Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/August

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← July 2018 · August 2018 · September 2018 → · (current)

bourgie, bougie[edit]

Do these mean two different things in AAVE, or are they alt forms of the same word? If the latter, one should be labelled a synonym or alt form of the other. If the former, usage notes advising "not to be confused with..." would be useful. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also: bougie, at least, does not seem limited to AAVE (and if the citation from Sarah Nicole Prickett is anything to go by, neither is bourgie). - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
They can't realistically, can they, given the etymology? Let's merge. (I don't think I've ever seen it outside Black Twitter, but I don't get out much. Cites are king.) Equinox 01:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've merged them. I had mostly encountered the spelling bougie and checking twitter confirms that it's more common, so I made it the lemma. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

by use and wont[edit]

Is this a set expression?

It would appear so. In this context both use and wont are archaic (meaning, respectively, the usual way of doing things and the habitual way of doing things), so this has to be a set phrase, and apparently an instance of a legal doublet.  --Lambiam 16:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

custom and practice[edit]

Same question. “custom and practice” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

habits and customs[edit]

Same question.

mores and customs[edit]

Same question.

The reason I'm asking is that I'm looking for a translation of French us et coutumes, and I'd like to render the binary structure of that idiom. Per utramque cavernam 08:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

standard procedure? --New WT User Girl (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
They all seem to mean basically the same, but are used in different contexts. By use and wont and custom and practice are both legal terminology, used to convey the presumption that longstanding practice confers legal value; of these, custom and practice is specific to labour contract law. The last two belong more to the domains of anthropology and sociology; rather than normative they are descriptive. So the question is how the French phrase is most commonly used. For what it’s worth, the English original of the quotation « Oui, répondit le prieur Aymer ; mais chaque pays a ses us et coutumes ; [...]  » from Ivanhoé found at the French Wikipedia is ‘“Ay, but,” answered Prior Aymer, “every land has its own manners and fashions; [...]”’.  --Lambiam 16:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
In my idiolect customs isn't fashions, but Webster 1828 has it so. In my idiolect there is an element of frivolity to fashion, but not to mores, custom(s), practice, habit(s), use, and wont. DCDuring (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

bell-bottoms, bell-bottomed trousers[edit]

Are these the same thing? Also, the adjective bell-bottomed is glossed as "a style of pants [...]"; I don't think that's proper. Per utramque cavernam 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A Google image search for “bell-bottoms” shows bell-bottomed trousers only. The term pants should be avoided as meaning different things in different parts of the Anglophone world.  --Lambiam 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Bell-bottoms are understood to be pants/trousers. Out of curiosity and amusement, I searched Google Images for bell bottom shorts/dresses/skirts and found nothing but pants. At least in the US, "bell-bottoms" is the main(/only) form, so I'd change the "trousers" variants to alternative forms labeled as UK. Ultimateria (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Chiasmus and chiasmus[edit]

Do we need both of these pages? Is the initial uppercase letter strictly required for the German word? --Proginoskes (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Proginoskes: Yes. All German nouns are capitalised. Per utramque cavernam 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Alright, thanks. Proginoskes (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Proginoskes: Yes. Almost all "Translingual" taxonomic names are capitalized, too. See Chiasmus#Translingual. DCDuring (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pedigree of German Magen[edit]

Why is Magen not listed at Proto-Germanic *magô as a descendant? Also, why is an archaic German Mage listed, a form that does not even have a (High) German entry, neither here nor on the German Wiktionary?  --Lambiam 08:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Because the correctly inherited form is
Apparently the addition of an n in the nom.sg. and the strong plural are sufficient for some people to deny the inheritedness and see the word as “derived” only. No, I don’t know, it looks pedantic for me. Imma create an entry for “Mage” in a bit. Should I give an archaic quote and a declension table on the main entry Magen or in the alternative form? I am not sure but I will do the former. Have I offended the layout of this discussion page? I am not sure either. Fay Freak (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I can’t even add the self-same declension table code in the entry because I get the message: “Lua error in Module:de-noun at line 360: The parameter "head" is not used by this template.” Is this a dirty trick of the module creator to enforce putting declensions with different nominative singular under a different page? Fay Freak (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The parameter for changing the nominative singular for that module is |ns=. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pit of cess[edit]

Our cesspool entry states that the origin is uncertain and gives two possible alternative etymologies. The Online Etymology Dictionary presents two more guesses. None of these suggest a relation with the noun cess. Yet our cesspit entry analyzes the word with great confidence as the compound cess + pit.  --Lambiam 08:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

cess in the sense of to spill water[1] seems pretty close, or also in the sense a layer or stratum, which would mean that a cesspool or cesspit is a pool in a certain layer or which stratifies water. Fay Freak (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wright, Thomas (1880), “cess”, in Dictionary of obsolete and provincial English, containing words from the English writers previous to the nineteenth century which are no longer in use, or are not used in the same sense. And words which are now used only in the provincial dialects, volume 1, London: George Bell and Sons, page 295
“Cesspit” does not mean “pit for spilling water”, “pit in a certain layer” or “pit that stratifies water”; these all seem implausible etyma to me. Is there an authoritative source for the etymology of cesspit?  --Lambiam 19:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
An earlier revision of our cesspit entry said cesspool + pit instead. Equinox 19:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
etymonline (which is plagiarized from the OED), derives it from "cesspool", for which it gives, "the first element perhaps an alteration of cistern, or perhaps a shortened form of recess [Klein]; or the whole may be an alteration of suspiral (c. 1400), "drainpipe," from Old French sospiral". I think we should say the etymology is unknown. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Norwegian languages[edit]

On Wiktionary There's Norwegian, Norwegian Bokmål, Norwegian Nynorsk.

As far as I know entries that are the same in both Bokmål and Nynorsk are still entered in both NB and NN, so my question is - what is Norwegian for? I see some words like jo only have an entry for Norwegian, are those yet to be processed by someone and turned into Bokmål + Nynorsk?

Should I treat Nynorsk entries as both Bokmål+Nynorsk for purposes of creating an offline dictionary? C0rn3j (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/Unified Norwegian: see the conclusion. Per utramque cavernam 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh so it's kind of a free-for-all and people can create entries willy nilly either under NO or NB+NN. Guess I'll be inserting NO into both NB and NN dictionaries on my side then. Thanks. C0rn3j (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
For many years, this was a topic of theoretical interest. Some Norwegians thought separation was the right thing to do, but not many entries were created anyway. In 2013, this changed, as user:Njardarlogar started to contribute lots of entries in separate languages, and also remove the united Norwegian entries. At the height, Norwegian had 6751 lemmas in January 2013 and now has only 1926 lemmas. In that poll in 2014, you see some non-Norwegians supporting the idea to keep Norwegian united as one language (the old status quo), and some very serious Norwegian contributors (including Njardarlogar) opposing that idea. Inside Norway, the idea to unify the two died in the 1960s (w:no:Samnorsk). LA2 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Among the people who participated in the 2014 poll and who seriously contribute to Norwegian entries on this wiktionary and/or are native speakers of Norwegian, there were 5 that voted for treating Bokmål and Nynorsk separately and 1 who was neutral. So in this group, there is more or less consensus to treat them separately, even if that wasn't enough to take the poll to that conclusion. With the introduction of Lexicographical data on Wikidata, this debate is likely to surface there as well, with a slightly different set of participating users (I did start a section on the Norwegian project chat there, but not much of a debate there yet).

Printed and online dictionaries tend to treat Nynorsk and Bokmål separately as far as I am aware (so a printed dictionary may be either only for Nynorsk or only for Bokmål).

The major downside to treating Nynorsk and Bokmål separately on Wiktionary, are the dialects. Some dialectal entries might fit naturally under a Nynorsk or Bokmål header, but most will probably not - hence a third header "Norwegian" is then be necessary to enter these (unless you want to duplicate their entries).

As for your offline dictionary, how to best treat Norwegian depends on the purpose of the dictionary. --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding dictionaries, Det Norsk Akademis Ordbok {{R:NAOB}} doesn't cover Nynorsk at all, and leans towards Riksmål. DonnanZ (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
My use for the offline dictionary is mainly Kindle and Kindle for PC. For the Bokmål dictionary on the screenshots I simply scrape entries in a bunch of main Bokmål categories, which ends up excluding words like jo since they are not noted down under Bokmål. Hence my current idea is to also scrape the Norwegian entries into it. C0rn3j (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Some bad surname entries[edit]

I stumbled on Stgermaine, a surname entry that seems to be missing a space (St. Germaine?): I think TheDaveRoss mass-imported surnames at one point and made some mistakes of this kind. Category:English_surnames has further culprits like Stgeorge, Sthilaire, Stpeter, Stpierre... I think we need to do an audit! Equinox 20:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, most of them can probably just be moved to the proper page, as it looks like we're missing entries for the actual spellings. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I had thought that @TheDaveRoss was doing this semi-manually, but evidently that is not the case. It makes me concerned that there are other mistakes of this type. @Makaokalani may also be interested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
TDR was possibly trolling us. --New WT User Girl (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Stcyr too --New WT User Girl (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Let's delete everything with weird consonant sequences that isn't Welsh. Ah hell let's delete Welsh too. Equinox 22:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
And Dvořák can get the fuck out of Category:English surnames too. And anything double-barelled - Dufour-Lapointe, for example - it should be easy enough to find anything with a hyphen in Category:English surnames --New WT User Girl (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Anything beginning with De- (Dela-), Di-, Van- should be checked too. It's hard to know the most common spelling in the US because computers won't accept gaps, periods or upper case letters inside a name. Some names have been genuinely anglicized. Missing diacritical marks in names of Spanish origin might not be the choice of the name bearers. --Makaokalani (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was doing these semi-manually, but I missed "St" as a prefix to be flagged for double-checking. Mea culpa. I'll delete the problematic ones. - TheDaveRoss 13:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: You also need to delete all the plurals you made, like Stgermaines, and remove the links to both the singular and plural forms that were automatically added to Anagrams sections. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not necessary, anagrams will be updated by bot eventually. DTLHS (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Or just move them? - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Belarusian participles[edit]

Прывет! I'm Swedish, learning Russian, and currently creating entries and templates in Swedish Wiktionary for Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian words.

English Wiktionary has а template {{be-conj-table}} for verbs in Belarusian, created in 2013 by @Atitarev. It is similar in appearance to the templates for Russian verbs, but among the participles, the Belarusian template only shows the adverbial ones. Do the other types (active, passive) of participles not exist in Belarusian? For the perfective verb прачытаць (to read through, Russian прочитать), there is a word прачытаны. Isn't this a past participle passive in the same way as Russian прочитанный?

Упершыню курс антрапалогіі быў прачытаны ў 1871 г. ва ўніверсітэце Рачэстара.
For the first time a course in anthropology was read (given, held) in 1871 at the university of Rochester. --LA2 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@LA2: Yes, passive past participles exist in Belarusian and could potentially be added to the templates but they were not added because they always have to be added manually, which adds an extra overhead, which is also error-prone. And like Russian, far from each verb type has passive past participles. The active present tense participles are normally not used in Belarusian. Compare Russian чита́ющий (čitájuščij, reading) and Belarusian які́ чыта́е (jakí čytáje, reading (lit.: which is reading))
Basically, you need to add each form manually until all the rules and exceptions about the Belarusian verb inflections are described and modules are developed. Such comprehensive work (like the Russian grammar book described by late Andrey Zaliznyak) doesn't exist for Belarusian, which also has two major standards. Serbo-Croatian editors, such as User:Ivan Štambuk and others didn't mind adding inflections manually for many years for Serbo-Croatian but they are native speakers. Russian inflections were also entered manually for years before the inflections were modularised and we have active native speakers who are able to check and fix any errors. Sorry, I don't see a quick solution for missing inflections for Belarusian or Ukrainian languages. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
For Ukrainian and Belarusian verbs on English Wiktionary, the only templates that exist do enumreate all forms. This is different from the many templates for Russian verbs, which automatically present all forms from a minimum of parameters. With the current approach, I suggest adding a named parameter ppp= for specifying the passive past participle (the default being to leave it out). This is what I intend to do for the Belarusian templates in Swedish Wiktionary anyway. LA2 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The ppp= parameter is now implemented and works fine on Swedish Wiktionary's sv:прачытаць. LA2 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

durian and English descendants[edit]

There's a large list of words in other languages that were borrowed from the English durian, it's a bit unsightly and doesn't look right. I was looking around for other English entries that have a descendants section but I couldn't really find any (words like computer and cheese don't have them and I feel like they should). So I don't really have anything to go on for how to reformat it better from any English entry. However, I see lot's for Latin words (like the one in pullus) and they're arranged quite nicely so I was thinking, should I just used that formatting for any English entries? I think it would look a lot better and not take up as much space and mess up the flow of the page. Any suggestions would be appreciated. 2WR1 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be desirable to do it like cheese#Derived_terms (i.e. 1. collapsible list, 2. multi-columns to save space). Dunno how. Equinox 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Equinox Ya, definitely! I was sort of thinking that, but I also don't know how to make a collapsible list for a descendants section. The only language that I'm familiar with having lot's of long lists of descendants in its entries is Latin, and that sort of spaces them out into two columns and has a light blue background. There's not really too many examples of descendants formatting to go off of I guess. 2WR1 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been using {{des-top}}, des-mid, and des-bottom for lists of descendants longer than 6. I like it over {{desc-top}} (somehow different??) because of the text at the top: "descendants of [pagename] in other languages". Ultimateria (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
How certain is it that the routes from Malay to all these languages went through English? I’d expect, in view of existing trade routes, that there are more plausible ways on how the name entered Arabic, Bengali, and Persian.  --Lambiam 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

tooth mark, toothmark[edit]

Shouldn't the plural be teeth marks? DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's attested, go ahead and add it as an alternative, but I'd expect the usual form to be toothmarks. I don't think any native speaker would say *feetprints or *fingersprints, don't see why this is any different. Jonathan Hall (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Google ngram viewer shows toothmarks to be more popular than teethmarks, but not excessively so. The singular teethmark is unknown. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
These might be two separate terms...the mark left by a single tooth is a toothmark and its plural is toothmarks. I've created teethmark (a mark left by multiple teeth) as well. Leasnam (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I found plenty of evidence of teeth marks in use, so I added it. It seems more natural to me. DonnanZ (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Why isn't teeth marks the plural of teeth mark ? Leasnam (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That one is your idea. You can always add it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
English doesn't tend to show grammatical number on nouns in attributive position or in compounds- we say armpits, not armspits. Also, to be logically consistent, you would need to say "tooth marks" for multiple marks made by a single tooth and "teeth mark" for a single mark made by multiple teeth, reserving "tooth mark" for a single mark made by a single tooth and "teeth marks" for multiple marks made by multiple teeth. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Leasnam (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


We have a category called Category:krdict of Korean but we don't have an entry for krdict. What does it mean? Is the category name a good one? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

At least some of the entries give as Reference [..]krdict.korean.go.kr/eng/dicSearch/[...], which should explain the name. But as Korean is a WT:WDL, this isn't sufficent for attestation... -17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is added by the {{R:krdict}} template that @HappyMidnight just created, and is obviously short for Korean Dictionary as well as being the domain name of the dictionary site referred to. The template is a cleaner equivalent of {{NIKL}} (if definitions are copied from the site, we should have a reference stating that for licensing purposes, so I'm not objecting to the template itself).
I do think we should change the category- the name makes no sense and doesn't match the format of any category name we have. I also question whether it's a good idea to even have a category for this reference, since you can get the same information from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:krdict. Although Hangul entries don't have the level of category clutter that entries with lots of language sections do, I don't see the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am sorry for my poor English. I made a Wiktionary article here and a documentation for the template. I agree it doesn't need to make the category, Category:krdict of Korean since we can refer at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:krdict. Thank you for your kind advice. HappyMidnight (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary:National Institute of Korean Language's Korean-English Learners' Dictionary belongs at Template:R:krdict/documentation, I guess (nobody will find it else …). And the documentation should be put into Template:R:krdict via {{documentation}} in <noinclude></noinclude>. Fay Freak (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

get one's dick wet[edit]

SOP? Per utramque cavernam 15:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It depends. Have you got a definition? DonnanZ (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes: dip one's pen in someone's inkwell. Per utramque cavernam 15:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO the common use is clearly idiomatic, since it only refers to sex, not, say, falling into a river; and could probably include non-genital-wettening forms of sex. Jonathan Hall (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jonathan's analysis. I'd say create it. Ultimateria (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

looking for a term[edit]

In English, we call someone who cares more about material things "materialistic". What do you call someone who cares about their own interests more than anything else? Who is very much focused on achieving their own goals? Is there an -ism for that? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think just egoism/egotism. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, or self-centered(ness) (or self-absorbed). I think egotism and egotistical connote that the person thinks they are superior to / more important than others, whereas egoism is a more philosophical term for being motivated by self-interest. (Oddly, autism, despite having almost synonymous components, means something else!) You might also consider selfish. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The problem is I'm trying to translate an extended meaning of Chinese 現實, literally, "realistic", but we use it in the situation of, for example, a young woman who won't marry unless she finds a man who has a good job, car and house. The concept of "realistic" in modern Chinese culture is valuing one's own interests in a very practical and pragmatic way. I've yet to find an exact term in English. "Egoism" is close but too derogatory. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I like pragmatism, but it could be mistaken for Pragmatism. IMO most of the ism words above convey something with a different flavor than their related adjectives. Pragmatic seems best, perhaps even practical (practicality). Selfish would be good except that it is pejorative and may not fit the writer's view. Its use in the context above could imply that concern for providing a good environment for having and raising one's children is bad. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It appears that no single English word adequately covers the meaning, so a phrasal definition seems in order. Something like, “looking primarily after one’s own interests”?  --Lambiam 19:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


I think two words, birch wood, is more likely, both for a wood full of birch trees and the wood from birch trees. I tried Googling and came up with Birchwood as a place name. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How does ngram handle "a birchwood" and "a birch wood", and "birchwoods" and "birch woods"? At the moment I am dealing with a translation for "birch wood", wood from the tree (which should be uncountable). DonnanZ (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You can experiment yourself at [1]. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
p.s. Does one of these also mean the wood of the birch tree?
I'm working from Norwegian bjerkeved and bjørkeved, which indeed is wood from birch trees. Anyway, "a birch wood" has the edge over "a birchwood", but "birch woods" is about three times as common as "birchwoods". DonnanZ (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Apparently it is popular as firewood. I tried googling "birch wood" and "firewood" and "birchwood" / "firewood"; the latter results were confused by the place name, but there were some. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Bare, uncountable birch means the wood. The addition of wood seems to me warranted only if there is a reason why in the context there is a need to contrast with birch trees, birch bark, birch beer(?) etc. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I have done entries for birch wood (as an alternative form), and Birchwood, as a proper noun. DonnanZ (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See [[woods]]. Woods ("small forested area") is countable and the same form is used for both singular and plural. I think this is inherited by all the SoP terms that use woods in this sense, including birch woods. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, woods (sense 2), "I went for a walk in the woods" when you're referring to one wooded area or woodland. But one birch wood, two birch woods. Wood is also used in the names of wooded areas, Highgate Wood in Highgate for example. DonnanZ (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's also one birch woods. DCDuring (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Someone would have to be different... DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Both in theory (from wood) and in practice (judging by google books:"a birch wood"), a birch wood is a valid singular for a birch forest. Indeed, it seems to be the only valid singular: birch woods, unlike woods, can AFAICS only take plural determiners, verbs, etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


Is it the best idea to have separate English, Japanese and Translingual entries for the same thing? Equinox 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In the past the rationale for separate L2 sections has been principally divergence of pronunciations, though other content could differ as well. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


Mh, does this belong in CAT:English lemmas? Per utramque cavernam 09:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The L2-Header is "English" because the denotated morpheme -ation is English, so it seems to belong in English, because e.g. ⠰⠇ for example has an English header, but also Thai for a different reading. 08:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Why does this constitute an own lemma different from -ation at all? Maybe you should have taken this to the creator, Kwami. 08:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but braille English doesn't always correspond one-to-one with linear English orthography, if that's relevant. kwami (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a brain fart. Per utramque cavernam 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


I have added this as a misspelling, however it is especially commonly used in India. It seems as if it has been established as acceptable there. (possible meaning until, up till or up until) How should this be handled in the entry? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You could use {{cx|India}} with a usage note. "Standard in Indian English" or something. DTLHS (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
From the linked to template: "Note: DO NOT USE THIS. Use {{lb}}". label could be: {{lb|en|India}}. - 23:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

cattywampus, catawampus[edit]

Each entry gives the other as an alternative form, but their definitions are different. Excluding the "fierce" sense (catawampus probably needs to be split by etymology), what do these mean and do they mean the same thing or not? - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

DARE devotes a page to catawampus, which it has as the main entry. There's a lot to digest. DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I took a run at catawampus. I split the etymologies so the adjective "fierce" and the noun "imaginary animal" share the second. There are Scots verbs, such as wampish, that may account for the wampus. DCDuring (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why the speculative derivation of cater should appear in this entry. DCDuring (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved all the speculation about where cater-corner comes from to that entry (and merely left the note that the first part of catawampus may be related to the first part of cater-corner). The question about definitions remains. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Are these terms limited to US (and perhaps Canadian) dialects, by the way? - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenation of many[edit]

According to the entry, many is hyphenated "many", i.e. has one syllable. Is that a thing? Isn't this two syllables? And if so, ma-ny or man-y? MGorrone (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think (and the template documentation suggests) hyphenation shows where the word can be hyphenated across a line break (according to some rules), not how many syllables it has. - -sche (discuss) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Both hyphenations suggested by MGorrone appear in references, ma-ny being more common, especially in books of song lyrics. Some style books explicitly recommend no hyphenation for many; more recommend no hyphenation for short words. DCDuring (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that song lyrics use different rules for hyphenation from running text, and thus isn't a good example for hyphenation rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Polish phrase za rządów[edit]

There are two separate declensions given by Wiktionary for the Polish noun rząd according to meaning. The first of these declensions applies if the meaning is “row”, “order”, “rank” and “horse’s tack” and the second if the meaning is “government”, “cabinet” and “executive branch”. In the case of the phrase za rządów, the second declension pattern applies. Although this noun is grammatically inanimate in all senses it may be that in the sense of “government”, “cabinet” and “executive branch” it is treated as though it were animate and therefore the accusative can be identical to the genitive rather than to the nominative as is more usual with inanimate nouns. Thus, za rządów could mean “for governments”. Please ascertain whether this is the case. Johnling60 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Rules for forming Veps illatives, terminatives and additives[edit]

The Wikipedia article on the Veps language gives the following rules for retaining the final vowel of the genitive singular stem in forming the illative singular in Veps (see under Grammar/Nouns/Principal parts):

   1. The genitive singular must end in a diphthong.
   2. The nominative singular must have two syllables each consisting of one consonant followed by one vowel.
   3. The genitive singular must consist of a single syllable or of three syllables.
   4. The genitive singular must be a contracted form of the nominative singular.
   5. The final vowel of the genitive singular stem must be preceded by either ll or ľľ.
   6. The final vowel of the genitive stem is always retained if it is preceded by h.

However, although the article says that the illative singular is predictably formed from the genitive singular, exceptions can occur. For instance, by rule 2 above the illative singular of meri (sea) should be merehe but apparently it is merhe. It may be that the illative singular of veri (blood) shows the same irregularity, being verhe instead of the expected verehe. This serves to underline the value of the inflection table templates in Wiktionary, provided, of course, that the tables are complete and all the forms given are correct and not replaced by question marks due to sheer laziness rather than not knowing the forms for the illative singular, first terminative singular and first additive singular in Veps. Regrettably, the Wikipedia article does not give the rules for forming the third person singular and plural imperatives but it may be that they are similar to those for forming the illative singular. Wiktionary gives the third person singular and plural imperatives for the verb olda (to be) but it may be that similar verbs such as tulda (to come) and panda (to put) form their third person singular and plural imperatives in the same way, thus tulgha and pangha respectively. Will someone please ascertain whether this is the case and endeavour to ascertain the rules for forming the third person singular and plural imperatives of all other Veps verbs? Once the illative singular of every Veps noun, adjective, cardinal and ordinal numeral is found, the formation of the first terminative singular and first additive singular should be simple and straightforward, namely by adding the endings sai and päi respectively. The first illative singular, first terminative singular and first additive singular of the pronoun eraz (certain,some) are presumably erasehe, erasehesai and erasehepäi respectively. In an ideal world complete and correct inflection table templates would be given in Wiktionary for every inflected word in all inflected languages; also, all languages would be supported by language websites such as Google Translate, Geonames and Omniglot, and a comprehensive grammar would be available online for every language. Regrettably we do not live in an ideal world. Johnling60 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


This (and 4 other English words) have a PoS section "Postposition".

  1. This is not a generally accepted word class in English lexicography, largely because it isn't part of non-specialist education of users.
  2. It is not recognized in English in this Wiktionary.
  3. It is not at all clear to me that it differs grammatically in any way from ago#Adverb.

Am I missing something?

The other terms in Category:English postpositions and having Postposition headers are agoe, apart, notwithstanding, aside. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I am surprised ===Postposition=== is not a deprecated heading, I recommend merging it with the adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think it's not deprecated because it is a recognized word class in other languages, eg, Finnish, Hindi, Navajo. I'd bet that the English PoS sections were added by someone skilled in such a language. DCDuring (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Some children believe prepositions are called so because they describe positions. Was prepostition refering to sentence position, originally, if Latin has a rather free word order? The etymology coverage here ends at Latin with a hint at Old Greek. prae has a sense "because of" ... 12:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It's certainly possible to find references which call ago a postposition; google books:"postposition ago". Whether we should accept this analysis, I'm not sure. You're one of our most adept users at grammar, and the dictionaries I looked at do seem to consider the "postpositional" usexes we have to be adverbial, so I don't mind folding it into the adverb. But we could at least mention, in a usage note a la percent’s, that some authorities analyse it as a postposition. (Obviously, other languages in which "postposition" is a recognized POS can continue to use the POS / header.) - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I certainly don't object to any such usage note, nor to a category should there be a well-defined criterion for membership.
CGEL (2002) specifically mentions apart, aside, notwithstanding, ago, and on ("later") as [p]repositions [sic] following their complement in PP structure. They also consider and reject postposition as a word class in English and express regret that adposition phrase is not a term in use to encompass both prepositional and postpositional phrases. [This would make obvious the full/near-equivalence of English prepositional phrases and Japanese postpositional phrases.]
CGEL (2002) treats many words we call adverbs as "intransitive prepositions", nomenclature we are not alone in rejecting. That leaves us with each of these and their alternative forms (eg, agoe) as adverbs. DCDuring (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a nominative absolute and therefore not to be treated distinctly from the adjective header. A diachronic analysis confirms this anyway. The same for anything in Category:English postpositions. And when searching it it looks like it has been seen like this more often. Fay Freak (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

CGEL (2002) specifically addresses the similarity and makes an argument for distinguishing the two which, IMHO, does fit notwithstanding, but does not comfortably fit the postpositive uses of on, ago, apart, aside. But the uses in which the phrase is not set apart by punctuation don't comfortably fit the "absolute" analysis either IMHO. I hope we can just get away with calling them adverbs. When we have cases that can be shown not to fit the adverb treatment, we can address them. DCDuring (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Two senses: "1. A person who has committed a felony. 2. (law) A person who has been tried and convicted of a felony." This seems unnecessary: I mean, we don't distinguish words like thief or murderer in this way. Merge? Equinox 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes - should be just a person who has committed a felony. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I mean, I see a few dictionaries which instead use the "...who has been convicted of a felony" wording for their single sense, but they still have only one sense. (I suppose we could say "...who have committed, or been convicted of, a felony", but that seems unnecessarily wordy.) Dictionary.com has a semi-interesting usage note about how people distinguish convicts and ex-convicts, but felon seems to be a lifelong status with ex-felon little-used (Ngrams). - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I dunno. People generally use the term both ways. I can probably find evidence of dialogue in which the term is used both ways, leading to disagreement or attempted correction. Convicted felons lose the vote in many US states, sometimes for life. I wonder whether felony is a class of crime that applies before someone is convicted of it. DCDuring (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)\
    We make that kind of distinction for guilty. Perhaps if we use that word we can rely on the ambiguity of guilty to make two definitions from one. DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see whether or not the senses are distinguished by anything other than the question of whether or not the person committed the act in the eyes of whoever is responsible for the designation. Otherwise, it seems like thief or murderer, as Equinox says, (or rapist, robber, etc, etc) where it refers to someone who committed the act, and a court simply won't use it until they're satisfied that the person did commit the act (at which point they convict them). - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There are a good number of cites for alleged/accused/purported/indicted/charged felon. From this I conclude that a single definition limited to convicted would be wrongly narrow. But in law the term felon seems to be reserved for one who has been found guilty, whether or not the person is actually guilty, eg, has been found wrongly accused by post-trial DNA evidence, witness recantation, etc.
That is, the justice system uses the term both in a loose sense, closely related to the popular sense, and more formally in the "convicted" sense.
That said, I certainly see the merits of an "in the eyes of the speaker" definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Can someone explain the sense "Describing a workload as to its idle, working and de-energized periods". It needs rewriting at the least. Equinox 16:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it relates to the expected work a component of a deterministic system fulfills.
2017 June 21, Josh Ray, “Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi Build - Modern Mini RGB Powerhouse”, in Unlocked[2]:
Inside, the i7-7700 takes CPU duty in an MSI Z270 Carbon ITX board.
2017 February 14, “Best free software updater for Windows PC (2018)”, in Techwayz[3]:
Even if you configure [the programs] to run on Windows start-up, you won’t experience system slowdown because the software updater tools I’ve shared above utilize a small amount of CPU duty cycles and RAM.
But this is hard to distinguish from the meaning “The efficiency of an engine etc.”, and from the figurative usage of the first sense. Fay Freak (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

mico and other entries with ambiguous definitions[edit]

The ambiguous definition for the Portuguese term in question is: "A monkey with a prehensile tail."

I use this as an illustration of a larger problem, certainly not limited to FL entries, let alone Portuguese entries, though the tendency toward terseness in FL glosses may make things worse.

Does this mean:

  1. Any monkey with a prehensile tail?
  2. Any of a certain species of monkey with a prehensile tail?
  3. A certain individual monkey with a prehensile tail?
  4. Any monkey owning a prehensile tail (not necessarily its own)?

The third we can exclude, I hope, because it appears in the context of a dictionary that normally doesn't have that kind of entry. The fourth is offered purely in jest, but suggests how easy it is to misconstrue a definition.

IMO, the other two are equally plausible. Is there any reason why we should not insert {{rfdef}}, {{rfgloss}}, or similar template to disambiguate such definitions? DCDuring (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You would probably be better off asking the person who wrote it directly, or another Portuguese contributor. DTLHS (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the definition could be improved. It has a definition, though, so {{rfdef}} doesn't seem quite right. {{rfgloss}} would work. I typically tag such things {{attention}} or (and this is the way to be sure of getting an answer) ask users who speak the language, or post here. Other poor definitions include "stilt (not the bird)" (which I think Ungoliant first pointed out to me, and which has since been cleaned up, though memorialized in the Anteroom of Silliness). - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
To which end, pinging @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) (not because he wrote the def, but because he presumably knows what the word means) - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring, -sche. Mico is not a vernacular name of anything (although many compounds containing it are), so it is not obvious which of the first two interpretations is correct. The way it functions semantically is similar to worm, in that it describes a general outward appearance and has at best a secondary connection to specific families, species or what have you.
Priberam and Aulete, which are the two dictionaries that I most trust, define it as something to the effect of “any of several small and long-tailed monkeys” and “any of the Callitrichidae” respectively. A quick Google Books search reveals that the term is also used in reference to at least Cebidae and Saimirinae, so the latter can be excluded. If you think it is important, we can rewrite the definition on the model of waterfowl (i.e. ending in “especially those of the families X, Y and Z”), and there should probably be an emphasis on the smallness, since howler monkeys can be described as small and long-tailed but are too big to be called micos. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: I can't speak to the importance of mico for users of Portuguese entries. [[waterfowl]] is a pretty good example of a well-specified definition of a vernacular term for a group of organisms. I've been wondering how to make sense out of English vernacular terms like beetle, bug, fly, gnat, viper, asp, serpent etc. both with and, especially, without reference to taxonomic names. DCDuring (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I hate to delay the completion of Wiktionary, but this ambiguity makes a difference for taxonomy etc. If a term does not correspond to any particular taxon (current or obsolete) or if the correspondence is hard to determine, that's fine with me. Similarly, if a term does not correspond to any particular narrow vernacular name. But IMO, English determiners and adjectives can help suggest the scope of the definition. I use certain#Determiner to indicate that there is a specific group of referents, which are not currently specified or are specified outside the definition line. Any has clear definitional implications, usually implying that the definition is reasonably well specified.
Further, I think the ambiguity will sometimes affect users, both "ordinary" and other.
Where the scope of the issue is limited to one term, I have usually either resolved it myself (for English or Translingual terms) or gone to the author (where that can be readily determined and if the author is still active). Unfortunately, it is easy to be a little vague in writing definitions. Many other dictionaries seem to have style guides that reduce the risk of such ambiguities. We need to either adopt one or use other means. Is this a BP matter? DCDuring (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Portuguese entry, not just the definition in question, looks much improved. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    The ambiguity remains though for the Spanish entry. I think I have occasionally seen this kind of definitional ambiguity in other (non-zoological) lemmas as well describing something that had no obvious English translation. I don’t remember any specific examples right now, but imagine the definition given for the (imaginary) noun bibiker is “a mug with two handles”. Does that mean that all mugs with two handles are bibikers, or merely that bibikers are a type of mug for which having two handles is the most striking characteristic, one that is needed but not per se sufficient to make a mug qualify for bibiker-hood?  --Lambiam 21:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    Exactly. Determiners and adjectives can reduce the ambiguity.
BTW, which sense of mug (eg, "bloke, fellow") and handle (eg, "name, nickname") did you intend for the definition of bibiker? Using polysemous words in definitions can lead to misunderstanding or require unnecessary decoding effort on the part of the reader. The terser the definition and the fewer the citations or usage examples, the more likely the misunderstanding. Usage context labels can help. DCDuring (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, I meant “bloke with two nicknames” :). Something that should also occasionally help is starting a definition with “A type of” in cases where this is appropriate. Maybe it is time to start a guideline on formulating definitions, more extensive than Wiktionary:Style guide#Definitions, or else expanding Help:Writing definitions into something more like a tutorial with lots of examples (like Help:Table on Wikipedia).  --Lambiam 21:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll need to muster the courage for such an effort. I'l have to wait at least until the heat wave breaks. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

virgin non-comparable? I think not.[edit]

Definition: "Not yet cultivated, explored, or exploited by humans or humans of certain civilizations."

This is readily found in comparative and superlative "forms". And yet virgin was shown as not comparable (now not so shown). What should the inflection line say for virgin? What should the various definition lines say? For nouns we have a fairly elaborate, but apparently workable, system for showing countability on both the inflection line and on definition lines.

In this case, I don't think that the senses of virgin that are comparable are minor, so there should be recognition of comparability on the inflection line. Does there need to be a qualifier on the inflection line? Should we show comparative and superlative forms without inflection-line qualification and show non-comparability only as a label? DCDuring (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I hypothesized that all the senses would probably be found "graded" relatively often, although when I searched for citations, I found that this was not the case, and "more virgin" is not that common in any sense. Still, I agree it's common enough to merit being on the inflection/headword line, and that the senses which are not usually comparable then need to be marked somehow. I see that many entries use {{lb|en|not comparable}}, and a few use "usually not comparable", so I've added that label to the two senses which seemed to be "graded" least often, the "chaste" and "non-alcoholic" senses. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
In many ways we are wasting our users' time and attention by presenting the normal more and most formations on the inflection line. Similarly, are we really providing useful information about an adjective when we assert it is not comparable? The claims never have systematic empirical backing and often are based on nothing more than a contributor's impression based on the semantics. Many of the adjectives that have that inflection-line claim are simply so rare that comparatives and superlatives would be unlikely to be attested, let alone be part of a contributor's experience. There is nothing that makes most adjectives necessarily non-comparable. To the extent that they are not comparable, it seems to me that the unlabeled definition alone would (or should) convey the unlikelihood of comparative and superlative forms. To me the noncomparable claims smack of excessive prescriptivism. If someone wants to say more one-of-a-kind or more abated there is nothing inherent in English that prevents it. Do any other dictionaries make such assertions? DCDuring (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
To quote myself from my user page: "Virtually any adjective can take [comparative/superlatives with more and most] if the author wishes it, and it encourages editors to find weird fringe examples to substantiate their existence." Equinox 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Why bother with assertions about standard comparability at all? Do they help users construct sentences? Do they help users understand sentences? DCDuring (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Worth an entry? I think it's military jargon. Per utramque cavernam 16:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • 2018 May 4, “We are defining what fashion is for consumers: Myntra, Jabong CEO”, in Livemint:
    We are doing faster deliveries, not by air shipping but by forward deploying the inventory.
  1. Context is not military.
  2. There seems to be a verb forward deploy with all forms attestable.
  3. The use omits the hyphen.
This example probably isn't durably archived, but there are a number of other usages that support each of these features. A great amount of the usage of the term is in blogs and similar non-durably archived media. OTOH, the vast majority of usage is military, but usage in IT rollouts, emergency preparedness, patent wars(!) can be found. DCDuring (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

carrousel and carousel[edit]

Am I right in think that only one of these pages should exist with the other one linked purely as an alternative spelling? They both have overlapping definitions (but not completely, there are more definitions for carousel). Are some definitions spelling-specific? And if they are simply alternative spellings, which spelling should be the default with the other simply linked as the 'alternative'? 2WR1 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If there are truly differences in meaning, pronunciation, etc between the terms there would have to be two lemma pages. One could still be an alt form of the other for some definitions. You might look at carrousel at OneLook Dictionary Search and carousel at OneLook Dictionary Search (or the OED, if you have access) for clues about differences. DCDuring (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Also see carousal in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 (second set of defs.). DCDuring (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


I am unfamiliar with German conjugation tables, but shouldn't "klammeren" read "klammern"? Is there a bug in the template? DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen (Talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the template has to be tweaked. Cheers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Transiently amusing though it is, I'm concerned about this entry. Isn't there some threshold level of uptake required for something like this? (Please ping me.) EEng (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng Yes, three independent durably archived cites spanning at least a year, the same as every other word. See WT:CFI. DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a low bar, but OK, thanks.. EEng (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

object trigger[edit]

Many new Tagalog entries state that they are "object triggers". Does anyone have any idea what that might be? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the phrase in any books. There's a paper, "Malagasy backward object control", by Potsdam, 2009. DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser, do you know anything? DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Perhaps, what is meant here is "object focus". Yeah, there's a guy making lots of Tagalog entries recently. He's a bit careless with the entries and making some mistakes, and it's too much for me to fix. So I left a note in his page, explaining to him that he needs to clean up his entries. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless definition at jelly[edit]

The current third definition at jelly makes no sense because its context is not clear:


jelly (countable and uncountable, plural jellies)

  1. (New Zealand, Australia, Britain) A dessert made by boiling gelatine, sugar and some flavouring (often derived from fruit) and allowing it to set, known as "jello" in North America.
  2. (Canada, US) A clear or translucent fruit preserve, made from fruit juice and set using either naturally occurring, or added, pectin. Known as "jam" in Commonwealth English.
    • Quotations removed to reduce clutter
  3. A similar dish made with meat.

Emphasis mine. Entry 3 needs its definition clarified or removed. Similar to what? A meat dessert? A meat preserve? Does it have sugar or pectin in it, etc.? It shouldn't refer to something else, especially when that something else is not obvious. Danielklein (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take a run at fixing it yourself? We appreciate the help and can clean up any mistakes. You could compare definitions given at jelly at OneLook Dictionary Search for ideas. DCDuring (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
jelly in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has, as two of its three definitions:
"n. A viscous or glutinous substance obtained by solution of gelatinous matter, animal or vegetable; hence, any substance of semisolid consistence.
"n. The thickened juice of fruit, or any gelatinous substance, prepared for food: as, currant or guava jelly; calf's-foot jelly; meat jelly."
Note the potential for circularity in using gelatinous in the definition. DCDuring (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably hijacking the discussion or whatever, but we shouldn't say "known as Y" in some sort of incidental sentence within a definition. That is what synonyms are for. I understand that jam/jelly is one of the "biggies" as far as Brit/US confusion goes but it at least needs to be wrapped in some kind of gloss template. We shouldn't just have a random chatty sentence about usage thrown in there. Equinox 03:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
So secondly and trying to be relevant: Johnnie Mountain's book Pig: Cooking with a Passion for Pork, which I just borrowed off my sister, who is a rabid vegan, says: "Skim and discard the fat that has settled on top of the cooking liquid, which should by now have set into a jelly". Is that the sense in question, OR is it covered by the following sense "Any substance or object having the consistency of jelly"? While we often have too many senses for the same thing, I am also sometimes concerned that we might merge senses that used to be more distinctive (e.g. types of car or carriage): so any jelly historians around? Equinox 03:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Can't you buy tinned ham in jelly? DonnanZ (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I've reworded it. Any better? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that def was meaning it as a synonym (or near-synonym) for aspic, which was a usage back when people ate aspics. GaylordFancypants (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Are we possibly missing an adverbial sense at yeah meaning "really", as in Oh, yeah? (= Oh, really?) Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hardly a sense, just a context. You could equally use "yes" or (in northern England or Scotland) "aye", couldn't you? It's not a separate sense of the word as far as I can see. Equinox 03:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's really entryworthy, especialy not in all definitions, but someone did: oh yeah. DCDuring (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
cf "fuck yeah", "hell yeah", "shit yeah". DTLHS (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

bible society[edit]

Should I have entered this as Bible society? DonnanZ (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Both forms exist according to Google ngram viewer. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm having second thoughts about this as anything to do with the Holy Bible usually has a Bible compound. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Or even Bible Society (google books search shows it's attestable - also: w:Bible Society & w:Bible society [article title: Bible society; redirect & intro text: Bible Society])? - 20:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a case of a happy medium. At present if you search for [[Bible society]] or [[Bible Society]] you will end up at bible society. DonnanZ (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


I've come across cases (Citations:bally) where subbing in the intensifier "bloody" doesn't make sense to me. Is this a different sense, or is it still the intensifier? (On the talk page, a user opines that this should also be attested in a ball-related sense, btw, but it's hard to tell instances of e.g. "bally balloon" apart from "bloody/damned balloon".) - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, unless there was another sense that is now lost, a couple of those are rather old. The more usual sense does mean "bloody", and it's the sort of word Bertie Wooster would use (see P G Wodehouse quote). Added a reference anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Isn't the simple past pronounced "bet"? DonnanZ (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, "beat" and "beat", past and present are homophones. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, /bit/ (like the present tense and like beet) is the only pronunciation I'm familiar with or can find in dictionaries, old or modern. google books:"bet 'em up" and similar searches suggests that "bet" may exist as a dialectal synonym of "beat" (in the present tense, in all the citations I saw, although possibly also in the past tense), although the fact that "bet" (as in "make a bet", like a bettor) can also be used this way means there's a lot of chaff. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


I am having trouble finding sources for this noun, which I understand to mean a temporary access path, usually straight or as part of a grid pattern, cut through forest or scrub in the course of activities such as mineral exploration, surveying, forestry, or providing a corridor for powerline or pipeline construction. Maias (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Feel free to add it anyway - you will only need to provide citations if it is challenged (and it seems real). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip. Maias (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be a word mostly or exclusively used in Brunei. Equinox 10:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Used in Malaysia too, but it does seem to be more popular in that part of the world. I thought the etymology might be from Malay, but can't trace that.Maias (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Though it could come from Malay 'rentas' meaning something like 'cut across' or 'short cut'. Maias (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


The proper name regards to German Heinz qua Heinrich means holding the power over his property I m not common with editing Regards 10:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


I am surprised to see that we give downtrod as a verb infinitive and state that downtrodden derives from that verb. I would have imagined it came from a past tense from tread. Can we confirm? Equinox 10:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The OED only has it as an adjective (synonym of downtrodden) - no obvious verb form of the term there. SemperBlotto (talk)
The entry has citations.
The verb definition is given as: "oppress, suppress, exploit, persecute, step down on; put down; denigrate, subjugate"
This actually seems to be inclusion of three or more definitions. I would never use these terms interchangeably.
  1. step down on (ie, physical)
  2. put down, denigrate (ie, verbal)
  3. oppress, suppress, persecute
  4. exploit (ie, take advantage of)
If these "definitions" are distinct, this entry needs 12 citations not 3. DCDuring (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I have found attestation for forms of a verb downtread, downtreads, downtreading, downtrodden (as past participle, not adjective). I'm not sure about downtrod as past. See Citations:downtread in an hour or so. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian Bokmål formatting of some words[edit]

grue - "grue (present tense gruer, past tense grua or gruet, past participle grua or gruet) grue (present tense gruer; past tense grudde; past participle grudd) "

There's no linebreak between them and the second one uses ";" instead of "," which 99.99% of entries do. I'd fix the ";" myself but I've no clue where to in this case, as it links to "nb-verb-4|gru", which seems to be a template. C0rn3j (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Another word is meg, which has "me (direct object of a verb); objective case of eg". I'd expect this to be split across two lines.

  • grue: Replaced those two templates. Should read better now.
  • meg: I don't think the first part was completely necessary, so I removed it. Even if it is restored I wouldn't want to create two lines. Added some other info.
DonnanZ (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


A word of German extraction, found only in rural Scotland? That sounds... odd.