How general is this? I can only find it discussed with relation to a particular book, "The Ra Material" (supposed taped interviews with the spirit of the Egyptian sun-god). Equinox◑12:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
index word?
What is the English term for the "index words" that are often found at the top of a page of an encyclopedia or dictionary, as for example CYPHELLE - CYPRINIDES on top of the right-hand page of this sample of Larousse? Are they simply index words? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I assume "A distortion of the countenance" is from the Webster's 1913 dictionary as it's so old fashioned. I mean, countenance rather than face, lucky for me I know what that means. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This stack exchange thread provides some references (and at google books:"gri-mace" "grim-ace" there are more) suggesting that /ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/ was the pronunciation in the 1800s, but that people must have already been changing by then to the current pronunciation /ˈɡɹɪm.əs/, since prescriptivists were railing against it. There've been a few cases (bon appétit is one) where dictionaries claim one pronunciation can be used, but we've removed it from the pronunciation section due to a conspicuous lack of real-world use. The poster of that stack exchange thread claims to use "gri-MACE", though. - -sche(discuss)23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renard is British and hasn't heard of it. And Angr names two American dictionaries that have it. I think it's an 1800s (/ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/) vs 1900s (/ˈɡɹɪm.əs/) thing, with apparently a few pockets of speakers preserving /ɡɹɪ.ˈmeɪs/. - -sche(discuss)04:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, references that are uses, not mentions. An audio file of someone who's told to pronounce a word a certain way defeats the object about as thoroughly as you can defeat an object. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish poet Robert Fergusson (1750–1774), in a poem, rhymes "na: rather gleefu' turn your face, / forsake hypocrisy, grimace". John Mitchell, in a work published in 1838, rhymes "without a hindrance or grimace, / a ready grave in every face". I haven't seen more recent examples. - -sche(discuss)23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Garner's Modern American Usage quotes someone who claims that /ɡɹɪˈmeɪs/ was the preferred pronunciation until the 1970s and it was only the introduction of the character Grimace in McDonald's advertising that switched the pronunciation to /ˈɡɹɪmɪs/, but I don't believe for a moment that McDonald's singlehandedly all but eliminated the older pronunciation from modern speech. I wonder what the oldest dictionary is that sanctions the modern pronunciation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
woodwind player
There are entries for woodwinder and woodwindist, both I have never heard of, but "woodwind player" wins hands down on Google: 74,300 untested results for woodwind players, 243 for woodwindists, and 668 for woodwinders. I think it's worth an entry. Donnanz (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single idiom ending in 'player'. X player is a player of X, no matter what X is, be it one word or several. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be true, a brass player has only one mouth, different from a percussionist who may play more than one instrument. A brass band, of course, has several brass players, as well as drummers. Donnanz (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infiniverse neologism?
This might be one of the countless random entries added by young enthusiasts backing what is either an obscure science fiction reference or an inside joke of some sort, there is this page on the word "infiniverse", an obviously unprofessional addition. It looks like the definition of "universe", also confusing it with the notion of "observable universe", with an extra mystical mention of "dark matter and energy", which I, random everyday user as I am, took the liberty to edit out.
This definition has apparently existed since October 2005. Looking through the history of edits, I am growing more dubious as of the legitimacy of the word at all. Search engines return mostly trademarks. Unless coined by a confirmed source, should the "infiniverse" page event exist?
22:45 2 February 2016
Well we're not professionals so looking 'unprofessional' is like a dog that looks like a dog. Also if the word passes WT:CFI, it doesn't matter who made it or whether we like 'unprofessional' due to the inclusion of this single word among millions of others that we have. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same random everyday user again. Google Books does return the use of the word "infiniverse" as early as 1888, capitalised or not (also countable, really as a substitute word for universe). My apologies if my first comment was counterproductive. Let me rephrase. "(Tibetan Buddhism) Everything that exists, seen or unseen.(dark matter or energy) The universe is the observed part (material substance) of the infiniverse" is not an acceptable definition. 10:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It's common in American media. Unless it was originally limited to Britain, I would just remove the context label — if it's common everywhere, there's no need for a label. On that note, can you shed any light in last month's thread on whether "smoke" as in "we really smoked (beat) the other team" is used in the UK / Australia? It seems to me like it is, in which case it's another word that's used everywhere and can drop its regional label. - -sche(discuss)23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support removing the context tag altogether. As for this supposed usage of "smoke", I have never heard it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please check if the pronunciation information of carrot in the vote is accurate and good as an example entry. I'm also open to using a different word if other people want. I'd just like to use a single entry with all the information (IPA, audio, rhymes, homophones, etc.), since the current pronunciation section in EL has the information a bit scattered in different places with different entries.
The problem isn't with "carrot", by the way. It was with how Angr listed the pronunciation transcriptions. Merged pronunciations (such as the cot-caught merger, hurry-furry merger, merry, Mary, marry merger) come after the unmerged pronunciations.
Hmmm. In my speech, marry (/e/) and Mary (/e/) sound the same but merry (/ɛ/) is different, so I'd say /keɹət/ not /kɛɹət/ (which would be spelled kerrot) or /kæɹət/ (not possible). But I suppose I'm in the minority here. Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 In response to your" /kæɹət/ (not possible)" I notice that with speakers with the merry, Mary, marry merger, they are often literally taught the merger as children, as in they are taught that /æ/ cannot come before /ɹ/. I have always found this amusing; that a merger would be taught to children, so as to stop them from pronouncing the words in the original, unmerged fashion. I would be like if I were to teach my children that "sh" cannot come before a consonant, and that instead it is pronounced as "z" so that when they read "shmoe", they read it as "zmoe". Anyways, my point is that it is very strange that a merger would be taught to children. At best it's misguided, at worse, I daresay it could be malicious. Tharthan (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have stepped, apparently unintentionally, into a minefield (namely the minefield of how to represent those confusing Mary, marry, merry sounds; even the agreed-upon IPA symbols we use aren't really good representations of how many pronunciations of some of them actually sound). If all you're looking to do is give an example of format, pick some other word. :) How about lever or privacy, which have different GenAm/US and RP/UK pronunciations? - -sche(discuss)03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To recap what I said in the discussion I linked above: if it's not asking too much, I'd like a single example entry with all pronunciation items simultaneously: 1) IPA pronunciations; 2) audio files; 3) rhymes; 4) homophones; 5) hyphenation. (I hope I didn't forget anything?) Thanks for all the suggestions, but cauliflower, lever and privacy don't seem to have homophones, so I can't use them as example entries with {{homophones}} in them. The word carrot seems to be perfect because it has all the items, including "caret, karat, carat" as homophones (assuming this list is accurate). Only one or two homophones would be okay. If there's actually no "perfect" entry like I asked, I would settle with using multiple example entries. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Benwing2 is correct, "caret", "karat", "carat" and "carrot" are all homophones. The choice of "carrot" is fine, so long as the pronunciations are properly listed. Tharthan (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Properly" meaning giving your preferred pronunciation first, as opposed to the one used by the majority of Americans? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, properly meaning giving mergerless pronunciations first just as we do with other entries. Unless you are also going to suggest that the initial pronunciation given for "caught" to be the same as for "cot", and the pronunciation for "both" to be the "bolth" pronunciation, having /pɔɹ/ before /pʊɹ/ in the "poor" entry, or the "melk" pronunciation for milk, etc. etc. The number of people who use a merged pronunciation is irrelevant to whether a pronunciation ought to come first or second. For instance, a major city in a country might have a certain pronunciation be used that is not the traditional pronunciation, and that city may have loads and loads of people in it. However, in other places the traditional pronunciation is still used on a daily basis, and so that pronunciation should be listed first, especially if there are other dialects in other countries which also use that same pronunciation (and that pronunciation is the only pronunciation used in those other places). It gives entries a neat and tidy look as well to do it that way. It is simply good form.
Mind you, this is not just in regards to English. Look at German "stark", and how the pronunciations are listed there. Now I don't know about you, but /ʃtaɐ̯k/ and /ʃtaːk/ are the pronunciations I have most heard of that word, yet nevertheless /ʃtaʁk/ is the traditional pronunciation, and is a pronunciation still in use, hence it is placed before the "newer" pronunciations. Again, it is simply good form. Tharthan (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea we give mergerless pronunciations first? I'm unaware of that convention and have never followed it. Especially in a pronunciation labeled General American, a nonmerged pronunciation is quite marginal, since most Americans without the merger don't speak GenAm, but rather a Northeastern or Southern variety. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would you list the "cot" pronunciation of "caught" before the "caught" pronunciation of "caught"? Would you list the "melk" pronunciation of "milk" instead of the milk pronunciation of "milk"? Would you list the "bolth" pronunciation of "both" before the "both" pronunciation of "both"? If you would, then you would be in the minority because that's not how pronunciations are generally listed across the English Wiktionary, irrespective of the language (as far as I can tell). If you wouldn't then don't be hypocritical in this scenario.
The number of Californians means that the "cot" pronunciation of "caught" probably number-wise has more speakers in the United States. But, y'see, that's biased. The population of California, and Californians themselves, are not indicative of the rest of the country. Same thing with the Midwest, for instance. The Midwest may like to pronounce route as /ɹaʊt/, but that doesn't make the pronunciation list order /ɹaʊt/, /ɹuːt/.
The other thing is that, as -sche noted: the number of different merged pronunciations for words hit by the merry, Mary, marry merger is ridiculous. Why list your preferred merged pronunciation /kɛɹət/ over other merged pronunciations /keɹət/ / /keəɹət/ / /kɛəɹət/ etc.? At least if we used the unmerged pronunciation, we don't have these problems. Same thing with the cot-caught merger: do we use /ɒ/, /ɑ/ /ɑː/? No, we just use the unmerged pronunciation, which doesn't have those problems. Tharthan (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any of these would be great to me! (because they all have IPA/audio/rhymes/homophones/hyphenation as I requested) I'd be happy with any of these examples, I'll let other people choose. I'd settle for the one that is less controversial if that makes any sense, whichever allows WT:EL to be updated quicker. :) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
queue, aloud, and symbol don't have separate lines for RP and GA, and the latter two don't have any homophones. It might be confusing to illustrate the use of {{hyphenation}} with a word that doesn't hyphenate. altar has the same problem as carrot, namely two different pronunciations in GA (depending on presence vs. absence of the cot-caught merger this time instead of the Mary-marry-merry merger), but really at this point the only controversy with carrot is which GA pronunciation to list first, and I don't think that's an important enough issue to disqualify it from being used as an example. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, isn't it just being read as "whole-ly" or something? And /ɒʊ̯/ is a phoneme I have never seen, but wouldn't it sound something like "au-ww" (I'm reading it as /ɔəʊw/) or something? How on Earth did that come about? Tharthan (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lever is homophonous with leaver in British accents. There's also marten, which seems to be homohonous with Martin in all accents, while simultaneously being pronounced differently in the US and UK. Google site:en.wiktionary.org English pronunciation US UK "IPA" "audio" "rhymes" "homophones" "hyphenation" and page through the results until you find something you like. - -sche(discuss)05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now I began to feel that I was neglecting my business; that since I had been so foolhardy as to come ashore with these desperadoes, the least I could do was to overhear them at their councils; and that my plain and obvious duty was to draw as close as I could manage, under the favorable ambush of the crouching trees.
Here the word ambush has no implication of attack or surprise, but only of hiding under cover. We don't seem to have any such sense. --WikiTiki8920:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about "crouching trees"? That seems at least a tad metaphorical to me. Either that, or Jim-lad has a lot more to worry about than pirates... Chuck Entz (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some 200 of many hundreds of uses of ambush at COCA, there were some few uses that did not involve physical attack, but there was at least a metaphorical attack involved. I don't see how there is not some kind of implication of attack even in the Treasure Island quote above. The "crouching trees" support this implication IMO. DCDuringTALK22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a word is normally (say, 99% of the time) used with a specific meaning, then in the other 1% the word can bring the normal meaning to what would seem to be an inappropriate context. An author or speaker counts on the reader or audience being influenced by the normal usage and exploits their expectations. That's a large part of creativity in the use of language: somewhat inappropriate, unconventional use of words that nevertheless communicates because of the shared expected meaning.
Pursuing every instance of such creativity is not just losing sight of the forest for the trees, it's losing sight of the trunks for the twigs. DCDuringTALK15:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with taking interest in an unusual twig. It may be that this is an unconventional usage, but I wouldn't know until I've asked the question. --WikiTiki8915:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This quotation seems to be using a sense more along the lines of the "a place..." ones mentioned above, and they seem to cover it, even insofar as they imply that an attack either literal or figurative is involved. This quotation does seem to be invoking an attack metaphor, as John and DCDuring say. He has penetrated their defences to observe them; they are unaware and would be surprised. - -sche(discuss)14:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "cast of fish" as in the second definition of warp, which reads "A cast of fish (herring, haddock, etc.); four, as a tale of counting fish." For that matter, what does the whole definition mean? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken word for word from Century 1911, usually not a bad source. I don't understand this one. I have a link to Century at the bottom of our entry. DCDuringTALK22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an instance of a rare, archaic or obsolete sense of a word (tale ("count, enumeration") being used in a definition. A warp is a group of four fish used to speed the counting compared to counting by individual fish. It may offer some benefits of averaging (lower standard deviation of weight). We need to weed these out, though I don't know how to identify rare, etc senses of common words. DCDuringTALK00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest as a new definition? Should it be general ("a group of four"), or specifically refer to fish? There's evidence that it has been used in reference to weeks, but I can't find any actual uses of that. I'll have to take a look and see if I can find cites referring to something other than fish. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I see now that tale is meant in one of the archaic/obsolete/rare senses having to do with counting and numbering, and that "four, as a tale of counting fish" may mean something like "approximately four fish," making warp, in this sense, something like "dozen" or "couple" but for four. This is supported by one of the results for "a tale of counting fish", which notes that "a warp of weeks" is a month, or approximately four weeks. Searching "warp of fish" yields a few results, as does "warp of weeks", though the latter are all from dictionaries or wordlists of some sort. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notes and Queries (1893) reports: "The fish are counted by taking two in each hand and throwing the four together in a heap. Thus: “Four herrings make a warp. Thirty-three warps make a hundred, or one hundred and thirty-two fish." Hence the value of elementary education in arithmetic. DCDuringTALK00:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think both cast and warp refer to throwing, as mentioned above "The fish are counted by taking two in each hand and throwing the four together in a heap." We might call it a "toss" today. Leasnam (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an allowance; an amount given, as of food: as, a cast of hay for the horses" --Same here, the amount equal to that which can be tossed out at one time/instance Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This word and several of its rhymes say that in the US they can also be pronounced /ˈbɹiːŋ/ (/θiːŋ/, etc). Really, with the first part sounding like brie cheese? It's not in the US dictionaries I checked. Is this GenAm or a specific (sub)dialect? - -sche(discuss)15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was an editor recently promoting this supposedly Californian phenomenon (and a seemingly rare one) of "-ing" beeing pronounced "-eeng". I've always been skeptical of it. --WikiTiki8915:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and who was the one behind the "cole" pronunciations. I am going to remove those pronunciations, then, since I can't find them in dictionaries and the user is known to have ideas about pronunciation which are ... idiosyncratic. There are also a lot of /æ/ words like /ˈæŋkɚ/ (anchor) to which /eɪ/ variants like /ˈeɪŋkɚ/ have been added, labelled "US". I'm guessing that's the same editor. - -sche(discuss)16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually pronouncing /ˈæŋkɚ/ as something like /ˈeɪŋkɚ/ (in general pronouncing /æŋ/ as [eɪŋ]) is very common in æ-tensing accents. See Wunu's pronunciation at Forvo. --WikiTiki8916:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW in my idiolect these are the pronunciations used (both /ˈbɹiːŋ/ and /-iːŋks/ instead of standard /ˈbɹɪŋ/, /-ɪŋks/), and some fellow (native speaker) students in linguistics courses have noted the same phenomenon in their idiolects. There doesn’t seem to be any regional consistency, though (one speaker was from Texas, one from California, and my dialect’s from northwest Indiana and possibly influenced by Serbo-Croatian), and it seems quite rare in any case. Vorziblix (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation /ˈbl̩θ/ is almost certainly spurious and part of the "cole" issue discussed in the section above this. But is /boʊlθ/ valid? For which accents? - -sche(discuss)17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how widespread it is, but I've always suspected that some people throw in an /l/ (although I've never consciously noticed it). I've even noticed that I myself sometimes almost let an /l/ slip in. As for the process itself, first of all, in these accents, /oʊ̯l/ is already monophthongized as /o(ː)l/ or /ɔ(ː)l/, and in the case of both, the /ʊ̯/ of /boʊ̯θ/ is simply hard to distinguish from /l/ (which is really something like [ɫˠ]), so the /l/ is stuck in instead of the /ʊ̯/, merging with the /o(ː)l ~ ɔ(ː)l/ phoneme. --WikiTiki8917:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can kill it. Incidentally, I have always pronounced this as /wɔlf/ and pl. /wɔlvz/, in contrast with "Beow[ʊ]lf" and "w[ʊ]lverine", but cannot find any dictionary that attests to that pronunciation, but it's exactly like JessicaMS's pronunciation at Forvo. --WikiTiki8920:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's saying that in the Pacific Northwest they pronounce /ʊl/ as /ɔl/, since he says that it's the same as both wool and coal. As for me, I do make a distinction, as I said, I pronounce wolverine with /ʊl/, which makes it seem that the spelling pronunciation theory is insufficient as an explanation, since wolf is a more common word than wolverine (despite X-Men, think), but spelling pronunciations tend to affect uncommon words. --WikiTiki8921:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is both a TR and an ES question really, I decided to put it here.
I have occasionally heard an umlauted form of this verb, in particular I remember hearing it in the parody song "wir käufen alle bei ALDI". I wonder if an entry for it is merited, and how widespread it is. As for the etymological question, I wonder if the umlauted version is old or is it only a recent phenomenon? An entry for *kaupijaną was just created, which could be the ancestor of this umlauted form, but of course only if it has been in continued use since Germanic times. Old High German didn't write down umlauts, but Middle High German did, so are there any traces of an umlauted form in MHG? —CodeCat17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Gerhard Koebler's OHG dictionary I find entries for both koufōn (class 2 weak) and koufen (class 1 weak). Umlaut would be expected in the latter form. Now the question is whether the modern käufen descends from old koufen. —CodeCat17:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked around Booble Gooks and found quite a few hits for the umlauted form and its inflections. So I've created an entry for it now. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to specify where and when this form is actually used. —CodeCat01:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because "by" is a preposition, and "theway" is a noun phrase that is the object of that preposition. This is the very definition of a prepositional phrase. Now to be more specific, it is an adverbial prepositional phrase, and should be labeled as an ===Adverb===. We really shouldn't use ===Prepositional phrase=== as a POS header. --WikiTiki8920:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought "prepositional phrase" meant a phrase that behaves syntactically like a preposition. Another question: how is the supposedly British meaning ("irrelevantly; off-topic") under the header "Adverb" different from the first one? And "off-topic" isn't even an adverb itself, why use it to define an adverb? "off-topically" (if it does exist) I could understand, but not this. --Fsojic (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had changed the PoS from Adverb to PP. Although many PPs are used both adjectivally and adverbially, I don't think this one is used as an adjective. I could not find it used after a form of be. Though there may be some examples somewhere, it is misleading not to make clear that it is basically (or entirely) adverbial. Whatever changes are made, please make sure it appears in Category:English prepositional phrases, wherever else it appears. DCDuringTALK04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I never understood why we have the heading Prepositional phrase at all. What information does it give me, except that the first word is a preposition? I can learn that by clicking on it. Perhaps there is a reason but I'm unable to fathom one out. --Droigheann (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most prepositional phrases can be used both adjectivally and adverbially. Why would you want to be adding and maintaining duplicate semantic content? DCDuringTALK13:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because looking at Category:English prepositional phrases I'm not sure those that can be used both adjectivally and adverbially form such an ovewhelming majority. I can imagine even by the way used attributively, as in "in a by the way manner", but is it adjectival? Wouldn't that imply that a noun used attributively turns into an adjective? --Droigheann (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ascribe to much reality to word classes, especially as we apply them to phrases. I don't know whether there are any dictionaries that label phrases with word-class labels. IMO the focus should be on presentation to the user, avoidance of duplication (for user and contributor), respecting user expectations and, to some extent, reflecting changes in lexicographic fashion (eg, determiners). Lexicographic fashion is far, far behind linguistic fashion, probably because it is more constrained by user expectations. DCDuringTALK15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User expectation is what troubles me - when I see Adverb or Adjective, I expect some kind of behaviour; when I see Prepositional phrase I think "So there's a prep, and?" But it may be just me; and there's something in what you say about avoidance of duplication. As regards our treating noun phrases as Nouns, verb phrases as Verbs and so on, that's why I'm ready to put up with almost anything here POS-header-wise, only sometimes I can't help grumbling a bit, sorry for that. I'm getting too old and fogeyish I guess. --Droigheann (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We had a vote, but there's no reason why we couldn't go back to the former approach. It would be much easier to decide if we had some facts about users. As it is, we depend a lot on imitating other dictionaries.
The adoption of "Determiner" as a PoS heading was more controversial (I initially opposed it.). Part of the decision was based on a few dictionaries (all UK-based, BTW) adopting the practice. I think Oxford uses "determiner" as a label in some of their UK editions, but not in (any of?) their US editions. One advantage I've found is that I've learned a good deal more grammar since we've adopted "Determiner". DCDuringTALK16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
lesser mortal
Does anyone have a good definition for this? It's listed twice in requested entries, in 2011 and 2016 (the 2nd one by me without noticing the first) Donnanz (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. how about the very attestable we Members of Parliament? Is that any less idiomatic? I still don't see why you think the Oxford Dictionary usage example for "lesser" makes lesser mortal idiomatic? It would seem just the opposite: they wouldn't use an idiom to illustrate the meaning of a component term. Eg, He kicked the bucket would not be used to illustrate the meaning of bucket or kick. DCDuringTALK00:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, right, whether it's an idiom or not is debatable. But it's apparently also regarded as humorous [7] (unfortunately this site is ruled by the advertisers). Anyway I thought an entry for lesser mortal is worthwhile, so I created one, adding an example sentence which can be altered, and some quotations would be useful. By the way, Andrew Sheedy is right in saying there is a sense missing at lesser. Donnanz (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the definition I'm familiar with. I often see it used about someone who's particularly brilliant at what they do, a Serena Williams, Albert Pujols or Ronnie O'Sullivan for example. 'A lesser mortal would have crumbled under the pressure' isn't someone of inferior social status but someone who isn't as virtuosic. If the lower social status sense is real, could someone add a couple of citations just to put my mind at ease? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "ability", which I very nearly added in the first place. That should cover your point, I think. It can always be revised further. Donnanz (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See .e#Etymology. I avoided using using {{etyl}} and {{m}}, on purpose; with the current guidelines, Loglan cannot be documented and therefor cannot have a code. How exactly should this be handled? -Xbony2 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is still some point. {{m|lang||unlinked word}} would still tag the text with metadata (at the HTML level) that is in the language with code "lang". This could be useful information to screen readers and other such things, indicating that it is not English. The code und can be used for an undetermined or unsupported language. --WikiTiki8920:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of thought Proto-Slavic was normally reconstructed with l's between labials and /j/, and that the lack of such sounds in certain languages (e.g. West Slavic) is due to them dropping out later. Benwing2 (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem likely that they would have dropped out later, precisely in the locations they had been added in the first place. But we do tend to include the *l in our entries (like *zemlja). This in particular is an unusual case because the *l is lacking in variants of the word in some languages (Serbo-Croatian and Ukrainian), where it would have been expected to be there, although it can also be explained through inter-Slavic borrowing. This word also came in relatively late in the history of Proto-Slavic, as an early borrowing from Greek. Previously, we didn't even have an entry for this in Proto-Slavic and handled each descendant as a direct borrowing from Greek. See also the previous discussion we had in the ES. I'm not sure what we should do here. --WikiTiki8923:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least in theory, there are possible cases of inherited -blj- and -plj- sequences. Proto-Balto-Slavic underwent a change of -eu- to -jau-, so this could produce -bljau- and -pljau- from -bleu- and -pleu-. If such cases can be identified, with other Balto-Slavic cognates to confirm it, then we can tell by the outcome in West Slavic what is actually going on. —CodeCat23:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89, CodeCat Thanks. Note that a change like [pl] -> [pʎ] -> [pj] may have occurred in Italian, so it's not so far-fetched for labial+/l/+/j/ to have simplified to labial+/j/, and there was analogical pressure to do so. Note that in general sound changes getting reversed isn't so strange, esp. when there are easy analogies to do so; e.g. it's often said that Yiddish reversed the final devoicing of obstruents. Or the Old English changes ɑ -> æ (Anglo-Frisian brightening) -> ɑ -> æ (second fronting in Mercian and such), where we only know such back and forth changes occurred because of intervening changes that interacted with them. Benwing2 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not far-fetched, it's just less likely. But like CodeCat said, if we were to find instances of original *-blj- or *-plj- sequences, then we can know for sure. --WikiTiki8904:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In *čaplja, *stьbljь, and *pljьvati, the *l is epenthetic, but *sablja could potentially be just what we were looking for. It does seem interesting that Bulgarian and Macedonian still drop the *l, but all the West Slavic languages keep it. But we have to account for the possibility of later borrowings into West Slavic, and it would be nice if the direct source of the word in Proto-Slavic were clearer. --WikiTiki8923:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did some further researching and apparently Latvian has the lateralisation too. For Latvian pļaut there is the Lithuanian cognate piauti, and for spļaut there is spiauti, matching Slavic *pljuti. Greek evidence confirms the PIE sequence -py- here. —CodeCat01:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kortlandt’s account of the development of Proto-Slavic has this (j > ʎ / [+labial] _ ) as a common development across Proto-Slavic, hypothesizing that /j/ was entirely lost as a phoneme by late Proto-Slavic before arising again. The original paper and partial revision are worth reading. Regarding concrete evidence that this change occurred everywhere but was later reversed in West Slavic, there are toponyms and foreign spellings with 〈l〉 where the modern languages have /j/, cf. Vidovle for expected *Vidovje. Writing the sound as lj is a bit silly in any case, since it probably only merged with the sequence l+j when the latter had already become a single phoneme *ʎ. (Unless lj just means ʎ, but then why do we have ť, ď and not tj, dj?) Vorziblix (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And yes, lj just means /ʎ/ or /lʲ/, whichever IPA you prefer. The reason for the difference with ť and ď is simply because that's the way most conventional sources on PS spell these sounds. --WikiTiki8919:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a special definition of "roads" being used in sentences like "Deaths on British roads rise by 13%"? It's not necessarily literally true, since it doesn't refer to, say, people who had a heart attack on the street. Instead it means "Deaths due to road vehicles increased". Does this deserve a separate definition like "(by extension) Road traffic as a whole"? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be reluctant to add this kind of metonymic usage. On roads means something like "in the system of roads and vehicle". I would find it hard to come up with a substitutable definition of roads that could be part of a prepositional phrase headed by on. IMO deaths on roads conveys its meaning successfully because it brings to mind "deaths typically closely associated with typical activities on roads". I think that typicality is a common element in the use of words to communicate among humans. DCDuringTALK11:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that [PREP] + [bare NOUN] often has a more figurative or abstract than [PREP] + [DET/ART] - [NOUN]. There are a lot of them at home, to work/at work/from work/during work, to/at/from/during church/school/hospital (UK English), by car/train/plane/boat.
In/on/for TV/television have the same "feel".
CGEL has a section "Restricted non-referential interpretation of bare NPs" which covers this class of usages of singular count nouns without determiners ("bare"). One type is "role" NPs, eg, president, office manager, which can appear after the preposition as and some others. Other types are fixed expressions or fixed frames of everyday life:
activities linked to locations: hospital, school, stage
indications of status: off/on target, in/out of place
means of transport and communication: by email, by bicycle
meals: lunch, brunch, supper
times: dawn, siesta, noon, two o'clock
repeated nouns: arm in arm, side by side
matched nouns: from father to son, from beginning to end
(I don't think this categorization by any means exhausts the possibilities.) The number of nouns that can be used in these ways is large, with varying, short lists of prepositions for each category, sometimes not working with all the nouns in the category.
I think one implication is that we need to test our definitions for some of the nouns involved to make sure we have suitable definition for it in this kind of use preferably with a usage example. It is conceivable that some would want entries for these, but it cannot be because they cannot be readily understood. DCDuringTALK18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DCDuring; I wouldn't add a sense for such usage. Compare "the Kenyans won the World Cup qualifying match": not all of them, almost all of them didn't play, but we shouldn't add a sense "[a member of] Kenya's World Cup qualifier match team" to Kenyan. - -sche(discuss)05:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have to be careful about retrospective logical analysis. The reason is, that's not how language works. We can all find alternative interpretations for language after the fact. A bit like "I have a cat's head on my T-shirt". No I don't, it's a picture of a cat's head. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've already got this defined. I think this is a different definition of on, rather than of road: etymology 1, preposition, definition 15 "Denoting performance or action by contact with the surface, upper part, or outside of anything; hence, by means of; with". Goldenshimmer (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like deaths in the sky being those that occur in a plane. It isn't actually untrue (requiring an idiomatic def); it's just some journo slang. If people regularly died on Wikipedia they'd probably do the same metonymy and call it "death in square brackets" or something. Equinox◑22:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the meaning of amigo/a
I have always thought "amigo/a" only meant "friend". Google translates "amigo" to "boyfriend" and "amiga" to "friend", so I looked things up. Wiktionary agrees with my old belief. However, looking at spanish Wiktionary, I see only the "boyfriend" meaning (quoting, «Hombre con quien se tiene trato sexual habitual sin el vínculo del matrimonio», «Man with which one has a habitual sexual intercourse until the bond of matrimony», and just under that «Relacionado: amante.», «Related: amante», amante meaning lover), plus a technical meaning and a euphemistic «penis» meaning. So I wonder: is this true? What is the meaning of "amigo": "lover" (as is even backed up with a citation on the Spanish entry) or "friend"? Both, perhaps? And is there an asymmetry in the meaning between masculine and feminine?
Right, I should have mentioned that Spanish wiktionary distinguishes between four senses as a "adjetivo" (adjective) and 3 as a "substantivo" (noun), and the "friend" sense appears under "adjective". So perhaps the Spanish Wiktionary just forgot to duplicate the meaning and misnumbered the meanings since when starting the "noun" section the numbering should restart from 1. So should I take it it is only the Spanish entry being sort of untidy, and the "friend" meaning being valid both for "amigo" as an adjective and as a noun?
And also, this means "amiga" can also mean "lover" (female lover), sense which is missing from both entries, right? MGorrone (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, however it's common practice at the Spanish Wiktionary not to duplicate adjective senses in a following noun section, as a lot of adjectives are also used as noun with mostly the same meanings. They simply add a usage note se emplea también como sustantivo (also used as substantive). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defined as an English preposition meaning "under". How is this in fact used in English (outside of fixed borrowings like sub rosa)? Can we add examples? Does it need a gloss, e.g. legal, formal? Is it just wrong? Equinox◑17:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They must have been thinking of "first man to run a sub four-minute mile" or "a sub second gamma spike". Those are among the very few uses to be found at COCA. The second one is normally spelled sub-second, probably because it is (always?) used attributively. "Sub-second speeds" is 8 times more common at Google Books than "subsecond speeds". There aren't enough of those collocations for Google n-grams. OneLook doesn't have an entry for subsecond (or sub-second). I found some predicate use of sub-second.
I conclude that sub can be used in terms that are used attributively and may sometimes also be used in terms used as predicates. The usage seems limited to quantitative thresholds. I think that usage can be interpreted as prepositional phrases with sub as the preposition. DCDuringTALK22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, I think our entry for subsecond wrong. First, one can have "sub-two-second pit stops" and "sub-two second pit stops". Second, subsecond seems to be used as a countable noun, so the "adjective" use might be better interpreted as attributive use of the noun. DCDuringTALK22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It think sub par preceded sub-par and subpar. The earlier forms remain in use as predicates after forms of be. It is interesting that par is also a kind of threshold level, though often used less quantitatively than in golf. DCDuringTALK22:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
APPENDIX
what is the difference between appendices and appendixes?
Anon has questioned "(intransitive) To miscarry; to bring forth offspring prematurely. [First attested in the mid 16th century.]"
Is this really not obsolete? In general, the whole entry could do with having the most common definitions first. With commons words, we're really bad at this! Renard Migrant (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good search phrase ("aborted spontaneously"); I can see other uses from the 1960s through the 1980s. I've changed the label to "now rare outside medicine", since in a non-medical context it does seem to imply intent. - -sche(discuss)02:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This 21st century search suggests to me that the intransitive use is comparatively uncommon compared to the transitive, often passive one, but not absolutely uncommon. Also, it appears in general works, including fiction. IOW, IMO, neither "rare" nor "medical" apply.
While the "First attested" information against the various senses is of interest, I find the repetition of the full wording over and over again a little distracting. Would it not be possible to use a more concise label? 81.152.224.8503:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list-of-synonyms approach to definition is a problem. Some on the list don't work as simple substitutions for behalf. The list of synonyms should appear under Synonyms. Only a near-perfect synonym, with the same grammar (eg, complementary preposition), preferably not incompatibly polysemous, could be a good definition. I wonder whether that "definition" is an unedited copy of the Webster 1913 entry. There are quite a few. DCDuringTALK13:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some basic words don't change very much in a hundred years. Webster 1913 is copyright-free, so fair game for legal copying. Wiktionarians are not really all that great as lexicographers, so copying has been and remains a natural alternative for building up a large mass of definitions. DCDuringTALK22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A note saying the definition came from Webster should be added, I think. But there's no reason why the entry can't be updated and generally improved. If Wiktionarians have a reputation as mediocre lexicographers, there's a challenge. Donnanz (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2013, Marty Weintraub, Lauren Litwinka, The Complete Social Media Community Manager's Guide, page 61:
[Write something and] pass it off to the company blogmaster for formatting, add a thoughtful introduction and a headshot, hit publish, and let the fun begin[.]
2007, Time, volume 169, issues 3-16, page 378:
PROFILE AMANDA MARCOTTE, 29 / OCCUPATION High-profile blogger / BLOG SITE Was pandagon.net, then [...] She had joined the John Edwards campaign as blogmaster to manage and help write the official blog and advise the campaign[.]
BUMP. I think that this is quite relevant, as if a distinction between "gamer" and "gamester" exists in this way, then I think that it ought to be noted. Tharthan (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
w:Wikipedia:Gaming the system uses it that way, and has been quoted in at least one book. (Wikipedia articles don't meet CFI, even if they've been printed in book form by some unreputable publishers... but a scholarly-ish work which quotes a snippet of policy might be citable.) But I can't find any other citations. - -sche(discuss)02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is more a function of the ambiguity of the verb "to be"—that it can be either habitual or episodic—than anything idiomatic about the phrase "in school". A similar ambiguity is found in "He's working", which can mean either "He's at work right now" or "He has a job". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"in church" and "in class" are never used for the general case of a long-term status. "He's in finance" has the opposite property (unless he works somewhere that has a department called 'finance'). Renard Migrant (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At Wiktionary:Tea_room#roads I summarized my interpretation of what CGEL 2002 has to say on this kind of thing. Some singular count nouns can function as NPs without an associated determiner (det PoS, article, cardinal number, possessive) in connection with a preposition. Driving in the above sentence does not fit this type of construction, being part of a progressive aspect verb phrase (is driving).
We could decide that we need entries for all of these if we accept the translation-target argument or the producing-idiomatic-speech argument. There are several semantic types of these in CGEL (and possibly more types) and numerous nouns for each semantic type. Some of these have become true idioms (ie, non-SoP), but many are in no dictionary, not even idiom dictionaries.
The differences in meanings among in/to/from/at/outside of/outside school, for/of/through/like/including/regarding school, etc are clearly more attributable to the preposition than to any differences in the meaning of school in these phrases. Note that adding an article or a determiner changes the meaning. I don't think we have a sufficiently vague gloss or non-gloss definition to capture how school is used in these phrases.
A non-gloss definition might be something like:
"used to refer variously and not necessarily specifically to a physical place for education, to the processes that take place there, and the associated stage of life", or something shorter.
Building blocks: tri-(“three”) + chili-(“thousand”) + -cosm(“universe”), apparently to be read as "1,0003 universes".
From On Being Buddha: the classical doctrine of buddhahood, by Paul J. Griffiths, 1994:
trichiliocosm (त्रिसहस्रमहासहस्रलोकधातु(trisahasramahāsahasralokadhātu)), a cosmic system consisting of one thousand million four-continent worlds (caturdvlpaloka), or planets, with all their attendant heavens, hells, and living beings.[…].roughly equivalent to a galaxy in western cosmology.
User:Titodutta added an adjective sense, which I reverted as duplicating the "past participle of Bangalore" sense. After discussing this with that user, and after looking on Google, I thought I would get some other opinions.
On the one hand, most of the usage seems to be in forms "get Bangalored" or "be Bangalored", and there are online dictionaries that define "Bangalored" as an adjective
On the other hand, there are enough Usenet hits to support the existence of Bangaloring, which can't be an adjective form (there's also one use on Google Books of Bangaloring as a humorous variation on the sexual sense of banging, but I don't think it's attestable for our purposes). Thoughts? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, Bangaloring could be an adjective; there are adjectives that end in -ing: the test would be, as it is for Bangalored, whether it's used in distinctly adjectival ways. Can one industry be "more Bangalored than" another? Even on the web, I see almost no hits of "more Bangalored than" and other tests (except inconclusive ones). - -sche(discuss)01:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
движимый vs. двигаемый
I have in my notes that the Present Passive Participle of двигать is exceptionally движимый, and that двигаемый is "not really a word". I did some research on Google, but I couldn't clarify the matter for myself, except that there are many more hits for движимый.
So should we delete the page for двигаемый? Should we correct the conjugation table of двигать?
Stephen has briefly described the etymologies but the usage differs for both words. дви́гаемый(dvígajemyj) is a true present participle of дви́гать(dvígatʹ) and дви́жимый(dvížimyj) is the word that's used instead quite often but it has also figurative senses, like "moved by some motives". --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you read it in context it doesn't seem idiomatic to me. We define words here in isolation and we sometimes forget that use of language in the real world, which hopefully is what we're hoping to explain, has context. Out of context 'smallpox blanket' has two possible meanings, a blanket that protects against smallpox, and a blanket that carries smallpox. But when you look at it in context it only has one possible meaning, which is easily derived from the sum of its parts. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation of the English entry "huh" is given as /hʌ̃/. First of all, is the vowel always nasalised, or does this depend on dialect? Secondly, the link to the IPA key does not include /ʌ̃/, so that link is unhelpful. — 91.238.123.11616:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, always nasalized, at least in the U.S. The IPA link goes to Appendix:English pronunciation, where you will find /ʌ/ (without nasalization). The nasalized vowel is quite rare in English and I cannot think of any words that have it other than huh, uh-huh, and huh-uh, which I think would not be helpful as examples. —Stephen(Talk)01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can something be simultaneously a euphemism and vulgar?
I just created get the dirty water off one's chest, and I was trying to work out how to label it. Does it make sense to say that it is both a euphemism (because it avoids any direct reference to sex) and vulgar (because it relies on rather scatological imagery), or is a vulgar euphemism a contradiction in terms? Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that vulgarity or offensiveness is a matter of degree, depending as it does on speaker and audience attitudes and the relationship between speaker and audience. I think euphemism is a comparative standard, so perhaps roger is a euphemism for fuck and have sex for roger. I'd think that roger is both vulgar (at least for some) and a euphemism (more or less objectively). DCDuringTALK17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all agree with the premise of this. An euphemism is the use of milder language instead of harsher, more blunt, or more offensive (or more vulgar) language. So OBVIOUSLY one vulgarity can be replaced by another (which is simply less vulgar (or less harsh)). The problem is that "get dirty water off one's chest" is NOT an euphemism. There is no obvious connection (it seems to me) between the act of sexual intercourse and the process of removing something from (the surface of) someone's chest. An euphemism must (imho) be accurate, but less precise. Pass over (or away) for die (in a culture which sees Death as a state distinct from Life) is an euphemism. Dirty water could be a euphemism for, say semen (or perhaps vaginal secretions), but off one's chest has nothing to do with the genitalia, hence the phrase fails to be accurate by any stretch of my imagination. As to the question asked: yes, obviously; especially since "vulgar" is a matter of opinion. Many would say that 'vaginal secretions' is a vulgarity...Abitslow (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you say seems to be a challenge to the meaning of the term, not whether or not it is a euphemism. If the connection is not obvious to the uninformed that might make it a better euphemism or a form of coded speech, somewhat analogus to Cockney rhyming slang. DCDuringTALK17:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English audio for lichen doesn't contain pronunciation
I deleted the silent audio there but it was restored by someone claiming that it isn't silent. French one plays fine, but English one only has noise. 73.71.174.7519:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English audio files haven't been working for me for days (I mentioned it in the Grease Pit), but I found that Swedish audio files do work. The audio boxes have turned black as well. I thought it may be a server problem. Donnanz (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might be some hearing irregularity, like otoacoustics interference or some other mysterious thing. I only hear static. And visuals that I posted above only confirm that English audio is irregular. Speech usually looks like the French one, not like the English one. 73.71.174.7522:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It plays fine here, and it's quite clearly a man saying something along the lines of /ˈlaɪ.kn̩/ – there can be no mistaking it for interference or static. —Pinnerup (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found the reason. The audio is stereo with only one channel playing sound, and another channel is static. As it turned out, my speaker is half-broken, doesn't play one side. I will cut out the right channel and update the audio to be mono. 73.71.174.7501:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use this word from time to time and am American, but I don't think that particularly counts. I always assumed it was a very rare word used chiefly in literary or academic contexts, but if it is used often in the UK, then I guess not. —JohnC506:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Ngram data from the US and UK, it seems it was only a bit less common than slaughterhouse is both countries until the 1920s: after that, it has remained (only) a bit less common in the UK, but in the US, it's now only about a fourth as common. Data from the Corpus of Contemporary (1990-2015) American English confirms this: 137 hits for abattoir to 549 for slaughterhouse. We could say {{lb|en|chiefly|UK}}, but "a fourth as common" is rather common, so perhaps a usage note is better: "In the US, such a facility is about four times more likely to be called a slaughterhouse. In the UK, the terms are used with roughly equal frequency." It does seem to be more formal than slaughterhouse in the US, as John notes. - -sche(discuss)07:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly part of my passive vocabulary, but since I pretty much have nothing to do with slaughterhouses, neither abattoir nor slaughterhouse is really part of my active vocabulary. I have no sense at all of one being significantly less common than the other, since they're both very rare in my speech. One fourth of practically nothing is practically nothing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that almost every usage I can recall was in the metaphorical sense. Off the top of my head, the line from Watchmen by Rorschach: “Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” I would never use the word if I didn't want to highlight some terrible characteristics of the comparanda. —JohnC507:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:JohnC5 has this exactly right. In American English, the term does appear but almost exclusively as a literary image of slaughter. Thank you, though, User:-sche, for running the ngram: data is always useful in conversations like this and you're completely right that the figurative use is not primarily British by any stretch. — LlywelynII09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in the USA. But the term is French. It would follow from proximity arguments that it's more common in the UK than in the USA. I believe I once read that it is more common in the meat packing industry (or was it butcher shops?) than in general. Personally, I'd expect a slaughterhouse to be large and "industrial" while an abattoir would be a (small) single room, but that's just me.Abitslow (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, the current text needs editing to remove the current surplus of bitchiness towards new editors who are attempting to be helpful. Second, if you lot don't like {{fact}}, you still need some tag to mark dubious or questioned entries while discussion occurs here. (Deleting the sense in its entirety doesn't seem like an improvement.) Once that's done, that template (by whatever name) is where {{fact}} should link. — LlywelynII09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to edit it to clear this up but it's protected (!!). {{rfv-etymology}} like it says is for etymologies, {{rfc-sense}} is for cleanup of a sense, {{rfv-sense}} is for the proposed verification of a sense, and {{rfd-sense}} proposed deletion of a sense. It would be quite easy to explain all this but not since it's protected! I think {{fact}} used to redirect to {{rfv-sense}} but then people were using it for pronunciations or details within a definition (without disputing the existence of the definition). Renard Migrant (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This previously redirected to {{rfv-sense}}, which was functional, since uses got picked up by people checking its Whatlinkshere or, failing that, via me pruning the "Oldest tagged RFVs" list. (Incidentally, the person who changed that redirect simply silently deleted the template from all entries, rather than verifying the flagged content or posting the entries to WT:RFV or WT:ES.) I wouldn't mind restoring the redirect to {{rfv-sense}}, though I understand the impetus behind channelling people into posting in the forums Wiktionary actually uses, where their concerns will actually be noticed more quickly. It's an issue that Wikipedia uses one cleanup template for everything, in a tag-it-and-forget-it fashion, whereas Wiktionary uses different templates for each type of cleanup and all but requires requests to be posted to central fora. - -sche(discuss)00:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure what to call this in English. They're sometimes called "Breakout clones" or "Arkanoid clones" (after two famous early games in the genre), and while searching I came across "brick breaker" and "brick buster" but didn't think they would meet WT:CFI. Equinox◑10:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only imagine saying it that way if I had already said it normally twice and the person I was talking to still didn't understand me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it before. Although, it must be said, people far more often say /fəˈɡɛt/ or /fɚˈɡɛt/. I've also have heard it in derived terms, such as forget-me-not. Tharthan (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it occasionally, though the pronunciation with the schwa is more common. The existence of jocular extensions (on the web) like fiveget suggests that some people do pronounce it like four-get (compare the google results for forgive, fivegive). To my ears, it sounds like this British singer uses /ɔ/ twice at 0:43-0:44 and then switches to a schwa at 0:47, and this might be an /ɔ/ at 0:48; a schwa is more common and was used in the Jeff Buckley, Slipknot, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and Shakira songs I just checked. I also hear forgotten pronounced with /ɔ/ sometimes, possibly more often than I hear forget pronounced with /ɔ/. - -sche(discuss)23:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly ever hear forgotten pronounced with schwa + r, personally. Also, they pronounce it like "four-get", -sche? So they say "fower-get"? ;) Tharthan (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, interesting; it seems like a pronunciation the Southern US might arrive at, too (from preserving the old Middle English two-syllable pronunciation or from breaking the one-syllable pronunciation?). - -sche(discuss)18:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In New England, I would guess it's most likely a dying relic of the Middle English two-syllable pronunciation, but I guess it could have originated from the breaking of the tenser hoarse-vowel. In Southern English, they break a lot of vowels, so I would more likely attribute it to that. --WikiTiki8918:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that it is over-enunciated, though. Isn't it more that the unstressed pronunciation is under-enunciated? That notwithstanding, I agree completely that it is far less common than the unstressed form, but to say that it is over-enunciated might be pushing it. Tharthan (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a and the we use the wording "unstressed" vs "stressed", which might work here. The songs don't exactly seem to be enunciating or stressing it any more than the other words, though (unless one assumes the premise and argues that they must be enunciating it because they're pronouncing it with /ɔ/). Marina even uses /ɔ/ at first and then switches to a schwa when she draws out the word. - -sche(discuss)19:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Singing is a common place to enunciate. The "stressed" and "unstressed" that we use for "a" and "the" don't apply, because "a" and "the" can be stressed in ordinary non-enunciated speech, and when "forget" is stressed, it is the second syllable that is stressed. If you are stressing typically unstressed syllables, I would call that enunciating. --WikiTiki8919:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This and a number of other Malay terms used {{qualifier|unused}} in with at least one definition. What's this for? If it's unused how can it be considered a 'word' in any sense? Or if it doesn't refer to the term being unused, what does it refer to? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps although it's unused in Bahasa Malaysia—I never heard it during my years in Malaysia—it is used in Bahasa Indonesia. It isn't in my Malay dictionary, but it's in my Indonesian dictionary:
kawula (Java.) 1. (obsolete) servitor. 2a. I, me, my. 2b. we, us, our. 3. people, subject, citizen. — Belanda Dutch subject. 4. group. — muda young people. — gusti the patron-client pair. — negara (obs.) national (of a country; replaced by warga negara). kekawula-negaraan citizenship. — swapraja (obs.) dependency (the state of one nation being a dependency of another). kekaula-swaprajaan being a dependency.
I think the question could be resolved by removing the Malay heading (along with the "unused" Johor-Selangor pronunciation), and substituting Indonesian and/or Javanese. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did find kula in my Malay dictionary, with the definition as above and noted as Javanese. In this case I'd suggest removing the "unused" tag. I wonder if by "unused" the editor intended the meaning "obsolete." Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the late reply. Based on Kamus Dewan, kawula is an archaic Javanese term which means people, (singular 1st person): I and citizen. Its alternative form is kaula. --Malaysiaboy (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The degree to which the root of a radicand is found. For example the in .
but only one related translation table headed "(in mathematics)". Can someone with more maths than me consider whether the translation table shouldn't be split in three as well (presumably ttbc-ing all the translations there)? --Droigheann (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first makes sense to me. I really cannot understand the second: what does between a base and an antilogarithm mean? In the example given, it is true that if 4 is the log to base b of a, then b raised to the power 4 is a, by the definition of logarithm, but I cannot see that there is any distinct sense of "exponent" here. Similarly, in the third definition the exponent is actually 1/3; raising to the power of 1/3 means taking the cube root. I can believe that sloppy descriptions might use the word "exponent" to refer to any small superscripted number, but this seems to me to be an error, just as it would be to refer to a footnote 5 after the value of pi as an "exponent". I think that unless clear references can be found supporting them, these two definitions should be removed. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone opposed to the creation of trypophobia? It's been deleted a few times, but it seems to have widespread use. It barely meets CFI, though. I found the following citations:
2014, Charlotte Pritchard, A Dark Hole, page 45
Daniel paused for a moment and then continued, “There is a term that is associated with a fear of holes. It's called trypophobia. Marcy appears to have this fear of holes.” “Oh, come on, Doctor. This is utterly ridiculous.”
2014, Marian Cox, '
These are actually potentially dangerous so could be viewed as being in a different category. A common irrational phobia is of holes, anything containing holes: buttons, crumpets, cheese, honeycomb, drainpipes... This is called trypophobia ...
2015, Irena Milosevic Ph.D., Randi E. McCabe Ph.D., Phobias: The Psychology of Irrational Fear: The Psychology of Irrational Fear
The prevalence of trypophobia in the general population is not known. However, preliminary research suggests that the tendency to experience aversion in response to trypophobic stimuli is relatively common.
Is that good enough? I came here looking for a definition, so that in itself is a reason for keeping it. I just wanted to make sure it isn't going to be deleted right away. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two 2014 citations are mentions. Given the popularity of this word, we should probably include it in some appendix and redirect to it using {{no entry}}, at least until adequate citations are found. — Ungoliant(falai)03:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it would make more sense to have some policy whereby neologisms could be kept conditionally, and placed in some category to be revisited a year or two later to determine whether or not to keep them. The reason for this is that during their brief periods of popularity, people likely want to know what they mean. I know that I often look up these sorts of words if I see them multiple times, and am sometimes disappointed to find them absent from dictionaries, including this one. Most dictionaries can't or don't add things as easily/quickly as we do, so it would make perfect sense to include neologisms while they are in widespread use, then keep them if they meet CFI after a year or two, and otherwise delete them. What do people think of this? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found another pair of citations, which are not independent because the authors are the same, so, they only count as one citation towards the WT:CFI requirement of three (but they do show that use has spanned more than a year). With a third citation, and the last of the citations above, I've restored the entry. - -sche(discuss)04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definition may need tweaking. "Fear of holes" might suggest somebody who is afraid of falling down a hole while walking down the street, but this is more a fear of visual patterns of small holes. Equinox◑04:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing the WP article w:Japanese units of measurement, which refers to "spatels" as a carpentry tool. SOED does not list "spatel", and en:Wiktionary only gives şpatel. But it seems clear this is a Germanic form of "spatula": there's spatel (Swedish WP), which links to the Japanese for a pharmacist's measuring spoon(?), which says that something else is also known as the German spatel. So perhaps a Germanic speaker can add an entry? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what other people think, because I have inserted etymologies like 2 in other entries. So give folks a little while to react here. DCDuringTALK14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that entry the other day and was wondering the same thing. I have no problem with it being merged, but maybe you should mention in the definition that it's a shortening of "housing project." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We usually show as different etymologies homonyms that come from the same, typically Latin, origin, but via different routes and with sufficiently different semantics. DCDuringTALK13:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems, as I see it, is that unless one scrolls right down to the bottom of the entry, below the verb, it can be missed. And it's still derived from the noun "project" as RM pointed out, no matter how you look at it. It's not a sense I am familiar with, by the way. Donnanz (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the past participle the columns singular and plural should be changed to masculine and feminine. The rows masculine and feminine should be changed to singular and plural.
I have not screened that entire page for errors, but in view of those errors it would likely indicate that the page was not carefully proofed.
Dr Katherine Rogers — This unsigned comment was added by 108.64.250.212 (talk) at 18:07, 18 February 2016.
Thank you for noticing the error in the Spanish conjugation table. Note that Ladin is a different language from Latin and is not a misspelling. The Latin entry for the equivalent verb is at perdo (and the infinitive is perdere). --WikiTiki8918:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our readers make this mistake all the damn time. Can we just rename the bloody language to Ladino, Ladino Dolomita, Rhaeto-Romance or something? (And rename our Ladino to Judeo-Spanish.) --Romanophile♞ (contributions) 06:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose renaming Ladino for the sake of Ladin. I also oppose renaming a language for no better reason than users repeatedly confusing it with Latin. Didn't we used to have an edit filter preventing changing Ladin to Latin? --WikiTiki8914:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone cares, since I made the change to the edit filter, the warning message has successfully prevented three anons from changing "Ladin" to "Latin" (and successfully annoyed editors doing 9 completely unrelated edits). --WikiTiki8915:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're missing a sense that covers this, but I'm not sure how to word it. Is it a regional thing? I've used and heard it so often I'm surprised we're missing it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a verb, so I would say that I "challenged the final exam for math" if I did not take the math course, but took the exam anyway to see if I could pass it and thereby earn credit for the course without taking it. One could challenge exams for prerequisites one needs for a course to avoid taking the prerequisites themselves. I live in Alberta, Canada. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Challenged the exam" in Google Books finds three results, all irrelevant: "the student who challenged the exam" (for a corrected score), "challenged the exam as being racially biased", "a black firefighter who later challenged the exam in court". Equinox◑18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't: Andrew is talking about a different sense, meaning taking an exam without taking the preceding course first. See above. Equinox◑18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The verb sense would be under challenge, as it wouldn't be said without an article. So far, I have found two clear examples of it searching for "challenge an exam," and I should be able to find a third. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some citations:
1996, Senate Legislative Record ... Legislature State of Maine[8]:
I mean if you go in and want to challenge an exam it cost you half of your course money. If you don't pass the exam, that money is credited toward taking the course. What have you got to lose to challenge an exam, or do a competency exam?
The only time I went to class was to challenge an exam. My marks were good. But there was one class I never missed, “Nursing Process and the New Philosophy in Nursing.”
2006, Diana Huggins, Exam/cram 70-291: Implementing, Managing, and Maintaining a Windows Server 2003 Network Infrastructure[10], page 2:
Although we strongly recommend that you keep practicing until your scores top the 75% mark, 80% would be a good goal, to give yourself some margin for error in a real exam situation[…]. After you hit that point, you should be ready to challenge the exam.
There are more, but these should be sufficient to cite it. There seem to be uses of it in the US, but I'm not sure how exactly how widespread it is. I'm still not quite sure how to word the definition. I'll have to think about that. If anyone wants to give it a go, I'd appreciate it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have defined it as ""(Canada, US) To write (a final exam) in order to get credit for a course without taking it." Is that satisfactory? I included US in the label, based on the fact that a number of the citations I found were from the US, but I can only personally attest to its frequency in Western Canada. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article talks about this: "In order to develop a weapon with a more reliable, higher rate of fire, General Electric designers scaled down the rotating-barrel 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon for 7.62×51mm NATO ammunition." Equinox◑05:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the military, aren't they usually careful about not referring to handheld firearms as "guns", reserving that term for big things like cannons? Compared to cannons and the like, miniguns are pretty small. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should long phrases be added to Wiktionary? The one I had in mind was "I'll go to the foot of our stairs!", which is an interesting and colourful exclamation of surprise, but I don't know if it's too long for here. 109.151.61.19718:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought so. We never could organize a phrasebook (where we might have SoP phrases). This seems SoP. Our entry for foot has an adequate definition and a usage example:
Our entries need proofreading, more and better citations, more contemporary wording, checking for completeness, and lots of things that one would find as one went along. DCDuringTALK19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: I think you just proved that it's not SOP. This an exclamation of surprise, not a literal declaration of one's intention to move to bottom of a stairwell. --WikiTiki8919:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't be "any" sentence. This is a fixed idiom for surprise. It's not something random like "I'll feed a goldfish to my foot". It's more comparable to "I'll be a monkey's uncle". Equinox◑23:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, it as an aircraft fitted out so that the main compartment could be rapidly switched among all-freight, all-passenger, or one or more mixed configurations in response to demand for each type of payload on each route and at various times of day (or week, month, or season). Usually used only for a long flight segment or sequence of segments. DCDuringTALK19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation information given for Tunisia was incomplete, and I made some edits in an attempt to fix this, which you will see. However, then I realised that the original pronunciation, /tjuːˈnɪzɪə/, which I believe is intended to be the UK pronunciation, was incorrect anyway. As I understand it, 'ɪ' is supposed to represent a short 'i', as in 'bit', but no one in the UK pronounces it -ɪə, and, in fact, this is virtually impossible to say. However, I hardly know anything about IPA, and looking at various other -ia words, which do not seem to be treated consistently, I have become confused, so probably it is better if someone else looks at this. 109.151.61.19704:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you actually advocating? You've said it's wrong but refuse to say what's right? /tjuːˈnɪzɪə/ looks fine to me, I'm guessing you're thinking of /tjuːˈnɪzjə/. I might try making an audio files if that helps. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"refuse to say what's right" seems rather an extreme reaction to what I wrote, given that I tried to explain as best I could what the problem was. 109.151.61.19721:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "convention" that gives the wrong representation of the sound is of dubious value, in my opinion. However, I see that someone has now changed it to /iə/. 109.151.61.19721:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That Greek noun also has a doubtful masculine gender, cf. LSJ "the instances of the masc. are dub.". Of course this should be noted somehow (as that's better than stating it's feminine and sometimes masculine). But how should it be noted? Just a usage note? Masc. gender in the header and a usage note? Usage note with some examples which other sources (dictionaries, grammar books) think are doubtful (like "Arist.Col.798a26" which LSJ mentions)? -91.16.59.25116:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Way out of my area of knowledge here, but from context I suspect it means one of the first or last days of the period, when the flow is at its lightest. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like shoulder period in seasonal resorts, intermediate between off-season and peak. I eliminated it in the definition of pantyliner, instead contrasting low-flow with heavy flow, which was already in the definition. DCDuringTALK19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A poorly resolved subsidiary maximum interrupting a part of a graph otherwise having a fairly uniform or smoothly varying slope."
(What is a "subsidiary maximum"? A local maximum? If so, that's not a shoulder.)
It seems that this kind of shoulder is derived from a certain shape on a graph of a variable, most commonly over time. The shoulder is distinguishable segment of the graph, having the appearance of a physical shoulder relative to a human head, at which the value of the variable is at or near a value between the maximum and minimum. DCDuringTALK02:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the opady "rainfall" bars form a peak in period VII, a left shoulder in periods V & VI and a right shoulder in period VIII
We have two senses: "(childish) An astronaut" and "A male astronaut". What does this mean: that it's only childish when used of female astronauts? I think a merge is in order: the sense might be "An astronaut, especially a male one". (I'm not sure that "childish" is correct either: okay, NASA probably doesn't use this word, but some adults do.) Equinox◑19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of our definitions for if fits these usages? I suppose the last: "As is the case, since", but since is polysemic and as is the case is not substitutable in either usage example, though it is with the addition of that. Is there a better definition, possibly a non-gloss definition? DCDuringTALK21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that no definition of if that is exclusively connected with truth value fits these non-declarative sentences, the first of which can only be a speech act and the second of which can be analysed as any of several speech acts. DCDuringTALK21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's the final definition, yes. And I don't think that robotically literal word-for-word substitutability is necessary in definitions (after all, that would turn us into a thesaurus): we just want the given definition to be able to form a similar utterance of the same meaning. Equinox◑23:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems to me that the doubt we have about the definition must be worse for someone who lacked our experience and interest.
The closest is the "because" sense and it's not very close.
I find "as is the case (that)" to be really hard to decipher: three (four) function words and case, or as + is the case, an idiom, whose definition ("exists as an independent fact of (external) reality.") is not very elucidating.
I think this if expresses a (polite) lack of commitment to the truth of the conditional, but not the implied disbelief were the verbs subjunctivized. DCDuringTALK00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another example:
If there are cars on the road, don't try to cross.
(1) Meaning 3. gives: "A rich brown colour, like that of oak wood." Well, this is fine, in that around the world people making things this colour out of plastic (mostly) call it "oak colour", but it isn't fine in that if you find an oak tree, cut it down and look at the wood, it is not this colour. It is a light colour, with (usually) beautiful grain, which if simply protected with clear varnish remains this light colour for at least 50 years. I think traditionally oak was probably either stained or left completely unprotected, and after the passage of centuries it can indeed be an indefinitely dark colour. So it seems to me this needs changing.
(2) The translations section gives a number of possibilities for Japanese, but does not distinguish deciduous oak (which is what "English oak" etc refers to) and evergreen oak (or "live oak", which is perhaps the US designation for the different tree that grows on the US east coast among other places). There is a famous mistranslation of "oak" in English stories, of people sitting among the fallen autumn leaves, as kashi (樫), which refers to evergreen oak. It would be nice not to be helping this along, but I'm not sure how to do it. Lexicographically "oak" referring to an oak tree is one word, but botanically it's a number of species. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1: The only question for us is whether there is one (or more) color or (one or more) range of colors that, by widespread convention, are called oak. In my direct experience there are two ranges of color for oak, red oak and white oak. The most intensive usage of such a term is at a time of construction, remodeling, or refinishing, so I would not have expected aged oak to be what usage of the term included. Any fine definition of color would probably be one limited to decorators, their suppliers, and their customers. I am familiar with the darker color, having had dogs roaming the wood floors of my house occasionally permanently darkening some areas, using one of the means by which such darkening was traditionally achieved.
2: I have always assumed that, in English, a tree was identified as an oak by the shape of its leaves, the presence of acorns, and, possibly, the strength of its wood. We are fortunate that biologists seems to have found that the popular definition more or less corresponds to contemporary phylogenetic definitions of the taxon Quercus. Being deciduous is an important, but secondary attribute for the trees known in cool temperate English-speaking areas. Live oak is an interesting way of naming one kind of oak (oak being "normally" deciduous) that is evergreen. English doesn't seem to need or, at least, have any single common term to name deciduous oaks. DCDuringTALK12:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usage doesn't always follow logic; we record usage as a dictionary, not logic, so I may I suggest that your definition does not belong in a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The oak color is that of fumed oak: oak wood that has been darkened by exposure to ammonia fumes.
(2) There are three traits that define oaks, conceptually: leaf shape, acorns/membership in the genus Quercus, and massive, solid tree habit. Those are all there in the English oaks, but aren't all present at the same time in everything called an oak, especially in formerly non-English-speaking areas such as the US and Australia.
The oaks native to England are deciduous, with flat, lobed leaves, so this is the default, unmarked meaning. The other main type of oak has rounded, undivided, leathery leaves, often with prickly points on the margins. These generally are named for their resemblance to holly, as in the Mediterranean holm oak or ilex, or for their evergreen nature, as in live oaks (which is what we call them in the US). The poison oak in the US is so named because of its flat, lobed leaves, but it's botanically a type of sumac and the plant is a vine or shrub.
Botanically, oaks (genusQuercus) have bracts fused into a cuplike structure around the end of a single nut called an acorn. The generaLithocarpus and Notholithocarpus are similar, but have the bracts on the outside of the cup sticking up rather than lying flat as the oaks do. We have scrub oaks in the US that botanically are oaks, but have leaves more like live oaks and they're shrubs.
The other notable characteristic of oaks is their tendency to be large, spreading trees with very solid wood. In Australia they have silk oaks and she-oaks, which don't have oak-like leaves and aren't botanically anywhere near the true oaks, but are massive (not necessarily spreading) trees with solid wood.
The problem is that English doesn't have any lexical way of marking which of the three traits are present or emphasized, so translations that are based on only one or two of them have nothing in the entry to attach to. In England there's no general term for the evergreen oaks, they're called ilexes/holm oaks, kermes oaks, etc. In the US, we call them live oaks, but mostly think of such trees as local natives. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bit of everything: scrub oaks are shrubs, we have several species with leathery, holly-like leaves that we call live oaks, most of which are massive trees, and we even have a few species with flat, lobed deciduous leaves that would fit right in with the English oaks. We also have poison oak, a sumac named for its leaf shape, and tanbark oak, which isn't a Quercus, but has acorns in structures similar to acorn cups and is related to true oaks. I think Australia has more non-Quercus trees called oaks because they don't have any of the true Quercus oaks. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary pronunciation of this is also /lwe/. Lmaltier on the French Wiktionary asked a very simple question. Does anyone actually pronounce it like that? For non IPA people, basically the English word way (/weɪ/) with /l/ straight in front of it. Nope, never heard it pronounced as a single syllable (though I physically can do it). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's…exactly how it's pronounced. I mean, it's a diphthong, so yeah it's a little longer than a simple vowel, but I would always ‘feel’ it (and hear it) as a single syllable. It also works that way in French poetry, for instance. Ƿidsiþ17:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Treat "ou" as how French write "w" (cf. Eng west, Fr ouest). This is still the case although the "ou" came from "o" in Latin (locare > *lougaire > louer), because the French don't care about where this word comes from when they pronounce it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of overkill. gouter is not pronounced /gwte/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g). The real reason here is that in French adjacent vowels usually merge together into diphthongs. Same as hier or tuer. But I would say we would best transcribe them as vowels rather than semivowels, as we do for most other diphthongs. --WikiTiki8915:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one says it /lwe/ instead of /lue/ in standard French (of northern France). There is a whole series of semi-vowels now prononced using a true vowel pair, or both (semi-vowel between vowel pair, as in /prije/ <prije>). More generally, there are number of phonological changes, still active and for several generations already, that are not at all reflected in works about the language, even some supposedly descriptive instead of prescriptive. These changes progessively affect other european forms of French (Belgian, Swiss, Southern), but Quebec is more conservative. — This unsigned comment was added by Denispir (talk • contribs) at 08:48, 15 March 2016.
I was looking at the Hebrew word for "Hebrew". I read that the Hebrews crossed the Euphrates into Canaan. Unless my years of Scripture study in the seminary were all for nought, they crossed the Jordan River.Caeruleancentaur (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page he's talking about is עברי. Eber also says the name may have been given "in reference to those who crossed the Euphrates river with Abram from Paddan Aram to the land of Canaan." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, those are two different crossings. The Jordan crossing is in the book of Joshua (Joshua 3) when – after having wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and after Moses' death – Joshua leads the Israelites across the Jordan into Cana'an. The Euphrates crossing speculated about in עברי is much earlier, when Abram sets out from Ur of the Chaldeans/Harran to go to Cana'an, described in Genesis 12:1. –Pinnerup (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, no, since plays also have scripts, but I've never heard of a playwright being referred to as a scriptwriter. I'm not sure where video games and commercials/adverts fit in all of this. Finally, it would help if we had something, somewhere that explained what "the screen" means. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in Oxford [11], [12], and [13] it says a screenwriter writes the screenplay. But is the screenplay an adaption of the scriptwriter's script? I imagine the script is written first. And can a scriptwriter wear two hats, perform both tasks and be a screenwriter too? Donnanz (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the screenplay is the script, but I'm no expert on screenwriting. I suspect that all screenwriters are scriptwriters, but there are definitely scriptwriters who aren't screenwriters, as SemperBlotto has demonstrated. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That’s actually a good point. It’s just that I don’t usually see ‘isolate’ used substantively, and the ‐ate termination makes me think that it’s supposed to be adjectival. --Romanophile♞ (contributions) 20:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've always interpreted it the same way as Eiríkr. Certainly the only possible plural for me is "language isolates", never *"languages isolate" (parallel to "attorneys general"). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entry has illogically two Derived terms sections under Noun, one just above Translations and one just below. Could someone merge the words from the latter one? I'd do it myself, but to be honest with most of them I'm uncertain whether to merge them into the Derived terms under Verb or under Noun. --Droigheann (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting case. I think the contributor(s) of the three DT headers intended to have three: one for terms that are clearly de-verbal, another for those that are clearly de-nominal, and a last for those whose derivation was ambiguous. For now, I have simply changed the last from an L4 header (which made it look like a mistaken duplication of the de-nominal DT section) to an L3 header (from which a user might infer at least that it was not a mistake). I'll work on the text display on the show-hide bar to make it clearer what the entry is trying to do.
I believe WT:EL does cover this. You can have derived terms at the end of the entry (well, near the end) at level 3 (===Derived terms===) if there are multiple parts of speech OR use level 4 under each part of speech. I think in fairness WT:EL isn't as precise as what I've written. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make clear that you could have one in each location? That is, is "OR" exclusive or inclusive?
I suppose we should make it clear that we have "statutory law" (voted-on policy), "common law" (policy not voted on), "practice", and "judge-made law" (assessments of efforts to apply the rules in specific cases, as in the Tea Room or BP). Or perhaps we only have some of those. DCDuringTALK16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An anon changed the etymology in the English section with the result that all other languages have a different etymology. Anyone here who could judge which, if any, is correct? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com has this: from Sanskrit: extinction, literally: a blowing out, from nir- out + vāti it blows. This is almost the same that we had earlier. I'm tempted to revert. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
solbrillor - Is this really a Swedish word? In the Swedish wiktionary it appears as a Danish word sv:solbrillor.
The category Swedish pluralia tantum - I think this category should be dispensed of. Possibly the only "true" pluralia tantum in the list is mygg, but in fact even that one does neatly qualify as such, as morphologically it has the form of a singular noun (so it is a collective noun).
Sorry to disappoint anonymous contributor (you forgot to sign your post), but as a Swede, I guarantee you that this truly is a Swedish word albeit familiar/slangish (Google gives us some 184.000+ results[14]). Concerning plurale tantum in Swedish, there are several examples of "true" pluralia tantum, e.g. glasögon, kläder, inälvor, pengar, kråkfötter, genitalier, vegetabilier, etc. So let's not dispense of this category just yet. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a superlative for "opaque". It is an absolute. While I concede that there exists a variable, "opacity," the maximum value for this quality is "opaque." Along with "perfect" and "unique," superlatives are superfluous. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.198.92.251 (talk) at 19:11, February 26, 2016.
Needed or not, people use both the comparative and superlative for all of those words. I still remember this phrase from the Preamble of the US constitution that was taught to me in school when I was a child: "in Order to to form a more perfect Union". This is a descriptive dictionary, so we're not about to remove those forms from our entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: "More perfect" in the U.S. constitution means "more nearly perfect". Thomas Jefferson was not claiming the union was already perfect; he was saying it was not perfect, but that the Constitution would bring it a bit closer to perfection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of the gradability question, comparative and superlative forms of adjectives with more than one syllable tend to be awkward. "opaquest" is a case in point. 109.152.149.22014:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the opinion that "opaque" is alleged to be an absolute nor the opinion that it sounds awkward changes the fact that it is amply attested: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. That fact is sufficient in itself for us to include it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The primary practical purpose of dictionaries is to help people understand what they read and to choose the correct words when they write. Therefore, to the extent that it is agreed that "opaquest" is unusual and/or awkward, it is helpful, as has now been done, to state this, rather than presenting "opaquest" and "most opaque" as equals. 109.152.149.22002:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct and awkward are just too subjective for a dictionary. Opaque actually does have usage notes and then I think 'less common' is a good way to word it as to cuts out of the opinion pushing stuff. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as if these usage notes always existed, but actually they have been added since my original comment, possibly as a result of it, as I tried to indicate. 109.145.180.6918:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any distinction between senses 4 and 5 of the second etymology? They are defined as "A stop; a halt; a break or cessation of action, motion, or progress." and "(archaic) A standstill; a state of rest; entire cessation of motion or progress." respectively. If there is in fact a distinction to be made, the definitions could stand to be clarified. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Senses 1 and 2 of etymology 4 also do not seem distinct. They are, respectively, "(Britain dialectal) Steep; ascending." and "(Britain dialectal) (of a roof) Steeply pitched." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the adjectival sense is also known in Scots, but the DSL only links it to "a hill, cliff, road, ascent, etc." and claims it's "now obsol. or liter., except in the proverbial phr. to pit or set a stout hert to a stey brae, to face difficulties with resolution" [21] --Droigheann (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sense 4 seems to refer to briefer stops, pauses(?) and sense 5 longer or "total, entire" ones, so the synonyms would be different. Perhaps usage differs geographically or over time. One wouldn't use ascending of a roof, though steep is fine. Steep can include vertical, whereas I don't think pitched would. DCDuringTALK17:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't it transparent, as stay + ly (adverbial suffix) + -er/-est ? Is it correct the way it is ? If so, then ok Leasnam (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, guilty. The adverb was from Scottish usage, but I don't know where the l forms come from...all I can think is I might have been trying to pipe in "|" and used an "l" by mistake ? I'll fix those now. Leasnam (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it exemplifies a typically slightly obfuscatory use of the rhetorical question.
Scottish usage seems distinct enough to merit a more specific label than dialect. Someone here pointed out this source from which it might be possible to attest such dialect. DCDuringTALK17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably only find anything searching for the usual Scottish spelling stey though, I've tried "a stay", "stay path", "stay slope", "stay hill" and "stay stairs" and got nothing. --Droigheann (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://es.wiktionary.org/wiki/deten%C3%A9 the Spanish word detené is the second person singular imperative of detener, but the conjugation at detener says otherwise.
There are two things I don't know --
1) How to be sure which is right
2) How to edit the conjugation at detener, which is based on a regular -er verb template.
Can anyone give me a pointer or two?
Let's start with linking to detener. The Spanish Wiktionary es:detener lists detené as a vos form, therefore it's used in parts of Latin America, and NOT in Spain. Google Books has enough hits to pass it although it's pretty rare for a conjugated form of a very common verb, so I suspect deten is just much more common. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered this in Ian Maclaren's Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush: "criticised everything in the technique of the pulpit, from the number of heads in a sermon to the air with which a probationer used his pocket-handkerchief", "they were sayin' [his sermon] hes mair than seeventy heads, coontin' pints, of coorse, and a' can weel believe it", "fourth pint under the sixth head" &c; now I've come across it in Walter Scott's Old Mortality: "The discourse was divided into fifteen heads, each of which was garnished with seven uses of application, two of consolation [&c&c]" - what's it all about? Do "heads" and "points" in these contexts simply mean "topics"? Or is there a specific technical usage, as the references to "dividing (heads into points &c)" seem to indicate? Is it perhaps something particular to Presbyterian sermons? I've searched here and in the OED and Oxford Dictionaries Online and Dictionary of the Scots Language and Wikipedia but I can't make it out. --Droigheann (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a head is a topic (an NP?) and a point is a proposition (sentence?). Threy may have been conventional terms in textbooks on constructing sermons, speeches, legal briefs, and other texts that were arguments. DCDuringTALK15:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find this post confused. In my sOED (1993) definition 16[obsolete]a. The beginning of a word, passage, etc. def.17 Top of a page,passage of text, etc. Also a title appearing there, a heading. - It might be worthwhile to research whether a sermon was traditionally written in a specific format, I suspect there was a formal template, and it included what we today would call headings.Abitslow (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![{\displaystyle {\sqrt[{2}]{r}}=b}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3222a39ae01af8d2db2a83d44ba40dcc0e8bdf02)
