Wiktionary:Tea room

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations. For information on transliterations, see Wiktionary:Transliteration and romanization.

Click here to start a new Tea room discussion.

Wiktionary discussion rooms (edit) see also: requests

Information desk start a new discussion | this month | archives Newcomers’ questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.

Tea room start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about specific words.

Etymology scriptorium start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about etymology—the historical development of words.

Beer parlour start a new discussion | this month | archives General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.

Grease pit start a new discussion | this month | archives Technical questions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 – All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

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 general Wiktionary policies, use the Beer parlour; for technical questions, use the Grease pit. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Tea room archives edit
2025 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2024 January February March April May June July August September October November December
Earlier years 2023 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2022 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2020 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2019 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2018 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2017 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2016 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2015 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2014 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2013 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2012 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2010 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2009 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2008 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2007 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2006 2005 2004 2003

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

Oldest tagged RFTs

• quirinalis
  Ilyinichna
  linear
  Черняк
  harkee
  most
  shadowing
  belly dance
  half
  Surinam
  away
  series
  address
  amen
  joke
  how much
  imaginary
  catalogue
  on purpose
  notch
  based
  berm
  rayon
  bok choy
  Aster
  nasal cavity
  dies Mercurii
  -stan
  monosemic
  tweener
  tacet
  take its toll
  no thank you
  eat like a horse
  چھہ
  червь
  sum of its parts
  uninvited
  gender-neutral
  classique
  carhouse
  turn the tide
  chicken-or-egg question
  cornus
  family
  rumped
  Bereshit
  -to
  code point
  Sukhumi
  manso
  over skyerne er himlen altid blå
  regnbuefamilie
  multivarious
  Indon
  α΄
  orignal
  don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs
  speech recognition
  hazelly
  pirmas
  ne bis in idem
  Euthemia
  otocrane
  hagdon
  caviar to the general
  lipsati
  native bread
  RGSS
  arena rock
  pasar por las horcas caudinas
  one over the eight
  rhina
  Wesson
  smuggling raisins
  monolid
  ကာလယဲ
  smeť
  search up
  war hero
  war-hero
  watercressing
  green privilege
  Chinese landing
  Dağ Türkleri
  one's heart bleeds
  phrogging
  ၐြဳ
  one's house in order
  efilism
  mukt
  tjälknöl
  radiendocrinology
  lightning bruiser
  Jacboson
  Andersdr
  on someone's ass
  churtle
  Lipović
  dunnarf
  Єфінгар
  Ефингар
  unprovenienced
  diving bell spider
  Huddel
  

April 2025

audio clip

Hi - at Icelandic blossi, the audio clip gives the pronunciation, but then continues to give further pronunciations for other words, or adds a comment. Other clips I've heard for Icelandic do not seem to do this. Leasnam (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I just listened closely to it. Is he perchance saying "Blossi/810551" ? Leasnam (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is: átta, einn, núll, fimm, fimm, einn. Can this be corrected ? Leasnam (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Leasnam: You would have to ask at Commons. I'm sure it would be easy to edit that out, but I don't know the procedure to replace the current version. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

輕 and hang

Homophones in Cantonese, but for whatever reason, the zh-pron template doesn't show them as such. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

ganivelle

Is there an English word for this? Sea fence? Sand fence? See fr.wiki TypeO889 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the general type made of upright stakes is a "palisade fence". Oh look, WP has an article on sand fence. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F5D8:C7C2:FAB5:4BC6 16:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

controversional

I just wrote it like this by mistake and subsequently googled it. As expected it gets lots of hits, mostly I'm sure by non-native and less educated native speakers. However, I'm puzzled by this article published by US linguist Michael K. Brame. 84.57.154.5 12:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've created the entry, calling it "usually nonstandard" and citing the article mentioned above. 84.57.154.5 12:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

face-stalking, facestalking

Both entries are for Nouns, but both include many citations that are clearly verbs, along the lines of "I was face-stalking him". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F5D8:C7C2:FAB5:4BC6 16:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Davi6596 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

honest injun

• How to deal with this situation where somebody thinks s/he owns an entry by virtue of ancestry? ("my people"; "unless you're indigenous like me"). [1]
• Or by virtue of majority ("Soap is in favor of my decision").
• Surely the best strategy would be to check other sources (like the dictionary that we reference), or citable books and texts (where if children are using the phrase innocently at play, it is probably not intended as a horrible slur).
• Alternatively, if the "my people" do have control over an entry, then what happens if several members of the people disagree about it? Should there be policy? Ethnic voting?

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5CD7:4B81:B90D:F39 22:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a topic that deserves thorough thought. But where did children of generations past (whose speech is quoted in those citable books and texts) get the idea (or unthinking assumption) that the phrase was just sweet innocent fun? Did they grow up around adults who agreed that it was sweet innocent fun? Were those adults right about that? One might counter that it doesn't matter, even if they were wrong: we can still state the fact that they *thought* it was humorous, or sweet or innocent. But first consider another line of thought: Consider the word gringo in American English. Even though lots of people — even plenty of White people clowning around with self-deprecating humor — often use the term lightheartedly, should a dictionary label it as "humorous", or even merely "sometimes humorous"? Here's a problem with doing so: a dictionary usage label of "humorous" is usually interpreted by many readers as having some degree of eticness rather than pure emicness specific to an ingroup of speakers (notwithstanding the fact that most readers can't state it in those terms because they're not familiar with those words). They may thus think (assume) that the dictionary is asserting concurrence about the humorousness. An egregious example: racist White people will often laugh when they say the term n--ger rich (to them, it is humorous, whenever it is not instead being used in a bitterly humorless way), but even so, a dictionary should not label that term as "humorous", because again, some readers could be expected to think (assume) that the dictionary (its editorial voice or persona) was agreeing that that term is humorous. One might argue that the honest injun phrase was not intentionally hateful (especially in the mouths of babes), so it's different from any n-word-derived phrase. But that's difficult to defend upon analysis, for the same reason as with gringo or white trash: there is denigration associated with the term's origin that doesn't fully wash away even when someone is using the term lightheartedly. A dictionary thus should not label those terms as "humorous" — even despite the fact that a standup comic can get laughs by using them. It should not label the terms honest injun or Jewish overdrive as humorous and be thought to imply meaning "construable by all speakers as humorous" when all it really meant was "emically humorous within the dominant ethnic group's culture in a past era" or "humorous to an in-group". Dictionaries could even potentially use a label such as "humorous to an in-group" to show explicitly that that's merely what they mean, but if they did, then the next predictable objection is that it is needless to say, so they shouldn't say it: it is needless to say that racist White people often laugh when they use the term n--ger rich, so why should a dictionary bother to say it. Regarding "the dictionary that we reference" in OP question: I looked up honest injun therein (NOAD 2e, Kindle; it is s.v. injun, not s.v. honest), and the labels are "dated" and "offensive", but not "humorous". Quercus solaris (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't potentially offensive be better than humorous, offensive? As to humorous, I am reminded of labels like ironic, which is not really lexical, but rather discourse-related and dependent on intent. Some decades ago, honest injun was just a way that children used to assert the veracity of a statement or the trustworthiness of a promise, which seems neither humorous nor offensive. But I can certainly see that injun is potentially offensive. Many of our more evaluative labels seem so specific to a moment (decades?) in time. See discussion of folk medicine and alternative medicine. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I think that labels should indicate how a term is used at the present. If the term is now regarded as offensive by some, then that is what the label should state. If it used to be, but is no longer, considered humorous, that is a matter that can be left to a usage note. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I too would like some more (reliable) information about when/where/how this was "humorous". I can believe that (some) people in the past used the term without intending it to be offensive (which is a separate matter from whether it was or is offensive), but I'm not sure they intended to be regarded (or were regarded) as being funny, either...? Hollywood seems to have embraced it (for a time) as a stock phrase of (old-timey? or merely then-contemporary?) children, which might make it "quaint" (for some people), but that is not really a label. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think sometime-possibly-intended humor (or irony, sarcasm, etc.) has much place here. Offense and possible/sometime offense are not matters of intent, though we still have the problem of reliable information.

Honest injun is most likely to be encountered in works of Mark Twain and others from the mid 19th century and later and in US westerns (TV and film), especially of the 1950s. Applying some anachronistic and debatable label seems more likely to mislead a current reader/viewer of such works. DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

family

"Usage notes: In some dialects, family is used as a plural (only) noun."

Which dialects? All definitions? Which definitions? Wouldn't we at least need examples? DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think what they were really after was to state that in some dialects, for a family of humans (relatives, mom, dad, kids, etc), notional agreement is the norm and formal agreement is uncommon. My understanding about BrE (as an AmE speaker) is that this is true of couple in BrE (for a pair of human significant others). I'm going to boldly modify the usage note at family because it is counterfactual as currently worded. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Decate

When a person or animal missing and is considered dead 72.27.149.119 21:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

good#Usage_notes_2

I wonder if somebody could rewrite that rather pompous note in plain, simple English. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2581:80AA:C256:937C 00:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

It's just a statement of facts. I removed a lousy-stinkin-booklover word that wasn't crucial to retain. The few words in it that aren't dumbed down extra good are linked, ripe for the clickin to show exactly what they mean. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

pyroclastic flow

This entry is listed as both countable and uncountable, and someone added a quote that uses the word in an uncountable sense.

As someone who has read literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers and books on this and related topics, I can say that I have never come across an uncountable usage such as this (I admit if you searched enough you may find the rare one or two incorrect uses like this from foreign authors for whom English is not a first language). The uncountable quote provided is from a random trade paperback work of fiction, and I maintain that the author of this work is simply a perpetrator of bad grammar in this case.

At least in the sense provided and defined, it should always be countable. However, I would allow for the possibility that in the English language this entry could be used in the uncountable sense, for example, as in: "Pyroclastic flow is a form of volcanic effusion in which the eruption column collapses due to its density and falls to the earth, surging along the ground, obliterating and incinerating everything in its path". But I would argue that this usage is not the specific, standalone noun pyroclastic flow, but rather just the common noun flow prefaced with the adjective pyroclastic. If the difference is trifling, I think it could be added as a second definition or a second sense under the first definition.

But truly, no one really uses the term like this—it would be written as "A pyroclastic flow is…" or "Pyroclastic flows are…" (following from the earlier contrived example). This word is not a "type" of flow like laminar flow or turbulent flow, and shouldn't be treated as such, even if random authors of trade fiction use it incorrectly as such and can be quoted.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to defer to you as an initiate on the topic, but what do you make of this attestation, though ("Viscous debris flow is different not only from inertial debris flow but also from granular flow, pyroclastic flow and snow avalanche, because the effect of inelastic collision of particles does not play an important role in viscous debris flow.")? Is it possible that the uncountable sense does indeed sometimes stand in parallel with other kinds of (uncountable) flow of a bunch of particles (as seen in this example) but its use in that way is rare (versus nonexistent)? It could be defined and marked with the label "rare". I do agree with your principle that if a citation is using a word in a way that strains idiomaticness among initiates (for a reason such as a fiction writer not being familiar with its usual idiomatic uses), it is OK for Wiktionary to deweight the value of that citation, even without "censoring" it (i.e., even without trying to deny or hide its existence); this can be accomplished by not showing that citation in the entry and instead showing it only on the /Citations subpage, with an editorial comment applied saying something to the effect of "this is not an example of usual idiomatic use". Quercus solaris (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the OP, usage like this, in my opinion, is not usage of the highly specific noun pyroclastic flow , but rather usage of the word flow, with the qualifying adjective pyroclastic, and this is borne out by its inclusion in your example in a list of other types of flows, such as granular and inertial debris. Notice how the citation you reference is not volcanology literature, but physics literature, discussing types of flow in general (and actually, a later in the text pyroclastic flow is used several times in its correct, countable sense). Therefore in my opinion this usage should not be considered usage of this particular entry, or otherwise if people here are emphatic that it must be, it could be a second definition or second sense.

Edit: also, I’ll just add that from a scientific/fluid dynamics sense, pyroclastic flows are an example of turbulent flow—there is no "type" of flow from a fluid dynamical perspective that is "pyroclastic" in behavior. A pyroclastic flow is a kind of dense, turbulent flow that consists of gas and pyroclasts. Therefore I find this sort of usage to be a bit nonsensical.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know just what you mean there. In fact, it makes me think just now that the way to handle this instance, and others like it, is to use {{&lit}}. I am going to do it boldly because I believe that it will stick. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and editing. I am fine with that.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

統一/reunification

統一 is listed as a translation of reunification, but the word 'reunification' does not appear on the 統一 page. I think that 'reunification' should be on the 統一 page if it is a correct translation, but if it is not, then 統一 should not be listed as a translation of 'reunification'. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

inferus

I'm not sure that these definitions are correct. I'd change it but I don't want to make anything worse.

At the very least, it looks like senses 2 and 3 are nouns, not adjectives. If this is the case, these should be split. (Sense 1 should be in the adjective section, but then a noun section should be made for sense 2 and 3.)

Also, the example seems misplaced seeing as sense 3's parenthetical note says "(in the neuter plural)" whereas the example is in the masculine singular.

Further, I'm not so sure that the "(in the masculine plural)" versus "(in the neuter plural)" is even correct. At least judging from the Vulgate, the noun is always masculine (I count 29 instances where it's definitely masculine, 3 instances of "inferorum", and 3 instances of "inferis"), usually plural but sometimes singular. I don't know how Christians have used this word outside the Vulgate, but I highly doubt that there was ever a consistent distinction between using the masculine for "souls of the dead" versus using the neuter for "the netherworld, the underworld, Hell", especially seeing as the Vulgate uses the masculine for the latter. (In fact, I'm not even sure that this distinction is relevant. I think sense 3 is the noun's actual definition, and then sense 2 is just a sort of metonymy.)

2601:49:8400:392:80:759E:1FEF:4EA5 18:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Undelete glownigger

According to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English, "[a] request can be closed once a month has passed after the nomination was posted". Well then, a month has already passed since the opening of the thread concerning the undeletion of the entry "glownigger", which meets the inclusion criteria, and there was consensus for it to be restored. In this regard, I would like to request that it be restored. A kind IP advised me to open a thread here so that "everybody can discuss it together" in a single place, although that "single place" already exists on the page linked at the beginning of this text. As a non-native English speaker, I do not understand the excessive fuss over a single word, so I would appreciate it if the censorship ceases. With kind regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

...So, why is the word not getting restored? I know it's a vulgar word, and frankly, I never knew the word existed until I just happened to go to the Tea Room today. But isn't this a dictionary? Doesn't the word meet the criteria for inclusion? There are many quotes of the words spanning 6 years. Its sister word, "glowie", actually has fewer citations, and over a shorter period of time too, but that word gets documented? If we compare this word to another word entry in Wiktionary, for example, the word "respectful", we see that this word entry has nothing on its citation page. There's only one quotation of the word being used on its main entry page and it's from 1907. If I'm not misreading or misinterpreting anything from the Wiktionary:Criteria for Inclusion, then wouldn't that mean there is more reason to delete the word "respectful" from this dictionary than there is to delete this word since there are less citations of the word? I think somebody's already mentioned that Wikipedia has a page where they themselves mention and define the word. ...So what's preventing it from entering Wiktionary? The word has been added and deleted and re-added and re-deleted again... Is there something I'm missing?? This is a genuine question. Languagelover3000 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Lexemes in quotations

In a quotation I had added to emphyteusis, I had emboldened both emphyteusis and emphyteutic. Someone with the username 0DF (it seemed to have confused the system) reverted the latter with the helpful justification: "Only the lexeme is emboldened in quotations". I object to this on two counts: Firstly, the semantics of the term "lexeme" is loose, so it is reasonable to regard plurals, adjectival forms etc of the same word as forms within the same lexeme in various contexts. In particular, on the principle that the quotations are intended primarily to serve the interests of the user rather than arbitrary legislative whim, any obvious derivations of the same root should indeed be emphasised to lend point and perspective to the quotation. This would apply most strongly to non-native Anglophones, but to native Anglophones as well. Whether the derived adjective is regarded by various parties as technically belonging in the same lexeme or not, Any comment? JonRichfield (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting question because it shows that although a {{ux}} can use a conjugated inflected form for a verb headword (e.g., walk, walked, walking; sit, sat, sitting), and a plural inflected form for a noun headword (e.g., hat, hats; streptococcosis, streptococcoses), en.wikt currently does not allow an adjectivally inflected form as illustrating "the same word" as the headword (e.g., acidosis versus acidotic), because to native English speakers it is emically usually "not the same word" albeit either derived or directly related. I don't see fighting City Hall on this one, as (1) vast expanses of existing en.wikt content are already built this way, and (2) I doubt that the proposal to switch to a different method can win consensus. Whenever I have a citation (quote) that uses both the noun and the adjective, I add the same ux to both entries (for both headwords) with no change except for which words are bolded. One thing to point out is that the reader is not being deprived of usefulness when your edit stands exactly as you wrote it except that someone took the bolding off the adjectival form. The reader is not losing out. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with @0DF. "Wiktionary:Quotations" states: "In the quotation itself, the word being illustrated should be in bold." If the entry is emphyteusis, the word to be placed in bold is that word, and not related words such as emphyteutic. Such words will be found in the "Derived terms" or "Related terms" section of the entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with only marking the particular lexeme in a usex, quote, etc. Vininn126 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone could find this controversial. @Sgconlaw: Thanks for the ping. @JonRichfield: This was properly a matter for Wiktionary:Beer parlour. Feel free to copy the emphyteusis quotation to the entry for emphyteutic, emboldening the use of emphyteutic therein. 0DF (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

rumped

More than 100 items appear in the derived terms, mostly of the form [COLOR-rumped NOUN], the referent being an organism, usually a bird. Is this the best thing to do or should there be lemma entries for the various [COLOR-rumped] with the shorter derived terms list? [COLOR-rumped] adjectives seem very close to SoP. Or should we have sortable table with two-columns, one for the adjectives [COLOR-rumped] the other for the various nouns ([NOUN])? This would have some value as a precedent for other similar entries. DCDuring (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

The last-named option strikes me as best. I agree that [COLOR-rumped] adjectives seem very close to SoP, which is why the second option ("lemma entries for the various [COLOR-rumped] with the shorter derived terms list") strikes me as something best avoided. The first option (that is, the current state) is not wrong, and is acceptable, but the last-named option strikes me as a cleaned-up improvement upon it. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is there a separate entry for "rumped" at all? "Black-rumped agouti" is no more a term derived from the lexeme "rumped" than "red-breasted robin" is a term derived from "breasted" or "yellow-hatted man" is a term derived from "hatted". There are no such lexemes; these are perfectly regular derivations from "rump", "breast", and "hat". All English nouns function this way. 2601:647:C901:20C0:8B6B:F979:8852:A498 03:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Phrases like "a hatted man" are not hard to find in usage. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9158:619F:598F:E1DB 09:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

dotard

@Jtle515 recently added back the /ˈdəʊ.tɑːd/ pronunciation i removed last year. Do people really pronounce it this way, and if they do, is it correct? It seems to me that people are reading it as do (“musical note”) + tard, as if to specify someone on an even lower rung than a retard. If not specifically that, I think it's still being unduly influenced by -tard. —Soap— 23:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Traditionally the only pronunciation considered educated would be the traditional one, /ˈdoʊ.tɚd/ (in AmE, as AHD and MWU agree) or /ˈdəʊ.təd/ (in RP), and I'd bet you're right that it is nowadays (21st c) being unduly influenced by -tard, but a descriptive question does arise: if enough people do it, then it's a variant that does exist, even if the variant is something that most people consider ignorant. Sadly then the only way to convey any deprecation of it is via a usage note that says something to the effect that "the pronunciation variant that stresses the second syllable as if it were -tard does not reflect the traditional norm for how the word was pronounced, just as a bastard is not a bas-tard, either, in educated nonjocular speech." Quercus solaris (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a somewhat annoying pronunciation, no doubt influenced by words like retard/libtard/Trumptard and perhaps leotard rather than bastard or leopard, but is extremely easy to find in use (just type 'dotard' into the search bar on YouTube) and so I've just added a well-attested secondary American pronunciation to complement the secondary British one in discussion here, which we should keep. By all means add a usage note.Interestingly, there are only six results if you search in Youglish instead and one of them is with the first syllable pronounced as dot rather than dote, by an American FWIW, but that seems to be a one-off. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

seu#Portuguese, seu#Old Galician-Portuguese

Defined as pronouns even though all the examples use them as adjectives/determiners. Emanuele6 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It is a pronome possessivo adjetivo (adjective possessive pronoun). It can also work as substantive possessive pronoun, always preceded by a definite article: sua casa é bonita, a minha é feia (= mine). Michaelis defines it as a pronoun. Pinging @Polomo47. 2804:388:9027:35A1:0:6:A27B:6501 13:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

meu is coherently defined as either a determiner or pronoun, not just a pronoun; even though no example is provided in which it is actually used as a pronoun.

All of the examples in Portuguese seu, Old Galician-Portuguese seu are determiners. Emanuele6 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it should have both determiner and pronoun senses. Seems this is already the case for the possessives meu, vosso, nosso, as well as este, esse, aquele, aqueloutro.

teu and seu are the ones missing the Determiner header. Also, vosso, nosso are misformatted and need fixing. @Davi6596, I wonder if you're interested in looking at these pages? You like this sort of task, afaik... Polomo47 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Remember that this is the English Wiktionary and its PoS terminology should be like in English. Also, the term "adjective pronoun" is only standard in Brazil; in Portugal, it's considered a determiner too. Davi6596 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Emanuele6 and @Polomo47, the pages have been fixed. Davi6596 (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Nice! You’re sweet! Polomo47 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

o, a, os, as

Portuguese. Those are apparently inflections of Portuguese você, and vocês, but neither their entries, nor the entries for você/vocês mention it.

For example:

Posso ajudá-lo de alguma forma? ― Can I help you in any way?

from ajudar

Where Portuguese -lo is the masculine accusative clitic form of você.

Portuguese lhe and lhes, actually mention that they are the dative clitic forms of você/vocês as well as the dative clitic forms of ele/ela/eles/elas.

Portuguese consigo also sort of mentions that it can be used for você/vocês, but not very clearly.

Also please see Template talk:pt-personal pronouns/table#você/vocês become o(lo,no),a(la,na),lhe,com você/os(los,nos),as(las,nas),lhes,com vocês.

The personal pronoun table linked in Portuguese você says that você is "non-declining", which seems to actually be the case, for example, as far as I have understood from yesterday's Discord discussion, you could also say this (that also avoids specifying the gender of whom you are talking to):

Posso ajudar você de alguma forma? ― Can I help you in any way?

But I think it is a bit misleading, since it omits to mention that the o, a, lhe, and consigo inflections exist, as a table in the page for você itself.

o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

US, U.S., U. S.

The entry US lacks an adjective sense, and instead calls it an attributive usage— even as both the entries U.S., U. S. have an additional adjective sense. I desire consistency and uniformity across all variants, so let’s either delete the adjective sections or add an adjective section at US. Thoughts? Inqilābī 19:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say it is not an adjective, any more than China is.--Urszag (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a clear case of attributive rather than adjectival use. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think our English native-speaking contributors (but not necessarily users) accept that attributive use is possible for almost any noun and only in exceptional cases (where the meaning is novel, extended, or restricted) worth its own adjective PoS section. Others apparently haven't entirely internalized this. So, should we favor native-English contributors and try to 'educate' others or should we allow adjective PoS sections for any English common noun? DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Urszag, Sgconlaw: Well if the term in question were USA, I’d have safely deemed it attributive usage, similar to any other country name. However, US feels like an outlier in that it stands for United States, which is not the full name of the country. Any adjective-like usages of US and USA contrasts a lots to my ears, the former sounding more akin to Chinese, and the latter same as China. Just my thoughts, and I’ll yield to overwhelming consensus. Inqilābī 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my experience US is widely used to refer to the country, possibly even more often than USA. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Agreed that US and USA are very much interchangable as proper nouns, but regarding attributive usage, US sounds more adjective to me: other country names aren’t even used attributively and need a different derived/related term for adjective use. Inqilābī 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

tearpit

Is this the same as the preorbital gland? lachrymal sinus may be another synonym 85.48.185.233 08:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Paradoxical use of -er

higher-speed rail - railways that are slower than high-speed rail - got me thinking about this weird counterintuitive use of -er where it means "closer to [X] but not [X]". Idiomatically, sentences like "It's not cheap, but it is cheaper" are commonplace, which I don't think our entry on -er covers. But should it - maybe in a usage note? Or is this a deeper function of the grammatical comparative in general that a dictionary is poorly suited to explaining? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Higher-speed rail seems lexical in that it is used in the context where high-speed rail has a meaning other than {{&lit|en|higher|speed|rail}}.

It may well be lexical at -er; perhaps as a subsense. I can't think of how to put it. Maybe CGEL (2005) can help. DCDuring (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this usage of -er merits a usage note, because it's an interesting usage which we'd do well to mention and explain, but I'm not convinced it merits a separate sense, because it seems like it's still just the comparative (no?), it's simply that the object of comparison is sometimes (not always!) unstated and so may be different from what someone might expect at first glance. "I wouldn't say this explanation is clear, but it's clearer" [than no explanation at all]. Higher-speed rail operates at a higher speed than conventional rail, and when the two are mentioned together, as in "conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail", it seems to me to be as regular a use of the comparative as "prettier" in "rudimentary art, prettier art, and beautiful art". (That said, higher-speed rail may be idiomatic by virtue of being a set phrase with an at least somewhat idiomatic definition, since it specifically excludes high-speed rail.) - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the interesting thing about the "prettier" example is you can imagine two different speakers - one says "rudimentary art, prettier art and pretty art" and the other says "rudimentary art, pretty art and prettier art". I would interpret the meaning of "prettier art" differently in those two sentences using the exact same words. Of course again, this might just be some kind of fundamental natural grammar - we automatically interpret the comparative in relation to the previous object in a logical sequence, and if there isn't one given, then to a hypothetical standard object. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Focusing on the general case, as in "It's not cheap, but it is cheaper":

1. Whatever we say about -er we would have to say about more and less.
2. One can also have similar phenomena with -est, most, and least.
3. It seems related to what CGEL (2005) calls metalinguistic comparison, as in "He isn't direct; he's abrasive." or "He didn't drive there; he raced there."

If this is all true, it seems that a dictionary is not well suited to handle it, as SMW suggested was possible in the discussion opener. CGEL (2005) has a lot to say about comparative forms and comparative constructions. WP doesn't seem to address these matters. Perhaps we could have usage examples that illustrate the more subtle uses of comparatives and superlatives. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

o quê

As far as I understand, Portuguese o quê is either SOP of the o m sg definite artcile + quê noun, or the alternative form of the o que interrogative pronoun that is used at the end of the sentence (similar to que pronoun vs quê pronoun).

It is currently defined as "(interrogative) what (only in a sentence’s object)", i.e. the accusative inflection of o que à la English whom vs who, or him vs he, but that seems to be wrong.

o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

cuddle

There seem to be differences in what this term means in the US and UK. Hugging your waiter or hugging your parent/child can be cuddling / a cuddle in the UK, but to my understanding (and the aforelinked redditor's) those would not be considered "cuddling" in the US. I took a stab at splitting the noun (not yet the transitive verb), but I suspect more improvement is needed. In particular, what does cuddle encompass in Ireland, India, Canada, Australia, or the rest of the Anglosphere? - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say that a cuddle tends to be of shorter duration than a snuggle and usually less intimate - though in the quote we have at snuggle, from the Velveteen Rabbit, the word is clearly not used to suggest intimacy between the child and the rabbit - but it’s just a matter of connotation rather than denotation as both words mean hug/embrace. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• I (UK) would understand "cuddle" as a close hug, and "snuggle" as going one stage more intimate with some kind of nuzzling or spooning - actively pressing your bodies together rather than just embracing them (making yourselves snug in each other, I guess). In that context, the Velveteen Rabbit example makes sense, because children like to press themselves against their cuddly toys. In The Simpsons, "to snuggle" is also a pretty common euphemism for "to have sex" (an example where it clearly can't just mean "hug": Homer: "Bring on the swear jar! Do I have to pay when I hit my hit with a hammer?" Marge: "Yes" Homer: "What about when we snuggle?" Marge: "Hmm, that's OK.") but I don't know if that's a general common American usage or just a specific euphemism used by the show. I'll have a quick search on Google Books. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

(In fact, I just noticed that our entry for nuzzle gives snuggle as a synonym) Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating! I asked a few American friends, and they (like me) perceive cuddle/snuggle vs hug to be different from each other in ways somewhat similar to the ways you perceive snuggle vs cuddle/hug to be different. In American English, cuddle is more intimate, physically closer, typically longer duration, and typically done lying down (or perhaps sitting) vs a hug typically being done standing up. (Some of the comments here say likewise.) - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

As an American, I agree with that statement. Cuddle and hug are completely different things. I would consider cuddle a synonym of snuggle - i.e. being intimate usually while laying down - while a hug is less intimate and usually done while standing. Nosferattus (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

And no one in America would ever "cuddle their waiter" or "cuddle their parents", unless they were a baby. Nosferattus (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

huddle

The leading noun sense is "A dense and disorderly crowd" (emphasis mine). Is this sense dated, or just plain wrong? To me the word calls to mind a group of people (insects, ...) in very close proximity engaged in some common pursuit (keeping warm, staying away from danger, planning a team strategy, ...). This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That is very like the definition in Century 1911, which seems obsolete (not archaic or dated) to me, though the current sense (more or less as you have it, although other dictionaries don't include purpose) is obviously closely related-to/derived-from the this "disorderly" sense. The "purpose" aspect seems to me to be related to the American football sense, but may predate it. This is something the OED is good at. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring I tried updating the noun senses. The verb senses may still need work; would you say "Tens of thousands huddled [= "crowded together"] in the streets to voice their anger at the plans"? This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Not in my idiolect: a football huddle of 11 is close to the maximum possible size of a huddle; in most contexts, it can be as small as (two or) three. DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

bent

In the Fellowship of the Ring, in the line "Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit.", what sense of bent or bend is meant? - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I would say it's sense 4, which I have just added to. Please see. Leasnam (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; I had wondered if it might be that sense, but before your changes, I wasn't sure it fit. - -sche (discuss) 02:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That one is difficult. The German metaphor gebannte Blicke suggests ban. I think it means bind, bound, seine Blicke sprechen Bände (to speak [[volumes]), but there is French in the mix (ville, banlieu). The English phrase hell-bent makes sense, bound for hell, also homebound. Hr. Mine Schatsu (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I want to add that my old man used to say bannich spannich ("(jocular) intense"). Duden knows bannich (“ungewöhnlich, außerordentlich, sehr”) i.e. dialect "very" = gebannt (advertisement warning[2]). Refering to Dutch bangig, angsty, I am growing concerned that this may be a completely different word. But if you pay attention to spannend as intended, bend and span belong together (figura etymologica) if you know how to fix a Scythian bow, whether your read LOTR or not. It may be coincidence that *bʰeh₂- (“be visible”) and *speḱ- (“to look”) follow a similar pattern. I can afford the same skepticism for bent and bend as well. Hr. Mine Schatsu (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

bound "ready" is already in place. Don't gimme chide, you missed it too. Hr. Mine Schatsu (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

sear

In the verb sense of sear, is the main quotation/example really appropriate? It seems to be a meme, and does not give an accurate sense of what the word means at all. Should it be replaced with one of the other quotations? TheBoxThinker (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I changed the ux to one that nobody will have to think twice about or question. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! TheBoxThinker (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

laxator

This term is confusing. Some sources say it is the third muscle in the middle ear, others say there is no such muscle. Perhaps it is part of the stapedius, or another term for the tensor as it can both loosen and tighten. Any thoughts? 85.48.185.110 13:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Dipping into it briefly, I find that "laxator tympani" was a pre–Nomina Anatomica term that Terminologia Anatomica doesn't use, and according to my cursory skimming of some history, even by the time of Nomina Anatomica the tissue was understood to be ligamentous rather than muscle tissue. Here is an interesting and highly relevant passage that Google Books allowed me to preview. Have a look, if it lets you: Mudry 2015, The History of Otology, at a passage about the so-called laxator tympani structures. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

alavantú

(Portuguese) I'm going to be brief: shouldn’t it be alavantu, considering the accentuation rules? OweOwnAwe (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s not like there’s a standardized spelling for this. alavantú does seem to be more common than alavantú. Polomo47 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

if once

In the Fellowship of the Ring, I'm having trouble parsing the line "He knew of nothing that would prevent them from crossing as easily as he had done; and he felt that it was useless to try to escape over the long uncertain path from the Ford to the edge of Rivendell, if once the Riders crossed." First I wondered if this was an odd sense of if, or an odd sense of once; now I wonder if it's an ellipsis of something like "it was useless [...] if only once the Riders crossed"...? - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly that construction appears a lot in Google Books in older writing, seeming to mean "in the event that". My guess is what's being elided is an "even" or "just" - "if [it should happen even] once". It doesn't slide perfectly into the LOTR quote, but it works for most of the other uses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I could make sense of the sentence, using my idiolect's grammar, omitting either if or once.

For some archaic/obsolete grammar of if, see if at Webster 1828. OED would probably shed more light on it. DCDuring (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Same! (I could make more sense of it if either if or once were omitted.) - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like a needs must thing, and it lived did in parallel to it Danny lost (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It is somehow the same type of "once" as in "You can't go back once you've crossed the bridge", i.e. after the event. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E065:9E45:D64C:F38E 20:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it? "it was useless to try to escape if [when / as soon as / after] the Riders crossed" doesn't make much sense to me (though it would make sense if "if" were omitted, or if "once" were). - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It reminds me of the legal formula when, as, and if. This formula invokes three different aspects(!) (future timing, future durativity(?), and contingency/uncertainty) of the following irrealis clause. If once invokes two also, but, in current/recent English, once alone invokes contingency and timing by itself and if always involves contingency and sometimes timing. Perhaps once once did not invoke contingency. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

why is safe in "Category:German 2-syllable words"?

And how would I remove it? It's clearly one syllable... Jan R Müller (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The entry has multiple pronunciations listed. One of them is /sɛɪ̯fə/, which certainly is two syllables. So the solution is to leave the word in the category if that pronunciation really exists, or to remove that pronunciation if it doesn't actually exist.--Urszag (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jan R Müller, Urszag: That’s an inflected form for attributive use before noun (strong/mixed nominative/accusative feminine singular, strong nominative/accusative plural, weak nominative all-gender singular, weak accusative feminine/neuter singular). How do we display these cases, where an inflection does not differ in spelling? I think not at all, as is now assumed for Latin a-declension ablative singulars, but this may be wrong by reason of the irregularity, in spite of its regular etymological foundation. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I've seen some Latin entries (although not consistently!) have separate sections (with pronunciation info) for the differing pronunciations of the lemma or one inflection, vs another homographic inflection. Failing that, we could just make the current label on the pronunciation more noticeable: English excuse is laid out similarly to the German entry, but in some other entries the "labels" (like "verb" and "noun") are bulleted, with the pronunciations indented under them, which I think makes the labels and the distinction they're making easier to notice.
I've seen some English entries where the plural is homographic to the singular but is pronounced differently, e.g. due to being learnedly borrowed from Latin -us vs -ūs singular vs plural inflecting words (like cursūs), and the pronunciation section mentions this, but I can't relocate any at the moment — can anyone else? - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

the (gun's) shot was fouled

Is this a sense of foul we cover? It could be "obstruct", but we seem to have that only in relation to drains, combined with "clog" (Dictionary.com has it in relation to "a chimney or the bore of a gun", combined with "clog"), which AFAICT isn't right — the barrels, AFAICT, are not clogged, it is rather that something has gotten in the way of the shot (or in the Yoon Ha Lee cite, a dragon either crushed or got in the way of the gunman right as he fired). I could rework the "obstruct" sense to convey the range of ways something can be obstructed, unless these cites are better interpreted another way...? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just thinking something similar about foul in terms of vehicles "fouling" junctions and the like. I agree that "obstruct" is a bit too vague to define it properly - a train can foul a signal by passing it at danger (red) even if it doesn't actually go far enough past the signal to cause an obstruction to other traffic ("An engine-driver stated that having on one occasion "fouled" a signal by the length of his engine, he was reported and fined £3"). I'd say the term means something like "To be in a position that interferes with something else", which is very slightly broader than simply "obstruct". The quote about the ships is particularly enlightening: the friendly ships don't directly obstruct the shot (they are downrange) but still make it impossible to shoot by their presence and the risk of friendly fire. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"(transitive) Obstruct, clog, or otherwise interfere with the operation of" ? I think intransitive wording is also necessary. DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I have revised the definition to (transitive) To obstruct, block or otherwise interfere with, for example by clogging (a drain, gun barrel, a chimney, etc) or by being in the way of (a gunshot, etc). I think intransitive use could be covered by tweaking it to (transitive, intransitive) To obstruct, block or otherwise interfere with (something), for example by clogging (a drain, gun barrel, a chimney, etc) or by being in the way of (a gunshot, etc). If anyone can improve on this, please do. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

chappal, litre

Diff added "/ˈliʈa(ɾ)/, Rhymes: -ɪtə(ɹ)", with all the vowels and consonants different between the pronunciation and the rhyme, as the Indic pronunciation of litre; what is correct?
Diff added /ˈt͡ʃapːal/ as the Indic pronunciation of chappal: if चप्पल's pronunciation is /t͡ʃəp.pəl/, this means Indic English pronounces this word less like Hindi than non-Indic English does; is that right?
- -sche (discuss) 16:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

pull in American football

While creating pull the football, I came across a lot of NFL match reports which use the phrase in a way that I can't parse using any of the senses at pull:

• "As soon as he pulled the football on the action fake, Jordan Love turned and saw the deep shot wasn’t open"
• "Bryant opened the game with a bang. On the Tigers’ second-play, he pulled the football on what was a run-pass-option and delivered a well-placed ball to wide receiver Deon Cain, who made one defender miss and then raced 38 yards to the end zone for the game’s first score."
• "Later, he pulled the football on a zone-read option play and darted 29 yards along the sideline into Tennessee's low-red area."
• "Nussmeier almost threw another pick on the very next offensive play against the very same look! He pulled the football on an RPO, pump faked, and then shot for the flat."

I know almost nothing about American football - does "pull" mean something specific here? In general, there's a lot of American football jargon here that we don't seem to have. "option" (and derivatives like "run-pass option", "zone-read option"), "flat", "look", "action fake". Any NFL fans able to fill those in? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The sense of pull used in the four instances above refers to the action of a quarterback who, instead of completing a hand-off of the football, retains the ball either to deceive the defense or in response to the defense formation or movement.

Another sense of pull is used of an offensive lineman, usually a guard, who withdraws from his initial position on the offensive line to move laterally to block for a runner.

IMHO (I have not yet inspected all the linked entries for adequacy of coverage of American football usage):

Neither, 1., run-pass option ("a play in which a quarterback has the option to either run or pass after the snap of the football.") or, 2., zone-read option ("a play in which the quarterback adjusts his actions based on his read of the defense's apparent positions in a zone defense." zone read?) are worth entries, as they are SoP with respect to specific football senses or football usage of general senses of run [OK], pass, option [other dictionaries have a football-specific sense], zone [OK], and read [added usex].

Flat is not transparent. [Now added DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)]

A football look is the appearance of a formation, not distinct from other senses of look, possibly worth a usage example there.

"Play-action fake" is SoP with respect to the football sense of play action and the sports sense of fake [OK].

I will await inspection of my expressed understanding by other contributors. DCDuring (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand now. look is the only one that I don't quite get and I suspect is a unique football sense, because I can't imagine using it in other non-NFL contexts the same way. Is it like a feint (a team appears to get into one particular formation, but then performs a different play)? That's the impression I get from "The Aggies give him a two-high look with defenders squared up hip-to-hip with his receivers. While this looks like two-man, Texas A&M could be disguising the coverage." and "A&M started throwing different looks upfront, making Nussmeier question his protection." Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think look#Noun is incomplete, but you might be right. DCDuring (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

How is Gödel pronounced in German

Gödel Zbutie3.14 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The entry now contains a request for a recorded German pronunciation. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard it, but the spelling is unambiguous. It could only be pronounced /ˈɡøːdəl/, [ˈɡøː.dl̩]. Roughly like English "girdle". 84.57.154.5 01:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no subtitute for audio. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

What a bullshit comment. Who said there was? I just helped the best I could. And of course, there's no substitute for transcription either. They're both necessary for learners to fully comprehend a word's pronunciation. 84.57.154.5 18:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

browse (noun)

We have two senses, "Young shoots and twigs" and "Fodder for cattle and other animals". Is "browse" any fodder (even that which a human provides in a trough in a barn), or is it specifically fodder that cattle find while browsing? Merriam-Webster has one combined sense, "tender shoots, twigs, and leaves of trees and shrubs used by animals for food". - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be reworked from its current state (two senses) into one sense that conveys the notion of "fodder that the animal gathers/reaches for [of its own accord]." Thus browse in this sense is hyponymous to fodder. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

girdle

Currently, definition 4 of girdle is The zodiac; also, the equator. However, the quotations listed there seem to me more like metaphors than proof that girdle is synonymous with zodiac or equator. Even if girdle literally means zodiac or equator, i would think they should have separate listings, e.g.,

4. The zodiac.

5. The equator.

instead of

4. The zodiac; also, the equator.

Any objections to removing zodiac and equator from the girdle page? Other opinions or suggestions?

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing.

--70.22.1.45 08:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this instance could justifiably show two subsenses (X and then Y) rather than "X; also, Y". True that where to draw the line on entering figurative senses is kind of a rabbit hole, as DCDuring has pointed out too (i.e., people spin metaphors all the time, and they do not always have lexical or lexicalized status), but it seems to me that there is some practical balance point for that spectrum, whereby the entry for girdle ought to be "allowed" to include a zodiac subsense and an equator subsense. My argument is that if some nonnegligible percentage of readers would not even catch the drift of the writer or speaker (of the quotation/citation) without being given a gloss, even though there is (or formerly was) something plausibly at least weakly conventional and established about the given metaphor/figurativeness instance (even if only among literary-minded persons, versus all speakers of the language), then glossing is fair. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This sense is not needed. Our evidence as well as OED's shows that these are just ordinary old metaphors. The zodiac is "starry girdle" while the equator is "world's girdle" or "girdle of the world". I'm just going to remove it. This, that and the other (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

driver

It is mentioned at lost motion in the same breath as a follower, which has a mechanical definition. We are missing one at driver, which has an all-inclusive "one that drives" sense. I'd like a specific subsense, and there are doubtless others. 85.48.185.116 13:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The subsense referents, namely, the driving element versus the driven element, are themselves broad (just as the top-level sense, "someone or something that drives", is broad too). Nonetheless, I agree that they should be adequately covered. I will do this soon. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Update: done. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Piroli / Fadulli in old Italian?

Researching דרדס, I found in Jewish medieval scholia a term that should gloss some type sock, shoe, felt or other kind of footwear or padding: It varies between פירולי / פדולי / פאדולי, so [p/f][i/a/e][r/d][u/o]li. Or pirulli, fidulli, parolli, fadolli, etc. Sounds very Italian or Latin, which fits the authors Nathan ben Jehiel, Isaac ben Melchizedek. The closest relevant word I could find is federa [3]. Any other ideas? Danny lost (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Check pedule? Hftf (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Great. Danny lost (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a formal heading for something like cf.?

In (most? all?) languages we have interchangeable synonyms, but also some that though, though technically identical in meaning, have different subtexts, and others that are more or less synonymous, especially in particular contexts, but not technically identical in meaning. Some in fact are confused with their antonyms, such as imply/infer. do we have a defined heading for such cases where anyone looking up one word, might benefit from clicking on another or a detailed discussion? A heading such as See also or cf.? JonRichfield (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Semantically "see also". Vininn126 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. There are plenty of cases where no usage note is necessary because the things that ought to be brought to the attention of a reader (or, more precisely, those readers who are willing to think a little rather than not at all) can be covered at any of the following spots, with the optimized choice of spot depending on the instance: see also, {{nearsyn}}, {{cot}}, {{ant}}. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

hearsay evidence

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think this definition is accurate. Hearsay evidence does not have to be in the form of testimony. For example, words uttered in a recorded video could be considered hearsay evidence. Can someone assist? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I am a lawyer though not an expert in this particular area (trial work). However, I believe the concept of hearsay evidence is relevant only in the context of court testimony, the concept being that unless the law provides an exception, hearsay evidence is inadmissible to prove a fact in court. In your example, it may be that words uttered in a recorded video could be inadmissible hearsay evidence, but the point would only arise if a party is trying to establish a fact based on such evidence in court. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Wouldn't uttered words in a video be admitted (or not admitted) in the form of an exhibit, not testimony? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412, any thoughts? (Also, are we sure this is not explained by hearsay + evidence?) - -sche (discuss) 13:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty SOP to hearsay definition 3. Some work needs to be done to improve that definition to make it more like the one currently at hearsay evidence, and to clarify the distinction between this and hearsay definition 2. bd2412 T 15:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

"dễ thuông"

This is a variation of "dễ thương" with multiple documented uses on the internet. Should we add it? Sinotransition (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

phonetic and fanatic

Why aren't these homophonous? 2A02:2788:A4:2AB:85A5:D14C:2CF7:9312 13:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If you’re American, Aussie, Cockney or German then they might be but most people use a different vowel for these words in the second syllable. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Even in most accents of AmE, although it is fair to call them near-homophonous, they are not homophonous. It takes a certain hasty sloppiness of speech to merge them. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Update to my comment: I just found out that the met–mat merger may produce full homophony of phonetic and fanatic in Malaysian English, Singaporean English and Hong Kong English. I will add coverage at the {{homophones}} values and put a qualifier showing the limits of it. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

courage

1. "The quality of being confident, not afraid or easily intimidated, but without being incautious or inconsiderate."
2. "The ability to overcome one's fear, do or live things which one finds frightening."
3. "The ability to maintain one's will or intent despite either the experience of fear, frailty, or frustration; or the occurrence of adversity, difficulty, defeat or reversal. Moral fortitude."

Our quotes and usage examples don't bear out such a distinction, and everything should be combined in a single sense imo. PUC – 13:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The first two senses date back to 2006 and are most likely another instance of the then-widespread practice of entering different wordings of the definition as different definitions. - -sche (discuss) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

1 and 2 are slightly different definitions: Person 1 is unafraid, while Person 2 is afraid, even if both wind up acting the same. (i'm more unsure about whether "being incautious or inconsiderate" is related to being courageous--that is, i think a person can be courageous with or without being incautious and/or inconsiderate.)

Definition 3 expands Definition 2, where fear is just one of several possible obstacles to courage. Person 3 may or not be afraid.

So i guess i'd support keeping all 3 definitions, or maybe combining #2 with #3 (possibly #2 as a subsense of #3)... but i just realized i haven't looked at the quotes and usage examples you mentioned.

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing.

--70.22.1.45 06:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

pie off (UK)

I've heard it enough times now to know that this is a real thing said by real people as well as what it means (to reject or to ghost), so I'm surprised it doesn't have a separate entry of its own. Is it recorded in any dictionaries? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve heard it too and the earliest usage I could find was for 'pie them off' in a 1795 book on Google Books. Failing that it appears in two different websites which both contain the complete script for the 1995 film Braveheart and agree it’s used there. There are also 3 hits on Google Books if you search for ‘pie him off’ and ‘pie her off’ and one definition and etymology is given in the (obviously unreliable) urban dictionary which suggests that it refers to metaphorically throwing a custard pie in someone’s face. That is possible, which would make the use of the phrase ‘pie off’ in Braveheart deeply anachronistic as the use of custard pies in slapstick was invented by Charlie Chaplin when he was in a play called ‘Mumming Birds’ in 1910 (according to his Wikipedia article). The 1795 book refers to stealing sheep and making mutton pies out of them, so a slightly different meaning, but a semantic shift could've come about from 'get rid of (by making a pie out of)' to 'get rid of' to 'reject/ghost'.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Easter term WOTD and Paschal term

@Sgconlaw: Why is the redlink Paschal term on the main page? 173.206.137.33 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Because no one has created that entry yet … — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Should we disqualify terms containing redlinks for WOTD? The main page didn't look "clean" until User:CitationsFreak said "grrr..." and created the term. 173.206.137.33 22:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we should make the redlinks blue when we see 'em. CitationsFreak (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak: I have to draw the line somewhere. Creating entries whenever there are red links just leads one down a timesucking rabbit hole. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant once it's been nommed as a WotD. CitationsFreak (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak: well, any other editor is free to create the entry. It's unlikely I will spend time doing that. For example, there are sometimes entries which are the vernacular names of various animals and plants. It would just be too much work to also create entries for all the organisms which didn't have one. Similarly, an entry often has numerous derived and related terms. Once I tried creating entries for all the red links, and found this far too laborious. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding synonym: "world-plus-dog"

Hey folks!

RE: everyone and their dog

The Register uses this shorthand phrase with some frequency, e.g.:

World-plus-dog booted out of Facebook, Instagram, Threads

May I please request assistance from someone more familiar with WT:CFI?

Essentially, what's the best way to proceed here? Must three sources be gathered to create a new page (yes, right)? But how about for a simple addition on the existing page under Synonyms?

Thank you kindly, all, for generously spreading your knowledge. Iforget2020 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It's best not to put a red link, such as a listing under synonyms, when there's question about the term possibly not being able to pass WT:CFI. It's true that people have often done it, but it's more of a poor practice that is tolerated, and sometimes cleaned up via deletions afterward, than a good practice to recommend. Probably "world-plus-dog" is self-consciously a member of the class of "journalese including headlinese". A more specific problem with this particular member (of that class) is if its use is almost wholly confined to a single publication, in which case it is more familectal than otherwise. There could potentially be a place to put it in Wiktionary, even if not the mainspace, as follows. Probably some journalese terms may not pass WT:CFI to be entered into Wiktionary's mainspace, but Wiktionary does have (as I just discovered a few weeks ago) such appendixes as Appendix:Minecraft, where every headword therein is entered within that appendix namespace. Thus, if someone wanted to build "Appendix:journalese including headlinese", that might be fair game as a place to enter not only "world-plus-dog" but also a hundred other journalese lexemes. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me:

You're amazing. How helpful and knowledgeable.

Wiktionary designers, GREAT call on appendixes. I really like when a non-Urban Dictionary result comes up to explain something to me even if it's not a very popular term (though nobody wants the platform to be abused, amongst perhaps many other reasons y'all have carefully come to these policies).

Will check out your links another time--Happy Easter or Happy Sunday 🙂 Iforget2020 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Latin Brundusina

I try to verify the etymology given in [4]: Brundusina > בורדסין. Are there any references in Greek or Latin to "Brindiasian" as a type of cloak or another kind of clothing? Danny lost (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

regular

regular#Noun currently includes these definitions:

1. ^{_{not relevant to this conversation}}
2. A frequent, routine visitor to an establishment.

   Bartenders usually know their regulars by name.

3. ^{_{not relevant to this conversation}}
4. A frequent customer, client or business partner.

   This gentleman was one of the architect's regulars.

5. ^{_{not relevant to this conversation}}
6. ^{_{not relevant to this conversation}}
7. ^{_{not relevant to this conversation}}
8. One who does not regularly attend a venue.
   • 2015, Brian Cook, Hands Across The Sea, page 190:

     There's one neighborhood tavern where the regulars and irregulars go after a hard day to unlax and rewind, throw back a few, and just hang out - you know the one.

Definition 2 seems to me like a type of Definition 4. Definition 8 seems like an antonym of Definitions 2 and 4, but the meaning is unsupported by its given example: i already knew Definitions 2 and 4 and interpret Definition 8's quotation as fitting Definitions 2 and 4, although the point is almost moot because the quotation is pointing out a commonality between the regulars and their opposites, the irregulars. So... i guess what i'm saying is, "citation needed"?

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing.

--70.22.1.45 06:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• 8 is wrong, should b deletedVilipender (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed: get rid of 8 (error), and the citation under it can be moved to an earlier sense (habitual customer). As for whether to merge 2 and 4 or (instead) to make 2 be a subsense of 4 (i.e., hospitality client versus any client), both answers are defensible, which goes to show that natural language has limits on its precision regarding how dictionary definitions map variably to both conceptual definitions and operational definitions. Each Wiktionarian can do what they think is optimal for each instance and then see whether it stands up to other people's acceptance or objection. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What a mess of a PoS section. Grouping would be a start. Why start off with a UK military definition? Hard to understand the calendar definitions, which could use a context label. We seem to be missing subsenses that MWOnline has that include the definitions we have as specializations. Argh! DCDuring (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think your reading of 2 is slightly too narrow - Google Books has plenty of examples of phrases like "a regular at the beach", "a regular to the prison", "a regular on the island" etc where there is no sense of a commercial transaction. They're still subsenses of the overarching "a person who does something regularly" sense, but I don't think 2 is a subsense of 4. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Sense 8 deleted Vilipender (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

lil bro

Is lil bro really a pronoun, lol? Vilipender (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The question of which lexemes belong to the class of pronouns (which is to say, where the boundaries of that class lie) has apparently been having a moment lately on social media. People quibble over whether or not bro, lil bro, and others fit the bill. Wiktionary's stance on this POS question should eventually accord with the answers of linguists whose views on the topic carry the most weight (of understanding and circumspection), which would be people such as the authors of CamGEL. But it might take years before we finish arriving at such a juncture. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless anyone can make the case that this should be treated differently than bro itself, discussed last month, let's edit this entry, like bro, to handle this as a noun. As noted in the previous discussions, people can (and do) use a lot of nouns this way, to the point that it seems like "this is a way nouns can be used, in AAVE / certain Internet registers" moreso than "all nouns are also pronouns". - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of nouns that can be used deictically without a determiner, e.g. "Bitch Betta Have My Money". It's not a new phenomenon, either; back in the '90s I was watching a movie where one character, a heterosexual man, was trying to cook dinner and failing miserably. I laughed and said to my friends, "Straight boy can't cook!" I must have picked up that syntactic construction somewhere, but I don't know where. At any rate, I don't think these examples warrant adding a Pronoun section to bitch (and certainly not creating a pronoun straight boy!). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the part of speech to "noun". (But perhaps it's simply SOP in any event...) - -sche (discuss) 14:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

terre-tenant

Just a landowner? Vilipender (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Not simply synonymous. I entered syn/hyper/cot sensewise. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

drug addict

SoP ? We can have pill addict, pain addict, love addict, porn addict, coffee addict, meth addict, wine addict, travel addict, where does it end ? Leasnam (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Any restriction (e.g. if it typically refers only to particular drugs, like illegal or abused drugs rather than medicines someone is taking as prescribed by a doctor) resides in drug and is found even when drug is used by itself, as well as in its many other collocations (drug paraphernalia, drug crimes, etc). It's possible drug addict is saved by THUB, though. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Unlike the other addicts you mention, this is a lifestyle, or subculture. Pervasiveness distinguishes them, and transforms the restriction which drug has into something more than the parts provide, through the interaction of human behaviour and substance effect. Consider it from the perspective of crime-fighters. There at various places you have check-boxes: ☐ drug addict.

Then there is the other issue of ever more complicated medical or slangier terms achieving inclusion: it is no convincing presentation to have narcomaniac and druggie but not drug addict. If something is an expression of a general phenomenon engendering idiomatic expressions then a fortiori the idiomaticity of the expression is indicated by the circumstantials, and one should include the term to present the natural order of things, that is a natural language, rather than disintegrating its descriptions by a rigid rule that was only designed to exclude exuberance rather than to gouge its inwards from that which appears trivial but is socially relevant nonetheless.

Control question: Will lexicography get out of control owing to the the entry unreckonably inviting more transparent compounds? Or is it only occasional luxury? Like a rare redundant handbag I have faith in to be worne every other day, for it completes many an outfit, and therefore cop. It has thus proved becoming to allow for drug addict, or lack of sleep – nice to have. Doesn't mean we will have a full house of addicts or lacks like compulsive hoarders. (There is also inversely compulsive decluttering, they never have nice things.) Fay Freak (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Some other dictionaries, but not MWOnline or AHD, have it. “drug addict”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that drug addict is saved by THUB, as -sche said. Willing to be proved wrong. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Besides THUB, I think drug addict is not quite the same as a travel addict or Pokémon addict. Drug addict generally suggests someone who no longer functions as expected in society, someone who has serious problems. If they are technically addicted but still functional, they are more likely to be described as a user, fan or enthusiast or something. For the other examples given, it depends. Porn, coffee, wine and travel are probably more SoP. The other examples may or may not be SoP. Ask yourself: does it make a difference if you prefix it with "problematic"? Is there a notable difference between a drug addict and a problematic drug addict? Probably not, colloquially the "problematic" is already implied. Is there a difference between a Pokémon addict and a problematic Pokémon addict? Yes. The former is simply a huge fan, the latter is trying to catch Pokémon on railroad tracks. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me like those connotations reside in drug, since you can recast the sentences like she is addicted to one vs the other, instead of she is a ... addict, and still get different connotations, or you can say Pokémon is ruining her life (how? is she a fangirl and the show's cliffhangers are making her emotional and she's speaking hyperbolically like people do? is she... playing the game so much that she's neglecting her homework? how is Pokémon ruining her life?), vs drugs are ruining her life (ah). - -sche (discuss) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

-sche, depending on context, the meaning of drugs are ruining her life isn't quite that obvious to me. Do the drugs cause her to be zoned out, making her unable to focus on anything productive? Is the cost so high that she feels forced to commit crimes to pay her pharmacist or dealer? Are they causing her to be abused somehow? Or maybe it is someone, like her ultra-conservatist parents, who are speaking hyperbolically about her habit to smoke some pot on the weekend? Wait, wait - I think I know the answer. She's an honest Columbian farmer who keeps getting harassed by the police who constantly burn all her crops because they think she's growing more than tomatoes and cartel members who try to pressure her to grow more than tomatoes. She's no druggie, but drugs are ruining her life. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

samarium pronunciation

IPA: /səˈmæɹɪəm/ I'm not so sure about the /æ/ in there. /ɛə/ or /ɛ/ seems more appropriate. --[Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 23:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Other dictionaries (MW, OED, Dictionary.com,...) agree with you that it's /ɛ/. In the term's Russian etymon, the vowel is [a]; I wonder if (especially in the US) it's ever /ɑ/. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@-sche: the similarity to Samaritan may have influenced the pronunciation, but I think it's mostly just a matter of the default pronunciation of "ari" in the middle of a word where the accent is on the "a"- e.g. in "aquarium", "honorarium" "planetarium", not to mention "similarity" and "summarily". There are certainly lots of regional accents that do strange things to "a" before "r" even in open syllables, so I wouldn't be surprised by any pronunciation, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Saviourofthe is right that /ɛə/ is the expected vowel sound here. But AHD says /æ/ is also possible. There is a general pattern of using the "long a" sound (/ɛə/, in this context) for stressed a + consonant + i + vowel. This spelling pattern is found in "aquarium", "honorarium" "planetarium". It is distinct from the "a" + consonant + vowel + consonant pattern seen in "Samaritan", "similarity" and "summarily", where the "short a" sound (/æ/) is expected, due to "trisyllabic laxing". Of course, many American English speakers have the Mary-marry merger and don't distinguish these at all, but you can see the same pattern when another consonant comes after the "a", as in uranium, titanium, cranium, geranium vs. insanity, animal, janitor.--Urszag (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

OWL

At OWL we say it is an abbreviation of Web Ontology Language. Wouldn't that be WOL ? Leasnam (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This quirk is explained at Web Ontology Language § Acronym. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. TY Leasnam (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, an anon added this as a coordinate term at cougar (“older woman”) [here]. Can anyone verify this ? Also, and maybe I have this wrong, but are toy boy and cub appropriate coordinate terms for cougar ? Leasnam (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Leasnam: I don't think so. See "w:Hypernymy and hyponymy#Co-hyponyms": "If the hypernym Z consists of hyponyms X and Y, then X and Y are identified as co-hyponyms, also known as coordinate terms". I don't see how, for example, cougar and toy boy share the same hypernym. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's valid to call them coordinate under hypernymous node of lover or sex partner of May-December type, where the sex (M/F) is a factor that makes them coordinate. But feel free to clean up any that you think are too sloppy. Apparently someone out there uses the name of OWL synecdochally to refer to a cougar, but Wikitionary isn't obligated to show that term there if it's merely something that a few people have done rarely, or just because a few people did it once or twice and thought it was cute. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris: technically you are right, but if the hypernym is too far removed from the hyponyms it starts to make little sense to include the latter terms. If we consider the hypernym in this case to be lover or sex partner, you could potentially end up with a super long list of coordinate terms here (see the hyponyms listed at Thesaurus:sexual partner). Not sure if that is useful. We might as well just put "Thesaurus:sexual partner" under the hypernym heading and not list any coordinate terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

True. One thing about coordinate terms is that a list of them usually cannot be exhaustive, but it can still be OK to list the top handful of most relevant ones, even though no attempt at exhaustiveness is either desirable or even possible. Quite true, and Wiktionary:Semantic relations#Coordinate term does try to acknowledge this factor; people looking for exhaustive trees of relations must turn to categories instead of cot. You are right that solid human judgment on where to draw the line for a {{cot}} population is always required. The key criterion is what a dictionary user can usefully benefit from when they land at an entry, which for inline relations (such as {{syn}}, {{ant}}, {{cot}}, {{nearsyn}}) is "a top handful of highest-relevance ones". I certainly support anyone trimming the cot list at cougar if they don't buy the relevance threshold choice. I agree that perhaps that instance warrants it. My only caveat about this topic is to avoid clamping the relevance so tight as to refuse to show even various truly useful relations. I would say to any editor, trim their number if you must, and move them to see-also if you must, but don't ban even the top-ranked handful. I offer this as a general theme (not a criticism of this instance). Quercus solaris (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

melanaemia

Is this the same as methemoglobinemia? 90.174.2.240 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting question, because it exposes a case of the difference between synonymy and coinstantiation of phenomena (which overlap but are not identical). The words are definitely not synonyms today, as the old word melanemia (aka melanaemia) isn't in current medical use, but it could well be that some of the cases of blackened blood that were seen 80 or 120 years ago and labeled as 'melanemia' were cases of methemoglobinemia. Some of them were definitely understood even at the time of their discussion to be hemochromatosis or a sign thereof (natural language is able to conflate/gloss over the difference), and others were understood even at their time to be malaria or a sign thereof. But the word melanemia comes from, and was used in, a time before the molecular structure of hemoglobin was even known beyond the fact that the protein was a biggun. A doctor working clinically in 1890 or in 1930 often wouldn't have been able say for sure the exact biochemical and molecular nature of the so-called "black pigment" that they'd found in any particular patient's blood — not even if they sent it off to any laboratory for analysis, which they wouldn't have, anyway, in most cases, at the time. But something that they could do was to label it with a fancy-sounding neoclassical name that means "dark blood condition" (i.e., melanemia aka melanaemia), and they'd at least sound like they knew something scientific and specific and nosologic about each physical phenomenon sitting in front of them. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Your input is appreciated --90.174.2.240 17:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

On so much she-

Aren’t (most of) these derived terms sum-of-parts? Polomo47 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Considering the consistent and productive employment of he- and she- in forming male and female animal names, probably no. Inqilābī 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Eh, what do you mean? consistent and productive is exactly the reason why I would think the derived terms are SoP. Polomo47 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s consistent & productive like the affixes -like and -ly except that prefixes are easy targets for deletion. Inqilābī 17:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not asking if the prefix should be deleted, and I find it undeniably a prefix since I don’t see how one would define it at she. I’m talking about terms using that prefix, most of which are surely considered SoP? Though some may satisfy WT:COALMINE. Polomo47 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, but there's another factor that also applies, which overrides the first one, in a partly arbitrary but nonetheless binding way. First, I would sum up your point as being that it makes no more sense to create entries for every kind of "she-whatever" than it would make sense to make entries for every kind of "female whatever" (which would definitely be blocked by WT:SOP). And by semantic logic, that's quite true (they're equal). But there's a wrinkle though. WT:SOP and WT:COALMINE concern open compounds — they don't concern affixed terms, which are either hyphenated or solid but not open. One would think, from some angles, that this difference shouldn't matter, but it does anyway. From some angles, it is a ridiculously arbitrary distinction. And yet: It is true nonetheless. Consider: there is no "un-whatever" entry that WT:SOP precludes, and there is no "non-whatever" entry that it precludes. Why not though? Oughtn't it? The answer turns out to be an artifact of orthography: hyphenated and solid forms built with affixes are immune to the SOP objection that WT:SOP applies to open forms. Crazy but true. And its craziness is part of the underlying mechanism for why so many people feel or sense that there is something a bit off, something not quite right, about WT:SOP. True, admittedly; but if WT:SOP were removed, then we'd get 10 million stupidly SOP entries such as "big female goat" and "big male goat" as well as "male goat" and "female goat", and we'd have no good way to throttle or meter the tide of them. TLDR, even though you're right about "she-whatever" being comparable to "female whatever", it is immune to WT:SOP because of how the juncture is joined, and that fact reveals how WT:SOP has some arbitrariness built into it, but escaping that arbitrariness without adverse effects is troublesome. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Refer to this part of CfI: Idiomaticity rules apply to hyphenated compounds, including hyphenated prefixed words. I sometimes feel ambivalent about this aspect of our policy, but I do find these she- and he- entries transparent and repetitive. Polomo47 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that the current wording was added five months ago in this diff. Nevertheless, even prior to the diff, policy already included prefixed words as examples to its murky wording — unless one finds that ex-teacher means an ex-SO who teaches/taught. Polomo47 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned. Sorry, I had not looked closely enough at that area of the text in a long time — I guess before that part was added or revised. Well, I don't see how that is tenable as guidance versus the current state of Wiktionary. It seems to me that if that paragraph of the guidance is to be truly and rationally enforced, then there must be many thousands of existing entries in Wiktionary that "need" to be deleted, of the following types: "non-whatever" aka "nonwhatever"; "un-whatever" aka "unwhatever"; "re-whatever" aka "rewhatever"; "de-whatever" aka "dewhatever"; "anti-whatever" aka "antiwhatever"; "pre-whatever" aka "prewhatever"; "post-whatever" aka "postwhatever"; hyphenated attributives as alt spellings. My own opinion is that no such wholesale deletion is desirable. I guess others will have to force it if they insist on that guidance. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now — I was reasonably convinced of the opinion that all prefixed expressions should be allowed on the site — and concluded that, at least for English, prefixed words should still be deleted as sum-of-parts. Even if only for English, the use of hyphens in such expressions have two quirks that, as I see it, mostly solve why someone would look the words up on a dictionary to being with. First, the hyphens are chiefly used in recently coined expressions and make their composition (their parts) evident — and, if a word was composed, it’s likely an intuitive composition. Secondly, it’s the fact that hyphens in these expressions are summarily dropped as soon as they gain some notability: it shouldn't be hard to satisfy WT:COALMINE for a reasonably popular word. I must also note that very few words prefixed with de- and anti- scream “SoP” to me.

As an aside, I am broadly against coalmine as an end-all-be-all, but I think it has its place as an argument for keeping a word. It must also be considered that a word can be lemmatized at the unhyphenated spelling if the difference in frequency isn’t too large. Polomo47 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking of changing the title of this and moving to WT:BP. Polomo47 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is a thought that riffs on the themes above. Wiktionary can't enter pancreas removal nor removal of the pancreas, but it can enter pancreatectomy. Is that "fair"? Is life "fair"? After all, pancreatectomy is merely the sum of several parts. Nonetheless, I would not bar it from entry. Thus I contend that the guidance as currently written needs work. Lest anyone quibble about total versus partial resection and idiomaticity, the argument still applies, as total pancreatectomy and partial pancreatectomy are collocations with corpus strength. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I rarely vote either ‘keep’ or ‘delete’ in RFD debates as the rules are rather vague and moot and I don’t normally have a strong opinion but I would keep animals prefixed with ‘she-‘ or ‘cow’ as they’re of limited productivity. We have an entry for she-elephant (which I declare an interest in, as the creator) and cow elephant and the strange-sounding synonym elephantess but only lioness, as ‘she-lion’ and ‘cow lion’ probably don’t exist (at least I wouldn’t say either of these expressions personally, I haven’t actually checked for their existence yet). Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I admit this doesn't really solve the issue above so much as sidestep it in some cases, but the most common and most idiomatic of these are usually covered by COALMINE, like shegoat. Whereas, nonce formations—which are probably not created/perceived as single units but instead applications of she- to some new animal—are often not found solidspelled. This is certainly not a perfect resolution to the issue. (But it also works for the pancreatic examples: people probably perceive pancreatectomy as "a word", and it's spelled like one; they probably don't perceive "removal of the pancreas" as a word.) - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think you’re pointing out the same thing as I did, yeah? The most common formations are COALMINEable, so only the weird stuff like she-walrus would be up for deletion. Polomo47 (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

extortionate

We give the pronunciation as /ɛk-/, as I'd expect... but I notice most other dictionaries give /ɪk-/ (Cambridge, MW), and several not only have /ɪk-/ but /-ɪt/ (Collins, Dictionary.com). Only the OED agrees with our /ɛk-...-ət/. (Longman in writing only admits /ɪk-/, but their US audio is /ɛk-/. Mildly impressively, the other dictionaries' audios all match their written pronunciations as to either /ɛk-/ or /ɪk-/.) I guess we should add /ɪk-/ as a second pronunciation? Similarly, with extortion: most dictionaries have /ɪk-/ except the OED which acknowledges both /ɪk-/ and /ɛk-/: I guess we should do likewise? - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I can attest that in my neck of the AmE woods, /ɛk-/ is quite common. The vowel quality depends on how much reduction is going on in each instance (each utterance). I agree that Wiktionary should show both forms. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it boils down to whether one places a secondary stress on the first syllable or none at all. Nicodene (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

miascite

This is the same as miaskite, surely? 90.174.3.184 07:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the etymology, surely yes. I note that miassite is also a word, and I suspect some people might pronounce miascite the same way as miassite (like plebiscite, etc), so it would not surprise me if some use(r)s of the term meant miassite instead. ... actually, upon googling, perhaps even miassite is the same word, despite our definitions not quite agreeing(?!) : 1925 Mineralogical Abstracts, volume 2, page 170: "miassite [the author writes miascite] complex between Lake Ilmen on the south and the Miass and the Kyshtymsk estates on the north." 1897, Persifor Frazer, Geological Section from Moscow to Siberia and Return, page 436: "'Miascite' (or Miasskite, or better Miassite or Biotitenepheline Syenite) is found in many places in the Ilmens, of which the chief is near Lake Ilmen." Apparently we need to synchronize all three entries... - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Historically, all three spellings seem to have been used interchangeably, to refer to at least two (possibly three) different minerals. At least some sources define the -ss- and -sk- spellings as if they now refer to different minerals (and claim that the -sk- term is now obsolete, notwithstanding which, it is the most common of the three terms today per Ngrams). I have added a usage note with various references at miaskite, and reduced miascite to an alt form. An expert could probably improve this even further. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

diving bell spider

This was treated as an exact synonym for water spider, but there are "water spiders" that aren't diving bell spiders:

• First of all, there are aquatic or semi-aquatic spiders that habitually go into the water or walk across the water: fishing spiders or raft spiders, some wolf spiders, and presumably other types that I haven't been able to track down yet.
• Then there are organisms that aren't true spiders, but superficially resemble them, such as water striders.

The diving bell spider is the only well known spider that lives almost entirely underwater: it builds a nest underwater and fills it with air that it brings from the surface. The others take advantage of surface tension to keep their feet from breaking through the surface of the water while on top of the water, and to keep bubbles of air over the openings they breathe through while they're underwater. Some can even walk along surfaces such as plant stems underwater.

At any rate, Latin tippula was apparently a "spider" that lived on the surface of the water and thus was used as a metaphor for something very lightweight, which excludes the diving bell spider. Old English wæterbucca was apparently an explicit translation of Latin tippula and has nothing to indicate that it might be specifically the diving bell spider.

There may be other translations that aren't diving bell spiders and need to be moved, but anything that refers to a spider that lives underwater as opposed to merely spending time there, and anything that refers specifically to the genus Argyroneta should be left at this entry- so it looks like the German and the French entries are okay.

That means that everything else needs to be checked by someone who knows the languages in question. The taxonomy for spiders has changed quite a bit over the last few centuries, so it may require some research to clarify definitions based on taxonomic names- I'll be happy to do what I can. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it safe to simply move the ones that literally mean "water spider" to "water spider"? The German Wasserspinne seems to be as transparent a compound as English water spider--i.e., it's a generic name for a spider that lives in/on water in some way. It seems like it would be better not to host it at diving bell spider. The Spanish, Portuguese, and Swedish entries appear equally vague. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

on the

Surely this is a Phrase, like to the, and not (as currently presented) an Adverb. It's used to form adverbial phrases, but it is not in itself, on its own an adverb. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a linguistic phrase (since it's not a constituent), but I guess we don't adhere to linguistic definitions in the use of the "Phrase" header. The most accurate actual part-of-speech label would probably be "preposition", like "on" itself.--Urszag (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me more like a particle that makes what follows function adverbially. It is a bit like an English preposition, but, if the usexes reflect actual usage, it precedes adjectives, not nouns. An RfV for actual usage might help. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It already has a citations page Citations:on the. I created this entry a while back, but I must admit, I don't really know the part of speech either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

(2015 Tea Room discussion here, though not sure it adds anything.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There are also the phrases on the low, on the down-low and on the DL, though I’m not sure what part of speech ‘on the’ is in these phrases either, or whether we should cover this sense (which surely can’t be glossed as ‘on a low basis’) at on the. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

With a beard

In Dutch (also German according to Reddit), people say "with a beard" or "has a beard" to indicate something is very old or stale. It's probably most commonly said about jokes. (that joke has a beard/that's a joke with a beard)
1. Is this also a thing in English?
2. Should it have separate entries (with a beard / have a beard / met een baard / een baard hebben) or should it just be another sense on beard and baard? — Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: never heard it being used in English before. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've heard that a joke "has whiskers on it". Web search shows this mostly in a quote from the film The Hudsucker Proxy, but I've never seen that and already knew the expression. -2A0A:EF40:110E:E201:59:7255:6739:B137 19:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Never heard of a joke that "has whiskers on it", interesting. I've created met een baard. @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Mnemosientje, any additional thoughts? — Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There’s a use of ‘got whiskers on it’ in an Australian newspaper in 1917[5] and Dorothy L Sayers has one of her characters say it in this 1935 book[6], so the phrase has quite a long pedigree and is used in several countries. It’s also on the IMDb page for the Hudsucker Proxy, but that’s an American film from the 90s, and several uses can be found of this phrase online. It’s not a film I’ve seen but the phrase is faintly familiar to me, for some reason. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There are a few expressions meaning "old" that use physical associates of normal aging, like gray/white/silver/blue hair (hoary, grizzled), beard, whiskers, long in the tooth. Most don't seem to me to be particularly meritorious of an entry, but almost any attestable metonym or metaphor seems to pass muster here. DCDuring (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Old US pronunciations of piano

In older American films, I often come across the pronunciations /piˈænə/ (or /piˈjænə/ with a really hard /j/ - how Little Orphan Annie sings it at about 0:40 here) and /piˈænɪ/ or /piˈænɪː/ (as in The Simpsons' "That's piano! I said pianee!"). The first one might be an exaggerated New York accent, but what's the deal with the second one? I think of it as Wild West/prospector speech. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the pianee pronunciation. I don't know full geographic range.

DARE Vol. IV reports a several pronunciations and pronunciation spellings, including those above. For example terminal vowel pronunciation spelling is variously o, y, ee, uh, a. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Chiming in here to agree that these are all definitely old-timey to most AmE ears in the 21st century. For example, that's the heart of the Simpsons joke (i.e., why the line can be funny at all). It's a lot like the onion that Grampa Simpson wore on his belt. Sure it was certainly the style at the time, but the reason it's funny now is because of how old-timey it is. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Citations for aprimorates

@Sgconlaw, I found two instances of aprimorates: one on a Mobafire page and another in a Steam Community topic. Are they citable in the entry? Davi6596 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Davi6596: ugh, these seem like very random websites. Personally, I wouldn't bother to add them to the entry. Strictly speaking it isn't necessary to attest every inflected form of a verb (unless, perhaps, it is an unusual inflection), though I generally try to provide examples of all the inflections where it can be reasonably done. — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Davi6596 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European accusative plural endings

We currently show the accusative plural of *-éh₂ as *-éh₂m̥s; e.g. *bʰardʰéh₂ as *bʰardʰéh₂m̥s. This is the ending given by Sihler 1995:248, but I'm wondering whether -éh₂ms or éh₂ns would be preferable given that Sihler acknowledges that the attested endings in descendant languages don't actually provide a basis for reconstructing a syllabic nasal here:

"14. The accusative plural of masc. and fem. nouns and pronouns is **-ms; **-m̥s after consonants (93.1-2). This becomes *-ns/*-n̥s in attested languages. The outcomes of most of these are straightforward products of the sound laws, but the acc.pl. of the eH₂-stems (265.1) pose a problem: the InIr., BS, and Go. forms point to a form without a nasal before the final -s, but the G and Ital. forms show a nasal [...] A new problem in place of the old one is the lack of evidence for the shape -eH₂m̥s, with a syllabic nasal. A kind of parallel is afforded by the i- and u-stem forms, which are *-ims and *-ums for 'required' *-ym̥s, *-wm̥s" (page 254).

(Sihler uses the double asterisk to mark a pre-proto-form; i.e. a form based on internal reconstruction rather than just the comparative method.) We do in fact show the accusative plural endings of e.g. *h₁léwdʰis as *-ims, and of *ǵéwstus as *-ums. In my opinion, it would be preferable to use one of the following consistent sets of endings: *-éh₂ms, *-ims, *-ums or *-éh₂ns, *-ins, *-uns. Urszag (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible attestation of Latin *vermen?

Wiktionary seems to regard *vermen as an unattested/reconsructed Latin word, and there is no entry for it, nor is there a Latin entry at vermen. (In the etymology section on the Old Galician-Portuguese vermen entry and Asturian viérbene entry, the Latin is reconstructed as *vermen, verminem, although I'm not sure what's going on with the genitive because shouldn't that be *verminis?)

However, I see that the accusative form vermen does appear in the Clementine Vulgate (Jonas 4:7, "Et parāvit Deus vermen ascēnsū dīlūculī in crāstinum: et percussit hederam, et exāruit.") So I'm kind of questioning whether this word is actually unattested.

On the other hand, the Stuttgart and Nova Vulgata both have vermem with an 'm' (which is just the accusative of vermis) so maybe the Clementine's vermen is nothing more than a typo or variant spelling or something? 2601:49:8400:392:6041:71E4:4C53:9E9E 12:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Verminem" is not a possible genitive form. "*vermen, verminem" must be meant to be m. or f. nominative, accusative, with the accusative singular given because it is assumed to be the origin of Romance singular forms. That said, I think *verminis seems more likely than *vermen for a late Latin m. or f. nominative singular form. Third declension nouns ending in -men are usually neuter, and the neuter plural vermina is attested in Lucretius, but not with the sense "worms". If "vermen" in "paravit deus vermen" is not simply a misspelling, it must be a neuter singular form.--Urszag (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m fairly certain “*vermen, verminem” is an attempt to indicate two different reconstructions that could explain the Romance form in question. I’m not sure *vermen is actually correct though if (e.g.) the Latin nomen does not have any Galician or Portuguese reflexes with a final nasal vowel, while both the above word and hominem do.

Also, given that the Clementine Vulgate was published in 1592, I don’t see any reason to think that a supposed vermen contained therein (if it’s not a misprint or something) attests a ‘vulgar’ variant of vermis circulating in the late roman empire or the first few centuries after its fall in the west. The gap spans a millennium. Nicodene (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point about the publication date. It looks like the Sixtine Vulgate has "vermem", strengthening the case for regarding "vermen" as some kind of corrupt form. (I don't know what thought process would lead to choosing the form over "vermem", but I'm not sure if it can be dismissed as a simple typo. I see it used repeatedly in this book.)

Asturian viérbene doesn't look much like it goes back to *vermen, does it? Though the path from verminem to viérbene isn't entirely unproblematic either: given pectinem > peñe and līmitat > llenda, I'd kind of expect syncope, and I don't know how the -b- is explained (some kind of analogy)? I feel like it's probably best to remove *vermen from these etymology sections.--Urszag (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nicodene I might be missing something, but is there any reason Occitan vèrme can't just be from vermem? Also, Williams 1962 argues that Old Galician-Portuguese vermem is also from Latin vermem, saying the nasal vowel can just be explained as a case of sporadic progressive nasalization after -m-, comparing it to amêndoa and resmungar. (I created an RFV for Old Galician-Portuguese vermen.)--Urszag (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I’d simply followed von Wartburg in assigning Occitan verme to *verminem („Im gallorom. umfasst dieser typus [*verminem] den grössern teil des südens“, p. 297). Since you brought up the subject, however, I decided to check the outcomes of eremus, and it turns out that the same source reports both erm and (h)erme. That implies verme can just as well derive from Latin vermem. However, it should also be mentioned that a related Occitan vermena is attested, and unambiguously of the *vĕrmĭn- type. It may well be the case that verme represents a confluence of the two types.

As for the Old Galician-Portuguese vermen, I suppose it’s a case of Occam’s razor in light of the other Iberian forms. Nicodene (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

ordinarily pronunciation

Our Received Pronunciation transcription is /ɔːdɪˈnæɹɪli/. Is the /æ/ here really correct? John Wells' Longman Pronunciation Dictionary only mentions pronunciations containing /(ə)ɹ/ or /ɛɹ/. I have the marry/merry/Mary merger so I'm not the best judge, but I hear /ɛ/ in our audio file--compare momentarily, which we transcribe as /ˈməʊməntəɹəli/, /məʊmənˈtɛɹəli/. Urszag (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What immediately comes to mind on reading your analysis is how many Scottish people say necessarily with the third syllable being the same ‘a’ as in ‘marry’, not ‘merry’ or ‘Mary’. I suspect that the same is true for ordinarily and momentarily too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, either /ə/ or (increasingly) /ˈɛ/. I suspect that ‛ordin/æ/rily’ is a hypercorrection by someone with the marry-merry merger. Nicodene (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That may be the case in much of the US but not really for Scotland, although in the the broad Scots song/poem ‘Freedom come all ye’ the words ‘harried’ and ‘married’ are pronounced with the merger and even spelt to reflect that fact[7] Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I just found a relevant blog post by the linguist Jack Windsor Lewis: 11/04/2012 Some New Pronunciations. He writes "In LPD2 in 2000 [John Wells] showed /-`ӕrəli/ variants for voluntarily (which he included in his 1998 poll where it was favoured by 12% of responders) and involuntarily tho not for primarily for which he had /-meər-/ as the only GB subvariant. CEPD had its first /-`ӕrəli/ in 2006 at voluntarily"

The prompt for this question was the Received Pronunciation transcription. If /ɔːdɪˈnæɹɪli/ is not accurate for Received Pronunciation, but is accurate for some other accent, that would still call for correcting the entry. I forget, does Wiktionary just use Received Pronunciation as a synonym of "contemporary Southern England English"? And is /æɹɪli/ common enough and productive enough in this accent to list it as a variant pronunciation on each word with this ending?--Urszag (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

marrying my person

I see people use "my person" to mean someone they love ?above all others?, someone who understands them, usually a partner ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), but sometimes a mom, or best friend. Other people may refer to X as being Y's person, e.g. "her person" (her beloved sister). This feels like a distinct sense of person to me, that we should add. What do you think? We do cover "one's man" (boyfriend / husband) as a distinct sense of man, and "one's woman" (girlfriend/wife) as a distinct sense of woman... - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember having heard it, except referring to a pet's favorite human, but it would be distinct and definition-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I added it (a while ago).
Should we also add the "(from a pet's perspective) favourite human" sense? I can see how it might be less idiomatic, "her [the cat's] person" being akin, in the reverse, to "his [the human's] cat". - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

mycoderma

My research led me to believe that this is an old term for biofilm. Am I mistaken? 85.48.186.0 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It is quite plausible and likely that some people have used the word in that sense, albeit dated now. We see the def from Webster 1913 at mycoderma, which sounds like it is a hyponym of biofilm; and I have a certain nice little juicy technical dictionary from 1946 that defines Mycoderma (with a capital M for MMM-MMM good) as a genus of fungi that form membranes in fermenting liquids, although a late-model technical dictionary says that the taxonomy was revised and that that genus name is no longer current. Wikipedia redirects Mycoderma to mother of vinegar because of the same connection, which is explained at that article. But the plot thickens though, just as the juicy membrane in the vat thickens and quickens apace. The 1946 number also says that at least some people used to call mucous membranes by the name mycoderma, too, and that makes fair etymonic sense and fair ISV-ish sense (where myco- in that homonym would be serving as an antiquated spelling for muco-, via the etymonic mucus–mushroom axis from Ancient Greek), although that sense of the word is certainly no longer in current use. In short, apparently all sorts of slimey hides have been called by this name, mycoderma, over the past 150 to 200 years, but no senses of the word remain current in English. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

etcétera syllable breaking is incorrect

For the Spanish section of the Wiktionary page etcétera, the IPA transcription for Latin America and Philippines is incorrect because it puts the stress symbol and syllable breaker (ˈ) before the first t in /etseteɾa/ and [et̪set̪eɾa], resulting in the incorrect /eˈtseteɾa/ [eˈt̪se.t̪e.ɾa] instead of the correct /etˈseteɾa/ [et̪ˈse.t̪e.ɾa]. The Spanish Wiktionary page describes it correctly. I would've changed it myself, but when I went to edit, all that was written in the code was "{{es-pr}}", so I'm assuming it's all automated. If someone else could format it properly, that would be good. Languagelover3000 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems that this aspect is governed by Module:es-pronunc at lines 457 to 465, but I'm incapable of twiddling with it, from two angles: both programming and phonotactic expertise. The comment at 457 talks about intercepting -ts- and -tz-. Is there a flaw in the handling, or, the other possibility, is this one of those things where phonologists use an etic analysis of phonotactics that doesn't invariably align with the emic one used by nonlinguist native speakers? Phonotactic boffins could weigh in; WP at Spanish phonology § Phonotactics is relevant, but I'm unable to pursue it deeply. This might be like when a nonlinguist native speaker of English says that pizza is "peet-suh" but some linguist might say, "au contraire, it is in reality "pee-tsuh" but nonphonologist minds just don't realize it." I suspect it's one of those going on here, but I welcome disabusal if that hunch is incorrect. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I very much doubt that that's the case—where untrained, non-linguist (non-phonologist) natives would not be able to hear a difference between two sounds but phonologists (that are maybe even non-natives) would because they study the subject. I'm not saying such cases don't exist, just that it's not the case here. I don't even think that it's a case of emic and etic analyses clashing. Instead I really do believe there's a mistake in the transcription. Reading through Spanish phonology § Phonotactics, this is what they say concerning the Spanish syllable structure:

• Onset
  • First consonant (C₁): Can be any consonant. [...].
  • Second consonant (C₂): Can be /l/ or /ɾ/. Permitted only if the first consonant is a stop /p, t, k, b, d, ɡ/, a voiceless labiodental fricative /f/, or marginally the nonstandard /v/. /tl/ is prohibited as an onset cluster in most of Peninsular Spanish, while /tl/ sequences such as in atleta 'athlete' are usually treated as an onset cluster in Latin America and the Canaries. The sequence /dl/ is also avoided as an onset, seemingly to a greater degree than /tl/.

The conclusion here is that the onset of a syllable (portion before the vowel, or the "nucleus") can be any consonant in the case that the onset be just one consonant. If it's two consonants, then the second one can only be /l/ or /ɾ/, and that's only if the first consonant is /p, t, k, b, d/ or /ɡ/.

In this situation, the word etcétera is being transcribed as /eˈtseteɾa/ [eˈt̪se.t̪e.ɾa], which break the phonotatic rules described in that section (the second consonant can only be /l/ or /ɾ/, not /s/). Therefore, it necessarily is incorrect. Languagelover3000 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't explain words like tseltal and tsotsil where the cluster is at the beginning of the word. Not that I have anything to say about the question at hand, but loanwords don't always follow the general rules for the language. @Benwing2, who would know more about the coding behind this. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Languagelover3000 You can override the syllabification by inserting a . in the appropriate place in the respelling. The handling of /ts/ is there because of Basque and Nahuatl words in Spanish where /ts/ is treated as a unit. All words with /ts/ in them are loanwords and, as Chuck notes, don't always follow regular phonotactic words. Since there are very few words like etcetera in Spanish, I think requiring manual syllabification here is fine. Benwing2 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm making this as a response to both @Benwing2 and @Chuck Entz:

So, yes, that is a good point: those types of words do have /ts/ as onset. But like you two suggest, it's more likely (or at least it seems to me) that foreign words from Basque or Nahuatl get treated a bit differently in respect to Spanish's phonotactic restrictions; that is, they can break the "rule" of only /l/ or /ɾ/ after first consonant in onset syllabic position. But I'm going to make the assumption that a word like etcétera would still be pronounced with the syllable break between the /t/ and /s/ because it's a Latin word, which itself originally had a syllabic break between /t/ and (before palatalization) /k/. Compare that to the two word examples tseltal and tsotsil, which were (definitely only) pronounced as [t͡s-] (and not [tˈs-] or something like that) when they were borrowed into Spanish.

About manual syllabification, could someone more knowledgeable on Wiktionary's markup language go about doing it? Since all that appears in etcétera's edit page for the pronunciation section is "{{es-pr}}", I don't know what template I'd put to reflect the change or if I'd even be able to insert some period. Everything in its edit section seems automated. It's different from some English entries (e.g. example), where all the pronunciations are more "manually" written out.

Also, I don't know if it's worth mentioning that another word, botsuano, with the stress on the second syllable, just like the word etcétera, has its syllabification annotated "as expected" with the syllable break between /t/ and /s/. (And yes, I'm of course ignoring all the portuguese sections of the entries mentioned that probably have the same issue). Languagelover3000 (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

On'yomi of 濁

The entry 濁点 says that the reading of 濁 used in that word is だく (daku), and says that this is a go-on. However, the entry 濁 says that daku is not a go-on of that character but a kan'yō-on, and the entry for the extended shinjitai form 浊 also says that it's a kan'yō-on. Which one is it? TTWIDEE (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, this is a bit tricky...

濁 is kan'yō-on according to 小学館 デジタル大辞泉, but according to the same dictionary, 点 is either kan'-on or gō-on. So it's a kind of mixed on'yomi reading for a 熟語. Though, I've forgotten the proper term to refer to mixing different on'yomi readings. It's the same thing that happens in words like 生涯 too! The term just escaped me... Oh well. Whatever that term would be, that's what should be written in the place of gō-on. Languagelover3000 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Or, you could just remove the gō-on bit altogether, just like it is on the Wiktionary page for 生涯. Languagelover3000 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I just ended up doing it myself. Languagelover3000 (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

ring-a-ding

• And then he was totally unprepared for his ring-a-ding winner.
• So you didn't want to make a night of it with the ring-a-ding kid?
• Then the midnight rap about arson with his ring-a-ding attorney.
• Drink played a large part in Sinatra's ring-a-ding arrogance.
• The brittle bones grow colder now / And the wind begins to sting / As I grow old in the family / And it aint so ring-a-ding-ding.

What do you interpet ring-a-ding as meaning? (Small prior discussion.) - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Not a whole lot. This looks to me like many speakers intending to mean any of various things, each of which is either in the eye of the beholder or context-sensitive. At least one of them feels like a catachresis for ding-a-ling as in idiot. The winner-related one might possibly refer to a ringer, which is related to a ringer, but (for all of these usexes) one cannot tell in isolation from the original context. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like a synonym for flashy or showy. It reminds me of bells and whistles, and of the kinds of things that a slot machine does when there's a payout. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"Ring-a-ding(-ding)" was Frank Sinatra's catchphrase, which seems to be what some of those cites are referring to. To quote The New Yorker where quote 4 comes from, "The phrase—like Shakespeare’s “Hey nonny nonny”—thumbed its nose at meanings and sincerity". The same article also talks about "the image of the loosey-goosey, unpredictable ring-a-ding guy", and I'd say it's associated with a kind of shabby but arrogant style, the style we associate with the Rat Pack. I think of it as the attitude of a confident gambler imitating a cash register. Another similar quote here, where "ring-a-ding(-ding)" clearly means "in the style of the Rat Pack": "The tumbler he (Dean Martin) was clutching was filled with apple juice, not whiskey, and the King of Cool was fully aware the sold-out crowd was there to see him and his pals create some ring-a-ding-ding musical magic", and Tim Robinson uses the phrase for his Rat Pack parody persona "Sammy Paradise", who the AV Club describes as "a ring-a-ding-ding Sinatra type who flaunts his wealth and generosity with true king-of-the-world largesse". Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Having looked up the context for the other quotes: the "ring-a-ding winner" was the mood ring and its unexpected sales success (so presumably an additional pun on ring); the "ring-a-ding kid" is Christian Stovitz from Clueless, who is into art and fashion (and is gay, although I don't think the speaker realises); the "ring-a-ding attorney" is a very expensive one. The "It ain't so ring-a-ding-ding" quote seems pretty clear in context. Apart from that last one, they all seem to be to do with class and money, but in nebulous ways. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have tentatively changed the definition to "A rhyming phrase with no fixed meaning." - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Might be the best we can do for now, although I've tried to split out the Rat Pack sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

initially

Does this have a sense of “if nothing changes”, “in the current state of things”? Initially, let’s stick to the plan, but do reach out if things change. Polomo47 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Your usage example fits the basic definition. DCDuring (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Where does Wiktionary source its dialectal synonyms for Chinese words?

I'm curious as some of the entries might be incorrect or are missing synonyms for other cities. Is there a dictionary that Wiktionary has been sourcing these from, or are these all orginal research? LittleCuteSuit (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

These are contributed by our editors from various sources. Like all of the full entries they will, of course, have to meet our Criteria for inclusion, but contrasting "a dictionary" with "original research" seems to indicate that you're unfamililar with our CFI. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage, so it's possible- even preferred- to source terms just with sufficient evidence of usage. We have a distinction between Well-documented languages, which must be sourced based on usage, and Less-documented languages, which can be sourced from authoritative reference works as well. Chinese is unusual in being a macrolanguage, with a large number of independent languages which are LDLs, attached to standard written Chinese, which is a WDL. That means that the "dialectal" synonyms (really part of the regional lects rather than of a single Chinese language) can be verified from reference works. See Requests for verification/CJK, which is how we decide whether to include or exclude Chinese, Japanese, and Korean terms (in the broader sense). I'm not directly involved in the verification process, so I may be missing something. Perhaps @Justinrleung could explain further. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm wanting to know if is there a specific place for me to see the sources for these listed synonyms in the Chinese dialectical synonyms box listed in entries, such as from Cantonese, Southwestern Mandarin, Hokkien, etc. For example, 電影, 電腦 and 肥腸 do not seem to provide any sources for their dialectal synomyms. Or for 火車, there might be something referenced for Min Nan, but not for 火車兒, referenced in Nanjing Jianghuai Mandarin for that entry.

You're right that I was unfamiliar with Wiktionary's CFI and I appreciate the clarification. It's just that the sources for these Chinese dialectical synonyms do not seem to be obvious to me, and I just want to know if I'm missing something here. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@LittleCuteSuit: Because it's hard to maintain the sources we use in each of these large tables, I keep the major sources I use in these lists: User:Justinrleung/Dialect Resources. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the nature of the project is that it's always possible that the methods and sources of any particular contributor are not entirely known by the others. Justinrleung shows (above) a nice example of helpfully being explanatory about one's own mechanisms: "this is how I do it" and "here's what I'm working with". My point in this comment is just to point out the fact that the way the project works is inherently decentralized to the extent that the answer to the OP question is partly unknowable by anyone except the contributor who contributes each piece. Epistemically, the corrective mechanism is that if any one particular contributor messes up badly enough, their flawed contributions might be retroactively combed out by anybody else, although the valid ones will often be conserved (when feasible). Quercus solaris (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Justinrleung Thanks, these are extremely helpful. I do notice that some of the Mandarin dialects don't have resources linked to them on the page that was provided (such as Southwestern Mandarin). Would you happen to know of any resources that are being used for those dialectical synomyms for those Mandarin dialects on Wiktionary? Such as for 打雷, there are dialectal synonyms listed for those particular Mandarin dialects that don't have their own resource pages in the provided link. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@LittleCuteSuit: I'm slowly filling those pages in :) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Huddel

Like many Luxembourgish entries by the same person, this had a number of problems with the formatting. While I can fix most of them, I'm not completely up to speed on how we handle collocations such as the following:

Huddel a Fatz:

1. (slang) torn to shreds, smashed to pieces

This has all the features of a sense line, including a usage label and a definition. Is there some way to integrate it into our collocation infrastructure, or is this better treated as a derived term that will eventually be its own entry? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

that's mighty white of you

I can also find google books:"that's very white of you" and google books:"that's really white of you" (though that one might be in a different sense?) and google books:"that's white of you", as well as forms with "that is" instead of "that's". Maybe that's white of you should be the lemma and the others should be soft-redirected to it...? - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

At white#Adjective (sense 13) we have "Honourable, fair; decent." with a number of citations. I'm not at all sure that all the cites unambiguously support the sense, nor that the number that do are sufficient. If the sense is good, then we could do a senseid redirect from the form under discussion and, perhaps, include it in the entry as a usex, provided it is the most common attestable with this sense. DCDuring (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Other modifiers of white in synonymous expressions: damn, darn, how. Once one excludes all these modifiers, one is left with a lot of column-parsing errors.

Notably there aren't many usages with other pronouns for you, which supports the non-gloss definition. IOW, it may be worth keeping forms of this because of its (former) role in discourse as a way of saying "thank you". DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't even thought to look for versions with "him", "her", etc, but you are right that they are amply attested as well. Looking at the other quotes at white, I suppose these forms should indeed redirect to (or be deleted leaving only) white. - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the OED have the relevant sense of white or did someone force it? It could be that white in this expression has always been about race, though Century 1911 has a def. "(slang, US) square; honourable, reliable". Maybe whatever racism may be involved is just in the sense evolution in the US. See Indian giver. I came across a Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms (1846) online. It's interesting for what it suggests about American culture then. It has some cites. Bartlett's introduction is also instructive. DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

notchboard

This means a part of the stairs, but the term is old fashioned. Reading https://specializedstairs.com/anatomy-of-a-staircase/#:~:text=Understanding%20Treads%2C%20Risers%2C%20and%20Nosings,the%20front%20of%20the%20riser it seems to be called the stringer fascia, but I can't be auto they're the same thing 85.48.184.114 20:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

fascia

As noted in a comment from 2009, the usage note "The plural fascias is used for the first five definitions while fasciae is used for the sixth" is not very useful. There are 10 definitions, and the order has probably changed since then. A fine-toothed comb may well be necessary 85.48.184.114 20:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Circular definition alert

journalism (usually uncountable, plural journalisms)

  1. The activity or profession of being a journalist.

journalist (plural journalists)

  2. One whose occupation is journalism, originally only writing in the printed press.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 10:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sense 1 at journalism is the typical useless redundant vague definition - the proper definition is sense 2. I can't think of anything that would count as sense 1 journalism that's not covered by sense 2. Merging sense 1 and sense 2 would solve this problem. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. I combined even sense 3, since the style is connected to the purpose by which the described media is consumed. The self-understanding of the profession can hardly distinguish there either. I am also reminded of the definition of freedom of artistic expression according to constitutional law, where in my country there have been formal concepts (art is certain genres like painting, etching etc.) but from the side of the creator it is defined as a material act based on his impressions taking shape by the help of a form; it will probably have to be seen in the same way for the freedom of the press, found in the same constitutional article. Fay Freak (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There used to be a time when the only outlets for journalism were newspapers or other periodicals appearing in print, a medium that is entirely excluded by the definition.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point (such printed papers were also excluded by the old wording of sense 2, I see); I have attempted to include them. Please improve the definition further if needed. - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

orthotone

This is a linguistic term, which Wiktionary is usually good at defining. Personally lacking sufficient linguistic knowledge, I am reluctant to give examples of this. I hope someone can add a couple of examples of orthotone words, or at least mention some languages that this refers to - Ancient Greek, for a start 90.167.190.9 06:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

たいと思う

I have important question: does "たいと思う" have meaning "to be going to"? 88.155.37.143 11:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

assoilzie

Is the IPA OK? It's a weird place for a silent z Vilipender (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not really a "z", it's a ȝ (“yogh”), and it's probably Middle English/older Scots quoted or imitated by people who had no idea that there was a difference. Either that, or the IP mistranscribed it from the quotes. See the DSL entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

On further examination of the revision history, this isn't the IP's fault- it goes way back, and was edited by people who should have known the difference. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

And it's apparently spelled that way in the sources. Although it's technically wrong, it may be like the "y" in "ye olde", which was originally a thorn and which had a "th" sound, but ended up looking like a "y". Looks like it'd pass rfv (as Scots at the very least), but it should have an explanation in the etymology and probably usage notes as well so people know what's going on. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

It also looks like I can't read, either. The question was about "the IPA", not "the IP". I struck the mistaken parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

hair nicknames

Nickname for someone with red hair: Red. Nickname for someone with blond hair: blondie. One, should Blondie start with a capital B, or should red be made lowecase? Two, what do you nickname someone with brown hair, or black hair? Buildingquestion (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Apartheid Defense League

Hello, tea room. This term that I created a page for seems contentious. An editor wants to add the category Anti-Semitism to the entry, but I disagree with this; none of the quotations I found for the term seem to be anti-Semitic, so the label seems inappropriate. I don't feel like getting into an edit war over this, so I though I'd seek out a more thorough consensus here. What are your thoughts on this? ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress I'm a little weary of involving myself in such a contentious topic, but I have decided to revert the editor you mentioned. At a glance, it is not at all obvious to me why the term would be antisemitic, as the term is a criticism of a specific action the organization has taken and makes no statement targeted towards an ethnicity or a religion. The other editor has also made no attempt to justify why they think it is antisemitism.

If they continue to edit war I think admin involvement is justified. — BABR・talk 04:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

𐌳𐌰𐌽𐌹𐌴𐌻

Hoping I'm formatting this all correctly..

Are we sure that the attested form here is nominative? The sentence it is in reads like it should be accusative, which would match the previous two sentences.

þuei daniel us baljondane laiwane munþam manwjane du fraslindan ganasides - You who saved Daniel from the mouths of roaring lions ready to swallow up

The source and reading of this line is the Bologna Fragments found a little over a decade ago, which has since been reanalyzed and a lot more of the text has been revealed than when it was first discovered. The reading I'm using is Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna II: Berichtigungen und neue Lesungen / The Gothic fragment from Bologna: Corrections and new readings found here Enblaka (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

disk horse

I don't think this is a filter-avoidance spelling...? Who filters the word "discourse"? I think it's just a joking/mocking respelling. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Though the Eggcorn Database has items that are similar, I doubt that anyone would make from discourse the kind of misconstruction that we would call an eggcorn. DCDuring (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

decern#Verb

This is really confusing. There are lots of verb "senses" without definitions, and an intransitive is listed as a subsense of a transitive, and Lord knows what. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:489B:8100:6C6E:FADA 11:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, even for Doremítzwr, a sense that just says ### {{non-gloss|{{l|en|transferred sense}}}} and nothing else is ... rough. I have reorganized the entry not not have third-level subsenses. It could probably still be improved further. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

pane

One definition is "One of the flat surfaces, or facets, of any object having several sides". Can we get some examples? I was thinking a box, dice, but they didn't check out 90.174.2.127 11:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It should probably be merged with the other definition there: "A division; a distinct piece or compartment of any surface." — Anyway: a wall or door can have wooden panes (not covered by the primary sense of a pane of glass). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:489B:8100:6C6E:FADA 12:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Moving translations of master to head of household

Definition 4. in master is "head of household" and has its own translations, yet a separate head of household page exists just for the term. A case could be made for copy-pasting the translations to the term page (and then it could be referenced with a hyperlink). What is the typical handling of such situations? Kaloan-koko (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Master means a “male head of household” with the female equivalent being “mistress” - we have senses at mistress which cover the sense of “female head of the household” but we don’t have that precise definition or translations for it. Perhaps we should also create a new definition at mistress and link all three entries or translations pages somehow? Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I will place the translations in head of household, a trans-see in master, create subdefinition 1.1 for mistress and add trans-see in the translations there. Kaloan-koko (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

out of all

As in I met John, out of all people; today, out of all days; now, out of all times. Should this be created? Or is the number of nouns that can occur in this construction sufficiently small that they should be created individually? 2.207.102.157 14:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps better yet: should this be added at "of all", since we already have that lemma and the "out" can be omitted. 2.207.102.157 15:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding a sense at of all. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

flat-fell seam

Which sense of fell is this using? Vilipender (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The "stitching down" noun; see felled seam for something similar. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:599C:154E:91EF:59B5 21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

whatever butters your...

bread, toast, biscuit(s), muffin, grits...? Please add some of these phrases. The definition is easy: synonym of whatever floats your boat. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:599C:154E:91EF:59B5 22:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Added all except the last. J3133 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

pongo

Can someone revert the edits from @SlippyLina on pongo? They were banned for nonsense edits. Looks like they added nonsense about a canyon and deleted the primate bits. 207.237.211.20 03:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I restored the removed senses, but tagged the added senses and posted them at WT:RFVE just to be safe. SlippyLina's MO involved making their nonsense as innocuous as possible, so it's entirely possible that they had some real stuff mixed in with the fraudulent bits. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

integrate

Definitions 1 and 3 look quite vague, they were integrated from Webster 1913. Also, transitivity tags, more usexes and quotes would be useful Vilipender (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Had a go at a clean up. Sense 1 appears to be dated or a bit rare, so I've moved that down the page (although I didn't feel confident labeling it), and I've split what was sense 2 into two senses - one transitive and one intransitive/reflexive. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

toothing

This is missing stuff. I found 3 missing senses in stamps, botany, biology (sans defining, sorry). There's probably more missing. There's a rfi for the brick sense that is probably imageable from some brickwork diagrams (1911EB might show it, I'm no expert. We can probably get a botany pic too, and some "random sexual encounters" pics??? Vilipender (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

chocolate chocolate chip definition doesn't make sense

"A flavor with a chocolate-flavored base and chocolate chips." A cake could have a flavored base; I don't see how a flavor could have a flavored base (though it might have just a base). You also can't add chocolate chips to a "flavor" or taste, only to a product like a cake. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E40B:542:EB88:8564 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The def as written is valid in one way albeit poorly worded in another way. The problem is that it tries to use the same word within the same line in two senses of that word. It starts out by using the sense of the word "flavor" meaning any particular named variety. For example, if I tell you that Restaurant Foo has ten flavors of ice cream, two of which are "strawberry Miami surprise" and "crunchy Seattle lowdown", and that the flavor called "strawberry Miami surprise" has a strawberry-flavored base, then you catch my drift. I will reword the existing def if no one beats me to it. One way to do so would be, "A flavor with a base tasting like chocolate and with chocolate chips interspersed throughout that base." Quercus solaris (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

scroll verb senses a little strange

The first verb sense, to change one's view of a computer display, is put down as transitive, and doesn't include the arguably more common intransitive sense. There is one example sentence for this sense, "She scrolled the offending image out of view." There is not, however, a sentence like "He was scrolling on his phone and not paying attention" with an intransitive use. I don't know if the entry just hasn't been updated in a while or if someone forgot to add the intransitive sense, but it seems like this should be taken into account. BillMichaelTheScienceMichael (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Added. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E40B:542:EB88:8564 21:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

allowance citation

The 1991 Gay Community News citation contains the word "lacklustrer", which seems wrong. I can't find the source in order to check it. Could someone check it? (or we could replace this inflammatory political citation with something else). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E40B:542:EB88:8564 21:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Although citations are not inherently disqualified for being hard to independently verify, nor for being political, it's a point against them if they contain an apparent typo and are undiscoverable online for checking the original; so in this instance I switched instead to another citation of the same age that (at the time of this writing) can be verified easily. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

As Quercus solaris said, we should not remove quotations just because they are about political topics. Something being "undiscoverable online" seems more like a point for keeping than omitting it, assuming the citation is accurate and useful for illustrating the sense or historical usage of a word. I don't think it needs to be removed assuming @Simplificationalizer is able to verify that it was correctly copied (or fix it). I can imagine "lacklustrer" potentially being used intentionally as a comparative of "lacklustre", but that might not be as likely as a typo for the positive adjective "lacklustre"/"lackluster". Of course, each ux should be evaluated based on the overall context of the entry, and this one may be redundant to the others, or its use of the unusual form "lacklustrer" may be an unnecessary distraction if we can't figure out whether it was intended by the author.--Urszag (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Lacklustrer is not a typo (or if it is, it's in the original newspaper). The original article can be found digitized here and all of Gay Community News is searchable here in the Northeastern University Library Digital Repository.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the link. It's a typo that was present in the original. I'll restore the citation and include {{sic}}. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Why must it be a typo? It could also be interpreted as a rare comparative of lackluster I guess. Hftf (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I also think it is most likely a typo, though I don't have proof of it: most results for a Google search of "lacklustrer" seem to be clear typos. Synthetic comparatives are not common for unprefixed three-syllable words.--Urszag (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I too noticed the possibility of a rare comparative (which is plausible), but I consider it about 5% likely to be that and about 95% likely to be a case where someone wrote lacklustre and someone (either the writer or a subeditor) meant to change it to lackluster but flubbed it a bit. Quercus solaris (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

When it's a common word that has existed for centuries with millions of usages, like allowance, I do think we can afford to avoid politically inflammatory examples that have typos, and should do so. Of course not if we need them to cite something obscure. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

translate - mix of RP and GenAm pronunciation

RP (traditionally, at least) has final stress: /tɹɑːnzˈleɪt/. GenAm on the other hand has initial: /ˈtɹænzˌleɪt/ (as well as final, but it seems initial is more frequent). The audio recording is labelled as RP, but the stress clearly follows the GenAm pattern. Could the recording be labelled somehow to note this discrepancy? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 23:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

headlight on

Wrong SOP Vilipender (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Chew with gums

When an old person have no teeth, he/she eats by chewing the food using gums. In Norwegian (and Icelandic?) it calls mumpa, and in Russian it calls жамкать. I want to create these entries, but dont know the English translation. What should the English word be? Tollef Salemann (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

To gum. Nicodene (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Tollef Salemann (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tollef Salemann: Also to mumble (perhaps related to your mumpa above). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard that sense before. CitationsFreak (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese haicai vs. haicu

Why is a haiku referred to as haicai in Portuguese, considering that haikai has a different meaning? If haicu is mentioned in a dictionary, it is almost exclusively treated as a synonym of haicai. OweOwnAwe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve always heard of them as synonyms, with haicai being more common. Dictionaries confirm it: Michaelis’s definition for haiku links back to haicai, and Infopédia has the same definitions for both (note that both do not list haicu nor haikai). The Lisbon Academy of Sciences spells the two with a ⟨k⟩ and in italics and makes them share a headword! Polomo47 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

pəˈteɪtə, ˈwɪndə, etc

Various words that end in /-oʊ/ can also be pronounced with /-ə/: potato, fellow, tomato, yellow, window, mosquito, follow, pillow, tomorrow, borrow, arrow, etc. How should the /-ə/ pronunciation be labelled? (Do different words have different levels of 'standardness' and need different labels?) For potato, Merriam-Webster and Collins' Penguin Random House present /-ə/ as just another American pronunciation without any qualifiers like "colloquial" or "nonstandard", whereas neither dictionary acknowledges e.g. /ˈwɪndə/. - -sche (discuss) 05:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I’d say that all of these should just be labelled as colloquial. If anything the least colloquial or most standard of these is, to my eyes/ears, the version of tomorrow with the schwa, especially in compound phrases like ‘tomorrow morning’ and the version of arrow with the schwa is the most colloquial or least standard. We might want to consider how we treat things like foller/follae/folly and winder/windae/windy/windee (the last two of which we don’t currently have entries for but which I’ve seen used to represent an Appalachian pronunciation of window which is basically identical to the Scottish/Scots windae). Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not at all, if not in labelled regional pronunciation. You will not distinguish levels if taking various dialect areas into account, which may have them all /-ə/, or /-ɐ/, or /-ɪ/, or /oː/, all in Broad Yorkshire mapped in graphs with statistical variation between villages, age-groups and specific words. We have to admonish again that regiolectal marks are not nonstandard and not necessarily restricted to colloquial contexts. In addition, this is arbitrarily picked; the trailing vowel of happy, ready, is also /-ə/ e.g. in Mancunian. Fay Freak (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, having previously added potato as "colloquial" (US) on the strength of its inclusion by other dictionaries as an unmarked pronunciation (pace FF), and the parallel tomato (used by Gershwin et al), I see we already had tomorrow as colloquial, and fellow as "informal", which I adjusted to "colloquial". Inspired by yellow being labelled "folk speech" (and Southern US), I labelled window as "colloquial, folk speech, nonstandard", and added the schwa pronunciation to mosquito with the same label. We already have a schwa pronunciation of arrow labelled "Estuary English, Southern US"; I left it as-is for now. I haven't added a schwa pronunciation to follow, pillow, borrow, nor e.g. shadow (mentioned here).
I note that some words seem to resist a schwa pronunciation, e.g. avocado (google:"avocaduh" returns just 50 hits from the whole web, none of them uses AFAICT (almost all of them usernames, and one a portmanteau of Billie Eilish's Bad Guy line). Avacado also mainly pluralizes with bare s (es is about 1/20th as common), unlike tomato, potato which overwhelmingly pluralize with es; perhaps some degree of 'naturalization' and/or 'weathering' is needed before a word gains a schwa ending. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It’s an interesting issue, there is also narrow and widow to consider. These pronunciations can vary quite a bit from person to person, or place to place, or between social classes. I’d say that without doing a proper academic investigation labelling all as ‘colloquial’ would make sense (though ‘avocaduh/avocader’ is certainly non-standard, if it exists at all). Reading the thread below about ‘dumbo’ brings to my attention the fact that words ending in -bo rarely (never?) get pronounced with a final schwa. For example in the following sentence: “The bimbo Greta Garbo, with legs akimbo, danced the limbo”. Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

measure for measure

Wrong POS/defn Vilipender (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Portuguese muai thai

Shouldn't it be muay thai or muaythai? Those are the most widely used forms, present in the name of the Confederação Brasileira de Muaythai Tradicional (CBMTT). I don't think there is a standard "Portuguesified" orthography for this term. OweOwnAwe (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed and moved to muay thai. This partial adaptation that changes the ⟨y⟩ but not the ⟨th⟩ is pretty questionable — made it an alt form for now, since it seems attestable. Polomo47 (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Latin ligō, etym 2 sense 3

Are we sure this is a thing? The dictionaries listed as references exclusively mention senses 1 and 2. Polomo47 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We never list Georges, which exists there online since the 2000s, it has good examples for the sense “to unite” / vereinigen, dissociata locis concordi pace ligavit and coniugia as an object are strong examples. Probably needs to be in the entry to show that it can also be used figuratively abstractly. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, a swift response. I see. Does religō have the same "figurative" / "by extension" meanings? Polomo47 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though perhaps not as commonly. Our glosses of it are rudimentary. See Cicero Tusc. 3, 17, 37:

Prudentiae vero quid respondebis docenti virtutem sese esse contentam, quo modo ad bene vivendum, sic etiam ad beate? Quae si extrinsecus religata pendeat et non et oriatur a se et rursus ad se revertatur et omnia sua complexa nihil quaerat aliunde, non intellego cur aut verbis tam vehementer ornanda aut re tantopere expetenda videatur.

What answer will you make to prudence, who informs you that she is a virtue sufficient of herself both to teach you a good life and also to secure you a happy one? And, indeed, if she were fettered by external circumstances, and dependent on others, and if she did not originate in herself and return to herself, and also embrace everything in herself, so as to seek no adventitious aid from any quarter, I cannot imagine why she should appear deserving of such lofty panegyrics, or of being sought after with such excessive eagerness.

Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that is a nice example. It does have a different meaning (at least according to the translation) of "restraining" someone (psychologically). So nothing related to uniting and stuff? Polomo47 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

No, because the general meaning is more like aufbinden and anbinden, binding something upon something else. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

single-acting

Can anyone mechanical give single-acting a quick check? It's straight from 1913, so there's probably something missing. Vilipender (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Also in chemical and pharmaceutical use (See Google Scholar.) DCDuring (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Classification of Podlachian

Some user has decided to categorize Podlachian under Ukrainian. However, speakers of Podlachian don't identify as Ukrainian speakers, and a not-insignificant amount of Belarusian features are observed in Podlachian, such as /d͡zʲ/. Not to mention that whoever is making these entries is hastily doing so with little regard for proper template usage or even correct etymology, and they're also clogging up the "Ukrainian terms spelled with X" categories, even though Podlachian is nowadays commonly spelt using the Latin alphabet, if written at all, as opposed to Cyrillic. And on spelling, the proposed Podlachian spelling is just one possible one, since this particular orthography doesn't cover all dialects that are grouped as Podlachian. As someone who deals with East-Slavic-adjacent (micro)languages like Carpathian and Pannonian Rusyn, might I suggest moving Podlachian to a whole new "language" or separate classification anyhow? Although I don't know if Podlachian has its own ISO code or even Wiktionary-internal code. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is more certainly a discussion for the BP or Language treatment requests - not long ago there was a thread about this. Vininn126 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It is obvious that Podlasie language originated from the Ukrainian dialect continuum (from Middle Ukrainian). And yes, it is on the very edge and borders on Belarusian and may have a couple of features from Belarusian, but this does not make it a descendant of Belarusian. Just as some common features in other dialects of the Ukrainian language from Polesia (for example, from the Zhitomir or Chernihiv regions of Ukraine) do not make it part of the Belarusian language. AshFox (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The dumbo exception: why is its B sounded?

Hello. The B is silent in dumb, dumbness, dumbass, etc., except for dumbo -- why? Thanks, 77.147.79.62 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

w:Phonological history of English consonant clusters § Reduction of /mb/ and /mn/.

The ending of the exception is not marked enough, so it could have been restored for ideophonic effect of a head smashed against a table and similar, and maintained by analogy to jumbo and other words: you can break grammar if other people don't take note of the irregularity but in turn find justifications. See also rumbo where, because stem morpheme does not have etymological spelling, we feel compelled to explain it as arbitrarily extended. Fay Freak (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The dumbo-jumbo rhyme may have been influenced or reinforced by the 1941 Disney film Dumbo. Voltaigne (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it probably started with jumbo, which was originally the name of a circus elephant and intended to sound foreign and exotic. The Disney character Dumbo was obviously named with that word in mind, and the lowercase dumbo no doubt was a play on the name of the Disney character. In general, all of the words I can think of that end in -mbo (akimbo, bimbo, gumbo, limbo, mambo, mumbo-jumbo etc.) have the b pronounced at the beginning of the final syllable- not silent. Many (but not all) of those have something African in their history. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

spill - intransitive use in US but not UK?

This Clickhole article contains the sentence "And to make matters worse, you just spilled on the thing you just washed because you just spilled on it." To my ears, this is ungrammatical - in all registers I'm familiar with, "spill" (as a verb performed by a person) needs an object. "I spilled coffee on my shirt" but not *"I spilled on my shirt". However, I'm sure I've heard this phrasing in American media before. I can't find anything about this online, so I thought I'd ask here - Americans, have you heard "I spilled" used intransitively? Is it standard, informal, slang, dialect or just outright never correct? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

It apparently is used intransitively in Sex and the City, according to this Instagram post[13]. There are also some British uses here[14] and here[Review on Amazon: Great https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01MT6B67J?ref_=cm_sw_r_ud_dprv_E5KAP2PFX7VPKVME2NZJ&language=en-GB]. There are other uses like this funny post here[15], though I don't know where the author is from. Also, 'the menu, I spilt on it' appears as a caption for the Trip Advisor review for Old Beams restaurant in Manama on a Google search but, curiously, if you look at Trip Advisor itself the caption isn't actually on the picture. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• I just checked the ngrams for "I spilled on" (this will pick up some background radiation from phrases like "The coffee I spilled on my shirt", of course, but hopefully it's good enough to pick up the trend). Consistent American use seems to begin around 1970 and rise from there. There's no sign of British use until the 1990s. It picks up a lot in both dialects around 2010, but I think that's also when digital publishing means that ngrams starts struggling to distinguish American and British usage. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

eher being a comparative form of früh etc

Hi, I noticed that eher is currently listed as a comparative form of früh next to früher (similar for ehesten). But I haven't seen this classification anywhere else -- in fact, Duden lists eher as the comparative form of bald (and Wiktionary even lists "früher" as the comparative of "bald"...). See Duden pages on eher, früh, bald, and especially the page on comparatives. DWDS concurs. Should we amend these and stick to what dictionaries say? Wyverald (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

tufthunting

Defined as "The practice of seeking after, and hanging on, noblemen, or persons of quality, especially in English universities.". Reeks of old-fashioned English! Vilipender (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

More at tufthunter. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C99:18BB:2D31:EFA8 21:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)