Wiktionary:Tea room/2011/August

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← July 2011 · August 2011 · September 2011 → · (current)

August 2011

connexion’ is not obsolete.

¶ This form of connection gets hits on Google Groups, and a sizeable portion of Google Books dating after the 1970s; so I believe that the tag “obsolete spelling” incorrectly implies that it is no longer utilised. Although the newer ‘connection’ is still favoured over the older ‘connexion’, ‘connexion’ is hardly obsolete and I see no reasons to think other‐wise. If there are no objections in the next couple days, I will mark it as a dated form instead of an obsolete form. --Pilcrow 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from proper-noun uses, almost all the Google Groups hits that I see are clearly from French-influenced speakers: every time, either the username is something like "Stéphane" or "Matthieu", or there are other obvious Gallicisms in their English (such as "bloqued" rather than "blocked"), or their e-mail address (or a domain that they mention) ends in .fr, or the like. The rare exceptions, such as this one, are still clearly non-native speakers, so influence from French seems the likely culprit.
As for recent Google Books hits . . . nearly all of them are either reprints of old books, or new books quoting old books, or the like. One exception is this one, where it seems to be "historical" rather than "obsolete"; another is this one, which is clearly French-influenced.
Unfortunately, determining whether a cite is French-influenced or a reprint or a non-native speaker takes a bit of effort, and in many cases it's hard to be 100% certain even after you've expended the effort, which therefore makes it hard to figure out exactly when it stopped being used. (If you start with the current decade and work your way back, you'll soon reach the point where you can convince yourself, on the flimsiest of evidence, that a cite is French-influenced. Try it!) But our 1978 cite seems perfectly valid, both as to date and as to provenance. (I've linkified some of the metadata, if anyone wants to investigate it for themself.)
Overall, I suspect "obsolete" is probably more or less accurate (though I'd welcome any British editors' opinions); but it's good that we include some cites, so people can form their own opinions. And I think we should include a usage note that most current usage of the spelling is due to French-speakers, rather than to preservation of it among English-speakers.
RuakhTALK 00:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems more accurate to call it "archaic" than "obsolete": we define "obsolete" as "no longer likely to be understood", which does not seem to be the case. "Archaic" — "no longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts" — seems a better fit, given that some churches and Usenet-posters still use the spelling. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I am a BrE speaker, and to me "connexion" reads like something out of a Jane Austen novel. 02:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm another speaker of British English, but possibly older, and I remember when this spelling was fairly common. It was Webster, in 1828, who decided to throw out the original English spelling with an x for American usage, but the "ct" spelling was already in use by Benjamin Franklin in 1747. I think "obsolete" is a bit strong for a spelling that was occasionally used within living memory, but I agree that no-one would use the "x" spelling in modern English unless they wanted to sound archaic or dated. The OED does not use any tag, but just has a usage note: "The etymological spelling connexion is the original in English; in 17th cent. it was supported by the verb connex; after the latter was displaced by connect, the noun began c1725–50 to be often spelt connection, a spelling which, under the influence of etymologically-formed words, such as affection, collection, direction, inspection (all < Latin participial stems in -ect-), is now very frequent. The earlier English lexicographers, including Bailey, Johnson, Walker, Todd, Crabb, recognize connexion only. Connection appears in Webster (1828) who says ‘For the sake of regular analogy, I have inserted Connection as the derivative of the English connect, and would discard connexion’. This preference has been followed by other dictionaries in U.S. Latham would differentiate the two spellings and use connexion only in senses 5– 8 Connexion is the official and invariable spelling in sense 8 [Methodist usage], and was used in all senses by the majority of writers (or printers) in England until the mid-20th century, when connection became more usual." Dbfirs 08:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd consider this (connexion) incorrect in contemporary, 21st Century English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Would you consider "spelt", as used by the OED above, also incorrect for American English? Dbfirs 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, even in British English, I would wonder why the old spelling was being used if I saw it in text written in this century. Perhaps "obsolete" in American English and "dated" or "archaic" in British English would be appropriate? Dbfirs 08:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


I would need a noun which is derived from a verb based on this word or an other with the same meaning. It would mean something lkike the acth when giving something an external sterm. For example for natural gas before using it in the heating systems. Thank you for your answer. --Ksanyi 13:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure that I understand what you are asking. The word stench is a noun. I wonder if you mean odorizer. An odorizer is a substance such as methyl mercaptan that can be added to natural gas to give it a bad smell. —Stephen (Talk) 14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"acth"?? "sterm"?? 02:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

German pronunciation of "Fis"? meaning of "exp"?

Two unrelated questions: first, do any of you know if the German word "Fis"/"fis" (e.g. "Fis-Dur ist eine Tonart [...] die auf dem Grundton fis aufbaut") is pronounced [fɪs], or [ɛf.ɪs]? I know "Ais" and "Eis" (the tone, not ice) are disyllabic, but I'm not sure about Fis (Cis, Dis, etc). I've asked on de.Wikt as well. Second, unrelated question: so, what does "Wiktionary:Glossary # exp" mean? - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "exp": "Expression", apparently. (Ichiwa = ichi wa, ichi kara = ichi kara.) —RuakhTALK 11:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. :) And de:Benutzer:Seidenkäfer has clued me in to the monosyllabic pronunciation of Fis, so that I could create the entry. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

honorary vs honourary

There seems to be a various schools of thought on this one. It seems the British don't recognise 'honourary' while it appears the Canadians, and numerous islands in the Caribbean do. It looks like another fork of "British English" here. CaribDigita 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:humourous. Equinox 16:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Honourary to make looks either archaic or a modern-day misspelling. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The spelling is included in the OED with two British cites, but not recent ones. Is the variant common in Canada and the Caribbean? Dbfirs 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain about the Caribbean, but here in Canada the variant is the norm. Ranks right up there with "colour". Regards. Aloha27 15:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Have updated the definitions of honourary, feel free to review them. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds about right. I assume that Australia, NZ, South Africa etc follow the UK pattern. Dbfirs 12:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Buttons discussion

Start, Stop, tilde ("A key found on some types of keyboards") etc. What happened to the RFV or RFD discussion that was open on all these "key" entries? I can't find it. Equinox 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Start. —RuakhTALK 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


An anon got rid of the translations and turned the section into a {{trans-see}} for bachelor pad. Is that a good idea? (Someone apparently patrolled the edit as OK.) It's just that judging from the Russian terms there is a close Russian equivalent, so I don't know if it's not a good idea to leave the translations for the benefit of those languages which might wish to distinguish between close synonyms. Or should all synonyms trans-see themselves to just one exemplar? I'm not quite sure under what circumstances we should be using trans-see. Ƿidsiþ 07:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The definition is a one-link affair, a bachelor bad. I think any such case where the definition simply links to a synonym, trans-see is appropriate. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, unless the definition is "(register) synonym", in which case the translation table can be for translations in that register (in which case its header should indicate as much).​—msh210 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think what the anon did is fine as long as there isn't really any semantic difference between garçonnière and bachelor pad or between квартира холостяка and гарсоньерка. I am skeptical, though, that "nice" and "well-furnished" are obligatory parts of the definition of bachelor pad. —Angr 15:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

it's all grist to the mill

Is this a proverb? We have [[grist to the mill]]. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not AFAIAA. It's all is a common addition to the front end of idiomatic sayings. Any phrase that starts like that should be treated with caution, imho. -- ALGRIF talk 16:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Err, somehow I don't these usage examples are appropriate for Wiktionary. ---> Tooironic 01:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be true of all usage examples provided by Sinek (talkcontribs). —Angr 07:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
They look like citations to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Not to me. Go through his contribs: he's inventing these sentences to be deliberately provocative. If sentences like this were added by an anon rather than by the very editor who started the entries, they'd be reverted as vandalism. —Angr 15:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Angr's comment (of 15:20 6 August 2011) is correct. Still, I might leave them until they can be replaced with other grammatically-correct example sentences or citations from literature. The two in homoseksüel don't seem to be incorrect, even in terms of their milieu / the politeness-level of their surrounding words — compare the quotation from American Psycho to the example sentence above it. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

sell for the first time

Is there a phrase or word meaning "to make the first sell of the day". In Catalan we say estrenar-se

Also Spanish estrenarse, but nothing quite like it in English. You’d have to say: use or do for the first time; inaugurate; present for the first time; commence, start; debut, open; make the first sale of the day; etc. —Stephen (Talk) 06:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

assistance dog

Does anyone have any thoughts on service dog, assistance dog, therapy dog and similar terms newer than guide dog and seeing-eye dog? "Assistance dog" and "service dog" seem to be used both narrowly (dogs for the disabled) and broadly, including all kinds of non-traditional services/assistance that dogs can provide with training. Are search-and-rescue dogs included in the broad sense? Are the older services (guide dog, seeing-eye dog) included in the broad definition. "Therapy dog" seems a narrower term.

Does this kind of issue belong here or on the talk page? I certainly wouldn't want it cluttering up a category that is used for active maintenance, like Category:English terms needing attention, because its dwell time there would be too long. Mixing long- and short-dwell time tags in a heterogeneous category such as this risks making the category useless, in my experience. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


The entry for tasty doesn't seem to have a definition that reflects the usage in this quote "."There are two police cars on fire. I'm feeling unsafe. It looks like it's going to get very tasty." [1].

It might be the same sense as used by The Scotsman in 2005 "It got tasty thereafter. Three Hearts men were booked in quick order and where Miller led up front, Burchill soon followed." [2]

I don't think it means "violent" as such, but perhaps more like "volatile"? Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Free Dictionary has "Brit informal skilful or impressive she was a bit tasty with a cutlass". That doesn't seem to be the sense used in those quotations, although it may be related. TFD has another sense we lack, "(= salacious) a tasty piece of gossip". - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it not just an alternate form of testy? —Stephen (Talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it means "interesting". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "interesting" is a good definition, possibly also with a hint of "exhilarating". Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it just a deliberate use of meiosis, as in the Chinese expression "interesting times". Dbfirs 08:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that it is partly influenced by that (British understatement), but I don't think it's a deliberate choice by the individual speaker in the calm, reflected manner I associate with "interesting times". Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Construal is only written as a noun, but it is an adjective as well. Since I am not an experienced wiki user nor a native speaker, somebody else should correct it. e.g. "Tenbrunsel (1999) suggested that construal differences across parties may actually lead to greater expectations of unethical behavior than uniformly high incentives to behave unethically." (Bazerman et al., 2000: Negotiation) ---> Kalap Ur 07.08.2011. 10:45 p.m. GMT +2

Almost any English noun can be used attributively, as in the example, with virtually any meaning that the noun has. Ideally we don't have a separate Adjective section for such usage. We would have it if there were:
  1. attestable attributive use in a sense not conveyed by the noun OR
  2. attestable use of the term as a predicate, best shown after a form of a verb like become OR
  3. attestable existence of a comparative form OR
  4. attestable existence of gradability, best shown by use with too or very.
I don't think any of these apply to construal, which is why the dictionaries at www.OneLook.com that include "construal" include it only as a noun. Ideally all senses of all nouns would have usage examples that illustrate such attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

maljuniĝi and aĝi

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between maljuniĝi and aĝi in Esperanto? This should be made clear in the two entries methinks. ---> Tooironic 10:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one means to become old and the other means to age. I'm not sure if there is a clear difference. —CodeCat 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To my ear, there is no obvious difference; both terms can be used interchangeably without affecting the meaning. However, the latter is used more often in the sense of "kiom aĝas vi?", "How old are you?" or literally "How much do you age?". "Kiom maljuniĝas vi?" sounds odd, and I've never heard the verb used in that manner, but it would probably understood by most speakers. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Daniel wondered in January in the form of {{attention}} whether this was a proper noun, presumably because it is a unique configuration of the Rubik's cube.

I think this one of many illustrations of why most print dictionaries don't make explicit distinctions between common and proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wondered that first in the form of a comment in the source. Interestingly, Monday is given as a common noun but January is given as a proper noun. The French janvier is also a common noun. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


This English entry has, under the Alternative forms header, the following:

What kind of related terms can be called "alternative forms"? What about abbreviations, for example? We already have placement of "Alternative forms" for entries with multiple etymologies that are not consistent with the placement for a single header, necessarily appearing after the etymology content. We sometimes present sense-specific forms after a "see also" at the end of the sense line. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Wiktionary admits the spelling "publically", which at least the older dictionaries, 1970 and earlier, do not seem to admit. What is your authority for admitting this variant of "publicly"? —This unsigned comment was added by Salman Iqbal from Lahore (talkcontribs).

The methodology applied in Wiktionary is basically descriptivist, not prescriptivist. Entries for terms/spellings are accepted or not depending on whether they are used. In this case, publically is a comparatively rare spelling usage. — Pingkudimmi 16:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that is looks more like a mis-spelling, and I can recall spelling the word this way, then checking and deciding that I'd better change to the spelling given in most smaller dictionaries. However, no less an authority than the (full) Oxford English Dictionary has cites ranging from 1797 to 1998 so the variant is correctly admitted to Wiktionary. I notice that Microsoft do not include the "publically" in their "Word" dictionary, but they miss out many more common words that I've had to add to my user dictionary. Dbfirs 19:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I think that many people would consider "publically" a spelling mistake, and I suspect that the majority of uses in effect actually are spelling mistakes, as opposed to deliberate uses of an uncommmon variant. To assist readers, can the notes say "may be viewed as an error" without violating the non-prescriptivist philosophy? 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a fair comment. I've extended the note to imply what you suggest, without actually claiming that the majority of uses are spelling errors (which may or may not be true). Dbfirs 08:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

be as silent as the grave

Should perhaps be moved to silent as the grave, which is broader. Equinox 18:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. We could keep the redirect. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that silent as the grave is "broader", exactly, than as silent as the grave; I think they're two different synonymous constructions. (By comparison: the adverb really is not derived from the adverb real; rather, both are derived from the adjective real, one by suffixation and one by zero derivation. Not the best analogy ever, but hopefully you see what I mean. The fact that the string "XYZ" contains the string "YZ" doesn't mean that the term XYZ contains the term YZ in a meaningful way, even if they're synonymous.) So of [[silent as the grave]] and [[as silent as the grave]], one should redirect to the other (since they're very similar alternative forms), but which redirects to which should be based on relative frequency, I think, with occurrences of “as silent as the grave” not being counted as uses of “silent as the grave”. [[be as silent as the grave]] could either redirect to whichever one gets the entry, or could simply be deleted: I'm fairly confident that it's SOP, be + as silent as the grave. —RuakhTALK 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Two small points: 1. Yes, IMO redirect the be form to whichever form is not a redirect. 2. How would you search for silent as the grave not as part of as silent as the grave? Google doesn't let you do so directly. (The best you can do is search for silent as the grave in a text not containing as silent as the grave, which is not the same thing. Or use all the collocates you can think of.) [Afterthought:] Oh, I suppose the BYU corpora will let you, right?​—msh210 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


"(Cockney) naïve or unaware of obvious facts". Isn't this the same as the "Inexperienced" sense? Why is it Cockney? Equinox 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

knock the living daylights out of

I think this entry should be re-factored into one for the living daylights out of because there are many verbs you could use, e.g. beat, thump, shag... Fugyoo 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps just "living daylights", with redirects applied to the variations. I think it can be used just by itself but I'm not 100% sure. ---> Tooironic 11:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There's also "scare the living daylights out of", of course. I'm not exactly sure how one would define "living daylights" by itself. Does it have any independent use outside these set expressions? I can't think of any (apart from the film name). Although all expressions so far identified include it, I don't like "the living daylights out of" as an entry heading. It doesn't seem to be a grammatical unit. If we decide to stick with the current scheme, my feeling is that "beat" is much more common than "knock" and should be the main entry, borne out by [3]. 03:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
See WT:RFD#beat the crap out of -- Liliana 09:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


This is one of our adverbs that really sucked. There should be a note explaining the difference between it and especially, specially for me. --Change of lung 18:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what are the differences? I use especially when I want to sound specially formal or old-fashioned, but specially seems to be older. Dbfirs 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Opposite here: I use specially when I want to sound formal or something. (Well, I would. In fact, I don't really use it at all.) OTOH, I treat the adjectives the way you do, Dbfirs, using especial not at all, special always. Perhaps it's a pondian thing? (I'm a Yank and Dbfirs is Brit.)​—msh210 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Overall, especially is about 50 times more common than specially, so when in doubt, it's your best guess. In standard English dialects, especially is a partial restrictive focusing adverb (CGEL p. 592). These include words like chiefly, mainly, notably, and particularly. It is often used as a modifier before adjectives (e.g., it was especially important to be on time), about 30 times per millions words in the COCA). In contrast, specially rarely occurs in such locations (less than once per million words in the COCA. When it modifies noun phrases (NPs), especially picks out a subset of the group for focus (e.g., What a great band, especially the pianist), while specially does not typically modify NPs at all. This is not limited to NPs, but can apply to other types of phrases as well (e.g., The house was dark, especially in the closet.) When modifying verbs, both are used, though especially maintains its focussing function while specially usually indicates that something was done for a particular purpose (e.g., The shoe was specially designed to reduce friction; cf. The shoe had a number of purposes, but was especially designed to reduce friction). In some spoken dialects, specially is used here with the same meaning as especially (e.g., She specially enjoyed the first book). Entries 2 and 3 should be considered rare or dialectal.--Brett 23:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Re "When modifying verbs... friction": Yes, I use that.​—msh210 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, excellent overview. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


I think this should be merged with Holstein. It's hard or impossible to find anything on Google Books that spells the cow breed without an initial capital. Equinox 00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the content should be moved to Holstein (where I have also added the missing most basic sense: 'the southern part of Schleswig-Holstein'). I may find enough quotations to keep holstein as an alternative spelling, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the content, but kept holstein as a rare alternative spelling, with citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. While we're here, do you know what kind of person (historical-political faction perhaps) a Schleswiger is? Equinox 21:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I'd already started adding it when I saw you put in on the list of requested entries. :) In general, it just means a person from Schleswig. I'll have to look closer to see if it also has a political meaning — if it does, precisely what that meaning is could be hard to suss out; as Palmerston said, “The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.” - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think instances where it seems political, as when Charles Dickens has a character tell someone to "cast your Danish skin, as the snakes do in summer, and come forth in sprucer guise as a true patriot and a Schleswiger", still mean "a person from Schleswig" and only seem political because of the political disagreement over whether Schleswig is Danish or German. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Sense: "In a celebrated manner." I was trying to think of collocates to find cites, when I realized that I haven't any idea what this means. Does anyone?​—msh210 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the entry history, we can see that this sense was there before the other two. I think it is just trying to say the same thing as the newer sense 2, i.e. "in a way that is famous" (like "Bill Gates famously dropped out of university"). Merge 'em. Equinox 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(after an edit conflict) Right, it was probably meant to cover uses like "the man who famously downed two blimps with a single stone" : "the man who, in a celebrated manner (or celebrated feat), downed two blimps with a single stone". (The collocation would be "who famously".) There seems to be some overlap between that the the next sense, however. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
[e/c] But he didn't down them in a famous manner. He downed them, and the incident became famous. And (responding to Equinox now) Bill Gates didn't drop out of university in a way that's famous. He dropped out, and now the incident is famous. Those are both examples of sense 2, not of sense 1. I suspect Equinox may be right that whoever wrote sense 1 meant to write sense 2, but I don't know. (There are sentences where "in a famous manner" can substitute for the word famously. The quote (in the entry) from Slauter is one such. But famously in Slauter — and I suspect in all such sentences — can also be interpreted as sense 2, and I think that's more natural.) If no one can think of what sense 1 means, then I think it should go.​—msh210 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think (w.r.t the Bill Gates example) this is just a natural behaviour of adverbs. Consider "He unacceptably dropped out of university" (from an angry parent). Again, he didn't do it in a specifically unacceptable way (did he?); that's just an outside view. Still, it seems like natural use of the language. Am I missing something? Equinox 21:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The definition of unacceptably matching its use in that sentence is "Signifies that the occurrence described in the sentence is unacceptable" or some such, not "in an unacceptable manner". However, in he rode the horse unacceptably: he sat sidesaddle, it's "in an unacceptable manner". Two senses.​—msh210 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
We actually have both senses for hopefully, but not for unacceptably. And, as I noted to start this discussion, we do have both for famously, but I wonder whether we should.​—msh210 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added an quotation here that seems to use 'famously' to describe something celebrated, not just famous. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the author meant that. Maybe not. But even if he meant "celebrated" and not just "famous", he meant that the sending of the message is celebrated, not that the message was sent in a celebrated manner, which is what sense 1 would have us believe.​—msh210 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if the senses were merged. - -sche (discuss) 23:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As msh210 notes, it is used often used as a sentence adverb. It might be a modal-type adverb, meaning something like "the proposition is true because everyone knows it to be true", or a speech-act type, "I know I'm saying something you should/probably know". famously can be a manner adverb, but I think such usage is rare in current speech, except possibly in usage like "They got on famously.", where the meaning is reduced to just something like "exceptionally" or "exceptionally well". I think it is sometimes a simple degree adverb ("He was famously drunk.").
The meanings it has as a sentence adverb sometimes seem to apply when it modifies any adjunct or verb. For example, in "They engaged in drinking bouts famously at Harry's.", it seems to apply only to "at Harry's". DCDuring TALK 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


See Talk:wilf. Algrif has recreated the article with "citations", but they are (as discussed on the talk page) just newspapers that got fooled by the marketing. They are really mentioning the word more than using it. I disagree with the article's recreation. Equinox 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

More pressingly, there are only two of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If this is retained, could we delete the gratuitous word "paid" in "Created by a paid marketing agency"? What other sort is there? 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete if you like. I'm easy with this one. -- ALGRIF talk 11:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Byzantine claims the German word byzantinisch means "of a devious usually stealthy manner". According to the German Wiktionary article and its sources, it can be used as "servile" or "slimy" (obsolescent, though), but not "insidious" as the phrasing "of a devious usually stealthy manner" seems to suggest. Am I simply misinterpreting the definition given in Byzantine? Rl 08:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


In the meaning of protokoll of a discussion is not in yet. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 12:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Yes, it is. —RuakhTALK 13:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


...is defined as "the backbone of a book". Does this mean the spine? I don't think books really have backbones. Equinox 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think spine is the more common term. [This reference] confirms the synonymy and also mentions "backstrip" as yet another synonyn for spine (of a book). The metaphor of the spine and backstrap (muscle) of an animal suggests that the terms may not always be exact synonyms, but I have no confirming evidence. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


The entry for this prefix has two etymologies and claims that both are productive, but apparently relies on evidence from Skeat (1882). What is productivity supposed to mean? That a morpheme has actually been used in word formation, 1., lately and, 2., in speech? Or, to take another diachronic stance, 1., in any version of Middle or Modern English and, 2., in speech or writing? Finally, does it mean that some population of users intuitively feels it is a morpheme (those user intuitions being represented, of course, by our intuitions)?

Of course, it is not a matter merely of what current linguists say, but more what other lexicographers attempting to communicate to users would present in a dictionary if they thought such information were useful to users. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology 1 itself is a pseudoetymology ("in various etymologies and meanings") so it is difficult to determine which specific derived terms would support the claims made.

Finally, does it really make sense to say that each of two etymologies of im- is separately productive when the meanings are not readily distinguished or even mentioned in the entry.

Should this entry be radically simplified if the claims cannot be transparently supported? DCDuring TALK 12:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The entry at the OED that seems to correspond to our etymology 1 resolves to their in- prefix3, "prefixed to adjs. and their derivatives, rarely to other words, to express negation or privation." Our etym2 seems to resolve to two entries in the OED: em- prefix and in- prefix2. Respectively, these have the sense of putting into and "into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against, sometimes expressing onward motion or continuance."--Brett 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

eccetera in English

We have an entry for this phrase in Italian, yet I here English-speakers using it all the time. I have assumed this is merely a sign of their pseudo-literacy, and I was surprised that the phrase actually exists, albeit in Italian. Does anyone have something to add to this? Should we have an entry for it under English, somewhere? __meco 14:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the English pronunciation in /ɛks-/ has any associated full spelling such as eccetera. There does exist an abbreviated spelling <ect.>, which I assume is related to the /ɛks-/; but my personal impression is that most people who say /ɛks-/ nonetheless write <etc.>. I would not consider /ɛks-/ to be "a sign of [] pseudo-literacy", any more than, say, gonna. (Or, for that matter, any more than your use of "here" where you meant "hear"!) —RuakhTALK 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
My error of spelling was blatant. I find it hard to understand how et- could be pronounced ec- and this practice being apologized as being acceptable with no further elaboration. __meco 15:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I specifically note that <ect.> is listed as a misspelling. I find it likely that eccetera in English is linked to this abbreviation. Perhaps Category:English misconstructions could be of use here? __meco 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
If we were to have "eye dialect" for a pronunciation we would want it attested. Wouldn't the eye dialect for an English pronunciation be something like "exetera" or "exetra"?
Most of the usage that Google books calls English is Italian. Even after throwing in some common Italian words to exclude purely Italian works, I find mostly occurrences in works in which the subject matter is Italian or the English dialog involves an Italian-named speaker. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what your position is. Do you not challenge the practice which I claim to be somewhat prevalent, yet find that we cannot discuss it (in the form of dictionary entry) without written sources? __meco 16:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The practice in question is the pronunciation in /ɛks-/. The spelling in <ecc-> is something you've just made up; it exists in Italian, but does not seem to occur in English. (At least, I'm not aware of its occurring in English, and you don't seem to be saying that it does.) Since our entries are organized by spelling, not by pronunciation, the appropriate place to discuss this is at [[et cetera]]. (And/or possibly at [[etc.]] and/or [[ect.]].) —RuakhTALK 16:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Is not the documentation of mispronunciations, even contradistinguished from dialects, within the scope of this work? __meco 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I repeat: the appropriate place to document this is at [[et cetera]]. —RuakhTALK 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. __meco 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
And I see that you have done a nice job at it there. __meco 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
exetera and exetra would probably be attestable eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

good name

Is this really NISoP when used to refer one's honor or reputation? What about bad name? DCDuring TALK 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. You can "give somebody a bad name" but not a good one. Equinox 11:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think you can acquire a good name, only a bad one. Conversely, you can't lose a bad name, only a good one. —RuakhTALK 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Semantics seems to reflect the common-sense observation that good things usually have to be earned and bad things happen easily. Good things need to be protected against bad fortune, malice, and entropy. I think that tends to account for the collocations in literature for adults. Name and good name are synonyms in at least one sense. I don't think name and bad name are ever synonyms. What would such a pattern suggest in terms of idiomaticity or includability? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The other day I came across "fair name", which is apparently synonymous with "good name". More evidence for SOPness, I think. —RuakhTALK 14:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
See also your good name. Equinox 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

HP1 through HP7

These are not really initialisms but encyclopaedic information about films/books in the series (look at the entries). That is to say, HP in each case stands for "Harry Potter" (which we already have at the HP entry), and the numbers have their usual meaning of identifying elements of a sequence. HP9 just means Harry Potter 9, not Harry Potter and the Wand of Wonderfulness or whatever the film eventually proves to be. So I think we should just keep HP and remove these seven. Equinox 11:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

¶ I agree with Equinox; these are extraneous. We do not really include entries about sequels (or ‘prequels’) to things since those are not appropriate dictionary material, in our case to be exact. Arguably: these are sum‐of‐parts.--Pilcrow 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
We should consider whether we would want "1 USC", ..., "55 USC" for the titles of the US Code, about which the attestability of this form and alternative forms cannot be in doubt. But our slogan says "All words in all languages" and slogans rule. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Musical Pitches

Would names of musical pitches, for example, C4, C8, B3, A0, and G2, be English or Translingual? Celloplayer115 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO, Translingual if anything, but aren't they more like arithmetical constructs (4+7, 4+8, 4+9 etc.) where you can create an infinite number of them according to mathematical rules? Equinox 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


¶ I can not figure out how this term was formed. Is it really re‐organizable, versus reorganize‐able or re‐organize‐able? --Pilcrow 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Google NGram conveniently provides good information that suggests that "reorganize" found its way into books 100 years before the words ending in "able". There is more to do with respect to the alternative spellings. Google coverage of early-dated texts requires a good deal of manual checking. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


This is listed as an "adnominal", but in Japanese, this is essentially a noun plus a particle. I think someone added it as a gloss for the English your, but あなたの is basically just あなた + , and is not listed in any Japanese single-language dictionary as it fails the same sum-of-parts restriction we have here at Wiktionary.

So I guess my main question is, what part of speech would this phrase be? "Adnominal" really doesn't seem right to me. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding おまえの and 君の to this discussion, for the same reasons. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And 僕の and 彼の too. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You should delete all of those as sum-of-parts,apart from 彼の. Also 上の should be deleted for the same reason. Fugyoo 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Fugyoo. I just noticed that 彼の is listed as ano; I'd assumed it was kare no, as the use of the kanji for ano is extremely rare, and this same kanji is used for the word kare. I'll edit the 彼の page to indicate that the kanji generally isn't used, and add the rest to RFD then. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't need editing, as it's already got a usage note. But I wonder if the page should even mention the kare no pronunciation? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, based on the principle of least astonishment. I don't know if there's a policy about this kind of thing. Fugyoo 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

circle lens

Could someone add the standard template for "alternative name for"? I don't know how to do it. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 10:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


I think we're missing the sense found in coverage is excess of. (That's not the UK insurance sense we have.)​—msh210 (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what POS it is.​—msh210 (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Adjective "beyond the usual or specified amount". As in "excess baggage". SemperBlotto 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
A OneLook lawyers' glossary had "adj. additional to an amount specified under another insurance policy" <~ coverage> <~ insurance> as a subsense. It seems distinct enough in context and complementation to warrant a separate line. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


This can also be uncountable right? ---> Tooironic 08:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Right!--Brett 20:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


Why is there a picture of flowers here? ---> Tooironic 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it has two meanings, including the flowers. —Stephen (Talk) 02:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
To explain that another way: Tbot created the entry because it saw "pé-de-cabra" in the translations section of "crowbar"; Tbot also looked at pt.Wikt and noticed it had a picture. Tbot assumed that this picture illustrated the word, so it put the picture in the entry. The picture does in fact illustrate the word, but you were right to be confused, because the sense of the word which it illustrated (the flower) was missing until a moment ago when Stephen added it. :) - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

turned amber

What part of speech is 'amber' in quotations like these?

  • 2006, Jeffrey Archer, False Impression, page 270:
    They all moved safely through the first green and then the second, but when the third light turned amber Jack's taxi was the last to cross the intersection.
  • 2008, Elizabeth Amber, Raine: The Lords of Satyr, page 211:
    Ahead, a cool breeze swept the pale morning sun across a grassy meadow turned amber by morning's frost.

If it's an adjective, are we missing a traffic-light adjective sense at [[amber]]? - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like an adjective, turn can work like become and be and take an adjective rather than an adverb. Also yeah in the UK the lights turn red, red-amber, green, then from green to amber to red. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I, too, think it's an adjective.
But, should we have all the cultural meanings of all colors in all cultures and subcultures, or just in select ones or Translingual ones?
Is it the color word that has the meaning or is it the color? I don't think that "amber" has the meaning that the color amber has. I would contrast this with red light and green light. Note also that we don't have the even more conventional meanings at [[red]] and [[green]]. DCDuring TALK 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I dunno. I would call it a "yellow" light, and I'm O.K. with "amber" because that's what my driver's ed manual called it, but if someone called it "goldrenrod" or "yellow-colored" or something, I would find it weird. I might even misunderstand; for example, the big metal structure of the light is often painted yellow, and I think if I heard "yellow-colored traffic light" I would take it to refer to that. (Or, I might take it to refer to the light itself, but not as opposed to "red" or "green": "The light turned yellow-colored due to the glare from the Sun.") —RuakhTALK 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I, too, thought it was an adjective; so we're agreed and I know which POS to add the quotations to. :) DCDuring also figured out the second part of my question: we have the sense "the intermediate light in a set of three traffic lights" in the noun section, should we also have that sense in the adjective section? I did check [[red]] and [[green]] and note the absence of traffic-senses in the adjective sections there. So, I will add both quotations to the general adjective sense. (Ruakh, I can't tell if you're arguing for a distinct traffic sense of the adjective amber.) - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was arguing that we should list (a) specific-to-traffic sense(s) for "amber"; or rather, I was arguing against DCDuring's suggestion that maybe we shouldn't. His suggestion was not specific to the adjective, so mine wasn't, either; but since you almost-ask, I'll say that yes, I think we should list a specific-to-traffic sense in the ===Adjective=== section. Actually, if anything, it's the specific-to-traffic ===Noun=== sense that I have my doubts about. —RuakhTALK 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I greatly misinterpreted your comment, DCDuring, as arguing only against an adjective section (implicitly accepting that the noun section could cover the many meanings of the color, and arguing that the adjective section could be limited to "# of the colour of amber"). Like Ruakh, I argue for (a) traffic sense(s), and against not having one. It passes and surpasses the tennis player test, fried egg test, and/or prior knowledge test (some of which may be the same): there are many red lights in a red-light district (neon signs), but drivers are only obligated to stop for a very specific kind of them. "Amber" and "yellow" additionally pass the telephone box test. Ruakh: good point; "ambers" is used enough to require a noun sense, but it does seem to be more common as an adjective ("amber light", "turned amber"). - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The plural "ambers" seem to be sufficient evidence for the noun, in any event. And I suppose the cultural knowledge is part of the meaning of the word in "the light turned amber." I still wonder if all kinds of specialized conventional uses of color might require separate senses (heraldry, signage, fuel tanks (often red for gasoline, blue for kerosene, etc). DCDuring TALK 01:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

American as pejorative

I have frequently heard (non-American) people using "American" as a pejorative. (I suspect this probably started in Britain. e.g. "Oh, that's so American." = that's terrible) I wonder if a usage note mentioning this would be worthwhile?--Person12 02:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've heard people criticising stereotypically American things (sensational chat shows, exorbitant lawsuits, etc.), but saying "American" in a derogatory tone is rather different from giving it a brand-new sense. Have you seen it in print? Equinox 11:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Any proper noun eg White House, Kremlin, Obama, Bush, Putin, Merkel, can have a negative valence among those who don't like the referent. Use of the term Hitler, as in "He is a Hitler", is an example of a proper noun that is used as a pejorative when applied to someone other than the famous Hitler. Come to think of it, how can we say that any proper noun, when referring to its normal proper referent, is "pejorative" ? DCDuring TALK 14:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Equinox, I was thinking of adding a usage note, not a brand new sense.--Person12 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
DCDuring, I guess if enough people seem to use it pejoratively, maybe? But this one's an adjective, so maybe it's a bit different.--Person12 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I might just put the usage note in & you guys can do what you want with it :) --Person12 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
But this is a universal aspect of how one can use a word that has a real world referent. Very few words become purely pejorative as, for example, worm has, in reference to a person. If one could find actual usage examples (preferably suitable for attestation) of pejorative use, where the word "American" carried a negative meaning in a context where it was referring to something that was not "American" in another sense, then it would be much easier to see what you mean and have a discussion about possible inclusion of a sense or a usage note. It would be helpful if the quotation had a url so that context was readily accessible. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it only in the eyes of some British language pedants that "American" is pejorative. I wouldn't recognise the usage except in a very narrow context. We do have the pejorative sense at Irish, but I expect there are some countries and contexts where "British" is used pejoratively in various ways. I don't think we need to record such extensions of basic meaning unless they are very common in some specific context. Dbfirs 17:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Cambro As Insulated Food Container

The American Red Cross and Starbucks both utilize a large portable insulated coffee dispenser that they refer to as a cambro. It seems to be a term, much like Kleenex or a Xerox, that owes its origins to the company that made it. The Cambro Manufacturing Company still makes these coffee containers. The term is widely recognized by the firemen and policemen at major events where the Red Cross provides coffee, and Starbucks employees lends out its cambros to local organizations and readily requests that the cambros be returned on time. Does anyone think that the world is ready to have cambro in the Wiktionary? Pnoble805

I can see a certain amount of generic usage, so I am adding an entry at cambro. Equinox 09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


I think this can be a preposition, can't it? I would usually say something was "adjacent to" something else, but I regularly see phrases like "an oil supply pipe entering said tank and terminating adjacent the bottom thereof". Our entry does not cover this at present. Equinox 11:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly a preposition. It doesn't require a predicand like an adjective would. For example, you can say adjacent (to) the shop there's a parking lot, but you couldn't say happy, there was a boy. Of course, this becomes problematic if you reject intransitive prepositions, but here adjacent seems to have a transitive use that isn't captured in most dictionaries, so it seems clear. Here's an example from 1800: The consequence was the same malignancy of disease among many families adjacent the pond and along Back street as in other parts of the town. TREATISE ON THE NATURE ORIGIN and PROGRESS OF THE YELLOW FEVER WITH OBSERFATIONS ON ITS TREATMENT COMPRISING: An Account of tfte Disease IN SEVERAL OF THE CAPITALS OF THE UNITED STATES But more particularly as it has prevailed in BOSTON by SAMUEL BROWN mb --Brett 14:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the CGEL lists, on p. 610, other cases of overlap or conversion, but again Wiktionary doesn't recognize intransitive prepositions, so many of these will be out: consequent (on), contrary (to), contrary (to), effective, exclusive (of), irrespective (of), preliminary (to), preparatory (to), previous (to), prior (to), pursuant (of), regardless (of), and subsequent (to).--Brett 14:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Is adjacent#Preposition instead of adjacent to#Preposition more common in the UK (Boston in the 1800 still being culturally part of the UK)? Is the same true for dropping the classical prepositions after all the other terms mentioned ("effective" being unlike the others in this regard in the US). DCDuring TALK 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the data to answer that. You could look at the Google books corpus, but most of the hits for adjacent the are spurious, so it would take a lot of man hours.--Brett 17:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't answer that either, and am writing merely to note that it reminds me of immediately.​—msh210 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I can say that in 20 years living in the UK, I have never heard anyone use "adjacent" without it being followed by "to"; the only examples I've seen are in written American English. If anyone did say it like that here, it would sound very strange indeed. BigDom (tc) 22:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've lived in the UK for about 30 years and never heard "adjacent X" spoken — only "adjacent to X". But I have read it a lot, hence my starting this discussion. I would have guessed it was an Americanism. Equinox 22:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting merge of San FranSan Francisco

They are pretty much the same and should be merged. An editor since 8.28.2011. 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Wrong section, sorry about that.

Good for you, good for them etc

"Good for X", as an expression of congratulations, can also occur with third-persons pronouns or nouns ("Good for Obama for resisting black caucus") [4] so maybe something should be put in place at good for. Fugyoo 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think including such a thing as an entry is good for Wiktionary, except as part of a phrasebook (if we had one worth the name). DCDuring TALK 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Or rename to "good for someone"... --The Evil IP address 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Or to "good for someone or something (where something need not be a concrete thing)". How about "sucks for someone"? Many words are used in various elliptical constructions in normal speech. They are transparent in meaning given the meaning of the components. That some are used much more than others is justification for their inclusion in a phrasebook, not a lexicon. As long as we operate without any criteria for inclusion designed to accommodate such phrases, we shouldn't have them. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


I hope I'm not an idiot but this "English" word is defined in terms of Latin inflections. Can we do better? Equinox 21:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely, never encountered it, but I suppose it means "look at". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have improved the definition. However, when I looked for a quotation to add to the entry to show use, I couldn't find one... a RFV may be in order. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


This edit was reverted by SemperBlotto. Though the second definition added was clearly a duplicate, the first one isn't. But, can we just rework all of these definitions? A drier can be a substance, or a person or a machine. For example our tumble drier is just referred to as a drier. Though I've never called a hairdrier a drier before, I suppose other people do. How do we decide how to divide up these definitions. It seems at least possible to unite these under one definition, but probably not that benefial, I might go for:

  1. Machine or tool which dries.
  2. Subtance which dries.
  3. Person who dries.

Thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO we should just say "one who or that which dries", unless and until there is a sense of the word that is hugely common and accepted for some specific sense. Something like hair-drier is probably worth a separate line because people would talk about being unable to find a "drier" etc. Equinox 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I an paper-making plant or almost any material-processing operation there will be a piece of equipment called a "dryer" or "drier". [[dryer#Noun]] seems to handle it adequately, but perhaps hair dryer and clothes dryer, could be included as "especiallies". Which is the more common spelling in the UK, Canada, etc? "Dryers" seems about 20 times more common than "driers" in current US newspapers. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Citations:drier has a citation which doesn't fit any of my above definitions, "The sun and air are good enough driers." The sun isn't a machine, tool, substance or person. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You're in pretty good company. MWOnline doesn't have a suitably worded sense either. Perhaps all such words need the generic sense from the component morphemes (ie SoP), ie, "That which dries", in addition to more specific definitions.
MWOnline also has a specific sense for chemical driers that do not remove water, but accelerate the hardening of liquid coatings, such as non-water-soluble paints, varnishes, etc. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If we do have a single general sense, how about "someone or something that dries; especially an appliance such as a tumble drier or hair drier", like at [[washer]]? Usage examples should highlight that it can mean machines, substances, and people; and chemical driers "which harden or solidify a liquid without removing its water content" still need to be separate; but the general sense would account for the sun being a drier. I would prefer "person who dries" be a separate sense, though, like at [[washer]]. Separate issue: our entries for drier and dryer are kind of disconnected. What do you think of moving all the senses to one spelling, making the other an {{alternative spelling of}}, and explaining in the usage notes which spelling is more common for each sense? If there is also a UK/US difference, it could be tagged as usual (ie # {{US}} {{alternative spelling of|}}) and explained in the usage note. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
At BNC "dryers" is twice as common as "driers". At COCA "dryers" is about thirteen times as common as "driers". This, together with the newspaper evidence ("dryer" five times as common as "driers" in UK newspapers), makes "dryer" seem to be the best main entry for the noun. Results for Canada, NZ, Australia, India newspapers lie between US and UK, closer to UK. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

yellow-red card?

I was wondering if there's a word like "yellow-red card" in English? In the German football terminology, if someone is booked in the game and later gets a second yellow, they get a "yellow-red card", contrary to the red card. I haven't found a similar word in English; is there such a word so that I could create the German translation for it? --The Evil IP address 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not just create an entry for the German word and define it? Not every word in every language has a single-word English gloss. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I've seen, a second yellow card is briefly shown and then followed by the red card. I have never heard of a word such as "yellow-red card". SemperBlotto 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with soccer, but if book as used above means "To penalise (someone) for an offense" and is used often in sports, then the context tag on that definition should mention not only law enforcement but also sports.​—msh210 (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you'd need a separate definition for it, 'penalize' doesn't seem accurate enough to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
book#Verb, I've aligned the definition with booking#Noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done at gelb-rote Karte. --The Evil IP address 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When is next Wednesday?

Is this correct? (from the current definition of next):

  • if today is Wednesday, "next Wednesday" is 7 days away
  • if today is Thursday, "next Wednesday" is 6 days away
  • if today is Friday, "next Wednesday" is 5 days away
  • if today is Saturday, "next Wednesday" is 4 days away
  • if today is Sunday, "next Wednesday" is 10 days away
  • if today is Monday, "next Wednesday" is 9 days away
  • if today is Tuesday, "next Wednesday" is 8 days away

Also, how does "this Wednesday" relate to "next Wednesday"? Can they be the same? And how about "this coming Wednesday"? Fugyoo 09:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The ones greater than 7 days in the future are ambiguous and always need checking with a human being. You will also hear "Wednesday week" - meaning the Wednesday following the next one. (In the case of when things being repaired will be ready - it always seems to be "next Tuesday" (but perhaps that's just my personal experience!) SemperBlotto 09:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would never use "next" as suggested in our definition, though I might say "Wednesday of next week". Is our definition accurate for majority usage? I suggest that we label it "rare", but perhaps is is common in some areas? Personally, I would always resolve the ambiguity by using "this Wednesday" or "Wednesday week" as suggested by SB. Dbfirs 10:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"This Wednesday", "next Wednesday", and "this coming Wednesday" can indeed be the same. "This Wednesday" and "this coming Wednesday" are unambiguous; "next Wednesday" is ambiguous and I probably would not use it unless "next Wednesday" were at least five days away. But if "next Wednesday" is between five and eight days away and in the following week (rather than the current one), I am happy to use it. I would say that "this Wednesday" requires that it be in the current week. If today is Thursday or Friday, then I would use "this coming Wednesday", since it is in a different week. But if today is Thursday or Friday, then I would probably say "next Wednesday". —Stephen (Talk) 12:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


An anon created this as an English given name, with a suspect etymology. I cannot find trace of any modern person with the given name in any language; once as a surname (Catherine Deovix from Canada; could be a typo for Deovic). Also brand name type use. The b.g.c. hits give the impression it might be Latin, the name of a historical person, whether a given name or something else I don't know. Do the Latinists here know any better?--Makaokalani 15:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The person who added it has an IP number in the Philippines; a "Deovix Espino" on Facebook writes in Filipino on his wall (where a "wall" is a sort of message board on Facebook). I can't find any other modern use, either, but there is old use as a given name. My move (of the page) was perhaps a bit hasty.​—msh210 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

wheel sip

Do you know what wheel sip, wheel sip monitor mean? Is there a missing sense in sip? Lmaltier 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, it's probably a typo for wheel slip. Lmaltier 17:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost certainly it would be, but surprises also abound. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)