".)

- 18:14&18:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is how the Duden splits it:
  1. Die Partikel ~ die Partikeln: linguistic particle
  2. Das/die Partikel ~ die Partikel: particle of matter
Perhaps the “neuterness” (neutrality?) of the second lemma is being analogized to the first? —JohnC5 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I knew how duden splitted it, but duden is prescriptive and incomplete (well, that's no surprise), so it many cases duden is quite useless. Thanks anyway.
  • There could also be other reasons why Partikel (linguistics) is used as a neuter, though in a way these reasons might be related:
    • By analogy with Partikel (physics) - which might be more common (in movies etc.)
    • By analogy with the German translation "Teilchen"
    • By analogy with other words ending with -(k)el - well, that should be rather unlikely in this case
  • A few quotes for the physics terms:
    • "Die Partikel hat ein Bewegungsmoment" (Strömgren, Lehrbuch der Astronomie, originally 1933). In the book there are equations and fractions, so is this quotable, i.e. does Wiki-nearly-Latex work here?
    • "wobei sich die Partikel auf einer Hyperbelbahn [um die zentrale Ladung] herumbewegt"
    • "so ist die Partikel selbst, in der per definitionem kein Vakuum ist, absolut dicht"
But: If neuter gender is non-standard in linguistics, then isn't it very likely that the feminine gender is non-standard in physics - any mentioned by grammarians by analogy with their Partikel?
  • Regarding the plural of das Partikel:
    • In linguistic books it is: "in der Physik auch das Partikel (Plural: die Partikel oder die Partikeln; ‚Elementarteilchen')", "In der Physik gibt es den Begriff das Partikel und bildet den Plural die Partikel oder die Partikeln"
    • "elektrostatischen Einheiten, welche das Partikel unter Zugrundelegung [...] da ja auch die Partikeln" (snippet and here just a doubtful google quote, but indeed the book uses both forms)
    • "die auf das Partikel wirkende Zentrifugalkraft [...] Die auf die Partikeln wirkende Zentrifugalkraft" (snippet and here just a doubtful google quote, but indeed the book uses both forms)
- 01:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto's Moon Nix's formal secondary designation.[edit]

Nix is one of Pluto's 5 know moons and one of the 4 smaller ones. It was discovered in 2005 along with Hydra. Physically it is the third moon out from Pluto, with Styx and Charon being nearer. Moons are often given designations as PLANET'NUMBER'. For example The Moon or Earth I. For a while these numbers meant the position of the satellite in orbit. Eventually though in the late 19th and early 20th centuries more and more moon's were being discovered and it was becoming a pain to change the number. So they were fixed. The thing I'm wondering is what is Nix's secondary designation. Wikipedia lists it as Pluto II, while Wiktionary lists it as Pluto III. The first would be correct at time of discovery, the second is it's current position in the system with the discovery of Styx between it and Charon. Unless they started approving shifts in the numerology again it should be still the former. Does anyone know the correct answer? Because either way. The two sites are contradicting each other.


Are we missing the sense used in archaeology, e.g. Daxi culture, Dadiwan culture, etc.? This sense is countable, and as far as I can tell, refers to a particular society unearthed by archaeologists. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[ ] in IPA[edit]

I would like a definition of how [ ] is used in IPA to add to the entry [ ], please. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneAɴɢʀ (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

escalera, straight[edit]

The third definition for the Spanish word escalera ("straight", with a context of "poker") does not have a corresponding English definition. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That was hard to understand. Are you saying our entry straight is missing the poker sense? If so, you're right, though that sense does have a translation table. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Found it! It was accidentally buried in a citation for the previous sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what I meant. Thanks for fixing it. It looks like the entry for straight has a lot of things categorized as subsenses that aren't true subsenses. Should that be cleaned up, or is there a reason to have it like that? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

pelagus#Latin & pelagi & pelagorum[edit]

Either pelagus#Latin is incorrect/incomplete, or pelagi & pelagorum are (partly) made up. - 14:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


If chuse = choose, is "chused" really the past tense of chuse? —suzukaze (tc) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems so: [4]. Equinox 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Has anyone else heard the pronunciation /ˈeˌniwiːz/? I'm from the Pacific Northwest and at first I thought it was just a quirk of my little sister but then I heard a public speaker say it this way a while back. (I don't say it this way.) —suzukaze (tc) 04:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

rear its (ugly) head[edit]

Anyone want to try for a good definition entry? - And what would be the best headword form? "rear its ugly head" or "rear its head"? -- ALGRIF talk 11:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it should be "rear its head", as "ugly" isn't essential to the meaning, and could theoretically be replaced with another adjective. A usage note should indicate that it is frequently used with that adjective, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


I have sometimes seen nether-man used in Victorian-era literature as a euphemism for the penis or man's private area. This definition is missing from the entry.

For example, "You Paterfamilias, being a man of pure and cleanly life, will bathe, but you will bathe under the eye of the police, bathe with your nether-man hidden from the vulgar gaze by what the French call calecons, bathe in batches, the men in one batch and the woman in the other."


Or, "Be not seduced by the example of surgeons into party-colored raiment, neither invest your ancles, like Mr. Brodie, in web gaiters, nor your nether man, like Mr. Guthrie, in white trousers."


wer#German - inflection?[edit]

1. was usually is considered to be an inflected form of wer - like "die" and "das" are inflected forms of "der". But grammarians resp. grammar books use two "ways" of putting it.

  • a) by gender: m./f. wer, n. was
  • b) by (something like) animacy: animate/persons wer, inanimte/things was

(Something like "Wen hast Du geschlagen?" - "Ich schlug das Kind" might be more common, but might also be construcio ad sensum like "Das Mädchen ... sie".)
2. [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kromayer_(Theologe)] mentions dativ plural "wenen". Does/Did this form exists?

  • On the one hand:
    • "wenen" is formed in a logical way compared with der and the form denen.
    • older language sometimes seems to be strange compared with current forms.
  • On the other hand:
    • Sometimes grammarians make up forms.
    • It's quite common that one doesn't know whether the answer is in singular or plural, so the question should simply be like "Wem gabst Du es?" and the answer like "Ich gab es dem Mann[e]" (sg.) oder "Ich gab es den Männern" (pl.), instead of "Wem gabst Du es?" - "Ich gab es dem Mann[e] (sg.) and "Wenen gabst Du es?" - "Ich gab es den Männern" (pl.).
    • Nom. and acc. pl. "wie" doesn't make sense, as the word does exist and means (and should have meant) something different. So it's unlikely that there was a plural.

- 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

These forms are certainly not part of standard German, and also not of general colloquial German. They may very well exist dialectally. -- It's however not useful to consider "was" an inflected form of "wer", because "was" is completely indeclinable. It doesn't change to "wem" in the dative. Actually, it doesn't really have a dative, but if one needs to use it in the dative case it will be in the form "was", not "wem". Kolmiel (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Is sense 3 really pronounced the same way as sense 1? And is breakfast as opposed to break-fast really the most common spelling of it? Other dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Dictionaries, Dictionary.com, the American Heritage Dictionary, Collins, Century) don't even have sense 3, and so don't give any insight into how it might be spelled or pronounced. Incidentally, Collins has a sense we lack: "(in the Caribbean) a midday meal". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

In a Jewish context (usually referring to the meal the night after Yom Kippur), I have seen all three spellings (breakfast, break-fast, and break fast) and heard both pronunciations (/ˈbɹɛkfəst/ and /ˈbɹeɪkˌfæst/). It is often perceived more as a pun than a "real word". --WikiTiki89 17:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
But break-fast and /ˈbɹeɪkˌfæst/ are probably more common. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I checked Google Books for "Kippur break-fast(s)" and "break-fast(s) after Yom" with no space, space, and hyphen, and the data bear that out: 16 books used the unspaced form, 22 used the hyphenated form, 21 used the spaced form. Now the question is: is break-fast more common than breakfast by enough of a margin that it's best to move sense 3, or is it better to have all the senses in one entry? - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Meh, left where it is wit a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Polish phrase?[edit]

What does "alesmy pochlali" mean? (I might not have it quite right.) I think it's Polish. Equinox 17:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the hits it gets on Google, the language it's found in is certainly Polish, but I can't tell what it means... maybe it's an example of a preved-like phenomenon? Sometimes it gains a diacritic or additional words, e.g. "aleśmy wczoraj pochlali". Any idea, @Tweenk, Kephir? - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Should be "aleśmy pochlali". Basically it is a brag about alcohol intake. :)
This is an example of moving verb suffixes (I don't know the precise name in linguistics). The standard form of this phrase would be "ale pochlaliśmy", which roughly means "oh, how we drank". However, the 1st person plural suffix -śmy can move to different words before the verb or merge with the emphatic suffix -że to form a standalone word, giving rise to alternative forms: "ale żeśmy pochlali" and "aleśmy pochlali". The verb is pochlać, which is po- ‎(iterative prefix) + chlać ‎(colloquial: to drink alcohol). ale is a conjunction that normally means "but", but when used in front of the sentence can also expresses emphasis. Example: "To piwo jest dobre" = "This beer is good", "Ale to piwo jest dobre!" - can be either a retort "But this beer is good!", or an emphasised statement "This beer is so good!" - the meaning would be determined by sentence intonation. In the latter case, the intonation would be rising and drop on "dobre", in the second the intonation would be emphasized at "Ale". --Tweenk (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

hot as in "in a hot minute", "for a hot second"[edit]

What else does this sense of hot collocate with? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I can find examples of "for a hot moment", the plurals with "a few" (google books:"for a few hot moments"), and (not on Google Books but on the web) "for a hot while". - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Most etymologies[edit]

I see that cat has six etymologies, which seems like a lot but I bet there are words with more. Anyone know which word on Wiktionary has the most separate etymologies from within one language? WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

- 13 etymologies. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! WurdSnatcher (talk)
You might be interested in -sche's Hall of Fame. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Latin nouns derived from verbs[edit]

I recently found a situation where I was researching "assectator" and "initiator" as names, and found that Wiktionary only lists them in their verb forms instead of their (almost certainly later, derived) noun forms. For assectator, a noun form is listed here: http://latinlexicon.org/definition.php?p1=2004943 and here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=assectator&la=la For initiator it is listed here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=initiator&la=la

I would edit these things myself, but I don't want to startle any editors by doing it unannounced. Rogerburks (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed, with the comment “Verify that it is "fourth declension". In several books it's 3rd declension (kind of irregular, but it's coming from Greek).” - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


This entry seems to be missing the sense used when referring to manga (not translated; original untouched scans) / anime (no translation/subtitles). I am not entirely certain but I think that it can be used as a noun ("Dragon Ball raws") and as an adjective ("raw manga scans") —suzukaze (tc) 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with definition 2, "Not treated or processed (of materials, products etc.); in a natural state, unrefined, unprocessed"? DTLHS (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That definition could apply but to me it doesn't feel quite specific enough... —suzukaze (tc) 01:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

older English in affor[edit]

Several of the citations in affor use such old English that I can only partially understand them.

  • What does "vytin" mean? (For that matter, what does "hagbuttares" mean?)
  • What does the "The counsall ordanis the... bairnis nor he doid affor tyme" citation translate to in modern English?
  • What does "affor" mean in "buryed in Seynt Trinite kyrke in Hull, affor the Sacrament, of the north syd of the yle"? "Before"?

- -sche (discuss) 20:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The quotes using "hagbuttares ... vytin" and "counsall ordains" are in Scots, not English. In fact, most of the quotes appear to be in either Middle English or Scots and are thus inappropriate for an English entry. In "affor the Sacrament" I think it means "before" in the sense of "in front of", but maybe it means "opposite"/"across from" since the Sacrament is usually kept on the south side of the chancel. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the 1987 quote is totally wrong; it's clearly a nonstandard form of afford. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. "hagbuttares" are hagbutters and "vytin" is within. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
P.P.S. I can't figure out exactly what the quote about the schoolmaster means. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Two edit conflicts later...

  • Hagbutters on horseback came to this town of Stirling where all the nobility was assembled, entered within the town before any within knew of them.
  • The council ordains ["orders"] the school master to provide a doctor ["master, educated man"] to teach the school and the same honest man that his bairns to give the doctor his meet about ["that the school master give his own children to the doctor to be taught"], and ordains the master to wait himself better on the bairns ["to pay better attention to the children"] than he did before, and he will answer to them thereupon.
  • If it pleases God, may my body be buried in Saint Trinity church in Hull, before the Sacrament ["Alter", I believe], in the north side of the isle --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it's the north side of the aisle, not the north side of the isle. (Holy Trinity Church in Hull isn't on an island, and it's in the south part of town.) As for "ilk honest man that hes bairnis to gif the said doctur his meit about", I think it means "every honest man that has children to give that doctor his meat", i.e. everyone who has children has to pay for the teacher's food, but I'm not sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • "Isle" vs "Aisle"... completely correct. In my defence, I was in a rush, and not just because I was hoping to actually post something this time.
      • If it's Scots, then it's more likely ilk as in "of that ilk", and ... it would take someone more familiar with period Scots to make that bit clear. My interpretation is that the School Master was getting a dressing down, and being ordered to hire a competent teacher, and to send his own children to his own school, instead of being a kind of educational slumlord. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
        • According to the Dictionary of the Scots Language, ilk can mean "the same", but it can also mean "each, every", and to judge from the quotes in those two entries, when it means "the same" it's always preceded by something like "the", "this", "that", but when it stands alone it means "each, every". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I've looked up the dates for those quotes: they're 16C. The one for burial in Hull is from a collection of Wills from York. So probably not (quite) Scots, that one. The one about the School Master seems to be a saga: the next week's council minutes state: The maist part of the counsaill ordainis the scuill master to gait ane doictur in all haist to tech vnder him, vnder the pane of deprevascioun of him of his office; and that the said master taik na hear waigis fra the landwart bairnis nor he dois fra the tovnes, onle it be of benevolence. "the majority of the Council orders the School Master to get a Doctor in all haste to teach under him, under the pain of deprivation of office; and that the said Master take no more wages from the country children nor from the town's, except if it's charity." They seem to have been quite upset with the School Master and his recalcitrance. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@Angr, re the quotations being Middle English and Scots: yep. (It used to be worse; the quotations used to be presented as if they were all not only English but also uses of a verb! See the edit history and RFV on the talk page.) Thanks for figuring out what "vytin" meant! It was driving me nuts.
@Catsidhe you get the 'edit conflict' screen with the two edit windows where you can just copy what you previously wrote and paste it in after whatever comment caused you the edit conflict, right? I ask because previously in the BP or GP (I forget which) it came up that someone had never scrolled to the bottom of that screen to see their text, and thought they had to always retype their comments after edit conflicts.
- -sche (discuss) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
(I am aware of that. I published my comment, got a conflict, extracted my comments from the bottom window and refactored them to make sense again out of their original (interleaved) context, published, and got another edit conflict. The third time worked. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC))
Re "Sacrament", which question you appear to have withdrawn: my understanding is that the Sacrament is the communion wafers and wine after transubstantiation, but that these are always kept at the altar, either while being transubstantiated and used, or else in a tabernacle in preparation for being used later, or elsewhere -- and that tabernacle is stored at the altar. So to be before the Sacrament means "before the Altar", in practice. I'm not a Christian, so I could be wrong. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Aha, thanks for the information; that matches what I found, which led me to withdraw my question and just update sacrament to note the use of the word "sacrament" to refer to the wafers. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
As a lifelong practicing Episcopalian/Anglican, I must say I have never ever ever heard the altar referred to as the Sacrament. I'm starting to wonder if by "affor the Sacrament" he meant there should be a Eucharist service after his burial, but that seems like an odd thing to stipulate too. Maybe Sacrament has meanings in Yorkshire dialect that I'm unaware of; that wouldn't surprise me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I wondered about that myself. His will does go on to specify other elements of the funeral, so perhaps that is indeed what he meant: "...north syd of the yle, and to [be] rong for wt the gret bell; havyng Messe and Dirige with all the prests and freris in Hull, they havyng for ther sallaris accordynge to ther dewtye." And he was a former mayor (father of Thomas Dalton (MP), who was also buried in the church), so the church might have been inclined to accommodate him. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

blime o riley[edit]

"blime o' riley" is the phrase I used as a boy in Bristol, England, in the 1950s. I sometimes heard middle-class people use "blimey O'rieley" but they always struck me as trying to seem lower than they were socially, but getting it wrong. That my phrase seems to have disappeared, at least in writing, suggests that the middle class have won. They got the phrase wrong in the 1950s, the media were controlled by the middle-class, and then, because they were computer literate, the middle-class petrified the meaning for the rest of time. this seems to be an unusual case of "folk etymology." The omnipresent phrase "blimey" seems to have been assumed to be related to "blime." No matter what, I still cringe when I hear the phrase "blimey O'Reilly" know it is an affectation. arryengrove —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

  • Speaking as a fellow Bristolian, I believe that the term blime is just Bristolian for blimey. An alternative form of it, and more often heard, is blige. Of course, you are much more likely to hear Spanish spoken in Bristol these days than Bristolian. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


I think this is a typo or tongue slip of arthralgia. It is well attested, but almost all Google Books hits (that aren’t scannos) use anthralgia once or twice and arthralgia much more often elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthroconidia may have the same problem. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
When works which use a nonstandard spelling x also use the standard spelling y, that is IMO the clearest possible indication that x is a misspelling or typo (short of addenda to or subsequent edition of the works outright specifying that x was a mistype). Anthralgia is not even a common misspelling; arthralgia is a thousand times more common. I would delete anthralgia. Anthroconidia is so much rarer than arthroconidia that it doesn't even appear in ngrams; I would delete it, too. - -sche (discuss) 07:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion moved to WT:RFD.


The entry for klauen (colloquial German for ‘steal’) says that its syntactical construction is identical to that of stehlen (the standard word for ‘steal’), for which the person something is stolen from is given in the dative: Er hat mir ein Buch gestohlen means ‘He stole a book from me.’ In the Die Toten Hosen song ‘Bonnie und Clyde’, however (lyrics here), the dative is used with klauen to indicate the people for whom the object was stolen: Komm, wir klauen uns ein Auto / ich fahr' dich damit rum (Come on, we'll steal ourselves a car / I'll use it to drive you around). Is colloquial usage of the dative with klauen inconsistent, or is the entry we have simply wrong? Esszet (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of dative can mean both 'from someone' or 'for someone' although the latter is colloquial. In formal language or to make it more clear 'klauen für jemanden(acusative)' is used. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Good observation. Now. The "for someone" sense is logical when the dative is reflexive, which is the case in your example. I'll add that to stehlen. The statement of "klauen" having the same construction as "stehlen" remains valid. Kolmiel (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

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

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

Spanish Voseo present subjunctive for e→ie[edit]

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

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

Tell & Tally cognates?[edit]

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

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

Is it a coincidence that tell and tally sound similar?

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Request pronunciation[edit]

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


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

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


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

I don't think so. Sense 2, the second medical sense at pathological seems clearly to be a synonym of pathologic, but the other senses don't seem so to me. I don't know whether pathologic or pathological is is more common in that use. I also wonder whether there is a US/RoW, NA/RoW, or other difference in alternation in different varieties of English. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. Pathologic is not used in British English, only pathological, and the entry is now suitably labelled to reflect this. Donnanz (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that now it says pathologic is American English, but actually it isn't used in American English either. It should probably be labeled "rare" or "obsolete" or something else to show that it isn't really used (much). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree; I think it was BrE (and perhaps AmE too) but is simply dated. Equinox 10:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I may have started something - I was referring to this [6] and this [7]. Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This Google Books search (with preview) shows abundant 21st Century use. The usage context may be (medicine) or similar. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Gheg Albanian categories[edit]

We currently have two categores for Gheg:

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

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


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

I think this is one of the few cases where Wiktionary should approach encyclopedic levels of explanation (since it's directly about language use) but it's absolutely incorrect to have that information in the definition. I've moved it to the usage notes and added examples to make it a bit clearer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in the word OMNIS[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

Spelling of heterochroma iridium[edit]

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

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


Would anyone agree that it's an adjective too? [8]. Donnanz (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Your Man[edit]


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Multiple POS sections vs. multiple headwords[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

man child[edit]

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


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

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

freedom of speech[edit]

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

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

do, did, d'[edit]

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

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

Please verify real (currency)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Modern Greek noun χάος (uncountable )[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although it rarely occurs, él and ella may be used as subjective or objective ‘it’ (él, ella, a él, a ella, de él, de ella). Ella es una universidad divertida. —Stephen (Talk) 22:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

-ion and related suffixes[edit]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

road game[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Swedish -na[edit]

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

  • It is true that -na forms definite noun endings, but only for common nouns. Neuter nouns usually end in -en for the definite plural. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the verb ending. You can always check a few entries in Swedish Wiktionary (or on this site). Donnanz (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I found this [9] on the Swedish site, but no etymology given I'm afraid. Donnanz (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina[edit]

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

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

Latin noun modules[edit]

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

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

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

I was completely shocked to find out that Template:la-decl-first, which (I think) is one of only two templates that make use of Module:la-utilities, is not used in any entries at all (see here) and that Template:la-decl-second, which is the other one, is used in a grand total of one entry (vesper, see here), and that's because I added it to it a few days ago. It might be best to merge all Latin noun declension templates into one comprehensive one, but before we do that, we need to have one big Latin noun declension module that covers all five declensions. Anyone have any objections to the proposed merger? Esszet (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Celebrity nicknames[edit]

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

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


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

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

Etymology for arabic days of the week[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

The times I've seen or heard it used were pertaining to rather unflattering aspects of Jewish characteristics (e.g. Bob Saggett is beginning to look rather Jewy now that he's getting older.), but I wouldn't say it's pejorative. More like: adhering to or typical of Jewish stereotypes (i.e. stereotypically Jewish). Leasnam (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

false cognate[edit]

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

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

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

double take[edit]

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

(1) Wouldn't reaction be better than take, where the appropriate sense comes after as many as 6 definitions for different things?
(2) Is it necessary to emphasize it can be (intentionally) comical, especially as the first example sentence is "Smith passes the car and does a double take as he realizes it is on fire." ? --Droigheann (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. The word reaction occurs just six words later in the definition, so a simple substitution wouldn't be good style. How would you rewrite the whole definition?
  2. It is certainly usually comedic. The usage example is just made up and may not reflect actual usage. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that take in the acting sense is not a very good word to use in a definition as it is not at all common in general use. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. You are right about "reaction", I overlooked that. What about "An abrupt movement, ..."?
  2. It is? I thought it was more like when you genuinely start and look again because your brain has finally processed what it had seen. But if that is the case shouldn't we at least change the order of the two example sentences? --Droigheann (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that either of the usage examples reflect real usage. In writing, I find the term mostly in stage direction, apparently in comedy. In speech it may be sometimes used in narration/dramatization of a story. Real citations would qualify us to depart from the standard definitions. In the absence of citations I will defer to your judgment, which may be right. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Most of the dictionaries you linked to at the entry don't mention its being mostly comedic and/or theatrical; BNC search [10] and the two relevant WR threads [11][12] don't seem to support this claim either; OTOH nobody here seems to oppose it, so not being en-N myself I'll just think of this debate as inconclusive and won't meddle with the entry (save for having substituted "abrupt movement" for "take"). --Droigheann (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I respect professional lexicographers, but I'm not always sure that they are basing their definitions on much evidence. Being able to use Google Books as a corpus is a new development, newer than some of their print editions. And researching a word like take is particularly difficult. Searches at google books for "a double take", "do|does|doing|did|done a double take" etc. might generate some relevant hits. DCDuring TALK 03:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I was too focused on take. I reduced the "comic" to an example. DCDuring TALK 03:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Yes, students use it this way; I've added one quotation from a book. It's comparable to a waitress saying "table three ordered two waters" (two servings of water). - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems problematic in exactly the way your comparison points out; anything can be used that way. "I need two Germans to graduate." "I need two calculuses to graduate." "Table three ordered two pies" (two slices of pie). There's the argument what the possible is much broader here then the citable, but it is a fairly general form in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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

September 2015


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

on the daily[edit]

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

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

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

  • 2010, Wafeek, "The Meaning of Life"
    I hang with Hussain on the weekly
  • 2011, Rapsody, "One Time"
    Megazine, zine, I write on the weekly
  • 2013, Joe Budden, "Tell Him Somethin'"
    Or, tell him you cherish our bond on the weekly.
  • 2000, Lil' Kim, "Aunt Dot"
    Y'all bitches bleed like me, on the monthly
  • 2003, Babbletron, "One Shot"
    Stab you in the heart, reissued on the monthly
  • 2008, Curren$y, "Factor"
    Shorty on the monthly, I call it the red light

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

  • 2013, Jesse Jagz, "Redemption"
    Revolutionary soldier on the hourly. No home and no family.
  • 2014, Anack$, "Shoot Em Up (Shot U Down Freestyle)"
    Go through a lot on the yearly and pick apart just what fears me

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

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