Wiktionary:Tea room

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

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

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

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

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

Tea room archives edit

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

Oldest tagged RFTs


June 2015


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

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

Latin month names[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον[edit]

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

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

About the word precedence[edit]

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

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

Sentience vs. Sapience[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

driving school[edit]

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

A few lemmings have this. driving school at OneLook Dictionary Search shows quite a few, but some are empty, others are just followers of WordNet. The principal departure from full transparency is that these are not stereotypical schools, but the use of the term school to include training in vocational or hobby skills (eg, cooking, secretarial skills, cosmetology) is common. DCDuring TALK 09:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since Collins[1] and Macmillan[2] have it and there are multiple single-word non-compound translations (see edit summary of the creation), I went ahead and created the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    I may be wrong in stating that the translations are non-compounds. Nonetheless, the translations cannot be obtained by word-for-word translation of "driving school"; they seem to be like "car school". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A new taxlink template?[edit]

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

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

The differences in the new one are:

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

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

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

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

different kettle of fish, kettle of fish[edit]

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

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


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

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

Pronunciation of English words with -ag-[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Food Broker[edit]

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

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

possible new sense of take?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Months in Albanian[edit]

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

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


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

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

οὐδείς#Ancient Greek[edit]

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


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

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

pale shadow[edit]

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

New word[edit]

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

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

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

"tuck your stomach in"[edit]

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

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

incorrigable - request[edit]

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

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

That French pphhrrt noise[edit]

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

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

must be something in the water/air[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

a line from Frim Fram Sauce[edit]

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

  • Well... according to one version, it's "Ausen fay", not "oee-en-fay", and "chafafa" or "cha fafa", not "sha fafa". But who knows? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • And according to [3] they are just made-up words. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

Template:color panel[edit]

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

Template:de-noun [edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

one could list it like this:

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

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

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

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

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

toward towards[edit]

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

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

water as an element[edit]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The pdf that dumps on us because of this entry (and others like it) is here, "User-generated content (UGC) in English online dictionaries", by Robert Lew, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, page 14, in Online Publizierte Arbeiten fur Linguistik, 4/2014. The article doesn't say what we shouldn't already be painfully aware of. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of handle, this is also still outstanding from 2013, at least inasmuch as the tag has never been removed from the article. I found the supposed Cornish etymology very surprising too. 02:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't come up with the Cornish etymology, just moved it from a definition line to its own etymology. DTLHS (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Online Etymological Dictionary explicitly addresses the nickname sense and doesn't find a Cornish connection. We sometimes neglect sense development in our etymologies in favor of PIE etc. Most normal users care more about how a word picked up a meaning over the decades and centuries than about its phonetic evolution over millennia. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The Cornish etymology was originally added here. That user seems to be no longer active. I am happy to retract my comments if I am proved wrong, but to me the Cornish thing seems like bollocks. Therefore I have been bold and removed it. 11:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I have overhauled the entry; we now cover handle in more detail than old Century or modern Merriam-Webster or Dictionary.com. We were only missing a few senses relative to them, and only a few senses were worded archaically (one complaint made by Lew). Lew's next complaint, quoting Hanks, is that "the etymologies are taken from or based on those in older dictionaries, as are the definitions, which are extremely old-fashioned and derivative, taking no account of recent research in either cognitive linguistics or corpus linguistics". This is downright counter-factual with regard to etymologies: discussion is going on in the BP about how many of our etymologies are the product of cutting-edge Wiktionarian research — how many of our reconstructions of e.g. Proto-Germanic or Proto-Balto-Slavic fit the sound rules scholars have documented, but haven't been individually reconstructed by scholars before. We're facing a problem exactly the opposite of what Lew describes: our etymologies are so far from "extremely old-fashioned and derivative" that they are bleeding edge original research. In turn, among our definitions of the noun and verb handle we had (long before my edits to the entry) identified two alcoholic senses, a topological sense and a modern computing sense which modern Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com still today fail to mention. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The latest screenshots in the Lew article were from September 2012, before we started having so much protolanguage material in our etymologies. The article's tone and conclusion are obviously consistent with the prejudices of the readership and peer reviewers of the article.
There is more than a kernel of truth to the conclusions about Wiktionary. We have much (and ARE still ADDING some) content from Webster and Century, sometimes thereby improving our entries' coverage, but often not improving the dated wording. We do not follow best corpus-based practice in our English entries. We do not have any guidance to contributors on content, especially definitions. We do add collocations in abundance and have trivial variations of definitions while missing important 1910-1980 definitions. I don't think Wiktionary will be finished any time soon. I still prefer OneLook and, especially, MWOnline to our content. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

auger in, augur in[edit]

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

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

SCOTUScare, now or later?[edit]

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

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

@Choor monster: I seem to have missed this when you posted it. I'd say that it was sufficiently prominent and reported on to create an entry if you want to; you'd have to use {{hot word}}, and then it would be assessed a year after the earliest use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

seks (Estonian)[edit]

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

past partciple drunken[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix:Old Italic script[edit]

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

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

body check[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

Point taken! Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Andrew

^ This use-r is turn-ing out like Nemzag minus the hy-phens. - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested entries[edit]

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

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

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

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

Links for "chill" in Walloon wiktionary[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

changing tense with person[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Mickey Mouse[edit]

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

For instance:

Thou wast once alive.


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

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

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

July 2015


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

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

to let[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

to do with[edit]

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

The two problems I have with it are:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

is that the time[edit]

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

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

piazza, pizer[edit]

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

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

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

American Icelandic[edit]

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

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

quicumque vult, Athanasian wench, etc[edit]

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

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

reductionist pronunciations are still here[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

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

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

fōrmō v fōrma v μορφή etymology claims[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Chinese characters that are only used in compounds[edit]

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

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

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

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

Asian carp[edit]

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

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

put off[edit]

I am trying to add the sense of put off as it is used in the example "I'm too busy to see Mr Smith today. I'll have to put him off." However, another editor has removed this, believing that it is the same as the existing sense "To delay (a task, event, etc.)". I disagree that it is the same (I am not insisting that my definition cannot be improved, however). Collins dictionary [4] and Macmillan Dictionary [5] and M-W Dictionary [6] all agree with me that it is a different sense. Please can some other people take a look. Also, while you are looking at this, you may as well also look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Feedback#put_off. Thanks. 21:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

egg roll[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

Regarding welsh verbal nouns[edit]

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

judgement/judgment possible alternate etymology[edit]

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

blur (computing)[edit]

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

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

Partikel, Pluraletantum, Singularetantum[edit]

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

[ ] in IPA[edit]

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

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

escalera, straight[edit]

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

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

pelagus#Latin & pelagi & pelagorum[edit]

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


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

Seems so: [7]. Equinox 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


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

rear its (ugly) head[edit]

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

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


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

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


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


wer#German - inflection?[edit]

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

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

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

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

- 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

Polish phrase?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Most etymologies[edit]

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

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

Latin nouns derived from verbs[edit]

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

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


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


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

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

older English in affor[edit]

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

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

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

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

Two edit conflicts later...

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

blime o riley[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Such entry was deleted. However it is a nonstandard word for volleyball that is attested by Google Books. 2602:306:3653:8A10:B5C0:69FE:7856:8D8D 19:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

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

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

Spanish Voseo present subjunctive for e→ie[edit]

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

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

Tell & Tally cognates?[edit]

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

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

Is it a coincidence that tell and tally sound similar?

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Der var fejl på introducere samt citere. Jeg har rettet dem nu. De to andre transskriptioner er korrekte - [ɐ] er et udtryk for /rə/, og så står man tilbage med en vokal (der indgår i stavelseskernen) med stød: Denne vokal er dermed lang. Der er en længere forklaring bagved (samt visse særsituationer). Note hertil: DDO har lavet en simplificering mht. vokallængde og stød (f.eks. [8]), den korrekte repræsentation i IPA er [ˈɡ̊ʁoːˀ]. Vedr. kategori, du tænkte vel ikke på Category:Danish words suffixed with -ere? Den fremkaldes i etymologisektionen af koden {{suffix|[ORDETS ROD]|ere}}, du kan følge duellere som eksempel. Vh. --ContraVentum (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hvis du siger det, er det nok korrekt, selv om jeg ikke selv kan høre nogen forskel i længde på de tre stavelser i citere. Kan du anbefale nogen "længere forklaring"?__Gamren (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Request pronunciation[edit]

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


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

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


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

I don't think so. Sense 2, the second medical sense at pathological seems clearly to be a synonym of pathologic, but the other senses don't seem so to me. I don't know whether pathologic or pathological is is more common in that use. I also wonder whether there is a US/RoW, NA/RoW, or other difference in alternation in different varieties of English. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind either way. Pathologic is not used in British English, only pathological, and the entry is now suitably labelled to reflect this. Donnanz (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Except that now it says pathologic is American English, but actually it isn't used in American English either. It should probably be labeled "rare" or "obsolete" or something else to show that it isn't really used (much). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree; I think it was BrE (and perhaps AmE too) but is simply dated. Equinox 10:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I may have started something - I was referring to this [9] and this [10]. Donnanz (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This Google Books search (with preview) shows abundant 21st Century use. The usage context may be (medicine) or similar. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Gheg Albanian categories[edit]

We currently have two categores for Gheg:

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

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


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

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

Error in the word OMNIS[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

Spelling of heterochroma iridium[edit]

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

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


Would anyone agree that it's an adjective too? [11]. Donnanz (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Your Man[edit]


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Multiple POS sections vs. multiple headwords[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

man child[edit]

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


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

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

freedom of speech[edit]

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

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

do, did, d'[edit]

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

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

Please verify real (currency)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Modern Greek noun χάος (uncountable )[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-ion and related suffixes[edit]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

road game[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Swedish -na[edit]

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

  • It is true that -na forms definite noun endings, but only for common nouns. Neuter nouns usually end in -en for the definite plural. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the verb ending. You can always check a few entries in Swedish Wiktionary (or on this site). Donnanz (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I found this [12] on the Swedish site, but no etymology given I'm afraid. Donnanz (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

North Carolina[edit]

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

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

Latin noun modules[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrity nicknames[edit]

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

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


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

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

Etymology for arabic days of the week[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

  • I don't think so. One dictionary has a noun sense - meaning something like "essence" (that which is essential). But I can't see a grammatical noun anywhere - that is sostantivo. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

false cognate[edit]

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

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

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

double take[edit]

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

(1) Wouldn't reaction be better than take, where the appropriate sense comes after as many as 6 definitions for different things?
(2) Is it necessary to emphasize it can be (intentionally) comical, especially as the first example sentence is "Smith passes the car and does a double take as he realizes it is on fire." ? --Droigheann (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. The word reaction occurs just six words later in the definition, so a simple substitution wouldn't be good style. How would you rewrite the whole definition?
  2. It is certainly usually comedic. The usage example is just made up and may not reflect actual usage. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that take in the acting sense is not a very good word to use in a definition as it is not at all common in general use. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)