Wiktionary:Tea room/2013/February

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 ← January 2013 · February 2013 · March 2013 → · (current)

February 2013

Exam question

I need help with a Proficiency Use of English question, I can't figure it out and feel dumb!:

Whether you come or don't come is up to you

You .............suit...............or not.

--Taker (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Sometimes these exam boards can also make mistakes. The answer is "You can suit yourself" But the "or not" bit doesn't really go like that tagged to the end, in my opinion. (Always assuming there isn't a better answer that I haven't thought of!). Still, it's an exam question, so the exam board knows best (as always). -- ALGRIF talk 11:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing with single words filling in the blanks at COCA or BNC, either. "you can suit yourself or not" cannot be found at Google Books, Google News, or even a Web search. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The given answer was in fact "you can suit yourself whether you come or not". --Taker (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    Intriguing! That sentence doesn't seem very felicitous / fluent to me, though one of the six(!) Google hits for it is the Chambers book the exam appears to have copied it from. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    I wouldn't have gotten that one. I think a little less of Chambers for it.
It seems archaic to me, as is more or less supported by Google Books, which finds it mostly in 19th century works. A comma after yourself makes it seem a bit better. Many of the more current hits in my Google Books search found a full stop/period after yourself and a full sentence begun with Whether. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
But "Whether you come or not" isn't a complete sentence. —Angr 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that one would be more likely to find "You can suit yourself. Whether you come or not won't make any difference." or something similar than the purported correct answer. The point is that punctuation in most modern usage, whether a period or a comma or a dash, marks the whether clause as something other than the grammatical complement of suit yourself, whereas the "correct" answer says that a whether clause can be such a complement. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The idiom "you can suit yourself whether you [verb] or not" is a British English idiom as a single sentence, though I'm not sure whether I would tag it colloquial or dated. You can suit yourself whether you believe me or not! The exam board was presumably testing whether or not you had met the idiom before. Dbfirs 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

About phrases

The following idioms are they all exist ? If yes, are they strictly synonyms ? Which one, from the three choice, is the more common one ? Shall I create all this entry ? Did you use an other instead of phrase in grammar (idiom, expression, ... ?)

Thank you for your attention. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 20:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same. With some of them, actually, I'm not sure what they're supposed to mean, but to take a very clear-cut case . . . a "verb phrase" consists of a verb and all of its complements and modifiers and so on, e.g. "began migrating to the cities in droves", whereas a "phrasal verb" is a verb plus a particle, e.g. "to give away". The former is a syntactic construct, forming part of the parse tree of a sentence, whereas the latter is a semantic construct, carrying the meaning of the action. And most of those entries should not exist IMHO. —RuakhTALK 20:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I add other questions during your answer. Thank you for this explanation, because I'm quite blocked to translate the French word locution, you didn't seem really use in your language to qualify and classify idioms. e.g. : In French "train fantôme" is a "locution nominale" we use it in fr.wikt to classify word but here you seems omitted this precision, so I wonder why. It's a volontary choice to omit it or it's because you don't have specific terms to qualify that things ? V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 20:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, we categorize phrasal parts of speech the same as regular parts of speech, because they behave the same as parts of speech made out of a single word (although in some languages the order and placement of the individual words may change). From a lexical point of view, give up doesn't differ from give, both are just verbs. —CodeCat 21:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Understood thank you. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Many English phrases behave in ways that are importantly not like any particular word class, being subject perhaps to multiple inflections Category:English predicates, the insertion of a variety of optional modifiers, or perhaps being non-constituents. In those cases we sometimes simply call it a phrase. Note that many items in Category:English phrases don't belong in a dictionary, but rather in a phrasebook, which has been a troublesome area for us. Note also that we have 'Prepositional phrase' as an L3 header for English terms because almost all prepositional phrases can function as either adjective or adverb. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations:make the going

Is make the going an idiom?

I was not familiar with it when I stumbled across it. I am familiar with the common construction [make] the going ADJECTIVE PHRASE. The expression in question seems to mean something like get/keep the ball rolling. Both initiation and continuing sustenance seem to be involved. DCDuring TALK 14:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be UK. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, not particularly common in the UK, but understood to mean "forge ahead", "lead", or something similar as you suggest. Dbfirs 14:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

About reading regnal names

How do you read kings' names like Robert II, Leo V in English? Do you say "Leo fifth" or "Leo the fifth"? What if the king has a by-name, such as w:Leo V the Armenian. Do you say "Leo the fifth the Armenian"? --Vahag (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, you say "Leo the Fifth" (at least in British English). Ƿidsiþ 10:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • And American.​—msh210 (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
      • But what if the king has a by-name? Do you say "the" twice, e.g. William the First the Conqueror? --Vahag (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes indeed, although in conversational English people tend to pick one or the other. Ƿidsiþ 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the reason that we need to add regnal names to the wiki. George V is "George the fifth" in English, but "George cinque" in French (for example). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • What's fun is reading these names in German, because you have to get the case of the article right even though the article isn't written. No problem for native speakers, but we foreigners have to stop and think when we see something like "in den Zeiten von Georg V" (i.e. "von Georg dem Fünften") or "ein Brief an Heinrich VIII" (i.e. "an Heinrich den Achten") or "die Schuhe Johannes' XXIII" (i.e. "die Schuhe Johannes' des dreiundzwanzigsten"). —Angr 13:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The reading of regnal names follows consistent rules- we wouldn't need an entry for Bleerg XLVII to know how to read it. As for differences between languages, 2.745 is quite different in French and English, but I hope we never add entries for such numbers- especially not in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is star an adjective?

As you know, there's a hilariously large dispute on Wikipedia over the title of the film which I shall render in all lowercase and with no punctuation as "star trek into darkness". Among the few interesting things to come out of this dispute is the claim that, in the title, star is an adjective, trek is a verb, and trek into darkness is a noun phrase. The second and third notions are obviously erroneous and contradictory (and the second notion is furthermore incompatible with the first outside journalese), but the first is backed up by a few other dictionaries. However, those other dictionaries' examples of ‘adjectival’ star are of the form "star reporter", exactly the sort of thing we consider a noun+noun compound: [[star]] gives "star pupil" as an example of the noun sense "exceptionally talented person", which I've just expanded to "exceptionally talented or famous person". I'm curious: can anyone find uses of star as an actual adjective? See Wiktionary:English adjectives for some tests of adjectivity. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wiktionary parlance, I'm fairly sure that would be a case for {{attributive}}, no matter the analysis. Circeus (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It is the American dictionaries (MWOnline, RHU, and AHD) that each have two senses of star shown as adjectives. The two senses of star as adjective at MWOnline do not include one suitable for the title, of course. Their adjective sense do not include all the noun senses which are found in attributive use of star, so one is left to wonder whether they have found some true adjective uses or just include those two senses as adjectives to avoid the naive claim of incompleteness for not having them. I am not familiar with any use of star that would meet our syntax-based criteria for inclusion as an adjective. I looked at 300 bgc hits for "more|very|too star" and found none that showed star being used as a true adjective.
OTOH, I could imagine such use and would not be shocked to find it, at least not in fairly small numbers, especially in a sense related to sports and entertainment.
I hope that a sensible analysis of the title phrase prevailed. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Can I get a usex or citation of the second sense, please? That would be "employing a single and separate character to represent each sound". I don't want to formally RFV it (unless the rest of you haven't heard of it, either), but I can't offhand think of how it'd be used. Maybe I'm having a blonde moment... - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t heard it, but it sounds like it could be “Esperanto’s orthography is homographic.” — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Why do we call this Latin? It is not verified as Latin and we seem to be as dismissive of botanical Latin as we are of legal and medical Latin. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  • What would you suggest as an alternative? Note:- the neuter form exists, but I haven't checked all the other inflected forms. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are letters from the Pope durably archived? This definitely is and is definitely Latin. I notice, however, that those are both capitalized Philippinensis. —Angr 16:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
@SB: As always, the alternative, at least in lower case, is Translingual.
@Angr: I assumed that the Vatican would have had some writings using the capitalized form for this term and for many other names connected with countries, provinces, cities that were the seat of dioceses, possibly even toponyms in parish names or for places in which parishes are located.
The Vatican archives would be a rich source of usage for many Medieval/Ecclesiastic and New Latin terms, with significant overlap with components of taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it really isn't too hard to find running Latin text by doing search for all three genders in nominative, accusative and genitive co-occurring with common Latin words not common in texts in other languages, like "ut|hic|haec|hoc|ille|nunc|sed". Does anyone have any suggestions for search besides these? DCDuring TALK 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Could we agree that when there exists a Latin term attested in botanical phrases/names which is identical to a Latin term attested outside botanical phrases/name except that one or the other starts with a capital letter, we'll make the botanical term an {{alternative form of}} the non-botanical term? In this case that would mean soft-redirecting philippinensis to Philippinensis. A standard usage note or context template could be added to the botanical forms so redirected. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
To clarify: that is relevant only for specific epithets, whether botanical or zoological, which are always lower case, but which can be otherwise spelled the same as a Latin proper noun or adjective conventionally written with an initial capital. It may be tedious to confirm that the Latin term exists, so, if there is not yet an entry for the Latin term, the Translingual term can be the main entry, pending the creation of the Latin entry. If there should be a list of taxonomic names using the specific epithet, then should the Latin be burdened with the list or would that justify a Translingual entry? If the word has a distinct meaning as it used in taxonomic names, that would also seem to justify a Translingual L2 section.
Somewhat relatedly, genus names (initial upper case) are often used as specific epithets (lower case). I have not made separate entries for these. In principle, both of these seem like WT:BP or WT:AMUL matters. Are they? DCDuring TALK 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

letzte / letzter (German)

We have letzte as an inflected from of letzter, but the German Wiktionary has it the other way round. Which is correct? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We normally put the lemma at the masculine nominative singular, our own entries fit that. —CodeCat 09:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This is less about the gender and more about the question of grammatically weak and strong adjectives. Both letzte and letzter are masculine, but letzte is weak. I recall a discussion about seven years ago where we initially decided to place a preference on the weak German forms, as in Dritte Reich (weak), but this was soon changed to strong by the majority non-German-speakers (because "strong" was thought to be a superior physical quality to "weak"), so now we have Drittes Reich (strong) as the lemma. Of course, grammatically speaking, strong is not a particular superior quality, but there you have it. —Stephen (Talk) 11:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it has anything to do with superior quality, but in the way the adjectives are used. The weak inflection is used with a definite article, so I suppose if a word is usually used with a definite article (like Dritte Reich and most superlatives) then it makes sense to include it that way. —CodeCat 11:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Precisely because weak forms are only used with determiners before them we should prefer strong forms for our lemmas. It just looks really strange - downright wrong even - to see Dritte Reich as an entry without a das before it. (Note how German Wikipedia, for example, has its article at w:de:Drittes Reich.) Likewise when I see letzte without a determiner before it, I don't think "German word for 'last'", I think "feminine singular or all-gender plural of letzter". I'm not a native speaker, though. —Angr 12:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Angr, it should be Drittes Reich. Dritte Reich is simply wrong. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
And the lemma form of letzte(r)? Usually the lemma form of adjectives is the predicative form, but some German adjectives are only used attributively, such as superlatives and ordinals, and substantivized adjectives. We should come to some sort of agreement about what lemma form to use for them. I support the masculine singular weakstrong form (the -er form). —Angr 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean the "masculine singular strong form (the -er form)"? That's my preference as well: letzter... though I note the DWDS lemmatises letzt (while the Duden, like de.Wikt, lemmatises letzte). Ditto for vierte(r) and the other ordinals (I would lemmatise vierter, like the DWDS, and unlike the Duden or de.Wikt which lemmatise vierte). - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Does letzt ever occur as an adjective, or only as an adverb? Judging from the table, it's not a form of the adjective itself, since it has no separate predicative form. —CodeCat 19:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the strong form of course; now corrected. I don't think letzt without an ending can ever be an adjective. If you want to say "last" predicatively you have to substantivize it to "der letzte/die letzte/das letzte". —Angr 19:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It's my understanding that predicative/uninflected use of the adjective letzt was possible several hundred years ago, though it isn't possible anymore. I don't think we should lemmatise letzt even if it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
In case you were wondering, I arrived here because I wanted to add letztem and letztes - but didn't know which base word to use. (Feel free to add them yourself) SemperBlotto (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer the strong form as lema too. Thats the form, which can be used without article. As pointed out above 'letzte' without 'der' sounds wrong. Otherwise, if we decided to lemarize the weak form, the headline should read 'der letzte'. It's also better to have the lema compatible with de.wiktionary for the sake of interwiki links. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Just my two cents. My preference is to use strong forms as lemma.
  1. Strong forms make the gender more obvious (feminine and plural coinciding) - neuer Tag, neue Mode, junges Mädchen, neue Bücher.
  2. Strong forms can often be used without anything (articles, pronouns, etc.) in front, especially as titles (Neues Deutschland - a former GDR newspaper, now a socialist newspaper in Germany).
  3. Showing weak forms with definite articles (der letzte, die letzte, das letzte) is not always the best option as the article could be replaced with other words (e.g. dieser letzte, jener letzte, etc.) or there could be something between the article and the adjective - die junge deutsche Frau.
--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I have edited Deutscher a while ago to demonstrate some usage of nominalised adjective where -er is not the same -er in "true nouns" Lehrer, Schüler, etc. The actual ending will depend on the case and what precedes the word, so "der Deutsche" is the definite form of "(ein) Deutscher". Deutsche should then also say that it's not only "female German" but a weak form of Deutscher as in the example before and a weak form of "die Deutschen" - Germans (plural). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That is kind of curious. Dutch has the same ending in Duitser but Dutch has no -er as a case ending (as there are no cases!). It's not an adjective ending etymologically, either; it descends from Germanic *warjaz. —CodeCat 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I know it may be confusing, especially when many nationalities in German are "true nouns" - der/ein Japaner, die/eine Japanerin. Same with Holländer/Holländerin. There are a lot of German nominalised/substantivised nouns as well (Arbeitspflichtiger is another example) and care should be taken by editors not familiar with the German grammar when determining the gender, case and lemma forms for such nouns. Großer Bär may appear as (der) Große Bär in a running text, which doesn't make Bär feminine. This type of nouns should have inflection tables, IMHO. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Most of these have predictable meanings, though. An Arbeitspflichtiger is someone who is arbeitspflichtig... it's really just arbeitspflichtiger Mann with Mann left out, so the adjective assumes the role of the noun. Most languages have such nouns, although English for some reason considers them collective/plural nouns. —CodeCat 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and "ein Deutscher" is "ein deutscher Mann" with Mann left out, someone who is deutsch. So is the Russian русский (мужчина, человек) - both noun and adjective. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So it's consensus to use the masculine (strong) form as a lemma form for non-predicatively used adjectives (e.g. letzter)? (Another option would be to use the neutral letztes, but I don't really have a strong opinion about it. I do have a very strong opinion about Drittes Reich and Großer Bär to be the correct lemma form (Dritte Reich and the like is utter nonsense). As for nominalized adjectives, such as Deutscher (meaning the people) and Arbeitspflichtiger, I agree to use the strong forms, so the lemma form of the word for a male German would be Deutscher, for a female German Deutsche, and the plural form of both should also be included at Deutsche rather than at Deutschen (because this is the weak form that's only used with the definite article). The problem about those nominalized adjectives is that there isn't the genitive form we can put in the headword template. I agree with Atitarev in that we need inflection tables for those. Longtrend (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Do nominalized adjectives inflect any differently from the adjectives themselves (other than the capital letter)? Like, do they have predicate forms, mixed and weak forms? If so, then we could probably just re-use the adjective templates. —CodeCat 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The only difference is that the nominalized adjectives generally only have one gender (or two if they refer to human beings), not all three. So a man can be an Arbeitspflichtiger and a woman can be an Arbeitspflichtige, but no one is an Arbeitspflichtiges. I'm actually having trouble thinking of a nominalized adjective that doesn't refer to a human being, but there are probably some. —Angr 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
There are some: Und das Gesagte ist das Folgende: „hier schläft man sich gesund.“ (2004, Claudia Wipprecht, Zu: Gottfried Benns “Mann und Frau gehen durch die Krebsbaracke”, page 12) Some adjectives, like rot and blau and gedacht, can even be substantivised in reference to males, females and things. As you say, though, it's common for them to refer only to men and women, or only to things, not to all three. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was trying to think of nominalized adjectives with at least somewhat idiomatic meanings as nouns, like Arbeitspflichtiger or Abgeordneter have. Obviously any adjective with a meaning that can be applied to humans and nonhumans alike can be nominalized to mean "the (X) one". —Angr 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with the declension table at letzter. The first row shows predicative uses which don't exist. (Only the nominalized forms can be used in this position: Er ist Letzter = "He ist the last one". But not: *Es ist Letztes = "It is the last one".) Could someone modify the template so it allows to hide the predicative row? Longtrend (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. {{de-decl-adj-notcomp-nopred}} suppresses the predicative; lemma= sets the lemma (when it is different from the endingless stem). - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just create {{de-decl-adj-sup}}? —CodeCat 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
How would you say that in German then? In Dutch, you say "Hij is de/het laatste", with a definite article. The difference in the articles is a matter of part of speech: "het laatste" makes it an adverb, while "de laatste" makes it a nominalized adjective. —CodeCat 19:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
How would you say what? "It is the last one"? You would use the definite article here, too: Es ist das Letzte. As for "he is the last one", Er ist der Letzte and Er ist Letzter roughly mean the same. Er ist das Letzte (the literal equivalent of Hij is het laatste?) does work, too, though it has an idiomatic meaning ("he is an idiot") and thus doesn't work with other nominalized adjectives. // @-sche: Thanks for fixing! I didn't know such a template already existed... Longtrend (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

6 digit

Someone with 7 digits in their bank account is a millionaire. What is someone with six digits in their bank account called? Pass a Method (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not heard of a "proper" word for this, but hundred-thousandaire has been used on many Web pages. Equinox 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that millionaires don't keep the money in a simple bank account. Not with today's negligible interest rates. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

assigned female at birth

  1. What is the grammar of the phrase google:"assigned (female|male) at birth"? In particular, what POS is "female" in it? Is it an adverb, or an adjective in an ellipsis of "assigned to the female gender/sex", or perhaps a noun meaning "the feminine gender/sex" (a sense our entry lacks, as it only lists "an individual of the feminine gender/sex")?
  2. What POS is "female" in google:"(female|male)-assigned at birth"? "Persons who were female-assigned at birth" seems grammatically analogous to "walls which were paint-covered at the start" or "frogs which were yellowish-coloured at birth", suggesting "female" could in that phrase be a noun (with what definition?) or an adjective and/or part of a compound adjective.
  3. Is "assigned female at birth" (or just "assigned female"?) idiomatic? IMO, "female-assigned" exists in a grey area between "not a single word" and "obviously a single word" and is idiomatic; would anyone like to disabuse me of that notion before I create an entry for it? - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"Assigned female at birth" sounds SoP to me, though I agree the grammar is a bit odd (could a fungus be "assigned vegetable")? But there are plenty of similar constructs like gender assignment and you can easily find variations like misassigned female at birth, or simply assigned female without the birth bit being mentioned. Equinox 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the grammar is that "female" is a normal adjective, as usual, but that "assign" is taking an adjective complement, which it usually doesn't. That is, I think this is the same grammar as in "declared female", "deemed female", and so on. (And I don't think that "female-assigned" is using the same grammar as "yellowish-coloured", since the latter is "{yellowish-colour}ed", i.e. "having a yellowish colour", whereas I'm reasonably confident that "female-assigned" does not mean "having a female assign".) And yeah, wow, this construction sounds really bizarre to me. I don't remember ever encountering it before. —RuakhTALK 06:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternative analyses are that female is a nominal, possibly a fused-head construction "female (gender)" or possibly to be read as "female" rather than female. Any term is potentially nominalizable when is used as a name for a status or category, analogous to use as a title for a work. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ruakh, I would consider assign a copulative verb in this phrase, similar to deep, consider or even be. —CodeCat 14:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
"File it under female". "File it as female". "Categorize her as female". They all seem nominal to me. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I've created female-assigned and male-assigned; I didn't read anyone's comments as opposing such a move, but it won't hurt my feelings if they're RFDed. Regarding "'yellowish-coloured' [] is '{yellowish-colour}ed', i.e. 'having a yellowish colour', whereas I'm reasonably confident that 'female-assigned' does not mean 'having a female assign'": I read "yellowish-coloured" not as "{yellowish-colour}ed" but as "{yellowish}-{coloured}", i.e. "coloured. coloured what colour? coloured yellowish (colour)", so "female-assigned" could be "assigned. assigned what? assigned female (qualities)". "Female-assigned" nevertheless seems entry-worthy to me, because even if one parses its bizarre grammar in that way or in another way, it seems idiomatic that it refers specifically to being biologically female. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. Consider intersex people, they are assigned male or female depending on what they look like from the outside (at least, usually), even if the inner organs differ. -- Liliana 23:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, so do you think the entries are SOP? - -sche (discuss) 07:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

think small, live small

Is "small" an adverb in phrases like "think small" and "live small"? See WT:RFV#small, and comment there to keep discussion in one place. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an adverb in "live small". In "think small" it seems to me to be more likely an adjective concerning the result, "ideas". But so "chopped small" is arguably as much about the result as the chopping as well and MWOnline and others call that sense adverbial. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
A real instance: "Green Bay one again came up small". Clearly this is about a result. Is "come up", a 'light' verb I think, a copula like seem and appear (core copulas)? Or does it seem like act or turn semantically, which appears on some lists of copulas with 'subjective complements'. Live seems very like a copula when it takes small as a complement. I have long been troubled by the question of how to present these. The label copula is not really much of a help. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Isn't the sense of "group of officers, generals, etc. in charge of issuing commands, directing a war effort, etc." (as in "high command") missing here? I don't see it in any of the senses listed in this entry. Should it be modified? --Pereru (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dutch enig, Audio file file:Nl-enig.ogg

On page enig#Dutch, the audio file


seems to say "penig" instead of "enig".

On the discussion page of enig, someone even heard "penis". So I'm not the only one to hear a "p". Or am I missing something? --MaEr (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the p you hear is just the sudden onset of the sound, which causes a pop. I do hear "enig". —CodeCat 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Through my cheap laptop speakers, I hear "penis" as well. Through a pair of good quality headphones, I hear "enig" with a strange beep in the middle. I think it's a bad quality recording, made worse by bad audio reproduction. The beep at the start, along with the pop CodeCat mentions, makes it sound like it starts with a "p", while the graininess turns the /x/-ish sound at the end into a sibilant. Smurrayinchester (talk)
Definitely sounds like "penis" to me even through decent earphones. BigDom (tc) 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I really don't hear an s there at all, I don't know why you hear it that way. I think the sound file is fairly clear. —CodeCat 00:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I hear /pinɪs/, too, when I use speakers, and /pinɪs/~/inɪs/ through headphones. I'll remove the file from the entry and put it on the talk page; if five out of six commenters hear /p~/ and four out of six hear /pinɪs/, the file is doing more harm than good. (That is, people who listen to it to learn the Dutch pronunciation of enig come away having learnt a wildly incorrect pronunciation 83-66% of the time.) - -sche (discuss) 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
But how many of you are native speakers? I am and I think it sounds ok. —CodeCat 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
How many native speakers need an audio file for pronunciation? I don't hear the "p", but I live on a very busy street, and it's rush hour- so my ear may be filtering it out along with the background noise. I think this may have something to do with categorical perception: our ear/brain divides up the spectrum of sounds differently, depending on the training it receives in learning language. An ambiguous sound would get nudged over into different categories depending on how our categories are set up. As a native speaker, your ear is trained to hearing the phonemes of your native language, so that's what you hear. I think we need a better audio file, both because it's not helpful to those who would actually need the help, and because it has mildly annoying extraneous screeches and pops in the background. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I also hear a pop, but I can see why people think it’s a /p/. Better remove it since so many people are hearing it incorrectly. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

אופן is wheel?

I've listed wheel as another meaning for אופן. It is used in this sense in e.g. אופניים (bicycle), אופנוח (recumbent, please add wovels and transliteration) and תלת אופן (tricycle), but still my English-Hebrew-English Oxford dictionary does not list this sense. I've found it only from milon.co.il searching for אופן. Can someone verify that this sense is correct, and maybe add some usage notes if it should not be used itself but only as part of other words? --Thv (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit it now but I believe the wheel sense is ofán (rather than ófen as currently listed) and appears in Ezekiel's chariot prophecy.​—msh210 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Per Even-Shoshan: אופן (way, etc.) is אופן \ אֹפֶן (ófen), whereas אופן (wheel; wheel of fate, fate; an angel of a certain type; any of the piyutím recited before a holiday morning service) is אוֹפַן (ofán). It occurs in Isaiah 28:27 and Nahum 3:2. But yeah, I definitely agree that it's not nearly as common nowadays as גַּלְגַּל (galgál), at least in everyday speech. —RuakhTALK 15:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Not any of the poems: any of several of them. (I'm pretty sure of this, even if E-S says otherwise.)​—msh210 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I wrote that comment in some haste (I had only a minute or two before having to leave for work), and didn't read the defs as carefully as I should have. So, two corrections: (1) the sense that I gave as “wheel of fate, fate” is actually galgál hamazalót, [uv'hash'alá] kinúi lagorál “Zodiac, [and by extension] a term for fate”; and (2) the piyutím sense is actually kinúi lapiyutím hane'emarím bit'filát shakharít bakhagím lif'néi t'filát “v'ha'ofaním v'khayót hakódesh”, “a term for the piyutím said in the holiday morning service before the prayer ‘And the Wheels and the Holy Living Creatures’” (???). —RuakhTALK 08:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Re "???": yes, precisely, except that "v'haofaním v'chayót hakódesh" is probably better translated as "and the ofanim and the holy chayot": types of angels. The poem added to the morning service before "v'haofaním v'chayót hakódesh" is called an ofán; the one at "en elohím zulat'chá" is a zulát; and so on: they are named after where they're stuck into the prayers.​—msh210 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

German Nominalization

Many German Nominalizations are missing cause there is no uniform tag for nominalized forms (often there is reference in etymology). I looked in Category:Form of templates and there is no entry for that kind.

  • The Nominalization of German verbs is often used in combination with prepositions (beim Sprechen) but right now only a few entries do exist (e.g. Laufen)

And maybe the Nominalizations could talk part in the declension and conjugation tables in a new section.

Greetings --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a new form-of-template for nominalizations: Template:nominalization of --Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

on Carryl's wordplay

Good morning. Would be grateful to someone deigning to enlighten me on the meaning of the last part of this verse:

There should be some wordplay involved, but I can't twig it. I cannot understand the possible pun in the last line, " The public bar-lamb’s worst!". D'oh. (0:

--CopperKettle (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The obvious candidate would be public parlance, but I don't really see the point to it. Maybe it would have made more sense in the usage of the day. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's meant to sound like baa-lamb, which for some reason we don't have an entry for, but I don't really get the pun to be honest. BigDom (tc) 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've run across a couple of passages in Google Books searches that seem to show "Bar lambs" as a nickname during that period for barristers- a play on baa and Bar. If true, that would make a whole lot of sense, since poking fun at lawyers has been a favorite pastime for centuries. Another, less plausible, possibility is the "Baa-Lamb School", a derisive nickname given to some poets associated with w:Charles Lamb. I haven't checked whether the time periods match up, but it doesn't ring true, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that'll be it. Just found these: "She had tried to win her father's attention and affection by writing A Bar Lamb's Ballad about his world of law"; and (another joke) "When George Lamb left the Bar to attend to his duties in the House of Commons, Poole remarked that he had ceased to be a Bar-Lamb, and had become a House-Lamb". Equinox 03:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've found enough cites (here, here and here) to justify creating the entry for bar-lamb (though hyphenation is a problem). I also found cites for a second sense (here, here, and here), but maybe they should go in a bar lamb entry. I also added a baa-lamb entry, including a sense referring to submissive men that was used by w:P.G.Wodehouse. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What, by the way, is house lamb? I know I've seen it in Dickens. Might be a tender hay-fed lamb. Equinox 15:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
From the OED, house lamb is "A lamb which, in order to ensure a tender meat, is reared in a building, typically fed on its mother's milk without being allowed out to graze, and slaughtered at between 6 and 10 weeks of age, traditionally in time for Christmas" or the meat of such a lamb. BigDom (tc) 16:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)"Then they let a Lamb go with its Ewe abroad grazing for a Month together at the End of which Time a Farmer would take such a Lamb into the House and suckle it as a House Lamb" [1]. It seems to be the counterpart of milk-fed veal- commercial production involved narrow pens under a roof that restricted movement in the same way as the crates that have been used in veal raising. It reminds me of the Han character for house, , which shows a pig under a roof. The pig part is apparently phonetic rather than semantic, but you can find references that claim otherwise. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been staring at it for ages and can't work it out. parlance doesn't work grammatically ("the public parlance worst"). Since the rest of the poem is hinting at the serving of lamb (with capers and sauce), perhaps it's just saying that the quality of meat served in bars tends to be awful? Equinox 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe at the time, the possessive clitic 's was still assimulated to other words ending in an s-sound, so that it is really public parlance' worst? —CodeCat 02:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Wow, great job, thanks everybody! --CopperKettle (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Since supercede is marked as a misspelling, shouldn't superceded be so marked also? SpinningSpark 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. If a misspelling is also a headword, we generally don't mark its inflected forms as misspellings. After all, if superceded is a form of supercede and supercede is a misspelling, then that implies that all of its forms are misspellings, including superceded. —CodeCat 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I added a note. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


The pronuncuation looks a bit off to me, at least compared to the spelling. Should it have u instead of y? —CodeCat 20:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

French Wiktionary has /byl do.zœʁ/ for bouldozeur but "/byl.do.zɛʁ/ ou /bul.do.zœʁ/" for bulldozer. Siuenti (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure I just copied the pronunciation from the French entry bulldozer. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I've boldly added the "u" form, which is consistent with the spelling, but left the "y" version as an alternative. Siuenti (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Anyone know what a "spiffle" is? Gagul’s inclusion in Category:wyi:Anatomy implies it's a body part (though the term for teardrop had also been included in that category...perhaps it's a typo for spittle?). - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it here and here as a verb. It seems to mean to quickly scan a book or document. One more confirms it IT SHOULD BE THERE IN YOUR LIFE so that in your best creative moments you can spiffle through it for materials useful to your writing. May be connected to riffle. And here seems to mean to waste. And a few a I don't really understand:
  • You see, first thing in the morning we have this spiffle- dish in the office about a high school teacher having eloped with his pupil
  • This butter-base, herb indoctrinated chowder is a spiffle unorthodox
One interjection Oh, spiffle! No body parts though. SpinningSpark 11:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Those two seem to mean "slight(ly)" 07:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
However, I believe the author has mistyped spittle. This is the definition given in Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 4 (the page linked is discussing the correct language). SpinningSpark 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Great work sussing that out! Thanks for fixing [[gagul]]. I leave it to you to create [[spiffle#Verb]], if you like. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I started to do that, but then realised that all the citations were by, or quoting, the same poet (except the ones I don't understand) so I had it speedied as a probable neoligism that hasn't caught on. SpinningSpark 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Is "(aq)", complete with parenthesis, really the chemical abbreviation for "aqueous solution", or is it the case that the abbreviation is "aq", and it is merely set apart in parentheses, which would then not belong in the pagename? (Note that prior to my edits of last March, the entry looked like this.) - -sche (discuss) 07:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I imagine that the abbreviation is just aq, but that it is often used in brackets after the name of a substance. Also, it is probably medical rather than chemical in usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • It's definitely chemical in usage (I'm currently in the third year of a chemistry degree and the abbreviation is used in chemical equations to denote the state of matter of each reagent) but I agree that the brackets aren't part of the abbreviation, they are just used to set it apart (although sometimes we just put "aq" as a subscript without brackets). Note that we also use (g) for gaseous, (l) for liquid, (s) for solid, etc. as well as (aq). BigDom (tc) 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


The definitions of tensometer and tensiometer here consider the two words to be interchangeable, is this correct? The articles at en wiki are now arranged so that w:Tensometer is exclusively an instrument for measuring tensile strength, while w:Tensiometer is now a disambiguation for one of two instruments one to measure surface tension and the second to measure the matric capacity in soil, with warnings on all pages not to confuse the three. In the related terms for tensiometer, tensiometry only refers to the measurement of surface tension.

So is it a case that tensometer and tensiometer are interchangeable with no historical differences between the two save for personal preference, or is it a case that the two words are so similar that confused usage has led to the belief that they are the same.--KTo288 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, I looked up my copy of the Concise OED and it has neither of these words but does have tensimeter.--KTo288 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
We might try to resolve this by finding three or so authors for each distinction. One might bet on tensiometer as being the best candidate to bear a distinct sense because of the extra syllable, assuming that it is pronounced, but that isn't supported by what other dictionaries say. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Although I don't think that WP is complete, it does seem to have captured the most common uses reasonably well, if my reading of the current uses in Google Books is correct. There is some older use that I can't quite connect with the current definitions. Pictures might help a bit. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
What concerns me is not the usage which I think are correct but that the wiktionary entries for both consider them to be synonyms. The usage at wikipedia at the moment do not consider them to be synonyms. Its not my field so I don't know if this is just an easy way for Wikipedia to differentiate the topics or a true reflection of real world usage.
For what its worth had a look at the OED in the local library, and the first form of the word is tensometer being described as a device to measure tensile strenght, tensiometer appears as avariant form of tensometer however the example used describes a device for measuring surface tension, not tensile strength. In other examples-the older uses you allude to?- tensiometer is used to describe an instrument to measure the deformation of a material due to temperature change; and in the context of textiles, a w:Tension meter. Personally I'm coming to the conclusion that lexicographically tensometers/tensimeter are devices that measure tension or use tension to measure regardless of the field.--KTo288 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
A standard way of measuring tensile strength is to measure strain. I believe that strain gauge/strain gauge is the same as or a correlative term of tensometer. In one class of uses, a tensimeter is used with a tensiometer (soil science sense). Also soil science is the principal, but not the only, field to measure the difference in vapor pressure using a tensiometer. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


Recently added as an apparent synonym for spiritualism (communicating with the dead), but described as a "religion". Should we just put it down as an alt form? Equinox 13:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like Spiritism. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I notice that Spiritualism is usually capitalized in the corresponding WP article. In Google Books hits (using the phrase "of spiritualism was" to filter out book titles and sentence-initial position) it's written upper case almost as often as lower case (about 40/60 I'd say eyeballing it). —Angr 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


The usage note says the spelling is Lèmbörgs, while the interwiki is called Limburgs, as does Limburgish Wikipedia, but the Limburgish Wiktionary calls it Lèmbörgsj. Something is not quite right here... —CodeCat 23:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there's no official spelling, much as in Low German Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No official spelling, indeed. And a dialect difference: the Eastern variants have an sj sound (IPA ʃ) where Western variants and Standard Dutch have s. --MaEr (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is no official uniform spelling. To get things straight:
The four most common pronunciations are: /'lembœrxʃ/ (Lèmbörgsj) - /'lembœrxs/ (Lèmbörgs) - /'lɪmbœrxʃ/ (Limbörgsj) - /'lɪmbœrxs/ (Limbörgs).
I'd say Lèmbörgs is by far the most common pronunciation, but because "è" and "i" are relatively close to eachother, and "è" is lacking in Dutch, "kitchen spellings" might use "i" for /e/.
In the Veldeke spelling, which is used on Limburgish Wikipedia and most of the interface, it was decided to spell it Limburgs or Limburgsj, because people might find the ö strange-looking (a practise called "woordbeeld": the spelling should be as close to Dutch as possible).
So, the conclusion, all three forms are correct, if they are not used in one text together :) --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Until I edited it a moment ago, this has no context tags at all. I have tentatively added {{context|in right-wing discourse|offensive}}, but I solicit others' assessments. Is "offensive" too strong a word, should it be "pejorative"? - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which sense you're referring to, but AFAIK abortionist for someone who performs abortions is not specific to right-wing discourse, pejorative, or offensive: it's simply the word for someone who performs abortions. Am I mistaken? (Or perhaps the use I describe is dated?)​—msh210 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems plausible to me that in the sense "one who performs abortion", "abortionist" used to be neutral. Nowadays, I've only ever heard it used by partisan conservatives who think abortion is murder and often but not always mix it (the term) into various kinds of vitriol. I'm willing to be shown that my experience is incomplete and that neutral use is out there, though. Partisan conservative discourse is also the only place I've seen the "one who favours abortion being legal" sense. The term I think of as neutral for the first sense is "abortion provider". All terms for the second sense have some degree of bias in one direction or another, but the closest to neutral are "pro-choice [person]" (when used, e.g. by the news media, in conjunction with "pro-life [person]", such that the "loads" balance out) and "abortion-rights advocate" (which is, however, not precisely neutral but somewhat positively-loaded). - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
As I understood it, it's about tone and speaker. A bit like the difference between when a republican talks about "socialism" and when a... Swede (?) does. Furius (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept the entry as it is now labelled without citations and I doubt that one could exclude it being used rather neutrally in current discourse, included newspapers and other media. I agree that abortion as a term in public discussion in the US is brought up mostly be those who view it as wrong and that few folks would label themselves as pro-abortion rather than using rights language. Abortionist, being a label of a person, is more likely to be used pejoratively than abortion. Outside the realm of political discourse abortion is basically neutral, though I'm not so sure about abortionist. What doctor would call himself an appendectomist? I would expect to find that someone who performs abortions uses a hypernym. Thus there may be much less neutral use of abortionist than of abortion. DCDuring TALK 14:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I've started adding citations to Citations:abortionist. The uses I detect are: (1) lots of pejorative use by partisan US conservatives for "one who performs a legal abortion", (2) some apparently neutral use to refer to "{{historical}} one who performs an illegal abortion", and (3) traces of use for "one who performs an abortion" in contexts that are apparently otherwise neutral. I am not yet satisfied that the term can, in fact, be used neutrally. My initial searches, which were simply for "abortionist", only turned up one citation of the "supporter of abortion being legal" sense; I'll try more specialized searches to find more uses of that sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
IMO if a sizable minority of cites are neutral, or if there's a sizable minority each of positive and negative cites, then that shows that the word is neutral, and any use of it by partisans is use of a neutral word (just as those partisans use the for example). And that seems to be the case.​—msh210 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced that there is a "sizeable" minority of neutral use of the "one who performs abortion" sense. Even if there is, if a majority of the use is by right-wing partisans as a pejorative, I think that makes the word {{chiefly|in right-wing discourse|pejorative}} (or {{primarily|in right-wing discourse}}, if you prefer). I haven't seen any use of the "supporter of abortion being legal" sense except by partisan conservatives, and I can't accept that neutral use of that sense exists without proof. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know what a neutral or euphemistic term for "one who performs abortions" is? If there is no such term, then abortionist would not seem any more pejorative than pickpocket or landlord. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    "abortion provider", as I wrote in my comment of 07:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC). - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    I have found that in medical literature the suffix -ist seems productive in forming neutral terms for the practitioner of a procedure. I was surprised to find appendectomist, less so to find arthroscopist. There is a mild tendency to use the terms so formed to refer pejoratively to someone who performs that procedure in cases where it is not needed. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    I think the entry as you had it is pretty accurate. I hadn't been paying much attention, but the word seems almost exclusively pejorative now. I have amended the context from "in right-wing discourse" to "in anti-abortion discourse". There might be better wording. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Surgeons don’t like being called “cutter,” “sawbones,” or “butcher,” as gynecologists don’t like being called “abortionist.” I’m not equating the terms as pejoratives, but none is an accepted name for the profession. Michael Z. 2013-02-14 23:58 z


Why is this listed as a pejorative term? Isn't this just how people who steal items from stores are referred to? Boxieman (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The "pejorative" tag was added in 2006 by William Sayers; who knows why. I agree it should go. - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed it. It is the neutral term seen on many warning signs in shops, etc. Equinox 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


I have cited an auditory sense of "to hoon", but I'm still not clear on what it means; certainly nowhere near clear enough to cite it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

behaviorwise, behaviourwise

Are these really adjectives and not adverbs? --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they're adverbs. I wonder if they're really attestable, though. —Angr 08:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


Perhaps I'm missing something, but this has left me scratching my hand head. It apparently means "-ness", but is also "not restricted to the suffix -ness"... so what does it really do, then? It is really an "abbreviation" or more of a "symbol"? This entry is very confusing and needs some attention. This, that and the other (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it means that it stands for the sequence "ness", and that sequence most commonly occurs as the suffix "-ness", but this glyph can stand for that sequence even if it occurs in e.g. the middle of the word inessive (where it even crosses a morpheme boundary). Many Braille glyphs can apparently be used in this way. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The Wikipedia article on English Braille should clarify. I had a lot of these to add, so I didn't spend much time on any one of them. kwami (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


This is clearly borrowed from Dutch, but in Dutch the spelling of the word was changed to pannenkoek in 1995. Is the old spelling still the usual spelling in English? I imagine that at least a few people will have followed the spelling change in English, too. Also, the plural does reflect the new spelling, so that seems a bit odd. —CodeCat 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that a recent spelling change causing a quick change in the English spelling would be evidence that it's not an English word at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Is this really correct? I've just checked www.etymonline.com and www.dictionary.com, and I didn't find a reference to the "urine" meaning... --Pereru (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd learned that lant was the word used to describe urine collected by the nightsoil workers, which was treated as a resource as it was used extensively in processing wool and linen, among other things. Tweed still evokes allusions to smelling of wee in literature from the early half of the 20th century, for this very reason. C.f. here or the bottom of this page, under the Scouring Wool header.
... but perhaps that doesn't speak to your purpose? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's a book on Google Books that has a section on the word, and it closely matches our entry: [2]. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's in Webster's 1913 but merely with the meaning 'urine', nothing about being aged or being used to flavor ale. What does the OED say? —Angr 08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Here's a Google Books search that turned up several sources that discuss the lanting of ale: [3]. I think a better definition would be to add or apply lant: one could lant other things besides ale. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

An anagram typo?

As I was looking up furfuraceous today, I noticed an anagram, furfurcaeous, listed at the anagrams section. Thinking it odd that two words could be so similar, I clicked on furfurcaeous and discovered it had the same meaning as furfuraceous! Is this some sort of typo that got its own entry on Wiktionary? Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a pole?

The newspapers and Internet are filled with stories about Danica Patrick winning "the pole" ([4], for example). I read three stories and none defined what the pole is. It seems to be equivalent to "the top position," but "winning the top position" doesn't quite make sense. The Wiktionary entry for pole doesn't cover this either. This article also says, "She and Gordon will each start on the pole in one of two 150-mile qualifying races on Thursday..." so it seems that "winning the pole" means "winning a position to start on the pole in the next race." So the pole seems to be an advantageous item to start on (next to?). It also seems that more than one person can start on it, but only one person can win it. Can someone who knows what the pole is add this meaning? --BB12 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow auto racing, but I believe that's the pole position, which has to do with the arrangement of the cars at the start of the race. If I remember correctly, the order at start is determined by speed in the qualifying laps ^trials. I'm sure someone else will correct me and/or elaborate. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added the sense to pole. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. That clears it up a lot. My guess is that "She and Gordon will each start on the pole in one of two 150-mile qualifying races on Thursday" means that each will have the pole position in different races. I assume there is an actual pole, or was one at one time, which should be mentioned. Also, should "on the pole" be entered an idiom, or do they literally start on a pole? --BB12 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article at w:Pole position discusses that. The particular preposition used might render "on the pole" idiomatic, but the fact that there are multiple definitions of pole shouldn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "at" or "next" to the pole seem normal, "on" seems idiomatic. Also, "win the pole" means "win the right to start on the pole" not "win the pole per se." All afternoon, I've gone back and forth as to whether that's within the normal range of understanding. Does it need to be spelled out more clearly? --BB12 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I think all the collocations follow from it being pole position. We have so many seriously defective entries that not being exhaustive seems less important to me. But, of course, we do what interests us or otherwise gives satisfaction. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Is there an English word for terrain covered with boulders? See louhikko for a pic of the kind of terrain I mean. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's technically termed a rogen moraine, although my glacial sedimentology is rather weak right now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


In Australia we often say, "you've been through the wars". It basically means the person has gone through something difficult, an ordeal. Is anyone else familiar with this slang? And how do we include it in Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Very common in the UK. I would make an entry as Adverb "through the wars" and also "in the wars" including them in Category:English prepositional phrases -- ALGRIF talk 11:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone do the honours? I'm not very confident with defining this particular idiom. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

butter becomes harder to spread

Is there a word, in any language, for what unrefrigerated butter or peanut butter does in the winter, when it "thickens" due to the cold and becomes harder to spread? Maybe "thickens" is the closest word, in English. I thought Norse had a very specific word for it, but I can't find it in my dictionaries (though I did rediscover the SOP phrase þrífornt smjǫr (butter that has been aged for three years)). - -sche (discuss) 07:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would describe it as solidifying, hardening, or turning hard. I can't think of any more specialized term for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever experienced peanut butter becoming harder to spread in the winter. As for butter, I'd just call it hardening. For molasses (do we have an entry for slow as molasses in January?) I'd just say it gets thicker or more viscous. —Angr 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it becomes unspreadable. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I would say stiffen rather than thicken. Equinox 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Butter is an emulsion of water in fat. The fat is a mixture of solid and liquid with a wide range of melting points. As it cools, different proportions of the fat phase solidify - this is what makes it more difficult to spread. So, perhaps solidify is a more precise description of what happens. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Isn't butter aged for three years rancid? DCDuring TALK 11:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's aged without exposure to air? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Googling "aged butter" has revealed that it's a Moroccan delicacy called smen. I suppose that's سمن in Arabic. "Berber farmers in southern Morocco bury a tightly sealed pot of smen on the day of a daughter's birth, unearthing it years later to flavour the couscous served on her wedding day." It's said to have "a funky, blue cheese-like flavor". —Angr 12:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
How about congeal?--KTo288 (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hm, "stiffen" is probably the best term—thanks! I'm surprise "congeal" explicitly says "change from a liquid to solid state perhaps by cold"; perhaps it works, too. - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
When there is no one word that expresses exactly what you wish to say, you can use others figuratively to do so, anyway here are some others:-[[set], aged and matured, words used to describe what happens to concrete when it goes from being a slurry to a solid, and I've just noticed that aged is used in the title of one of the hyperlinks in the smen example above.--10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
@-sche: In the everyday sense of liquid, butter is not a liquid until it is heated to above even summertime temperatures (> 35C). Liquid butter is not "spreadable" in the ordinary. Ergo, congeal would not seem to apply to butter in the original question, which implied a bar or block of butter. It applies well to the solidification of liquified butter. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seven-level screwdriver

In the US military, a "seven-level" is someone who has received a certain specific level of technical training. I have a bunch of citations for it, and plan to add that word. My question concerns the combined form "seven-level screwdriver". It's simply the well-known pocket 2.5-inch screwdriver with a straight, plastic handle, and it got the "seven-level" name because the seven-levels always carried one around.

My question concerns whether "seven-level screwdriver" satisfies Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation. I know of its use in one novel, A Smuggler's Bible. Of the handful of academic works that discuss the book, one of them quotes the relevant sentence and then makes its own metaphor with "seven-level screwdriver". Does that second use qualify as independent?

I have found one USENET posting with the term, and a few other online instances, maybe one that looks like it might have some permanence (the popular Air Force forums site).

The three possibilities for attestation are (1) it's "clearly widespread" (in the military) (2) A Smuggler's Bible qualifies as a "well-known" work (3) the three citation requirement can be cobbled together from the above. Choor monster (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It might scrape through on the above. Why not start Citations:seven-level screwdriver? That can be used as a starting-point even if the word doesn't meet WT:CFI yet. Equinox 16:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not know we could do that! OK, done. I put in the two books, one USENET, and two forums that look they might have staying power. I'll wait for feedback if this qualifies for inclusion.
As a side issue, in putting together seven-level citations, I noticed several references were self-published books by military guys whose life was presumably too boring for commercial publication. Are these allowed?
I don't think we have any rule against self-published books, though they can be very sloppily written and I would not like to see them used to attest careless misspellings as "alternatives". I've found them useful in citing AAVE words. Equinox 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
And as a second side issue, are individual meanings held to the attestation requirements? Urban dictionary (yes, I know) lists "seven-level" as short for "seven-level screwdriver", as in "pass me the seven-level". Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, every sense needs three citations if challenged. An individual sense can be tagged with {{rfv-sense}}. Equinox 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've decided to be bold and I created the Entry, along with a Citations page. I've summarized my argument for it counting as attested, along with my doubts, on the Discussion page. Choor monster (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


This was sometimes spelled optumus as well, because the middle syllable contained a vowel called sonus medius, which fell somewhere in between i and u. The pronunciation section currently says /i/ but that was certainly not true for the earlier period, where it was /ɨ/ or /ʉ/. Should this be changed or explained? —CodeCat 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We could create a template for Latin pronunciations with sonus medius, which displays something like “Possibly /ˈop.tɨ.mus/ or /ˈop.tʉ.mus/; see sonus medius.” Or we could add ˈop.tⱵ.mus as a non-IPA pronunciation. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd presume that the spelling optimus has the non-rounded variety, while optumus represents the rounded version? —CodeCat 22:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there was just one "sonus medius", which in earlier texts was sometimes spelled i and sometimes spelled u before the spellings settled down and became standardized. The problem is we don't know how rounded the sound was so we don't know whether ɨ or ʉ is the better way to transcribe it. I'd go with /ɨ/ just because /i - ɨ - u/ is typologically more common than /i - ʉ - u/, and at Appendix:Latin pronunciation we can explain that its precise degree of rounding is uncertain. —Angr 23:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I always say ɨ, but that's probably because I have trouble saying ʉ correctly, and the fact that <i> was the spelling settled on suggests that it's more likely, as well as Angr's analysis. I really am no expert on saying things classically, maybe EncycloPetey could be arsed to put something together? Or we could just filch from 'pedia, their article isn't too shabby. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has good information about Latin itself, but it has no information at all about diachronic processes that affected the early stages of the language. The sonus medius is described merely as a fact but nothing is said in any detail about the vowel reduction that caused it. I think that is a shame because I am interested in that. —CodeCat 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The sonus medius could have been [y] too – Meiser (1998) assumes this. That would make sense because [y] is just rounded (due to the following labial consonant) [i], the phoneme which the neutral vowel Old Latin /ə/ (from any short Archaic Latin vowel in medial open syllables) was eventually identified with in most cases (but with /e/ in front of /r/ and with /u/ in front of [ɫ], but /o/ between a vowel and [ɫ], see w:History of Latin#Medial syllables). In any case, [ɨ] isn't rounded and therefore a quite unlikely candidate for the sonus medius, as it always appears in labial environments; it might have been a central vowel, but then certainly a rounded one such as [ʉ] or [ɵ]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


The usage notes say “Among people above 65 years old or so, the term doesn't tend to have an offensive meaning [] ” This should probably be replaced with something non-numerical. Anyone here knows Danish? — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The usage note should probably be replaced with something well-referenced. This just sounds like "surely my grandpa didn't mean to offend those niggers when he called them that, he just grew up when people used that word". - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Aren't we missing the sociological sense, ala, economic rationalization, the idea of seeing value only in things according to their economic value? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is bad lexicographic practice to try to have a meaning at [[rationalization]] for every meaning shown at [[rationalize]]. I don't think that it can be shown that rationalize has any meanings that don't have corresponding senses of rationalization and vice versa. Rationalization could have two definitions that reference each of the senses of rationalize: (uncountable) The process of rationalizing." and "(countable) An instance of rationalizing." That would lead to an expanded entry for rationalization that has twice as many definitions as [[rationalize]], which has four. (Other dictionaries have as many as seven.) DCDuring TALK 13:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with scope dope citations

I've added scope dope with five citations. Two of them are from somewhat famous sources The Mote in God's Eye and Failure is Not an Option. However, I cite to later paperback editions, as provided by Google, and obviously would prefer citations to the first editions (1974 and 2000, respectively). If you can confirm, along with a page number, that would be appeciated! Choor monster (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


"Adverb" With a comparative, and often with for it, indicates a result more like said comparative. This can be negated with none.

It was a difficult time, but I’m the wiser for it.
It was a difficult time, and I’m none the wiser for it.
I'm much the wiser for having had a difficult time like that.

This doesn't seem the least bit adverbial to be. It just seems to me to be the as a determiner in a "fused-head construction". In the first and third usage examples one could insert person or one after wiser. In the second the "one" appears as part of none.

Could anyone explain the choice of "adverb" here except as "not elsewhere classified"? DCDuring TALK 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

But if these were fused head constructions, they'd be definite, and it's more idiomatic to use an indefinite noun phrase here. I wouldn't say "I'm the wiser person for it" or "I'm much the wiser person for having had a difficult time", I'd say "a wiser person". And of course you can't do it in the second sentence (*"none the wiser person") at all. I think this is basically the same the as in sense 1 of the adverb. —Angr 12:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Would the following serve as an explanation? "The" is modifying the adjective wiser, in a way somewhat comparable to "even (Adverb: 3. emphasizing a comparative)". Another example to illustrate this might be: "Her results are remarkable; all the more so because she is only ten years old." --MarcoSwart (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
There may be some justification for the adverbial PoS in the etymology of this and similar uses of the. I don't have the unabridged Jespersen, but I do have two other grammars that take a historical approach, as well as three more modern ones. I will investigate therein.
But our grammatical presentations are almost always based on current grammar unless the headword is obsolete or, at least, archaic. Further, I am never convinced by one person's citing his own sense of what is "natural", no matter how brilliant, well-informed, and/or experienced that person may be. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Your standard to arrive at an conviction is of course correct. And it is desirable to inform readers of the most current grammar. Would Collins qualify as a reliable source to classify 'the' also as an adverb?--MarcoSwart (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

used to

This is a tricky expression, IMO. used to#Etymology 2 had been presented as a Verb, representing the "imperfect tense". I think this was wrong. The essence of this expression is past habitual or repeated (but not continuous) action. It is ambiguous as to whether the action or habit has been terminated in the sense that although the implication is that it has been terminated (ie, perfect), it is rebuttable. One can say both "I used to smoke and I still do." and "I used to smoke, but I stopped" and they are both consistent with "I used to smoke."

However, I think it is the use of "I" in the examples that makes for this implication. If I say "He used to smoke.", then the possibility/likelihood is that I don't have certain knowledge of the current state of his smoking habit.

If this analysis is correct, than the translations which are premised on the sense of incompletion are wrong.

I think that this can also be viewed as a modal adverb of aspect rather than a modal verb of aspect, though its interaction with "didn't" might be deemed to pull it into the verb word class. It is a bit simpler to consider it an adverb, IMO. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I find the affirmation that this is an adverb difficult to maintain. It appears to be more your personal opinion (prescriptive), rather than the general opinion (descriptive) which holds it to be a defective verb. I would like to see it changed back to being a verb until the collective opinion decides differently. If you wouldn't mind. Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The presentation has nothing whatsoever to do with prescriptiveness as to usage. No assertion as to how this expression ought to be used was in any contribution of mine. The issue is which of two descriptions best describes the term, neither of which were in the previous version, which seemed simply wrong.
If it is to be presented as a verb, I'd like to see it corrected to the habitual aspect rather than merely reverted. As a verb or non-constituent (depending on your view of where to belongs) it is close to the utmost point of being defective, having only a single form for many speakers and at most two, the other being use to (not the lemma in other dictionaries, only used with "did" by some speakers).
I was originally tempted to put it in RfC, but that simply defers dealing with the issues for the prior version, which include:
  1. two translation tables for one sense,
  2. a claim that used to is "imperfect tense", when it is centrally past tense, habitual (or iterative or continuous) aspect, and
  3. glosses as an adverb.
I brought it this forum to attract some attention, which seems to be scarce these days. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard or read anybody describe "used to" as an adverb. How would that be justified? Not only is it a verb etymologically, but it's also used like a verb with a following infinitive... I don't know, I'm not an expert in English grammar, but I see no justification for it being an adverb. —This comment was unsigned.
I don't much care about the part of speech, but I do care about it not being mischaracterized as mentioned above. Dictionaries that include it don't characterize it grammatically. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


The German word Schadenfreude is listed as having no plural form. As a compound word, its second component, the German word Freude has indeed a plural form: Freuden. So, shouldn't the plural of Schadenfreude be Schadenfreuden? —This unsigned comment was added by Wmanowski3 (talkcontribs).

  • No. Many German compound nouns are uncountable despite being formed from countable parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, a b.g.c. search reveals that the plural is sometimes, if rarely, used—mostly in older texts, but occasionally ([5], [6]) in newer ones. —Angr 16:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In German Wiktionary Schadenfreude [7] is a singular-only word. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
One could form a plural Schadenfreuden in the sense of "different kinds of malicious joy". Colloquially that might be possible, but it's not really part of the language, certainly not the standard language. I agree that no plural form should be listed.


This revision added an etymology from Cornish for the nickname sense. Nadando is not active so I can't ask him. This seems implausible. Can anyone find a source for it and assess the evidence? DCDuring TALK 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Nadando accidentally locked himself out of his account a while back, and has returned as DTLHS (talkcontribs). His latest edit was 5 days ago. There would have to be some good evidence pointing to a Cornish origin, because derivation from one of the other etymologies of handle seems quite plausible, so Occam's razor would argue against looking any further. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I forgot about the lockout and new identity. I haven't found any OneLook source that mentions the Cornish possibility, either. It struck me as preposterous, but sometimes I get surprised. DCDuring TALK 04:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

quote for immiseration and immiserate

I'd like to add quotes to immiseration and immiserate but I'm having a hard time finding quotes that are good examples of the usage. Can someone help me? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

'inversal' a synonym for inversion ?

I have always used the word 'inversal' as a substitute or synonym for 'inversion'; is this an acceptable word in English, since reversal is derived from reverse/revert; similarly, logic dictates that inverse/invert apply to 'inversal'.MI

Apparently so (e.g. Royal Society Edinburgh, 1849, "the inversal of the law"), but it's very rare and mostly a mistake by non-native speakers, I would say. English isn't based on what logic dictates! Equinox 14:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
... so rare that even the big OED doesn't recognise the word ("conversal" and "perversal" aren't words either). Eight hundred years ago, Anglo-Norman had both "reversioun" and "reversaill". "Reversion" was adopted into English first, but "reversal" crept into legal usage around 1490 according to the OED. Would that English were logical! Dbfirs 22:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is "antidisconstitutionalisationism" a legitimate word in english ?

A very smart friend in 5th grade Primary school bragged that he knew the longest word in the English language; " antidisestablishmentarianism" (28 letters), so being very competative at least, I thought for a few seconds and came up with this 'real' sounding word: "antidisconstitutionalisationism" (31 letters); I thought I had him stumped ! What do the experts say !? Shakespeare said: "Enlish is as it is spoken".MI

  • Nope. Zero real hits on Google book search. (p.s. Shakespeare does not seem to be a contributor to the English Wiktionary) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Our entry at stairs has the pronunciation "(Received Pronunciation) IPA(key): /ˈstɛəs/ Rhymes: -ɛə(r)s". I've never heard this pronunciation in the northern half of the UK, but I don't really speak RP, so could I ask if the unvoiced sibilant is standard in "BBC English"? Maybe I just haven't been listening carefully. Dbfirs 08:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the pronunciation given in the OED, but I agree with you that it's definitely not the way we pronounce it up north. BigDom (tc) 12:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know the difference between northern and RP vowels (and I can reproduce both), but I looked in the big OED and it doesn't give the pronunciation of the plural. I don't think I've ever heard the "s" of the plural pronounced unvoiced. Dbfirs 12:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
So it doesn't, I was only looking quickly earlier and thought I'd seen it. Should definitely be a voiced sibilant at the end IMO. BigDom (tc) 12:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The pronunciation that we believe to be faulty was added some time ago by a regular American contributor, who, for all I know, might speak perfect RP, so I thought I'd better check before correcting the error. Can any other speakers of RP confirm that stairs does not rhyme (almost) with scarce? Dbfirs 12:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not. Should be a /z/. Ƿidsiþ 13:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've corrected the entry and the rhyme page. I was almost sure that RP matched the normal British pronunciation, but I thought I'd better check because the strange claim had been in the entry for so long. Dbfirs 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


OROLOGION is NOT an Italian word and is nit a derivative of orologium. In fact it is the reverse Orologion is a Greek word it is comoprised by two words put together

ORA it means "Hour" which nothing else but an Anglicised Greek word

LOGION Another Greek word meaning "Telling"

So orologion means someth9ing that "Tells the Hour" - Watch or Clock

It would be more correct if Wiktionary checks the entries with professionals unsigned comment by 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)‎

  • We don't have any entry for orologion so it's difficult to know what you're talking about. Ƿidsiþ 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There's that, and the most entirely misses the point, a word can come to a language via another language. It's a bit like saying stigma is not an English word or a Latin word, it is a Greek word. Put simply, it is all of these. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
See orologio. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, Latin second declension words normally end up with -o in Italian, so a word with -on would probably be directly from Greek without Latin as an intermediate. —CodeCat 17:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The absence of an "h" makes me think this might be about the Modern Greek term, which we also don't have an entry for. The English terms, as well as the Latin and Ancient Greek, all have an "h" or (or the rough breathing in Ancient Greek, which is the same). Confusing matters further, there's the constellation Horologium, which was named by a French astronomer in the 18th century, and which is called by the name in question in Greek, and there's a Greek liturgical book, also with the same name. I really wonder where they saw the etymology they're talking about- I can't seem to find anything remotely like it on Wiktionary or elsewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sex and joueur

According to the Vocabula amatoria: a French-English glossary of words, phrases, and allusions occurring in the works of Rabelais, Voltaire, Molière, Rousseau, Béranger, Zola, and others, with English equivalents and synonyms, an 1896 privately printed dictionary, there are sexual senses to various French words like joueur and jouet and phrases like beau joueur de quilles. I have no idea if these are obsolete or fanciful. A quick look at the French Wiktionary revealed nobody there knows about these meanings either. This is completely over my head. Choor monster (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

jouissance means orgasm. Equinox 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It's from jouir not jouer, and I don't think they're etymologically related. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)