Wiktionary:Tea room

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations

Click here to start a new Tea room discussion.

Wiktionary discussion rooms (edit) see also: requests
Information desk start a new discussion | this month | archives Newcomers’ questions, minor problems, specific requests for information or assistance.	Tea room start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about specific words.	Etymology scriptorium start a new discussion | this month | archives Questions and discussions about etymology—the historical development of words.	Beer parlour start a new discussion | this month | archives General policy discussions and proposals, requests for permissions and major announcements.	Grease pit start a new discussion | this month | archives Technical questions, requests and discussions.

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 – All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

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

For questions about the general Wiktionary policies, use the Beer parlour; for technical questions, use the Grease pit. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

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

Oldest tagged RFTs

• mico
  Sukhumi
  regnbuefamilie
  Euthemia
  hagdon
  lipsati
  Romanophobia
  Wesson
  monolid
  watercressing
  notch
  address
  carhouse
  RGSS
  series
  multivarious
  amen
  -stan
  червь
  speedometer
  maᵗⁱᵉ
  چھہ
  half
  based
  α΄
  orignal
  dies Mercurii
  manso
  ၐြဳ
  ကာလယဲ
  pasar por las horcas caudinas
  monosemous
  monosemic
  hazelly
  Dağ Türkleri
  Aster
  smeť
  sis
  over skyerne er himlen altid blå
  rumped
  Indon
  belly dance
  on purpose
  nasal cavity
  human being
  how much
  cut one's teeth
  take its toll
  bok choy
  search up
  don't try to teach grandma how to suck eggs
  speech recognition
  turn the tide
  ne bis in idem
  cornus
  code point
  one over the eight
  green privilege
  Chinese landing
  one's house in order
  native bread
  rhina
  after
  one's heart bleeds
  gender-neutral
  chicken-or-egg question
  otocrane
  Surinam
  no thank you
  mukt
  barrel
  uninvited
  away
  catalogue
  imaginary
  tweener
  radiendocrinology
  classique
  be
  smuggling raisins
  shadowing
  mandate
  war hero
  war-hero
  eat like a horse
  tacet
  lightning bruiser
  phrogging
  tjälknöl
  efilism
  Jacboson
  Andersdr
  berm
  pirmas
  exponential
  arena rock
  

March 2024

EN: tempera

The English definition of tempera has "A medium used to bind pigments in painting, as well as the associated artistic techniques." In this definition the pigments are not constituents of the tempera medium. Whether the term is ever used with that meaning, I am not sure. However, it seems clear that the term is often (usually? always?) used to refer to the medium comprising a mixture of binder and pigment(s). So either the existing Sense 1 should be changed, or a new sense should be added.

Also, "medium" is rather vague. The WP article on tempera states that the binder was traditionally a "glutinous material such as egg yolk", and more generally is "water-soluble". Furthermore, it mentions tempera paint as a synonym for poster paint in the USA.

Finally, the WP article on tempera also has a sentence on the etymology: "The term tempera is derived from the Italian dipingere a tempera ("paint in distemper"), from the Late Latin distemperare ("mix thoroughly")."

—DIV (1.145.23.181 09:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC))

Is the dis- prefix needed? Just unprefixed Latin temperō already means to combine, compound or blend properly. This is Classical Latin. The WP article Distemper (paint) writes that distemper is a decorative paint and a historical medium for painting pictures, and contrasted with tempera. [My emphasis by underlining. --L.]  --Lambiam 19:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In oil painting, the medium is oil paint, which includes the pigments. It is not hard to find uses that refer to tempera as the paint that is applied to a surface, that is, with the pigments mixed in. For example, “This tempera possesses the valuable property of retaining its colour the same as when first laid on”.^[1] I don't see uses of the term that refer specifically to the carrier in which the pigments are suspended. The definition should best avoid the highly polysemous term medium and simply state something like,

A paint in which the pigments are suspended in a water-soluble emulsion, such as of egg yolk or gelatine, which hardens and becomes insoluble on exposure to air.

(The water-solubility is what distinguishes tempera from oil paint.)  --Lambiam 20:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Lambian- Wiki's etymology is a bit silly. Tempera is simply from the Italian tempera, derived from the verb temperare, from the Latin temperāre. Nicodene (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

verpus

At Ancient Greek δρῖλος (drîlos) we define the term as "verpus" yet we do not have an English entry for this term. 17:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Leasnam (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leasnam: This seems to be copied from Liddell & Scott, which seems to be saying that it's glossed somewhere as "verpus" and they don't know which sense of "verpus" is meant. Of course, this is the sort of subject matter that might be in the class of "Things Which Shall Not Be Named" that used to be replaced with Latin in writing to avoid the vulgar English term (e.g. membrum virile). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The other L&S has for verpus: “a circumcised man”,^[2] and defines verpa as “membrum virile”.^[3] We have a more specialized and vivid definition for the latter term (“membrum virile in statu erecto, glande denudata”).  --Lambiam 22:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

comping

Should comping have the additional sense of "refunding"/"waiving"? --Azertus (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is intended to be covered by "present participle and gerund of comp" and then the two "complimentary item" senses at comp#Verb (because it's not limited to the present participle, this sense applies also if you comp something in the present tense), but we could stand to revise those a bit. As you suggest, it seems possible to read the current wording as just covering providing someone with what you explain at the start is a free drink (they never take any money out of their pocket), but it also needs to cover refunding (they took money out of their pocket and paid you a while ago, thinking they were making a normal money-for-goods transaction, and they drank the drinks, and then you later give them the money back because of reasons, e.g. one of the servers insults them and you want to apologize). - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

quote ... unquote

The second usage on this entry is listed as an "adverb", with the definition, used to delimit a quotation in the same function as quotation marks. The example given is: Adam Smith claimed that a capitalist is, quote, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention, unquote.

How is reading out the name of a punctuation mark that is part of a quote in any way adverbial usage?

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

tripping

"(slang) Undergoing a hallucinogenic trip. (slang) Saying crazy things or acting foolishly." These are listed as Adjective senses, but isn't it a verb form? Equinox ◑ 19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The collocations "the tripping hippy" and "the tripping shaman" have some ghits, but I forget where to look regarding operational tests for making the grade to arrive at unassailable pos=adj status. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It just looks like an ing-form to me. It passes noun tests, just like any other ing-form, but there is no novel meaning beyond what is found in the verb. For participles, one of the adjective tests is eliminated, but *"seemed tripping", *"very tripping", and the absence of new meaning say this isn't an adjective either. DCDuring (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

vampire time

Isn't this a bit excessive (cites and all)? "Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see vampire,‎ time. > Time, when considered relative to a vampire's immortal lifespan. | The manner in which a vampire perceives or measures time. | The time at which one encounters a vampire." We don't usually list a lot of SoP combos like this. Equinox ◑ 19:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep it limited to "[&lit]; especially, [principal example]." Given that Wiktionary is not allowed to enter SoP, setting this limit prevents a slippery slope. Someone will object that even the "especially X" part is too much, but I find that objection counterproductive; I think one principal example is tolerable if it has a bit of usefulness beyond what &lit says. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

PS: I just realized that if closing time and Colored People's Time pass WT:CFI, then I'd have to ponder harder about the senses given for vampire time regarding CFI. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Words ending -toxinA, -toxinB etc.

Botulinum toxin lists a lot of biosimilars like "abobotulinumtoxinA, daxibotulinumtoxinA, daxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm, evabotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, letibotulinumtoxinA, letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg, onabotulinumtoxinA, prabotulinumtoxinA, relabotulinumtoxinA, rimabotulinumtoxinB". No space before the A or B. I've never seen such words before. Are they dictionary terms? Are they still words if you remove the final A or B? Equinox ◑ 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the advent of biosimilars, people have been asking each other how best to make naming conventions for their nonproprietary names. The themes have involved some suffixes, such as the hyphenated four-letter ones and the solidly affixed ones seen here. The USAN system has adopted some conventions, which can be seen at work in the FDA Purple Book (whereas the FDA Orange Book is for small molecule drugs.) The names referred to above are USANs. The WHO has tried out some things regarding the INNs for biosimilars, not all of which have stuck permanently. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Cranefly

How do you say cranefly in Hebrew? JulieKahan (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia has טיפולות (probably /tipuˈlut/) with an image of the European cranefly.  --Lambiam 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This /tipuˈlot/ is just a transcription of the taxon and hardly living language, as with many article titles on Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia. Fay Freak (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

One probably says יַתּוּשׁ (yatū́š), which also serves the title of the superordinate taxon on the mentioned Wikipedia page. Fay Freak (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

outstand

I didn't know this was a word, though it stands to reason. However, current definition 2 seems to include more than one definition in it, don't you think? --Cromwellt|Talk|Contribs 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To me, lavishing attention and definitions on this archaic word seems a bit silly. I note that there are no citations for any of the senses, which may be not just archaic, but obsolete (or insufficiently attested for inclusion). I don't view citations and usage examples involving outstanding have much bearing on this term. I further note that MWOnline does not have an entry for this, indicating that they don't find it a word in current use. DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I just added a total of three quotations for the first two senses, and there are more where they came from. There is nothing silly about attending to a perfectly good and useful term simply because it is dated. It would be far sillier to define, say, emojis in a dictionary, but it seems we have time for that. Multiple Mooses (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

summator

I just added an entry for this term after coming across it in Augustine's Confessions. I have only added the obvious sense, however, with a couple of supporting quotations. When I search Google Books, it seems that the term more commonly refers to either a device or a mathematical concept; however, I am not familiar with these, and I cannot find such technical definitions in dictionaries. MW simply has "one who summates". Is there anyone with the expertise and the time to add the missing senses? Multiple Mooses (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all the uses I could find related to an element in logic circuit or control system design, which I’ve added as a definition. (I don’t think the mathematical usage is separate from this sense.) It may be there are still more missing senses. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

good old boy

Sense 2. Can we get someone to look at this ? Sounds really biased. Not saying some of the qualities listed are never found among some, but I don't think all are necessarily defining qualities. Maybe something like, "one who is accepted by the community at large, often deriving undue favour based on longstanding familial ties within the community" (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the definition needs some cleanup; I would not have thought of "friendly", "unambitious" or "uneducated" as definitional features of a good old boy. E.g. a lawyer could be a good old boy, at least in the sense I'm familiar with, and be educated and ambitious! I also think the "chiefly Southern US" in the label is misplaced... or perhaps we're actually dealing with two separate senses, if there is also a sense by which is this (approbatively?) "one who is accepted by the community at large and derives favor"? The sense I am familiar with is when people make topical reference to the culture/politics of the South (i.e., our mention of the South should be in the definition, not the dialect label), and they say that e.g. a particular sheriff is a "good old boy" = he's a (white) Southerner regarded as embodying stereotypical Southern culture like loyalty to the [white] group / racial bias and conservatism, as an explanation of why he's e.g. stonewalling an investigation into police killing a black man. Dictionary.com defines "good old boy" as "a man who embodies some or all of the qualities considered characteristic of many white men of the southern US, including an unpretentious, convivial manner, conservative or intolerant attitudes, and a strong sense of fellowship with and loyalty to other members of his peer group". - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dendragapus

Do you guys think that Dendragapus comes from the Greek dendron (tree), Greek aga- (intensifying prefix, going back to Indo-European *mǵh2- "large, great"), and Greek -pous (___footed?) 70.119.117.26 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the start is from dendron, but not sure about aga- (I hadn't seen that prefix before, so I think it might be more obscure) or -pous. Is the genitive attested? A genitive in -podis would confirm that it ends in -pous; a genitive in -pi wouldn't establish it for sure one way or another. These sources suggest the second element is ἀγαπάω (agapáō): http://utahbirds.org/birdsofutah/Profiles/BlueGrouse.htm, https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/key-to-scientific-names/search?q=dendragapus I guess it would then represent a hypothetical Greek *δενδραγαπος or something like that.--Urszag (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The original description doesn't say anything about what Daniel Giraud Elliot had in mind, but I always thought it came from Ancient Greek δένδρον (déndron) + Ancient Greek ᾰ̓γᾰπᾰ́ω (agapáō), as something that "loves trees". According to the page for the genus on Wikipedia, these are birds that live on the edges of forests in mountainous areas of western North America, while many of the better known grouse species live in moors and prairies. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a suffix -οῦς (-oûs), meaning “-ful”. So perhaps ἀγάπη (agápē) +‎ -οῦς (-oûs) “full of love” (for trees)? The genitive would end in -οῦντος (-oûntos).  --Lambiam 11:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

per w:Dendragapus: "Their breeding habitat is the edges of conifer and mixed forests in mountainous regions of North America and Eurasia. Their range is closely associated with that of various conifers." DCDuring (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding definition to existing entry

Under advisory, there should be another definition relating to the state of being under an advisor. There is a StackExchange thread about this usage, and some additional sources using the word in this way are: [4][5][6][7] BhamBoi (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

While the SE thread you've linked actually discredits the propriety of this usage, and Twitter statuses (stati?) don't count as citations AFAIK, I have added this sense with a couple of decent quotations. I have also tagged it as uncommon and possibly nonstandard per the SE thread. Multiple Mooses (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that "supervision of an advisor" or "supervision by an advisor"? DCDuring (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"Under the supervision of an advisor" aka "with supervision by an advisor". I'm going to make it "by" for clarity. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

vernacular

Too many senses, some should be merged. PUC – 12:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

signie

_{Sorry if this posts more than once; i tried posting on the Tea room's main page, which normally adds my topics to the current month automatically, no problem... This time i think it didn't like me trying to add an external link.}

Is Signie a word or a typo? (Sign makes sense in context.) Signie appears in the first quotation under hamburgery#Noun, attributed to a 1935 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette available at newspapers DOT com (but not available to me unless i create an account for that site).

--173.67.42.107 02:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There was evidently during the 1930s and 1940s a type of regiolectic in-joke going with the regular readers of that paper's "Pittsburghesque" column by one Charles F. Danver, judging from the multiple hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=signie&p_province=us-pa&p_city=pittsburgh&dr_year=1930-1950. It is apparent from the context that Danver and his readers were evidently using the word signie (sign + -ie, diminutive) to mean a humorous fault in the wording of a sign, or a sign containing such a fault. So yes, akin to the word typo in a way, but having to do with wording/phrasing more often than typos or misspellings. In a cursory inspection I didn't see evidence that the word had any currency outside of this column; and it apparently died out circa 1950, if my half-ass inspection was comprehensive enough to detect the timing accurately. If anyone cares enough to spend more time with it, it could be nailed down further. I don't think I'll bother to try to enter signie in Wiktionary because it was evidently only a regiolectic in-joke that died out eventually. Probably if one were to scour WT:CFI it would back up that gut feeling (i.e., Wiktionary probably doesn't want it). Quercus solaris (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks for chasing that down. ...Tempted to link that page to this conversation so people aren't tempted to "fix the misspelling" like i considered doing. --173.67.42.107 15:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Great idea. And it's a good point because WT's ux rules want the vocab in ux items to be fairly clear. I provided a short unobtrusive gloss, and I also commented out a link straight to this discussion thread, which people will encounter if they open the hood there. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC). PS: All this talk of 1930s hamburgeries reminds me that I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

mad dogs and Englishmen

This seems like a weak entry. The definition doesn't express how this can be used in a sentence, and the "citation" is just a paraphrase of the source poem. Is it really a dictionary entry, or just "here is a poem that people sometimes quote"? Equinox ◑ 17:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

čiriklo, háček, röck döts and ümlaut as autological

Autological terms refer to themselves, but these only only refer to diacritics that they contain, not to the whole words. We don't include aitch in Category:English autological terms, so why include these? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Theknightwho (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Geltung Plural

The wiktionary article for Geltung says that it has no plural, but Collin's gives "Geltungen" and it is attested in Edmund Husserl's Ideen I. It's not an old Genitive form because it is preceded by 'von ihren' which is only possible if it's dative plural. Should Geltungen be added to the page for Geltung? Mennonitischer Metaphysiker (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Spectrology

wiktionary definition includes "1. The science of spectrum analysis." This is incorrect; spectrum analysis is SPECTROMETRY. 86.25.146.134 09:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a label to mark the sense as obsolete. Apparently there was a time when at least a few people used the word spectrology to mean what we today would only call spectrometry, per Webster 1913. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Schwank - Schwang

What's the semantic connection between Schwank (“drollery, prank”) and Schwang (“swing; fashion”) (which does seem to be related to schwanken (“to fluctuate, to vary”))? Moreover, Schwank is the supposed etymon of Polish szwank (“harm, wrong”), but I'm not seeing a clear connection there either. @Mahagaja? PUC – 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but German Wiktionary's entry for de:Schwank says "Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung war „Schlag“ oder „Fechthieb“, die Bedeutungen „witzige Erzählung“, „Streich“ hat sich im 15. Jahrhundert entwickelt." (The original meaning was "blow" or "fencing stroke"; the meanings "witty tale", "prank" developed in the 15th century.) —Mahāgaja · talk 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It tells you in the first definition of Grimm’s dictionary: in older language Schwank was a more evil prank, trolling or something, but probably as mondane and physical as a simple blow, swinging one’s arm. And then as Schabernack and Possen it can be used like Unfug, ‘something purposefully inappropriate’. Schwang in the sense of ‘current fashion’ was fashionable, the current thing, around 1900 and means the same as now “der neueste Unfug”. See also Schwalch for the variation. Fay Freak (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

warwicensis

Dear Latin speakers, if anyone is able to discern what the correct or natural vowel length of this term should be, please fix it if it's currently wrong. 137.205.213.94 17:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say you've done it right. The suffix is as it should be, and deliberately marking either vowel in Warwi- as long (on what grounds?) would be a bit ridiculous. Nicodene (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is every given name "English", if used in an English sentence?

Would like to know if most people agree with this or not: User_talk:CitationsFreak#Kia. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with CF's blanket pass. I think it's a difficult question though. PUC – 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

By the same logics they are translingual. In reality what decides what language a name is is racist or culturalist idpol, but this must be left unexpressed if only because we are more academia than in reality, in our aspirations. There is no easy, purely rational rule to tell people what names they can create, instead this is planned ambiguity young editors get ahead of over time. Better no rules than bad rules or something, lack of clarity can be rectified by experience, guided by actually felt needs or lacks rather than abstract ideals of what we could add and get away with it because there is no formula against it: you don’t live in a Cartesian plane, go for the verisimile, where you get 80 % of the revenue with 20 % effort: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-11/CFI policy for foreign given names and surnames, Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/August#Determining language for a vote on multiple accounts. Otherwise we can go through the top 1000 list of Turkish forenames and create them for German and so on, it will be certain, if you care so much for what is certain.

Just be reminded that the entries must be useful for someone, not follow some essentialist who’s-who-assignment. Sometimes everything is told but with unusually circumstantial language specification, as with those Dacian words, or when it is less important whether something is English or Middle English or Middle French or Old French or Middle High German or New High German (e.g. I was not decided what chronolect the vulgar quote at rumsen is in), or words spread in several Arabic dialects are added under the general Arabic heading, or I didn’t bother to add the IPL definition of dépeçage to more than one language section (you understand its meaning in a German law text with the French entry; Geographyinitiative clearly was guided by his greater drive for completion of the dictionary when he copied the definition for an English section), or when in a single word glossed in a medieval margin you don’t know whether it is Old French or Middle English (→ dittander). Fay Freak (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There's tension between the theoretical goal of the Wiktionary project to describe "all words of all languages" and the fact that the way the site is set up at the technical level, and how contributors edit entries, realistically prevents this from ever being accomplished. Not all aspects of names are translingual: language-specific information can include pronunciations (if there is anything more specific than "as close as you can manage to the pronunciation of the name in another language"), inflections, even spelling in some cases. The citations showing usage are themselves language-specific data. None of that seems inherently unsuitable to a dictionary to me; I don't really get what's interesting about adding names in many cases, but what's interesting is subjective. It does seem like it would lead to technical problems to have extremely broad inclusion criteria for names, though, because I'd guess there are probably some that can be attested in even more languages than all but the biggest single-letter entries.--Urszag (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Urszag: @CitationsFreak: Well, you may be arguing towards every name being Translingual (!!). But not every name being English. I would like to hear more logic and philosophy supporting this. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I could see us putting every name in Translingual. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless we retain pronunciation info, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Plus, many languages phonologically adapt spellings, even though English doesn’t. Plus, there are often alternate forms that are only used in particular languages. It just seems like a recipe for oversimplification. Theknightwho (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The names are definitely used in English, even if the people who have them may not be from English-speaking areas. As an example, take Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He is from Ukraine, a non-English-speaking nation. But no one speaking Ukrainian spells it like that, as they use a different script. So, it is English and not Ukrainian. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused how I'm "arguing towards every name being Translingual" when I explicitly wrote "Not all aspects of names are translingual" and gave examples of things that could be specific to the English entry (citations, pronunciation and spelling).--Urszag (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the interest either in most cases but don't have serious objections to adding names either. As an anti-flooding measure we could set a random standard like ‘belongs to someone who has won an Oscar’ (at which point we'll have to RFD Leonardo of course). Nicodene (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a more justifiable standard would involve applying criteria such as the following:

1. The name must be attested according to the usual standard set out in WT:ATTEST.
2. Subject to the following criterion, do not treat a name as English if it originates from a modern language other than English.
3. However, treat such a name as English if it is the name of a notable person whose first language is English. A person will be regarded as notable if they have a Wikipedia article about them in any language.

— Sgconlaw (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

One good reason to list names such as Joaquin as English is that they have nativized pronunciations in English. If we force them all to be translingual, there will be no way for the reader to figure out that it's pronounced /wɑˈkiːn/ and not one of the many other possible pronunciations one could come up with for this name. Jose needs to stay too because it has two completely different pronunciations, both unpredictable from knowing the Spanish.

Unless we want to start putting multilingual pronunciation sections under the Translingual header, but I'm sure that would just lead to another argument later on where they could get deleted and leave us with nothing. —Soap— 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Soap, Sgconlaw, Urszag: Individually collapsed pronunciation sections under multilingual sections make a lot of sense. Sometimes we need other language-specific information - inflection and gender come to mind. --RichardW57m (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

fundamental

From Late Latin fundamentālis, from Latin fundamentum (“foundation”), from fundō (“to lay the foundation (of something), to found”), from fundus (“bottom”), from Proto-Indo-European *bʰudʰmḗn. However, fundō and fundus are from 2 different root. Please verify. Duchuyfootball (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Duchuyfootball see fundo#Etymology 2. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

bix nood

Could the protection level on this entry be decreased so that it may be created? See Citations:bix nood, which has recently been expanded by @Mynewfiles. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

if we can get this cited, i agree it should have a page, as offensiveness doesnt disqualify a word. but i dont agree that it's cited. looking at the cites page, all i see is two cites for each sense (because three of the four in the second category are by the same author). i'm not sure we can really count the cites in the third section. —Soap— 15:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Soap The three qualifying citations for the sense "African-American" could be: 2006 November 16 by Ace Lightning, 2007 January 23 by nikolai kingsley, and 2008 April 3 by Don Stockbauer. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ستان

What does this word actually mean? The entry defines it as -stan, -istan (ie with a transliteration!) and going to those entries tends to direct the reader back to this page. -istan has been under discussion in the tea room for 3 years as being "a gloss of the Persian" - that's an especially serious problem if the Persian is itself undefined! 2A02:3037:409:8190:7AB7:9366:EB03:8AD6 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Al

Al#English says Al is A diminutive of the male given names Alan, Albert, Alexander, Alfred, or other names beginning with Al- but shouldn't we mention some women/girls also have that nickname? Alison, Alexandra... i tried to remove the word male but the template must need that field because it became A diminutive of the unknown-gender given names...

--173.67.42.107 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

i changed it to other male or female names beginning with Al- but i'm still curious about the template. (For example, does the template automatically add it to male categories, and should it also be in female or gender-neutral categories?) --173.67.42.107 15:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly believe there are some women named Al, but i'd think they must be much rarer than the men. Could we have two definition lines, one for men and one for women, to give better attention to detail so a foreign language learner would know that the name is still primarily male? Thanks, —Soap— 12:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. Two senses entered instead of one. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

feus, plural of feu (French)

could someone please touch up the feus page? We list it as the plural of feu, but we dont say which feu it is. Is it the word for fire, in which case feus would be an alternate splelling of feux? Or is it the "dead" sense, in which case it should either be changed to an adjective, or listed as both noun an adjective? Thanks, —Soap— 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

EN: Nos.

The abbreviation Nos. lacks an etymology. Maybe the logic is that it is formed by appending -s to No., so calling is a plural is sufficient explanation. But, hypothetically, it could perhaps have come from Latin numeris?

OK, having written it out, that [latter] hypothesis is making less and less sense. Nonetheless, is there (ideally) supposed to be an etymology? There is one at days#Etymology_1 for instance. —DIV (1.145.111.69 10:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC))

It comes from No.#Etymology with a plural -s tacked on without regard for philologic fine points, much like lbs, bbls, kgs, kms, and others. It is without doubt descriptively a thing, widely used, regardless of any prescriptive urges to discourage it. As for how Wiktionary would best convey those facts in a way whose tone passes muster: it could be worked out. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Good contribution. I have split the added text to retain some under Etymology, and shifted some to Usage Notes.

BTW, much as Nos. might not observe the philologic subtleties, I had been on the verge of amending No. to No's, which apparently doesn't get used at all. In my mind I had initially — vaguely — interpreted the full-stop as indicating truncation of the original word, perhaps a hypothetical *nomera, for which the hypothetical plural *nomeras could be formed by use of an apostrophe! Apparently the full-stop there is actually just a general marker of any sort of abbreviation, in the same vein as Mr. for mister.

Personally I prefer № over No.. Not sure whether № has a plural form; №s doesn't look quite right. (And N^os is not much better!) —DIV (1.145.62.225 01:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC))

The tweak looks good, thanks. Undoubtedly many people handwrote forms looking like N^os and N^os. in the era of handwritten business ledgers (1800s-1900s). I doubt there will ever be a Unicode code point assigned to that character identity, but it could happen. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

ꝇ / Ꝇ Spanish usage

The pages for ꝇ and Ꝇ claim that it can be used in Spanish for 〈ll〉 "chiefly in handwriting". It is totally unsourced and when I searched for it outwith Wikimedia sites, people seem to be thinking it's either a mistake or just made up. I can't personally find ꝇ being used in Spanish, but perhaps someone saw something like *lᷝ somewhere and misinterpreted it as ꝇ? I can see how lᷝ could be used in a manner similar to uͤ/oͤ/aͤ in older German or Swedish texts.

There is also no corresponding page in Spanish. The Wikipedia pages in both English and Spanish don't mention it being used in Spanish either at the moment.

Should the Spanish section of the pages for ꝇ and Ꝇ be removed? Senicasilurum (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's bullshit. Removed Phacromallus (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I removed it again P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Egyptian Hieroglyph cats?

Looking up 𓃀, there is the text "This glyph was conventionally colored red." Similar for other colors for other characters. Should we create a handful of color categories for red/blue/green etc? 92.71.60.61 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting idea! We could even use a template, so instead of manually writing "This glyph was conventionally colored..." and manually adding a category, we could write e.g. {{egy-hiero-color|red}} (this is just a placeholder suggestion; change it if someone has a better idea) and that'd add the text and category. This would cover a lot of glyphs, although we'd want to think about how to handle polychrome glyphs like the vulture or woman (e.g., categorize them as polychrome and manually state what colors were used? is probably a better idea than categorizing them as both polychrome and red and green, etc), and glyphs that have multiple conventional colorings (e.g. 𓊌 was conventionally either white or blue, and there's added verbiage about what stone each color represented: maybe that has to be handled manually, or the template could have syntax to add both the "white" and "blue" categories and suppress the auto-generated text so the longer explanatory text could be written out?). - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: I think this is a decent idea and generally agree with your suggestions on handling polychrome glyphs and so forth; I do think a lot of cases will need to be handled with manually added text, but as you say, we could just have a parameter in the template to suppress the default text in that case. (Unrelatedly, forgive my lateness in replying in the other discussions about hieroglyphs/hieratic we were having; due to computer issues, I lost the reply I had drafted and was demoralized for a bit, but I do still intend to get back to you!) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. As for hieratic, I've run out of steam for adding large numbers of characters for now, but if you identify any characters c:Category:Hieratic glyphs (Georg Möller) is missing which you consider important, I'll prioritize adding them.
Do you have any thoughts on what to name these categories? "Category:Red Egyptian hieroglyphs"? "Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs which were conventionally colored red"? - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've set up a very simple {{egy-hiero-color}} and categories like Category:Red Egyptian hieroglyphs. Please flag issues, make improvements, etc. I have not yet categorized all glyphs. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

unqualified

Sense 2: "Her cooking ability, while mentioned, was unqualified by her." What does it mean? PUC – 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Not expanded upon i.e. "They said she can cook, but not to what degree". Vininn126 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why "by her" though? "She said she can cook, but not to what degree"? The passive voice sounds really weird, do people really talk like that? PUC – 19:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with "by her" is weird; it makes it seem more like a verb form. "her unqualified abilities" would be better. But I've just replaced the usex with two book quotes. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

One cannot help but wonder, were her unqualified cooking abilities an unqualified success?  --Lambiam 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It must mean that she mentioned her own cooking skills, but didn't give any details. (As suggested by PUC.) Otherwise "by her" doesn't work. I don't think anyone talks like that, but they do write like that. It's probably intended to give an ironic tone. 90.186.83.227 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In a bit, in a bizzle, IAB and family

Hello, I intended to create "IAB" (as a text messaging abbreviation) but noticed its full form, in a bit, currently does not exist, although I think it's idiomatic enough to warrant an entry. Likewise, the alternative in a bizzle should be created as well if this is deemed worthy of addition.

Should we create entries for these? 2A02:C7C:6B0B:9000:BD6C:6E99:18AD:9682 02:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For 'in a bit' I would say no, as we already have it in what is currently the 8th sense of bit in the noun under English Etymology 1. For bizzle, we would probable need 3 quotations immediately, as the word has already been deleted. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

gain time

I see lose time has an entry but not gain time. Thoughts? Justin the Just (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

“gain time”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

in future: only 'from now on', or also 'at a future time'?

Our entries say the UK uses "in future" = "from now on", and "in the future" = "at (a) point(s) in the future" (whereas the US uses "in the future" for both), However, I find British speakers using "in future" in contexts where it seems to mean "at (a) point(s) in the future", not "from now on".
For example, at 14:20, Hannah Fry talks about computers guessing if someone will "commit a crime in future", and at 1:52, a British defense ?analyst? speculating about potential future uses of Britain developing a laser weapon, mentions it could be used on various platforms "in future", which (in context) I would more easily interpret as saying the laser weapon could be useful on various platforms as they are developed as time passes / at points in the future, rather than saying "from now on we're going to use this on various platforms".
(On Youglish, I also turned up this US-born, UK-based costumer saying "in future" at 6:18 in a context that, again, I can only take to mean "at (a) point(s) in the future", not "from now on".)
So it seems like the claimed distinction is not quite right, and "in future" is (sometimes?) just a general/all-senses (UK) synonym of "in the future"...? - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I revised the entries. - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

tài phiệt

This is currently categorized as "Japanese Vietnamese" (Vietnamese as used by Vietnamese speakers in Japan) due to sense 3 having a "Japan" label. However, sense 2's "South Korea" label wikilinks "South Korea" to avoid categorizing as "South Korean Vietnamese". Is sense 3 maybe also not intended to claim tài phiệt is only used to mean zaibatsu by Vietnamese speakers in Japan, but rather is just trying to say that when the topic is Japan/zaibatsu, these are called tài phiệt by Vietnamese speakers even in Vietnam? If so, is there a clearer way we could indicate that, than via the labels which (in the Japanese case) categorize this as belonging to a regional dialect, or (in the Korean case) are confusingly visually indistinguishable from that? (Compare what I did for xenium, which an IP had categorized as "Roman English".) - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sep vs. Sept

My grammar book lists the abbreviations for month names as follows:

Jan Feb Mar Apr Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

That is, only Sept is four-letter. In Wiktionary we also have Sep. Do we know which one is more common, and whether this is due to any regional variation? --Z 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Z 09:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

With dots, Ngrams finds "Aug. Sept. Oct." to be several times more common than "Aug. Sep. Oct." Without dots, it says "Aug Sep Oct" is more common than "Aug Sept Oct". Dots are generally more common in the US and less common in the UK, so this broadly lines up with what various other places online say, that the US uses "Sept." more than "Sep.", while the UK uses either. (There's also variation between writers, and possibly regions, in whether only July, only June, both, or neither gets abbreviated.) - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the advent of ubiquitous computer use (via the microcomputer revolution and then the web era), because the use of codified date formats is so widespread (such as YYYY-Mmm-DD or DD-Mmm-YY, as input masks and output masks), people do tend to be influenced toward using the same number of letters (i.e., 3) for all 12 months. This is why it is widespread to use "Jun" and "Jul" even though there is hardly any abbreviating "savings" by chopping off merely 1 terminal letter, and it yields "Sep" instead of "Sept" as well. This "just follow the [character-count] pattern invariably" factor is interesting because before the PC era and web era it did not figure into usage choices quite as much, although some earlier instances existed too, such as when postal codes were introduced in the 1960s and new sets of postal abbreviations (with uniform character count for all set members) were codified. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

ellipsis

The ellipsis page says in part, used to indicate ... (in mathematics) that a pattern continues (e.g., 1, ..., 4 means 1, 2, 3, 4). Is this a standardized mathematical notation? Looking at 1, ..., 4 from a linguistic perspective, i wouldn't be comfortable assuming the sequence or set to be 1, 2, 3, 4. Maybe a better example might be 1, 2, 3, ... 98, 99, 100 or 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... or 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13... IF any of those correctly use the mathematical notation. Come to think of it, should the usage with numbers be split out from its usage with words? --173...67...42...107...173.67.42.107 16:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mathematical notation has not been standardized, but $1,...,4$ is definitely highly unusual. The common practice is to give at least two, but usually three or more elements before the ellipsis. For examples on Wikipedia, see the section Ellipsis § In mathematical notation, as well as Series (mathematics) and Natural number § Notation.  --Lambiam 23:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The def seems way too big in the first place. How about: "A mark consisting of more than one period."? CitationsFreak (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of the info given in the first sense there is cogent and bears keeping. The definition of what an ellipsis is consists not only of which glyphs constitute the character but also what the character means semantically. The part about spaces versus no spaces could be deleted because Wikipedia covers it so Wiktionary doesn't have to. Style guides have wasted ink on it over the years and many users of style guides are under the impression that it matters (independently of whether it truly does). Quercus solaris (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Kept most of the def, just removed the specific number of dots reference and converted the two examples into a usage note. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

zoophile

The definition is currently "A person sexually attracted to non-human animals." which is accurate from a sciences viewpoint, but I don't think quite accurately represents its common use. I think an appropriate common use definition would be "A person who desires sex or is sexually active with non-human animals." Identifying as a Zoophile is taboo in most of the world, so I think it is important to be as clear as possible. It could also be argued that a Zoophile could be defined as: "A person who has had sex with a non-human animal or chooses to self-identify as such". Those that do identify as zoophiles might have a more refined definition though. Subanark (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Can sexual attraction exist without desire? Otherwise, what is the difference between “being sexually attracted to” and “desiring sex with”?  --Lambiam 23:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The difference is intent. Attraction just means "you feel a connection", while desire is a "wants or planning too". The idea being that you can't really control attraction as it is a in the moment feeling, While desire is a more of a continuous emotion. A better phrase than desire might be "hopes too have" Subanark (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

🔛🔝

I fail to see how 🔛🔝, 🔙🔛🔝, or 🔙🔛🔝🔜 constitute idiomatic expressions. They are just constructing phrases with emojis, i.e. sum of parts. I do, however, think other emoji combinations can be idiomatic, like 😐😑😐 (slow blink conveying a stunned reaction), 👉 👈 (felling shy), or 🐂💩. I propose that 🔛🔝 be deleted unless someone disagrees. Nosferattus (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how 🔛🔝 is any less idiomatic than the literal English phrase on top. Binarystep (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Binarystep In that case, isn't it just an alternative spelling of on top? Nosferattus (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus That's what it's already listed as. Given the existence of similar terms like 🧢 for cap, 🗑️🔥 for dumpster fire, and 🐂💩 for bullshit, it might be a good idea to make a separate category for rebus spellings. Binarystep (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Five CJKV characters with common component

I have come across five characters 更, 茰, 㤤, 㻀, 䛕 which have a common component that can be described as either "曳 mirrored" (i.e. ⿾曳), or 日 and 乂 combined (i.e. ⿻日乂). I have decomposed them according to the latter in those five entries, but I have also added the five characters to the derived section of 曳.

I do not think that we should make a new page just for this component, but which decomposition is better? Other suggestions are also welcome. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

hese

What is "hese" (rhymed with "these" and "please") in the third verse of The Sausage Man? It is not listed at hese. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I couldn't find any other citations that were similar. I wonder if it's short for something else, like "Borghese". Nosferattus (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I solved the mystery. "Hese" is a typo (or ink smudge). The word is actually "Hose", short for "pantyhose". The word is intended to rhyme with "those" two lines up. "These" rhymes with "please" further down. Nosferattus (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Would like to include more Latin words in the category: -idus

Hi! There are many English words ending with '-id' actually comes from Latin terms with the affix '-idus' and there is a category named Latin terms suffixed with -idus. To include a new word in this category, one is supposed to use {{af|la|base|-idus}} in etymology section of an entry, for example, for acidus#Latin, {{suffix|la|aceō|t1=I am sour|idus}} is all fine. At the same time, the {{C|af|la|-idus}} doesn't make sense to add a latin word without a direct combination of base and -idus in this category, for example, solidus#Latin and insipidus#Latin. So I'm feeling a bit puzzled about how to include these words in this category as well. Thank you! (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don't. If there is no base word to derive your word ending in -idus from, then that word is not actually suffixed with -idus, it just ends in -idus. PUC – 21:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks! AnnHarryArb (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

principle of least change

Idiomatic? See google:"the principle of least change", google books:"the principle of least change". I see we do have lots of other principles, e.g. principle of least action, principle of least astonishment. - -sche (discuss) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we might also want to create an entry for the principle of least effort. Let's take the path of least resistance and create them all. PUC – 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I support that idea. I think it's reasonable and appropriate even within WT:CFI limits. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

balance the sheets

I'm not convinced the current definition is accurate. PUC – 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

To me it looks like a weakly pejorative/dismissive term for balance the books. DCDuring (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

impignorate

p. pl. of impignorare... What is p. pl.? P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be perfect passive participle. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

altispinus - and other such latin words

Could those with good knowledge of latin please check the entry for altispinus, does everything there seem well formed? Then a broader latin question, if presented with the word-form of "altispīna" without context, could that also be interpreted a something akin to a compound noun? (if so i hope you would explain carefully as i struggle with how to form compound words in latin!) Sjl197 (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't we be better off with a more terse entry (eg, no declension table) under a Translingual L2? I am skeptical that we can find citations apart from species names. In this case, at Catalog of Life, I don't find altispinus in species names, but I do find 7 instances of altispina; 2 of altispinosa, 3 of altispinosus; 3 of altispinis; 1 of altispinnis. On this evidence we could not exclude altispina being a noun. In one instance (Dirhinus altispina) it follows a masculine genus name, which would support altispina being a noun. DCDuring (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, if there's agreement that it can fit a latin adjective (i.e. latin noun and latin modifier), then i'd currently prefer it stays that way - rather than say translingual. You hit the crux of my concern though, it's about formation of species names from that - where as it seems you know well, the species epithet for adjectives and participles should have gender, number and case agreement. The cause of my query is a related (but different) case of the same issue. I liked your idea of searching name usage in Catalog of Life in that way - hence no instance of altispinum, and e.g. i find that same set of 7 and instances of altispina - which i fear includes another in a neuter genus, also on my mind. Anyway, per your example, i'd agree that particular genus Dirhinus seems masculine (I only quickly infer that), and I find it useful that you highlighted it in this context. However, where i cannot agree is agree that particular name-formation "would support altispina being a noun" - only that others have perhaps somehow thought it *could* be. I just checked the source of Bouček & Narendran, 1981, as sometimes later listings do not reflect the actual original combination is, but it's indeed originally the same, which as you seem fully aware of, if treated as an adjective then that does not agree in gender. Sjl197 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no metaphysical PoS status apart from usage. If users use it a as a noun, it's a noun. We have no indication of altispinus being an adjective and at least weak indication of it being a noun. "Weak" is better than "none". DCDuring (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Admittedly it may break some hearts to hear the metaphysical emptiness. Yea, shall we ask what a POS is, only to find that a POS is as a POS does. If lexical categorization can't be handsome, at least it can be handy. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm saddened by the advanced erosion of the distinction in English usage (quantifier selection) between countable and uncountable nouns ("10 items or less"). I am also troubled by the ambiguous status of temporal/locative words and phrases ("I am home."). Usage doesn't always conform neatly to our Latin-derived PoS categories, but we don't want too much proliferation of PoS categories that normal users learned nothing about. We have to take advantage of hard evidence, however sparse, when we have it. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Sjl197: What's the evidence that Dirhinus is assuredly or originally masculine? There's also the species Dirhinus caerulea, which speaks for feminine gender. I'm not a Grecian, but it looks to me like a Greek adjective of two terminations (i.e. the feminine is the same as the masculine). --RichardW57m (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find Dirhinus caerulea among the species of Dirhinus at Wikispecies (which doesn't have an entry for the genus) or at the Catalogue of Life (current version). Where did you find it? I found it at IRMNG, which cited COL 2006, presumably superseded by the current online version. The search of the current CoL database yielded 45 species of which no instances of unambiguously feminine adjectives and had many instances of unambiguously masculine adjectives as specific epithets. I also did a cursory search at Wikispecies for genera ending in rhinus (not rrhinus, using intitle:/[A-Z][a-z]+[^r]rhinus/) and found hardly any unambiguously feminine specific epithets and many unambiguously masculine ones. It is not unusual to find gender errors in the literature and, less often, in the taxonomic databases. Other sources that had Dirhinus caerulea include WP, whose list of 70 species of Dirhinus had ~25 with unambiguous masculine specific epithets and one other that was feminine (cornuta). Though this is not an exhaustive search, it supports the idea that current usage in the taxonomic community seems to indicate the Dirhinus is masculine. Any contrary evidence (not anecdotes or hypotheses) is welcome. DCDuring (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As names in -rhinus seem to be adjectival in origin, the gender could be either. As a lot of the species names are genitives, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the namers of the species have overlooked the possibility of feminines (or indeed neuters) in -us that aren't tree names, like anus f (“old woman”). Robert Heinlein's planet name Tellus Tertius always makes me wince. As you say, there are plenty of errors in gender.

Names in '-rrhinus' are also germane; the gemination is a feature of Greek.

I first found D. caerulea on Wikipedia, but there were hits elsewhere. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of cases among specific epithets for species of Dirhinus and of other genera ending in rhinus says they are masculine and, therefore that altispina is a noun in Dirhinus altispina. Further evidence about altispina being a noun when used as a specific epithet is its use in Paecilaema altispina, Paecilaema being neuter. So, there are two cases incompatible with there being Translingual usage of altispinus as an adjective. There are also two related terms, altispinis, used with masculine genus Serrasalmus, and altispinosus, used with masculine genus Mikrogeophagus, suggesting that those authors didn't have faith that altispinus was an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank-you all for continued discussion. Before holding up "Paecilaema altispina" as another poster-child where the species suffix doesn't appear to fit the neuter genus, then i just wish to highlight that same paper, the author describes several other species in that same genus, and notably formed ALL apparent adjectives in their feminine, i.e. his P. maculata, P. vittata, P. oculta. Many species suffixes were subsequently altered from their original "feminine" to reflect the neuter in Kury, 2003 or Kury & Alonso-Zarazaga 2011. It's actually one on my mind since the start of my question - i just tried to avoid mention any named genera or specifically about nomenclature issues, but here we are. Actually, there are a bunch of other potentially discrepant species names with variations on same theme, e.g. paucispina, longispina, brevispina - and all of these often get treated as adjectives with varying gender. The key question i had was at core whether altispina (or really any of those others like paucispina) without any context *could* be interpreted as a noun. I think sadly i now fear so. Where i have since lost all hope is that due to vagaries of "metaphysical emptiness" or just by authors forming taxon names 'badly' or not defining their word origins, then trying do define whether some are better seen as nouns or adjectives can be an exercise in futility! I've seen other cases where appeal was made to the classical literature, especially if they have been used historically as nouns. If done that way, then i'm doubtful of any use of 'altispina' can be found beyond the taxonomic literature. It then seems rather a circular argument to use taxonomic nomenclature to define whether words used in taxonomic nomenclature can be taken as nouns or not.

Else, back to Dirhinus - i half-remember 'rhinus' and ones like it sometimes get complication from similar words [here e.g. ῥῑνόν • (rhīnón) n <- neuter], but if origin is with the usual stem [ῥῑνός • (rhīnós) f], then at least for zoology, i think it's that the latinization of the suffix as "-us" takes us to definine the genus as masculine (per ICZN 30.1.3 = a genus-group name that is a Greek word latinized with change of ending, or with a Latin or latinized suffix, takes the gender normally appropriate to the changed ending or the Latin suffix)". Anyway, as said, it looks like the genus is being treated as masculine from general listings and various other species described by multiple authors. I found those divergent "Dirhinus caerulea" and "Dirhinus cornuta" listed on en-Wiki (WP), but also in IRMNG [8] Even if those species not currently in that genus (by revised listings), they look like they'd been in that genus as some time, according to someone, but i'd anticipate those combinations may have just been malformed, etc.. Sjl197 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have little appetite for the Codes. I follow taxonomic usage, which reflects, 1., names from the era when taxonomists knew Latin, 2., modern taxonomists imitating historical practice in the genera they work on, and 3., the Codes' allowing/encouraging taxonomists to correct erroneous gender. When necessary I use the classical dictionaries. Not all errors are corrected, but prevailing practice usually agrees with classical practice. Relatively few taxonomists are good classicists, so we see a great number of epithets in genitive case, having the same form for both masculine and feminine genera, or invariant, sometimes because they are not Latinized. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be listed as Translingual instead of Latin? Nosferattus (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would think just altispina, as a noun. I haven't seen any citations for 'real' Latin. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't get why any desire to adopt "translingual' if all parts of the etymology of altispinus are clearly latin. But hey, i'm still stuck on why other words formed the same way are being taken as adjectives both here and in the taxonomic literature, e.g. longispinus#Latin Sjl197 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Etymology is not what governs, but usage. Latin is no longer the language of species descriptions as it formerly was, so species names in current use appear only embedded in some non-Latin language. It would be fine with me if Scientific Latin, Medical Latin, Legal Latin, herbal-medicine Latin, and motto Latin ("e pluribus unum")) were all called Latin, whether or not they followed Latin grammar and spelling and whether or not they were used as idiomatic units (non-SoP) only when embedded in non-Latin text. There is no consensus favoring that position. In fact, there is more of a consensus opposing it. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about the other types of technical terms, but modern taxonomic Latin has some peculiarities:

1. Minimal grammar. There are no sentences, only names.
   1. Ranks of genus and higher are only nouns in the nominative.
   2. Ranks of species and lower are adjectival in function and modify the generic name as:
      1. Adjectives in the nominative (agreeing in gender with the generic name
      2. Nouns in the genitive (agreeing in gender with the referent). These are of two main types:
         1. The referent is not a taxon
         2. The referent is a taxon, usually as a way of indicating that the live on or parasitize the organisms in that taxon.
      3. Nouns in the nominative, in apposition (no gender agreement at all)
2. Everything is coined by people who are not native speakers from:
   1. Latin words
   2. Ancient Greek words converted to Latin
   3. Words in any other language or arbitrary sequences of letters converted to Latin

There are four ways to determine gender of generic names:

1. For Latin or Latinized Ancient Greek, from the gender of the etyma
2. The gender of the specific epithets assigned to it in the original publication of the genus
3. A statement by author in the original publication of the genus
4. A determination published later by a taxonomist

Gender of higher taxa can only be determined if they are referents of epithets for taxa at the rank of species or below in the genitive.

As I've said before, this is a very reduced subset of Latin which I've compared to a hen which spends its entire life in a cage laying eggs. As an artificial system dictated by taxonomic codes, it's inherently prescriptive. Any departures from the codes can be corrected in publications by other taxonomists, or overruled by the decision-making bodies of the taxonomic organizations. Of course, the literature is full of taxonomic names that have been determined to be incorrect, so any scientific manual listing the taxa of an area includes a synonymy for each of them that gives other names for each of them along with who published them. Also, real-world considerations don't have much influence. I'm sure there are taxonomic names still in use honoring vile and discredited people, etc., as well as incorporating racist and otherwise offensive terms. At least some of the codes have prohibitions on creating new names that are offensive, but I don't know if they're enforced. I also don't know what would happen with an epithet in the genitive that got the gender of a transgendered person wrong.

That said, there are also pockets of fully formed Latin in taxonomy: it used to be that the formal publication of a taxon had to include a diagnosis in Latin describing the taxon in enough detail to tell it apart from other taxa. Going further back, reference works and other publications meant to be read by taxonomists outside the authors' own countries were generally written in Latin. The increasing use of the vernacular has swept through all the codes, to the point that the code for viruses has abandoned Latin for even the names, though taxonomists have the option to use it if they want. There are some taxonomic names that appear in Latin prose written by taxonomists in taxonomic publications that include inflected forms not part of the taxonomic naming subsystem- I'm not sure where we would put that information. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bab

This Zazaki word is defined as "the big daddy", in a family category. What does that mean? Equinox ◑ 09:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My money's on the big papa, a patriarch of the clan. Probably not not cognate with baba. I'm too ignorant to confirm it, but I placed my bet here for fun. If it turns out I'm wrong then I'm on the hook for 5 bones to big papa Jimbo. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

PS: I'd link the lexicalized collocation big daddy at the Bab entry, but I'll leave it to someone who confirms the nature of the bigness. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, did you mean it's probably not not cognate, or not not not cognate? Thanks, —Soap— 22:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha ha, just a bit of litotes there; it wasn't not unnecessary, strictly speaking. I'm rollin them bones on both the meaning and the apparent cognation, to make it interesting. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We do have an entry for big daddy, but it's errrr open-ended at best. @Quercus solaris if you feel able to make the decision for this ethnic group, let's narrow it down. If you think you might be colonialising, let's not. Equinox ◑ 02:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on those latter points. I'm going to leave it alone, and hopefully someday someone will come along who can bring more confirmation to it. Given how much the archetypes of typical human family units have interesting transcultural homology, my money's on dramatis personae that include big daddy (often a grandpappy) as the patriarch, big mama as the matriarch, and so on. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris: We love you even if you don't show off with the long words. I am not a total idiot (hopefully) and I've defined more Renaissance inkhorn abortions (which I personally dislike) more than you've had hot dinners but I feel as though "transcultural homology...dramatis personae" helps you (or your ego) more than our readers. Equinox ◑ 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

LOL, merely mots justes. It would make for more time and longer sentences if I were to circumlocute. (I already get plenty of ass-whuppins for the time and length parameters without exacerbating.) In all seriousness though, I'm just having fun talking shop in the non-mainspace namespaces. I don't do that in the mainspace. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If I am to read this as "nobody would appreciate my comedy elsewhere" then yes, I withdraw it :) Equinox ◑ 02:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

spanking

If someone with OED access wants to look at their entry to judge whether it's worth splitting our own entry as spank into two etymologies, one for the intransitive "move along" sense and one for everything else, that'd be nice. if it's just an OED tradition to split based on transitive vs intransitive, then we wont need to. if OED sees two origins even if theyre both sound symbolism, then im not sure what our tradition usually is. thanks, —Soap— 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Soap I can check OED entries for you in small numbers. No batch botting. Just saying. Equinox ◑ 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've split spank. Please have a look. Leasnam (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks good. Is spanking new related to the former practice of spanking new born babies so they draw breath or is it just a coincidence that people did that? The first number 2 single in the UK charts was the following in fact[9]. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that spanking new is Etymology 2, from the practice of trotting or prancing something out (making a debut) Leasnam (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

finality, intentionality

This is missing, but I believe the word finality is also used in philosophical contexts where it means "goal-directedness" (or even the goal itself).

Also, I might be mixing things up but I thought intentionality had a pretty similar meaning. There is already a philosophical definition listed there, and it sounds about right, but I just thought the definition was broader than that. Again, maybe I'm mixed up. 2601:49:8400:26B:ACC8:1FA9:C36C:B330 14:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

For finality, Century 1911 has "In philosophy, the doctrine that nothing exists or was made except for a determinate end; the doctrine of final causes." But this is probably not what you mean exactly. DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it's definitely related to final causes, but I was thinking of it more as a concept, not a doctrine per se. One usage was something like, "A pen's intrinsic finality is to hold and release ink. The pen's extrinsic finality could be to use it to take notes, or to jam it in a door and use it as a doorstop, or many other things--even things it wasn't designed to be used for". 2601:49:8400:26B:ACC8:1FA9:C36C:B330 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It sounds very plausible. If you could find three or more examples of it in use illustrating that sort of meaning (See WT:ATTEST), we could be more sure of having the right definition. I had trouble finding a single distinct meaning of finality not applications of the common sense in the 40 examples of use at Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but someone else could probably do better. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As to intentionality the "Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names" has a definition very like our philosophical definition. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See also the Greek words about a final goal, telicity etc. Equinox ◑ 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The definition on de:Finalität works for either meaning, but unlike the English finality, in German legal language Finalität is usually employed for goal-directness, e.g. for the concept of an interference into a subjective right in public law (→ klassischer Eingriff) and more specialist for subjective elements in certain criminal offences, put as a synonyms to Zweckhaftigkeit and subjektive Anreicherung.

EUR-Lex does not show much of such usage in English, but has examples; Mr Prodi wrote, unambiguous due to the versions in other languages: “The Commission's choice of which projects to finance is based on the finality of the action itself and not on the political goals of the organisation supporting the projects.” Mrs Gradin wrote that “ the preamble of the protocol clearly stated that it respected the finality and objectives of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees”, and also Mr Vitorino wrote that “the preamble to the protocol states that it respects the finality and objectives of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951”. You should tell us whether this English sounds strange.

Didn’t bother with the philosophical meanings. Fay Freak (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

pirmas

How is the neuter of Lithuanian pìrmas (“first”) pronounced? Is it pìrma as in the inflection table or pirmà as on the the headword line? If the inflection tables are correct for ordinals and the like, then the accents need to be changed in the headword lines of most of the ordinals listed in cat:Lithuanian ordinal numbers. @BigDom, Vedac13. --RichardW57 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@RichardW57 I haven't looked at Lithuanian in a few years (travelled around the Baltics/eastern Europe in 2019 and got interested in the language then, but ended up concentrating on Polish) but my understanding is that the inflection table is correct. This website is great for showing the accentuation of unaccented Lithuanian words, and when looking at pirma we get for the neuter version:

• pìrma | sktv. (numeral), bev. g. (neuter gender), kelint. (ordinal)

Agree with your assessment that many of the other words in that category also need sorting out for various reasons. I'm currently in Vietnam so don't have loads of time for editing but I'm happy to work through them slowly. BigDom 00:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@BigDom: Thanks, your reply will help me greatly in fixing these words. I wasn't planning to do a massive review of our Lithuanian entries, I was just going to improve our handling of our Lithuanian collation and its effects! --RichardW57 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@RichardW57 No problem! A couple more links that may or may not be useful:

• Lithuanian dictionary which gives the stress pattern, e.g. (3) for pirmas, as well as some alternative forms.
• Lithuanian declension tables gives declension tables but not the accentuation so have to cross-check with the earlier link.

Cheers, BigDom 00:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

cheat code

Isn't this also used figuratively? PUC – 11:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheat code to success is probably very attestable, something akin to "shortcut". Vininn126 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Granger#Etymology 2

I don't see how sense 1 is a proper noun. The place names included here, supposedly for association with Grangers, are proper nouns, which muddies the waters - these would be better placed in Etymology 1. It has not been treated as countable either. For comparison, titles such as Freemason, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Tory, Whig, and Conservative are all treated as standard or ordinary nouns. DonnanZ (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Donnanz: I have changed it to a common noun; after the place names were added, it was changed in Special:Diff/61552220. J3133 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@J3133: Thanks, I didn't think of looking in the history. It doesn't solve the desire to group all places together - anyway we have a problem with the unknown etymology of Granger#Etymology 3. Looking at the place in Texas, it could be either Etym 1 or 2. I may move that one. DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

EN-uk: big into

There seems to be a British usage of big as an adverb that's much broader in scope than elsewhere. The sense is "greatly", which is similar to Sense 3 in the existing entry, but I'd argue that win big and save big are kind of idiomatic usage that's widespread, whereas big into is a different form of idiom that's less widespread. (It might be particular to some region/regions of England?)

Contrast:

• If you bet big you can win big!
• I've always been big into sport, but I'm especially big into football.

On the other hand, is this more of a grammatical structure that could be applied to any (conventional) adjective? Just recently I heard "massive into", as in "I'm massive into trivia". But I'm sceptical that it's a universally applicable structure:

• * "I'm little into fine dining." (Cf. "I've little interest in fine dining.")
• * "I'm small into fine dining."
• * "I'm moderate into drinking alcohol." (Cf. "moderately")
• * "I'm tiny into surfing." (Cf. "a tiny bit")

—DIV (1.145.118.218 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC))

I think the adverb use is already reflected in senses 3 ("In a large amount or to a large extent") and 4 ("On a large scale"), and the adjective use in sense 11: "Enthusiastic (about)", though as regards the latter the label "with on" probably needs updating since, as you point out, it can be used with into as well. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily British. It appears to be an ellipsis of in a big way. And you can certainly say "I've always been a little into sport." Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

True, but I wouldn't rush to equate a little with little. Similarly, a bit can be used in that adverbial way, but never bit on its own. (The fact that each has its own WT entry is probably a good clue to this.)

We can say things like, "I've little time for sport", but now we're back to adjectival use.

—DIV (1.145.69.194) 1.145.69.194 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the senses are broadly correct.

Just a word of caution: AFAIK, "to be big on something" would be adjectival usage, but "to be big into something" would be adverbial usage.

—DIV (1.145.69.194 00:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC))

Your "little, small, moderate, tiny" examples would not be used. "Big" is also used for industries etc. like Big Pharma and Big Science (never Large Pharma or Huge Science). Equinox ◑ 13:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it wasn't obvious, but I was trying to mark them as not representing actual usage by prepending an asterisk in each of those four cases. —DIV (1.145.69.194 00:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC))

Re it being British: AFAICT neither "I'm big into X" nor "if you bet big, you can win big" is regionally restricted; I googled "Trump is big into" on the theory that it would bring up lots of American news media uses of that phrase, and it does: 1, 2, and lest anyone think that's just because of his love of bigly / big league, here's "Obama is big into", and "Minnesotans are big into fairness" in Al Franken's autobiography. (In turn, here's American media saying "Biden bets big on...", "Trump bets big on...".) - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good research. I must say I'd never heard it in US English before, but evidently it does crop up occasionally. I can't find holes in your three examples — they're about US politicians and apparently either written by or spoken by people from the USA.

For me personally (being neither American nor British), the closest natural phrasing would be "big on", which looks like adjectival use in constructions like "Trump is big on ...", "Obama is big on ...", etc., as I can readily swap to "Trump is keen on ...", "Obama is keen on ..." and so forth.

To "bet big", "win big" and so on feels — for me — a much more widespread (idiomatic) construction than "to be big on". I agree that "bet big"/"win big" is not regionally marked.

I would also distinguish "bet big"/"win big" from "to be big on", given one looks adverbial and the other adjectival.

—DIV (1.145.69.194 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC))

I've inserted an example sentence with "big into" under a subsense.

I think having an example of this structure is helpful. I am open-minded on whether it needs to be in a subsense, and how it should be labelled.

Note: I've labelled it as "informal" because on one occasion when a contestant on TV show Pointless repeatedly used the phrasing to describe his interests, the host (Alexander Armstrong) made a witty remark about that contestant's [poor] grammar.

—DIV (1.145.69.194 01:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC))

The phrase "big into" appears:

• once in the 1600 million words of the British Hansard corpus, in 1980;
• never in the 100 million words of the British National Corpus;
• 156 times in the 1000 million words of the Corpus of Contemporary American English;
• never in the 130 million words of the Corpus of US Supreme Court Opinions;
• once in the 100 million words of the TIME Magazine Corpus, in 1999; and
• 4 times in the 50 million words of the Corpus of Canadian English (Strathy).

Maybe my assessment of its regional connection was misplaced: maybe it's actually (originally) an Americanism?

Although the results are likely skewed by the phrase's informality, and (to me) reinforce the fact that it's not particularly common in any case.

—DIV (1.145.69.194 01:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC))

a buck is a buck is a buck

Is this form supposed to make sense somehow? PUC – 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis Leasnam (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there other instances of this kind of emphasis? Sounds weird imo. PUC – 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally usable, e.g. this Washington Post article headlined "A Dog Is A Dog Is A Dog -- And Should Be Treated That Way" [10]. Equinox ◑ 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

'Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose' from "Sacred Emily" (1913, published 1922) by Gertrude Stein, formerly often discussed in literary criticism classes. "An X is an X is an X" is a snowclone if ever there was one. DCDuring (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

or two

I was recently looking for an entry covering the use of "or two" in phrases like "I could use a drink or two." We have a thing or two, but I'm not sure the sense there ("a considerable amount; a lot") is a perfect fit; I would understand "I could use a drink or two" as meaning "I could use a drink and am open to making it two, or three, or …." So a couple questions: Should or two be an entry, a redirect, or not exist at all? If we rely on the entry a thing or two to cover this usage, should a second sense be added? 166.181.80.19 17:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There's also the well-known phrase 'a pint or two' and the humorous alteration 'a pint or ten'. Even 'pint' on its own can be used as an understated way of referring to several pints. When someone says "I'm off to the pub for a pint" (or 'cheeky pint' or 'quick pint') then they rarely actually mean only the one. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Another example that I think would be the same sense: "I'd like to teach him a thing or two." 166.181.80.37 19:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ad.

Anyone got a clue what the context label is on about here? The entry creator has made a few of these. This, that and the other (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be specifying the manuscript where it's found, e.g. File:NL-HaNA 1.04.02 1 19.jpg, which is rather something to list as a cite/quote, I think... - -sche (discuss) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've converted all entries by that user (unless they also edited under other usernames) to use {{rfquotek}}. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Is mauve bright or pale, or both?

We define it as "1. (historical) A bright purple synthetic dye. 2. The colour of this dye; a pale purple or violet colour." Equinox ◑ 11:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment, but: as I've been cleaning up colour categories lately I've noticed that several of them have issues like this, or questionable definitions, e.g. desert sand... we probably need to systematically check all the colour entries' definitions. - -sche (discuss) 15:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, "As the memory of the original dye ... receded, the contemporary understanding of mauve is as a lighter, less-saturated color[.]" CitationsFreak (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds right. Good find. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The color I think of as mauve is more or less what the WP article calls opera mauve. It would be attestable. I don't know about the other four. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good find; I've updated the entry. Please update further if needed. BTW, off topic but on the topic of other color things that need cleanup: a lot of entries linked in Appendix:Colors aren't in color categories yet. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Consultee definition seems wrong.

In American medicine, the consultee is the entity who asks for a consultation, and the consultant provides the consultation, ie, the consultant is the person who is consulted. 96.238.51.252 14:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Equinox ◑ 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

gwledig, wledig

This word was recently the subject of a viral Youtube video (by Cambrian Chronicles) about how no-one knows how to translate it, if any of our Welsh-speaking editors want to watchlist or expand it. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

(Portuguese) Which one is the current standard form: co-hipônimo or coipônimo?

Since the last Orthographic Agreement, it seems that the prefix co- is never followed by a hyphen, as it is said in its entry. However, in spite of not being a frequently used word, the form co-hipônimo seems to be the only form that appears in dictionaries, at least online. Is this rule wrong? I tried looking it up but ended more confused than before. OweOwnAwe (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Should flying, objectifying, etc. have /j/ in IPA?

No expert, but I seem to perceive a /j/ sound there. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No, because it's not phonemic: there is no contrast between /ˈflaɪ.ɪŋ/ and /ˈflaɪ.jɪŋ/ (assuming neither is pronounced with any stress on the second syllable). The analysis of so-called "diphthongs" is debatable and some phonologists have entertained the idea that words like fly, etc. end in something like /aj/ or /ɑj/, but our transcriptions don't follow that phonemic analysis. Since we use /aɪ/ to transcribe the diphthong in general, that transcription is also sufficient before a vowel.--Urszag (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, if we don't want /j/ here, I spy a few entries which need cleanup (since some people add pronunciations without such a high-level grasp of phonology) : decalcifying, despaghettifying, railgun. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@-sche, Urszag: Actually, the entry for railgun shows a good grasp of phonology - there's no /j/ beyond the diphthong, but there is tendency to introduce a vocalic element, which is why there is one phonemic transcription but two phonetic transcriptions. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

curious, bi-curious

Related: how do people feel about the /j/ currently listed as occuring in curious, bi-curious? (To me it sounds wrong.) - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

panter-pantle confusion

pantle is "(obsolete, Lancashire) Alternative form of panter (“A snare for catching birds, formed from twisted horsehair”)". But panter is merely "A net; a noose", not mentioning horsehair at all. How to resolve? Equinox ◑ 12:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Khamnung

There are two senses given, but are they really different senses, or just different ways of expressing the same sense? (This is the work of the "Ancient Meitei"/"singular oasis of comparative civilization and organized society" editor, several of whose entries have been at RFV and RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

hold one's pee

This was deleted back in 2015. I think it should be restored. We have hold one's piss and I am sure that hold one's pee gets used in all the same ways. 2600:1006:B194:CA54:0:50:35F8:9001 22:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(Ukrainian) новий

In the page new/translations, this word is shown as но́вий, but when I follow its link, this word is shown as нови́й. Which one is right? Intolerable situation (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

нови́й (novýj) is correct. I've corrected the error on new/translations. Thanks for spotting it. Voltaigne (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

pajeet

Is anyone else able to weigh in on the back-and-forth happening over how to define this entry (see edit history)? - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I did try to ask /pol/ about who qualified as being "pajeet" but the answers were mixed fedposting-accusations and one that basically said anyone who's not completely white + anyone from the global south (shown on a map, which I did post somewhere on here before but now can't find). Who knows the actually most precise definition may be, but I would suggest the current definition is fine. "Anyone whose way of life resembles the racist view that people have of Indians' lives" is roughly the same as the definition above and captures the derogatory intent as well. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

exponential

Are we doing justice to the extremely widespread use of this term in a way that seems to explicitly disagree with the "mathematical" sense of "constant rate of growth"? Do we have to make explicit the idea of rate of change per unit of time (vastly more common than any other variable? Or is my reading of our definitions of this term inadequate?

In other dictionaries:

Oxford Learners: "(formal[!!!]) (of a rate of increase) becoming faster and faster"

Collins: "Exponential means growing or increasing very rapidly."

Most other dictionaries don't mention the common use.

In one cite I found, from an educators' handbook:

1. • 2013, Yvelyne Germain-McCarthy, Bringing the NCTM Standards to Life: Best Practices, High School, page 101:

     ... Students apply the definition of slope to various representations of growth functions to discover differences between exponential and constant rate of growth.

Evidently, many people perceive "exponential growth" as much faster/bigger than "constant rate of growth", which seems to be interpreted as a constant amount of growth per unit of time. Such use seem much more common than what we label the "mathematical" use. If we follow the notion that definitions should be in order of current frequency rather than, say, dates of usage, then the last, "loose" definition should be first, and the first last.

Further, I doubt that our second definition "Expressed in terms of a power of e." is a "mathematics" definition attestably distinct from our first "Relating to an exponent".

If our use of labels is 'topical', then shouldn't all of the definitions of exponential be mathematics? DCDuring (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

re: second definition, see: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/webtemplate/ask-assets/external/maths-resources/images/Expo_form_complx_num.pdf

Basically, a complex number z can be expressed in Cartesian or polar form, or in exponential form, which is an expression specifically in terms of a power of e. Multiple Mooses (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@User:Multiple Mooses Thanks. Are there any other instances of such use of exponential? The entry would benefit from labels that indicate the context(s) in which exponential is used in this sense. If this is the only use, then we need a fuller definition IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

In the phrase the exponential function, the term exponential has a similar meaning, i.e. relating to expression as a power of e. Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Also see: https://math.mit.edu/classes/18.03/sup/sup6.pdf

"exponential principle", "exponential solutions" Multiple Mooses (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In "exponential principle" the term exponential seems to have everything to do with "exponent' and little to do with "e". Similarly for "exponential solution". Many books have "exponential function" with bases of 2 or 10 as well as "e". The function with "e" as the base is often called the natural exponential function or the "exponential function with base "e"". "E" is a vary interesting number, but I'm not seeing def. 2 as helpful in defining any of these phrases. If you can provide examples (See WT:ATTEST) that unambiguously show support for def. 2 please provide them. DCDuring (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think part of the confusion is the phrase "rate of growth" ("rate" indicates we're talking about the first derivative - it's not the unit of growth that's constant, but the amount that the unit of growth itself grows!). Tripling is a classic example of a constant rate of growth, but it's also an explosive growth (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,etc). I don't think people have a fixed mathematical image of what they mean when they say "My workload is increasing exponentially" and probably in some cases they're thinking of something less than a constant rate of growth ("... it feels like I get a new duty every month!", which would be merely arithmetic increase). In general, I think ordering by usage is good, but in this order there is a logical progression between each sense, and I don't like having "loosely"/"by extension" senses appear before the sense they're an extension of! (On the other point, I agree with Multiple Mooses - the e^x sense is something distinct from the n^x sense, although you can see it as an extension of that form I guess. If we need something to help disambiguate them, I'd say sense 1 is chiefly the counterpart to "logarithmic", while sense 2 is chiefly of complex numbers) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have RfVed the 'e' sense. I'd like to see it used in expressions other than exponential function. Also, I note that other dictionaries have a noun PoS for exponential, which we lack. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My position is that it's hard to find uses which justify the separation of senses 1 and 2 as they currently are, but that sense 2 is a special case of a more general use-case: see my long post at RFV.

On the other hand I very much think sense 3 should be reworded. What characterizes exponential as opposed to polynomial growth is that neither the growth, nor the growth of the growth, nor the growth of the growth of the growth, etc. is constant: none of the derivatives are constant. I've seen the phrase "constant rate of increase" used to describe geometric progressions, but never in mathematics (where it would probably be considered wrong); I would strongly prefer something like "rate of growth is proportional to the current value" and some good ux's. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That the exponential function (e^x) is a special case of an exponential function:

$$ab^{cx+d}=\left(ab^{d}\right)\left(b^{c}\right)^{x}.$$

does not make exponential mean "relating to e". Even if there should be no consensus on a specific definition of a generalized exponential function, we still need attestation for definition 2. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear: My opinion is that definition 2 should be deleted because it cannot be adequately distinguished from definition 1. However, exponential has many uses where it means "related to the exponential function [$e^{x}$]," and this sense should be included (in particular, there are many uses of exponential in this sense that can be distinguished from "related to an exponential function." To wit: exponential distribution, exponential order, exponential window, exponential map [of a Lie algebra], exponential series, etc. all of these rely on special properties of the exponential function, or are defined from it.). The point I'm trying to make is that definitions 1 and 2, as they are now, relate to exponents (or "exponential terms"), and I don't think the distinction drawn by definitions 1 and 2 is attestable. On the other hand, in the context of functions, exponential has a more particular (e-flavored) meaning which is definitely attestable.

I'd cut sense 2 and add a separate sense for "related to the exponential function" (probably, if we want to be complete, with sub senses for distribution and order since in these cases exponential can modify X outside the set phrase exponential X). If there weren't an RFV & a Tea room discussion I'd add this myself, but I don't want to overstep. Winthrop23 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course, a constant rate of interest applied to an initial account balance, with no deposits or withdrawals, yield exponential growth of the account balance.

For definition 3, how about "increasing or decreasing by a fixed ratio for each unit of time". DCDuring (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That's well put about the rate of interest.

I like the idea of making use of time--almost always, as you say, that's the independent variable. I'd be happier with "scaling" or "multiplying" instead of "increasing or decreasing", since it's slightly more precise (reading uncharitably, it's possible to construe "increasing" as referring to adding, and "ratio" as just "fraction", which would mean the growth is linear). Winthrop23 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't focus on the idea that many people perceive "exponential growth" as much faster/bigger than "constant rate of growth". Rather, I would say many people perceive "exponential growth" as much faster than "ordinary growth" or "expected growth" or "anticipated growth" (whether either of these occur at a constant rate or not).

The current draft definition "Characterised by a very rapid rate of change, especially increase." seems about right. However, I am not keen on the 2013 citation being used to support this, as the extract seems rather mathematical, and could actually be literally referring to y=e^x. The 2018 citation fits better.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 14:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

I agree with your penultimate point. IMO "(loosely) Characterised by a very rapid rate of change, especially increase" is OK. BTW, I removed the reference to "constant rate of change" from the mathematical definition before I was aware of this discussion. "exponential" growth, in true mathematical sense, definitely is not a constant rate of change. That is one of its most important characteristics. Mihia (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(Dutch) gender of kat (Etymology 1)

In cat/translations, the gender of kat in Dutch is marked as masculine, but in kat, the gender of it under Etymology 1, which is the one that has the meaning "cat", is marked as feminine. Which is correct? Intolerable situation (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Van Dale, kat is primarily feminine and secondarily masculine. The official Dutch wordlist and the Algemeen Nederlands Woordenbook have it as masculine/feminine. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal gives it as feminine/masculine. Our own policy on Dutch gender deprecates f or m and recommends f in such instances, so that's probably what we should go with in cat/translations. Voltaigne (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but that policy is used for words which are per se feminine and are masculine only insofar as the three-gender system has collapsed. In such cases, using "f. or m." would be redundant, because every word that is originally feminine (and doesn't refer to a female person) can be treated as masculine in contemporary Dutch. However, words that really vary between genders even in a three-gender system should get both genders. And it seems that "kat" is such a word. It is important here that the WNT already gives it both, because the WNT has a strict three-gender approach. 90.186.83.227 09:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

actioner

We have a definition for actioner (an action movie), but we do not have a definition for actioner as opposed to actionee, and the former term is not mentioned in the latter entry. I have no particular desire to compose the definition myself, as trying to decipher exact meanings of corporate and/or legal jargon gives me a headache, but perhaps someone else here is up to the task.

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/actioner-vs-actionee

citation citation citation Multiple Mooses (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

PIE roots beginning with bare /r/

We list only two PIE roots beginning with a bare /r/, compared with ten that begin with /h₁r/. The two bare-/r/ roots are both cited to Pokorny. Moreover, there is no particular reason that I can see why they should be treated differently than the others .... there are no Greek reflexes from which to guess about a possible original vowel or laryngeal. (Greek initial /r/ exists in just a handful of words, most of which are derived from the single PIE root *srew- ... those beginning with laryngeals in PIE have vowels in Greek.) This suggests that according to the standard reconstruction, PIE may not have allowed initial /r/ at all.

Do we know if more recent PIE scholars have added laryngeals or other sounds to the two PIE roots with bare r? We could add those as alternate forms, or even move the pages there and make Pokorny's reconstructions into the alt forms. Thanks, —Soap— 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Also Uralic

Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/ruŋke- looks suspicious too, as the only attested descendant we have is in the center of IE territory, so I wonder if it's either sound symbolism or actually a loan into Hungarian. I dont fully understand all the abbreviations used on this site, which lists some other words beginning with /r/ (page back and forth like a paper dictionary), and Im not sure Im looking at proto-Uralic or only proto-Finno-Ugric. —Soap— 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"you get" - verb? phrase?

There's a (British? Commonwealth?) phrase "you get" that means more or less "that exist" or "there are". A few examples:

"that exist"

• "It was so refreshing to hear, unlike the type of people you get in London and the south east of England." (link)
• "Lovely decor inside, reminds me of gastro pubs you get in gentrified areas of London." (link)
• "They’re like those children’s books you get where you make a story by [putting together] different pages…" (link)

"there are"

• "You get non-binary people - you get people who don't identify as a man or..." (link (video))
• "It was a terrible place to live. You get places like that. It is just the way it is." (link)
• "Hubris is interesting, because you get people who are often very clever, very powerful, have achieved great things, and then something goes wrong - they just don't know when to stop." (link)

Is this just a sense of "get" (I don't see any that match currently), or is it a set phrase we should have? I can't imagine it with out the "you". I note we have you get that, which feels related.

I also don't know if the more distinctively American "you got" is the same thing (as in this quote from Joe Biden: "Number two, it would generate economic growth — the opposite — because you got people who are, in fact, now going to be freed up to be able to go borrow money to buy a home...") - it feels like they have subtly different nuances ("you got people who are evil" feels like it's calling specific people evil, while "you get people who are evil" feels more like hypothetical statement about the universe) but maybe I'm imagining that. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "you get" also exists in American English, and my initial reaction is that it seems like a sense of get, because it seems like a general phenomenon of using verbs 'impersonally' which occurs with a variety of pronouns/subjects and a variety of verbs. Compare "You never get people like Richard and Judy slagging off fat people in the same way they slagged off skinny models" to "[It's] interesting because you see the dried powdered black pepper everywhere yet you rarely see it in tropical gardens growing" or "Vinegar is so interesting, because you find all these home remedies like 'use it to clean the algae of your deck'", "you encounter", and of course the classic "there's"=there are and "it's"=there is/are. (It's harder to distinguish uses of "I get", "we get", "we find" etc which are impersonal vs are including the speaker and other people as subjects, but e.g. "April fools day is wild because we get people who aren't funny most days really going for it." does not strike me as fundamentally different from the same sentence with "you get".) - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I can vouch for "you get" existing in American English. I have the impression, though, that it is more widely used in Commonwealth English. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Another reading of the most of the whole set of examples that -sche has collected is that get is a generalized verb for experience/perceive. Any verb of sensing works, as well as expressions like run the risk of. This reading makes it easier to incorporate the full range of pronouns into the usage. Our definitions of get don't include this as a distinct extension of the main definition: "obtain; acquire". The closest MWOnline comes to this is "to be subjected to" (got a bad fall); AHD has "to be subjected to" got a bad fall and "To perceive or become aware of by one of the senses": get a whiff of perfume; got a look at the schedule.. OTOH, in line with the 'impersonal reading, Oxford Learners has "get something (informal) used to say that something happens or exists"; You get (= There are) all these kids hanging around in the street. They still get cases of typhoid there.. At the very least, this extension of the most basic sense of get would account for the emergence of the 'impersonal' reading. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think is probably a good case for creating a new sense of get with a non-gloss along the lines of "(impersonal, usually with you) Used in constructions stating that something exists or can occur." I personally think "They get cases of typhoid" is slightly different - that could just be the "receive" sense - but I think it can occur with one - "You know, the kind of thing one gets in Celtic ornamentation" (link). and similarly I'm not sure sure there's a case for "see" or "find" - you can easily interpret them as just literally meaning "You see with your eyes", but I'm open to be persuaded. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

(To make the point a bit better: I think you get is different to you see, because one could say "That's the kind of person you see in London"/"Yes, I saw someone like that in London.", but not "That's the kind of person you get in London"/*"Yes, I got someone like that in London") Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like you have (colloquial) and one finds (formal) would be synonyms. Likewise something like one encounters (formal), following @-sche's contribution. ("You encounter" strikes me as a juxtaposition of informal and formal terms.) —DIV (1.145.112.83 14:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

Yeah, and not only "one finds" but also "you find". Other verbs, like "hear", can be used in similarly 'impersonal' ways: if I say "that's the kind of thing you hear in London", I am not suggesting that I think you, specifically, have been to London and have heard that — but if you have, you could reply "Yes, I heard something like that in London", changing the meaning of 'hear' back to the normal meaning in the same way as "yes, I saw someone" and the corresponding dialogues with "find" and "encounter" change the meaning between impersonal and 'normal'. Indeed, if we change "someone" to "something", you can construct the same sense-changing dialogue for "get": "That's the kind of thing you get in London." / "Yes, I got something just like that in London." While I don't object to adding a sense (this 'impersonal' use of get does seem perhaps slightly more opaque than the similar use of other verbs), it does just seem to be a general property of verbs; if someone says "I just saw a man pay [some excessive amount] for a mobile stop sign", I could comment on the price "that much? that's the kind of price you pay in London!" suggesting that London has high prices (not that you, specifically, have been to London and bought a stop sign there for that much), or I could comment on the association of mobile stop signs with Soviet policemen "a mobile stop sign? that's the kind of thing you buy in Moscow!" again not suggesting you, personally, have been to Moscow. (But in both cases, if you had in fact bought such a thing in London or Moscow, you could reply "Yes, I pay just such a price / bought just such a thing in...")
Btw, just to make sure everyone else isn't using 'impersonal' only because I did, I want to be clear that I put it in quotation marks because I'm not sure if it's the right word, I just can't think of a better word; 'impersonal' seems to usually mean the subject/doer is one or it ("it rains"), but in this case, despite the subject being the second person pronoun you, it's not "you, the 2nd person singular, specifically, as an individual" (I'm not suggesting that you, personally, went to London and saw/got/found/heard/etc something), it's like a dummy pronoun, so maybe 'impersonal' is right (but I'm unsure). - -sche (discuss) 15:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, CGEL 2005 does not mention get in any of its indexed discussions of 'impersonal constructions', nor do any of the indexed discussions of get mention 'impersonal constructions'.

I am repeating myself and -sche, but 'impersonal construction' in all the cases mentioned seems to result from using you ("one") and can occur with almost any verb: "One flies from airport to airport"; "One is constantly editing what one reads in blogs"; "One opens a drawer only to find more junk".

Get has general senses of "obtain" and "receive", among others. IMO, get ("experience" / "find"[rather than "perceive"]) straddles "obtain" and "receive". This sense can be used with any pronoun: "When I call a help number I often get automated bureaucracy. Don't you?" "Doesn't everyone?"

Unfortunately, my review of OneLook dictionaries has not yielded corresponding definitions of get that are substitutable. Does OED have such a definition? Our uncertainty seems to suggest that there is a definition that OneLook dictionaries, at least, have missed. DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "You get non-binary people" does show something weird going on. I agree that in "You get bad service" (or "One gets bad service", "I get bad service") you're using the "obtain"/"receive" sense, but I don't think any other sense of "get" works for the general you get (*"You receive non-binary people"?). You don't even need to experience the non-binary people - the statement just says they exist somewhere, possibly without you ever encountering them. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

misspelling or not--bullion, boullion, bouillon

Do i remember incorrectly, or is boullion an acceptable alternate spelling of bullion? Is boullion also an acceptable alternate spelling of bouillon, or is it misspelled on the 湯 page? How common must a misspelling be to merit inclusion on Wiktionary? --173.67.42.107 05:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No doubt somebody will moan about the length of my answer, but anyone who can't stand it is free to skip reading it. Given how often people write *boullion when they mean bullion (which is a lot, according to the 6k ghits), I'd say it merits a {{misspelling of}} entry at Wiktionary. The exact location of the dividing line between {{misspelling of}} and {{alternative spelling of}} is a deep epistemologic question that gets into who and how many accept it, but in many cases there is also an element that one knows it when one sees it, as they say, although some ones know with a clearer idea than other ones do. For example, I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I cede acceptance of *pruritis. If one asks why, the answer is nuanced: I recognize that it is not impossible for it to arrive at acceptability, epistemologically (because wide enough use is capable of eventually defeating all else when it comes to orthographic standardization, no matter who doesn't like it), but the problem is that that misspelling is nonetheless emblematic of a certain kind of orthographic skill issue: many people think it's OK merely because they're more or less incapable of seeing why it might not be OK, and that fact in itself is what fans of standardized orthography object to: people with dim orthographic "vision" (God love them, nothin against em) are not the right ones to make judgments about acceptability within standardized orthography, just as people with dim eyeball vision (God love them, nothin against em) are not the right judges of color palettes or airliner runway approaches. The idea is, those fans prefer that the acceptability decision be left to people who are even capable of seeing misspellings in the first place. If a spelling reflects a specific misapprehension (underlying its use), then fans of standardized orthography are loath to accept it. After all, many of the six thousand members of Category:English misspellings could potentially be declared accepted variants, but most of them are not close to tipping over that line (into consensus acceptability), because by the time we got done accepting most of those, there wouldn't be much point left in even trying to have standardized spelling at all. The fact that no respected traditional [i.e., well-curated] dictionaries enter *boullion as far as OneLook knows as of this writing accords with the idea that people who care about having standardized spelling are not ready to consider it an accepted variant. They know that the reason many other people write it is probably in many cases (albeit not all) that their brain was unduly influenced by the appearance of the word bouillon and is a little vague and/or careless on the difference. There's that theme again — if a spelling reflects a specific misapprehension (underlying its use), then fans of standardized orthography are loath to accept it. Thus (to answer one of the original questions), no, *boullion is not an acceptable alternative spelling of bouillon — it is a misspelling of it. As for "How common must a misspelling be to merit inclusion on Wiktionary," I'd say that if there are hundreds or even thousands of ghits showing it in action (among the countless *fokes out there who aren't exactly *sooper *kean on the whole spelling thing), then it is justified in having a {{misspelling of}} entry at Wiktionary. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done at *boullion (sp). Quercus solaris (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

do a barrel roll

Sum of parts (does not deserve a page) and alternate form of barrel roll#Verb (deserving a page)? --173.67.42.107 05:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that the first argument wins and the second argument is unpersuasive because the same pattern would also have hundreds of other instances that do not merit entries. For example, feed#Verb versus give feed#Noun. The clause beer me means give me a beer#Noun, but give someone a beer will (rightfully) never be an entry. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Update: … will (rightfully) never be an entry unless it ever develops some indisputably widely used idiomatic figurative sense. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, SOP beats "is a synonym of another word", because you can construct SOP synonyms of anything, e.g. Heimlich#Verb is includable and perform the Heimlich maneuver is not. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Context: I seem to remember that "do a barrel roll" was some Internet meme, as a famous line of dialogue from an old Starfox video game. That may be why the IP was asking. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that. Admittedly, if a phrase develops enough of a memetic life of its own, it can develop a dimension beyond SoP. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

List_of_Star_Fox_characters#Peppy_Hare/do a barrel roll --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

API

i made a "sandbox" at Talk:API#proposed deviation from usual format. i think it might be more useful to put Wikipedia links with each definition instead of lumping all the Wikipedia links into a single =Further reading= section? --173.67.42.107 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea, because to my mind it is more useful, direct, and intuitive to users. My gut will not be surprised if other Wiktionarians dislike it. The Beer parlour ("for policy discussion and cross-entry discussion") is the correct place to propose it, rather than the Tea room ("for questions concerning particular words"). Quercus solaris (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

i did a copy-paste of this conversation to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/April#disambiguation of links to Wikipedia --173.67.42.107 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Shitify

Shitify adjective sense 3 currently has the labels "(UK, Australia, South East, regional, New Zealand, vulgar, slang)" - where do "South East" and "regional" refer to? Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a great example of the kind of stupid labels that seem all too common on many dialectal entries. Why is "regional" even necessary at all? That being said, did you mean a different word? I don't see three senses at shitify or shittify. Theknightwho (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: It looks like they meant shitty. It turns out that the labels in question were added by an IP that geolocates to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I do indeed mean "shitty". "shitify" was the word I looked up initially, then I followed the link. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We should remove "regional" whenever possible, including whenever regions are already specified. "South East" is also useless here, and since it was added by a random and apparently clueless IP as their only edit, I'm just removing it. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, it has bugged me too! Getting a list of the use of "regional" in labels sounds like a job for @Erutuon, This, that and the other and others with know-how P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@P. Sovjunk you really do make some challenging requests. After much consternation, beard-scratching, soul-searching etc, I was finally able to come up with this link: Cat:Regional English. This, that and the other (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Starking"

The entry for "starking" needs to be removed. There is no verb form of the word stark in English. Redsquyrl29 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Redsquyrl29: As shown at stark, this is a dialect verb meaning "to stiffen". It's not well known in modern times, or perhaps in your country. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Redsquyrl29 Aside from anythng, it's in the OED. Your personal knowledge is not the standard we use for creating/deleting entries. Thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Minecraft/shroomlight

"A block that emits light which is presents Nether huge fungi." What does this even mean? Is it English? Equinox ◑ 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the entry. Vergencescattered (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Fluffles

In Crime and Punishment, translated by Constance Garner, there is the sentence "The gentlemen are generally wearing fur coats and as for the ladies' fluffles;, they're beyond anything you can fancy." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=crime+and+punishment&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lm This is quite a different definition that "plural of fluffle" where fluffle is given as "plural of fluffle (noun), but it seems to have a relationship to the verb, fluffle which is given as To fluff up. KudzuVine (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it means something like "fancy, decorative accessories or items of clothing, or elements thereof", based on these other quotations I've dug up:

"One little square of linen, with wide fluffles of lace, […] " [11]

"[O]f course we do not expect to put on all the fluffles and frizzes that the older sisters do, […] " [12]

Note that, per that last quotation, we may also be missing a similar sense at frizz. Multiple Mooses (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

EN: adjectival cast iron versus wrought-iron

There seems to be an inconsistency in adjectival listing primarily under cast iron (unhyphenated) and wrought-iron (hyphenated). In particular, every one of the three examples of adjectival "cast iron" involve cast-iron (hyphenated). —DIV (1.145.112.83 08:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC))

I added a few quotations which use the unhyphenated phrase, and removed the hyphens from the example sentences. Multiple Mooses (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

At cast iron, that is. Multiple Mooses (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. At least that would look more consistent. Although potentially one could find quotations using hyphenated forms as adjectives too. —DIV (1.145.112.83 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC))

insalivation

Defn is The mixing of food with saliva and other oral secretions while eating. Firstly, isn't there another word for it? Secondly, what other oral secretions are there in play here? Mucus? Bile? Vomit? Blood? Semen? P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed to "The mixing of food with saliva during mastication." There are no quotes there to support the idea of "other oral secretions" being acceptable *insalivatents, and saliva is right in the word. Plus, mastication is more accurate in this context than eating. Multiple Mooses (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Citations:Běijīng: What language(s)?

Today, the 'English' header was removed from Běijīng. It had been added here: [13]. My question is: what about the citations/quotations on the Citations page, Citations:Běijīng? I assume it is implied that they are citations of the Mandarin term on the page? Yet they are all clearly citations of English language texts. I just want to make sure that my edit here: [14] is the correct interpretation of the situation. I don't really know whether this is Mandarin or English, but it is definitely an interesting question. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: based on the Request for Deletion discussion, there appears to be consensus that the use of Pinyin with tone markings in English text is just an example of code-switching. It is no different to the occasional reference to foreign words in English text (for example, “I really enjoyed the Eisbein we had for lunch at that restaurant in Frankfurt.”). Thus, the citations on the Citations page are not worth keeping and should be deleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No. It would only mean a bias towards transcription systems that use digraphs instead of diacritics, and against academic texts in favour of uninformed colloquial writing. Šīrāz and Iṣfahān (example p. 290) are as valid English words as Shiraz and Isfahan. You behave contradictorily by accepting these two forms in the like text with less strict transcription, which is often an editorial choice that cannot affect the language something is written in. Fay Freak (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: feel free to bring this up for further discussion at the Beer Parlour, I guess. As I said, the consensus on Pinyin with tone markings was that they are evidence of code-switching and we should not create separate English entries for such terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Shānxi [15] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

in this connection

This phrase seems dated to me, I've never come across it in the wild. Apparently it's quite used in Indian English. Wondering what to put in the label: probably|dated|except|in|India seems really weaselly... P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I see it as an upper elchelon phraseology. I was familiar with it before I saw it here and might rarely use it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s still used in formal British English. Nicodene (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

What evidence that this is any more proscribed than the supposed (and wordier) alternative? It's just another construction or, possibly, a use of an extended meaning of connection. It may be overused relative to simple one=word prepositions, but "proscribed"? DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It's one of many turns of phrase that at least some usage mavens (self-appointed or otherwise) traditionally tend to enjoy shitting on, which makes it something that people preparing content for formal-register publication have traditionally best avoided, not so much because it is horrible but just as washdown-able armor to keep the haters' teeth from sinking in and to expedite flushing them off one's back. GMEU5 has an entry s.v. in this connection, quoting someone else's temper tantrum, to explain the traditional shitstorm in a teapot. It's a bit silly because AFAIK any corresponding hissy fit against in this regard is MIA in the printed record, and for people who claim to live or die by consistency, that's pretty inconsistent. It may have existed orally, though, because MWDEU s.v. regard felt the need to state that in regard to and as regards are "perfectly standard." As for what Wiktionary would best do, I'd recommend keeping the "sometimes proscribed" label and just citing a reference for the label. I'll add a citation of GMEU5 there. To my understanding, Wiktionary can't be the place to give a full explanation of the usage caution because a full one is not of a type that fits into a two-line usage note. That's fine because anyone who cares enough can look it up in the cited WP:RS. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Quercus solaris Surely as long as it's not paragraphs and paragraphs we can still just summarize the argument in the usage notes? There are some pretty large usage notes out there, e.g. check out the n-word for one. I don't know how verbose this one is, but it surely isn't all that long? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes — as with many things, an abstract is possible, and it is merely a question of whether the abstract is representative enough not to be misleadingly oversimplified. In this case, it is true that we could probably successfully summarize the shitstorm as (yet another) instance of the general theme that usage mavens want people to avoid turns of phrase that are likely to seem (at least to some people) trite and/or pretentiously fancified (that is, what many usage folks call fancy words). In this particular case, though, we must also add (within one short additional phrase) that the objection is tenuous; the tantrum thrower was trying too hard at being crotchety, as this collocation can be said with fair objectivity to be really not a single degree above practical, no less so than its synonym in this regard, which is, as MWDEU might have agreed, perfectly standard (because perfectly unpretentious and, although perhaps not maximally concise, certainly perfectly non-unconcise, in a perfectly cromulent way). I will get both points across in a few short lines (i.e., what the objection was, and why it was flimsy). Will do later tonight. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That was beautiful, QS. P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting; my initial reaction is that it sounds ungrammatical, which I would've thought would be a reason for the proscription, rather than being "trite" or "pretentious" (does "apparently" mean that part of the usage note is just speculation, or are some of the proscribers saying it's trite/pretentious?), but Google Books' Ngram Viewer says "in this connection" has always been more common than e.g. "in connection with this", and was more common than "in this regard" until the 1960s when it was overtaken, albeit now decisively, by "in this regard". When I page through the first hundred Google Books results, a large majority are from before 1930 (but are often in e.g. US and UK government records, and the rest are e.g. electricians' journals/newspapers, suggesting this was not some informal colloquialism), and of the modern uses, about half look like they might be by non-native speakers (e.g. someone with a Chinese name writing in an international journal of this or that technical subject), but the other half are native English speakers [often British] writing in quite academic works (again, suggesting it's not some colloquial error by uneducated speakers, but something educated people are using in formal works). Indeed, the second most striking thing (after how little this is used in the modern era) is how very little "in this connection" is used in "informal" works—how near-exclusively it seems to be used in formal (technical/academic or government) works. Even when I search for e.g. "in this connection" romance trying to find it in e.g. trashy romance novels, 27 of the first 30 results are (mostly modern) academic works about e.g. Kierkegaardian philosophy, or deixis, and when I search for "in this connection" aliens, 29 of the first 30 results are old government works (mostly from before 1933 but a few from as late as the 1970s) about immigrants rather than spacefarers, and the 30th result is the Religious Telescope about the same thing. Accordingly, I'm going to label this "formal", and maybe expand the usage note to mention when usage started to drop off. - -sche (discuss) 14:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks great where you added the the prevalence info, thanks. Interesting regarding prevalence decline, because I honestly suspect that the backlash against the phrase (whether or not the backlash was properly justified or justifiable) may well be what caused the decline in its usage. People get burned by their teachers and parents and peers and newspapers and books telling them that usage X is wrong and bad and stupid and embarrassing, and they learn the lesson and lick the wound and bend over backward to avoid saying it and (especially) to avoid retaining it in the final draft of a written communication or manuscript (even if it was written in the first draft). I went back and reread the quoted matter in the cited reference, and I polished the part where I should have said "wordiness or triteness" (fixed). Certainly a lot of usage proscriptions also involve the theme of (real or alleged) pretentiousness too, which is why I had hastily included that one earlier. Anyhow, IMO the usage note is now pretty darn respectable, thanks to this group effort. Quercus solaris (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

in that connection can also be found. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Incongruencies

Can anybody tell me definitively if incongruencies is a proper English word or is it just a mispronunciation that caught a foothold?? UltimateLexiconFlex (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: incongruence (plural incongruences) and incongruency (plural incongruencies) — they are synonymous, and each has both noncount and count senses. All forms are well attested in book corpora. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: This is not the only pair of -ence/-ency synonyms. There are various such pairs. Quercus solaris (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Malayic prefixes

@Kwékwlos, @Austronesier, @Nyilvoskt.

Should these affixes:

• *mAŋ-
• *mAɣ-
• *pAŋ-
• *tAɣ-
• *kA-
• *pAɣ-

which has an 'A' in the reconstruction, should it be replaced with an 'e/ə'? Or should it still be written like that? Berbuah salak (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

with great power comes great responsibility - not sum-of-parts?

Although this was previously deleted as SoP, I'd like to contend that it might not be, which I thought of after entertaining the following idea based on the phrase:

With great responsibility does not necessarily come great power, since just because you're made to deal with a lot of responsibility doesn't mean you're necessarily empowered with the necessary rights. In the same way, responsibility doesn't naturally come with power, since it's also possible to have lots of power but wield it irresponsibly.

The point of the proverb is that you should behave responsibly in the charge of power, not that power actually comes with responsibility built in. So, I think we should reinstate this entry. Thoughts? Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. It seems to me that the correct interpretation is readily apparent from the words in the phrase. Nicodene (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is sum-of-parts.

With respect, Kiril kovachev I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the phrase. I take responsibility as an obligation for certain behaviour (Sense 3: "A duty, obligation or liability for which someone is held accountable."), not a characterisation of the behaviour or person (~Sense 1: "The state of being responsible").

—DIV (1.145.112.83 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

You're right, clearly I've misunderstood what the point of sum-of-parts is meant to be. Thanks for explaining, Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That's OK. However, SoP classification is evidently subjective — not everyone will necessarily reach the same conclusion!

In particular, there are some proverbs that look potentially like SoP cases that are nevertheless included in Wiktionary. An example could be "haste makes waste", whose definition is "Being too hasty leads to wasteful mistakes", which seems fairly close to "Being hasty creates waste", which is pretty much a word-for-word literal paraphrase. So, I would argue, the meaning of the phrase can be worked out by anyone fluent in English from the ordinary meaning of the individual words. Nevertheless, being classed as a "proverb" might make a case for why people (perhaps less fluent in English) would want to look it up.

Maybe you can mount a similar case that "with great power comes great responsibility" is a modern-day proverb that people will want to look up. As we have discovered in our own discussion, there is also the possibility of at least two different apprehensions of what responsibility means in the phrase, so perhaps it's less clear-cut than I may have led you to believe.

—DIV (1.145.69.71 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC))

EN: couth as past participle of can

The entry for can has a sense defined as, "past participle (obsolete except in adjectival use) couth". However, there doesn't seem to be an example of this at couth (or indeed at Middle English couth). It feels like something is missing from the entry for couth related to (obsolete) usage as a verb.

By contrast, the entry for could indicates that it is an "(obsolete except Geordie) past participle of can" with the quotation "I haven't could sleep." Potentially this information could be added at can (sorry if I've overlooked it), although perhaps that'd be too much detail.

Combining the above information, logically it seems "I haven't couth sleep." would be the 'standard' (non-Geordie) obsolete expression. Although it doesn't mean much to me. I can't quite see what the modern English rendering with a past participle would be. I'm speculating that in German it'd be "Ich habe Schlafen nicht gekonnt." (which sounds unnatural to me) if können were not to be used as an auxilliary verb (but rather as a Vollverb) and thus replicating the English structure as closely as possible.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 03:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

It wasn't used for that sense of "can", but for the old sense of can as in "know" (hence couth = known). The last usage example categorized as a past participle in the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "couth" is from 1609 ("Couth, knowen. R. Cawdrey, Table Alphabeticall (ed. 2)"), which doesn't actually seem to be a use but a mention. The next latest is "c1450 Þare was þe kirk of tynemouth' Of cuthbert right to all' men couth. Life of St. Cuthbert (1891) l. 5511". I would support sending this to RFV as I'm not sure whether there are any clear examples of "couth" used as a verbal participle past 1500 (our cutoff point for where Modern English starts); even if there are, I don't think it's necessarily useful to include this form in the headline of the verb as an inflected form (even with the qualifier "obsolete").--Urszag (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Urszag. I had encountered the meaning 'to know' in the etymology, but didn't have much else to work on in the various entries.

Should I take it that the Geordie usage of could as a past participle still has the sense of an ability, though? (If so, perhaps a slightly extended example at could would help:  ?"I haven't could sleep for the past few nights, on account of the nighttime roadworks outside my bedroom window.")

And then did the obsolete usage of could as a past participle have the sense of ability (like current Geordie usage) or the sense of knowledge (like obsolete couth)? If the latter, then combining them into one sense under could might not be appropriate.

I'll leave it to those better placed to decide on making an RfV.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 10:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC))

Something else I would question about that entry: I think it's of dubious accuracy to describe able as a suppletive present participle of can. While "be able" is used as a suppletive infinitive form, "be able" doesn't feel like a progressive/continuous construction to me.--Urszag (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

EN: ourselves (or us) in subject of sentence

Under I a sense is included for nonstandard/proscribed usage in the object of a sentence. Similarly, I imagine that ourselves would occasionally appear in the subject (not covered by existing senses). In particular, this seems more natural with a longish phrase for the subject, as in

Many highly motivated newcomers — and, of course, ourselves, as experienced alchemists — have tried to turn lead into gold.

Similarly with us.

I could be wrong, but I am assuming that grammatically we should be used. (Note: "we, ourselves" would presumably be OK, where ourselves would be used as emphasis.)

It looks to be awkward to search for, but from a quick scout I found usage by some Slovenians:

"Many others and ourselves have found them very useful – so it is a waste of time and money not to use them."

in a conference paper.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

Closer analogy is perhaps at me:

5. (colloquial) As a grammatical subject or object when joined with a conjunction.

[It was] literally all me and my astrophysicist colleagues could talk about.

Stella and me have opted to take a course called 'Autobiography and Fiction'.

8. (informal, with and, often proscribed) As the subject of a verb.

Me and my friends played a game.

The existing senses 5 and 8 there seem to have excessive overlap too, although clearing that up is a separate problem.

Again, such sense(s) should probably apply to us and ourselves too.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 06:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC))

There’s also the strange pretentious use of ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’ instead of me that is often heard in Britain from call centre operatives: “I spoke to yourself yesterday, have you got a minute free to speak to myself today?”. Also the Hiberno-English ‘himself’ for ‘he’, for example: “Is himself in?”. Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't specifically say I've heard those. In the case of the call centres, I'm imagining that "me" and "you" were seen as overly familiar, yet English doesn't really have formal pronoun alternatives in the way that some other languages do.

I think it's highly unlikely that this is where it came from, but, just to share, the grammar arguably works better by padding it out as: "“I spoke to your good self yesterday, have you got a minute free to speak to my good self today?”" Admittedly my good self is not particularly idiomatic (and not listed in WT), although some instances can be found online.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC))

knowm sayin?

As a shortened form of know what I'm saying? Really common in speech. /ˌnɒmˈseɪn/ is the given pronunciation. Any idea of a common spelling, dawgs? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that any are common. If it were me I'd put in an apostrophe or two, as in know'm sayin' (or know'm sayin), cf. knowm'sayin and knowm sayin'. I found all bar the parenthesised version online, but it might be more of a struggle to find any of them in literature.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC))

Appears as gnome sayin' in this youtube video. —Soap— 05:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

nomsayin'? Tollef Salemann (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

‘Gnome sane’ and the similar ‘seem sane’ (‘Do you see what I’m saying?’) always make me think of J-Roc from TPB[16]. I’m sure there’s even an episode where he actually spells it as ‘gnome sane’ rather than says it that way but I can’t find it on YT Overlordnat1. We should probably have an entry for mafk as an even more abbreviated form of muhfucker too and quote J-Roc for one of our cites. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

plural of cat's eye and similar words

I initially started this discussion on Talk:farmer's_daughter#plural but i thought of cat's eye a few minutes later and I think that while both are good examples, cat's eye is even better. I think the plural of cat's eye should be cat's eyes, not cats' eyes as we currently have linked. Cat's eye is an atomic root, not a two-word phrase, since there is no cat invovled even metaphorically with most of the senses and saying "cat's" on its own doesnt communicate the meaning. The illustrations we have on the page use the cat's spelling. Similarly as with farmer's daughter it is not the daughter of a farmer except by chance, but rather a woman who stereotypically lives in such isolation that she will fall for any man who approaches her since she has no other opportunities to meet men. It is an atomic root just like cat's eye. I think the plural of farmer's daughter should be farmer's daughters, as our two quotes spell it, and not farmers' daughters as we currently have linked. Thanks, —Soap— 05:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the value of such a priori arguments, except to generate testable hypotheses, which is trivially easy to do, though not with consistent results, at Google N-Grams. Both forms look to be attestable, as well as cats eyes (no apostrophe). DCDuring (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

So is it best to just list both forms? At least for words where both can amply be found? I will check each word individually then, rather than seeking a blanket policy. —Soap— 17:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right: the plural of "cat's eye" in the non-literal sense should logically be "cat's eyes". While on the one hand we should list attestable forms, on the other hand we should also bear in mind that people consult dictionaries to discover what is "correct". Mihia (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We could encourage them to be tolerant of others' choices, while thinking for themselves about their own. Maybe getting rid of apostrophes is the wave of the future. You wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of history, would you? DCDuring (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

My money is on the first word staying the same in both singular and plural just because of human nature. The spelling "cats' eyes" strikes me as hypercorrect: I have my doubts about how many people pay attention to the relevant orthographic rule (cat's vs. cats'), and following it correctly would require a decision as to how many cats there are, which is completely beside the point. It would be like determining what combination of left and right eyes are involved (eight possible permutations for three cat['s]/[s'] eyes). Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@ChuckEntz: Bad algorithm. With three eyes there must be at least two cats, so plural. Cats' eyes on the road are sufficiently separated that one shouldn't mistake even two for a single cat's eyes. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@RichardW57m: You're missing the point. If I have a box full of marbles, there are no literal cats involved. Deciding how many non-existant cats they theoretically could belong to is completely pointless. Since these aren't actual cats, one could just as easily posit a single imaginary cat with 47 eyes, or 47 single-eyed cats. If I run over a cat's eye on the road, I don't have to worry about any critter being harmed. As for sea slugs: I'll leave that to your imagination... Chuck Entz (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The singular cats’ eye is also found.  --Lambiam 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Senses 1 and 3 of throb

I believe these would be identical in use. Should the senses be merged? -saph 🍏 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so. It is a transferred medical sense; nothing needs to pound or beat rapidly at all but the perception gives the impression. It may be possible to rewrite the first gloss in a way that would point out transferral periphery of the sense. Fay Freak (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

eFormat

An electronic format suitable for any written information not covered by eBook or ePub. Othello86 (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wiktionary:Requested_entries?

Or is there a specific question to be addressed?

Alternatively, per the message that currently shows up when trying to access eFormat, you can consider creating the entry yourself if it meets the criteria for inclusion. If you are new to Wiktionary, please see Help:Starting a new page, or use the sandbox for experiments.

—DIV (1.145.112.83 10:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC))

go to the well

Don't like Equinox's definition P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think of it as "to tap/use/call on an often-tapped/used/called on resource." (Wording could be improved.) DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Replaced with "To draw on a finite resource or reserve (that may be at risk of being exhausted)." Any better? —DIV (1.145.105.155 05:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC))

I don't think that the risk of exhaustion is essential, at least no more than any resource can become expensive or unavailable. For example, it comes up in religious contexts where the "well" is inexhaustible. To go to the well too often brings some focus on the idea of the resource not being available. (Some dictionaries have entries for go to the well too often). The same focus is in you don't miss your water until your well runs dry. You would think that any post-childhood human would get the metaphor without needing a definition. I BTW, the resource often is the goodwill of family, friends, neighbors, lenders, employees, volunteers, donors, etc. DCDuring (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. From my experience the connotation of exhaustibility is common. Although I can't bring to mind an example from religious contexts where the resource is inexhaustible, I defer to your knowledge on that point. Therefore perhaps deleting "finite" to leave "To draw on a resource or reserve (that may be at risk of being exhausted)." covers it. Otherwise perhaps create a subsense?

—DIV (1.145.69.71 06:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC))

I couldn't find another OneLook dictionary that had an entry for go to the well, but there are a couple that have an entry for go to the well too often. It might be better to move our entry there. That would fit your definition. Go to the well to me seems SoPish, using common extended/figurative sense of go and well. Even the longer form seems SoPish to me, but I defer to the practical wisdom of professional lexicographers (Calling them "lemmings" seems unfair.) on inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

arena rock

"Rock music played at concerts held in large venues." — This definition broadly applies broadly to any rock music played at any concert, in which case one would wonder about the necessity about such a word; however, the Wikipedia page defines arena rock as being *particularly suitable for* concerts, with attributes such as anthemic choruses. (This is also my own understanding of the term.) Can the definition be replaced? —Fish bowl (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

How's my new def? CitationsFreak (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

per se

• (colloquial, proscribed, chiefly in the negative) In a true or literal sense; as one would expect from the name or description.

It's not a museum per se, but they do have some interesting artifacts.

Does anyone agree/disagree that this sense is "colloquial" and/or "proscribed"? Mihia (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Surprising to me. Looking at the WT entry, I guess the concept is that Sense 2 diverges from the meaning suggested by the etymology, "by itself". Sense 1 fits with that, meaning "in itself" (not mentioned in the definition, but present in the list of synonyms). Sense 2 essentially means "as such", which I would have thought was a common understanding nowadays. I notice that "as such" is also listed in the list of synonyms, but with the vague restriction "(in certain senses)".

My guess is that historically there may well have been proscriptions against the usage of Sense 2, and it may well have been considered colloquial. (Although having both labels is a little disconcerting to me.) Yet perhaps nowadays the meaning has shifted sufficiently that those labels no longer apply.

Postscript. Or am I putting too much weight on the example? I find the example unexceptional. But I could construct another example to try to fit the stated definition and seem (to me) more exceptional — to the extent that I can hardly imagine anyone using the phrase this way: *"A: OMG, I was so shocked when Brad proposed, I literally died! B: Yeah, but you didn't die per se, did you?", or, similarly, *"I’d rather sink to the bottom of the ocean per se -- than call Brad for help!".

—DIV (1.145.105.155 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC))

I must admit I wasn't considering those kinds of cases, but only the cases when "per se" referred directly to a noun, as in the example presently given. To me, one feature of your examples seems to be a mismatch of registers, with "per se" seeming unexpectedly formal/jargony for the context, more or less the opposite of what the "colloquial" label would suggest. A "verbal" example such as "it does not vulcanise per se", without such a register mismatch, to me simply seems jargony. Not the greatest English ever, I suppose, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "proscribed". Mihia (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

policija

Lithuanian polìcija (Also affects its inflected forms.)

The pronunciation is given as /poːˈlʲɪt͡sʲɪjɐ/, but apart from this being shown as phonemic (WT:ALT#Pronunciation requires phonetic), I think the first vowel is actually short. I think it is noted as such in http://yuriykushnir.com/documents/Y_Kushnir_Dissertation.pdf. @Joonas07, Insaneguy1083, AmazingJus, Chuck Entz. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually I found the pronunciation given at https://home.uni-leipzig.de/~yuriykushnir/strucclith/class_1.pdf Example 17:

(17) policija [pɔˈlʲɪtsɪjæ] police

So, is Kushnir right, or are there multiple pronunciations we need to record? --RichardW57m (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just realised that the final vowel in @Joonas07's pronunciation, which we currently display, is wrong - the two low vowels are neutralised after /j/, and this is not a question of hocus pocus. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Latin ambro

Last year I have updated the entry ambro and added a latin header. I wondered if any of you had examples of such a strange medieval latin developement (from a specific and late romance language to latin, or in any other language branche where a daughter language provided its parent language (highly specific since the parent needs to be "frozen" as latin is) with a new lexicon), helping me in the update of the etymology section which I have thus far tagged incomplete and even to create a category if there be enough examples of it. Tim Utikal (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There are entries in the DMLBS and Du Cange, neither of which confirm this etymology. The DMLBS notes that it occurs as a tribe name in Classical Latin (Livy has "a Teutonis et Ambronibus castra defendit"); I'm not sure if the dictionary means to imply that the use in the sense 'glutton' is a figurative extension of that. In that case the Romance etymology would be impossible. Are you aware of any sources that support a connection between hambre and Latin ambro?--Urszag (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a book that seems to view it as an extension of the proper name: (A Volume of vocabularies, Wright 1882).--Urszag (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I only find the gloss gnedge for latin ambrones at page 100 in the last source you shared and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't remember where I got my version from, I hope I didn't guess it myself but I don't think it was directly mentioned in the edition I was reading. The FWOTD didn't help either even though it's no excuse. Now the relation to spanish ambron seems very improbable and the idea that old spanish would have given one of its word back to latin (and through the writings of a britannic writer) quite far-fetched.

But I still hold my query, if you have examples of such developments I mentioned I'd be glad to hear them. Tim Utikal (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Dutch aanbod

Currently said to be uncountable, but I think that's wrong: cf. "een aanbod doen". It's just that it has a suppletive plural: aanbiedingen. Thoughts? @Lambiam, Thadh, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo PUC – 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I would just say that it has no plural. Aanbiedingen is better analysed as the wholly regular and predictable plural of aanbieding. It certainly is uncountable in the sense of economic supply (contrasted with demand, vraag). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@PUC, Lingo Bingo Dingo: I would personally instinctively say aanboden and it seems attestable. Thadh (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Most hits will be for the past tense plural form of aanbieden in a subordinate clause (de woning die ze aanboden was onbewoonbaar), but its use as the plural of a noun can be unambiguously attested.^[17][18][19] A usage note might inform the user that this plural is rarely used today.  --Lambiam 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Sorry, the link was broken, but "meerdere aanboden" in Google gives the noun almost every time. Thadh (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

pernīčė typo?

Looking at descriptions of other Samogitian words for days of the week, I'm fairly certain it's supposed to be petnīčė, from Russian пятница (pjatnica). Even the Samogitian Wikipedia article is titled Petnīčė, but then in the same article uses pernīčė. But I don't really know for sure. Both per- and pet- come up with quite a few hits on Google. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: https://zemaitiuzeme.lt/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/zz_2012_04.pdf#page=24 suggests that both of them are correct. I quote:

"Pernīčė - penktadienis
...
Petnīčė - penktadienis".

Will update references accordingly. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

on

I don't fully understand this adj. definition:

• (informal) Destined, normally in the context of a challenge being accepted; involved, doomed.

"Five bucks says the Cavs win tonight." ―"You're on!"

Mike just threw coffee onto Paul's lap. It's on now.

I'm not certain I even know what the second example means. Does "It's on now" mean that some kind of confrontation has started? Is this fundamentally the same as sense #2, e.g. "We had to ration our food because there was a war on", just with the referent of "it" implied and unstated, or is it something different? Are "destined", "involved" or "doomed" sensible ways to define "on" as used in either of the examples? It doesn't seem so to me, but before I dismantle this entry, please let me check whether I am missing something. Mihia (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

German Tatbestand

We only have one definition there, currently given as:

• (law) the factual elements realizing the concept under which subsumption takes place

Could someone explain what the heck this is supposed to mean?

The list of English translations provided at de:Tatbestand#Übersetzungen is probably a good starting point: "factual findings, facts of the case, matter of fact, state of affairs". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr: The issue with all of them is that you cannot translate gesetzlicher Tatbestand, just for example. (Legal factual findings? Legal state of affairs? Yikes.) So they are bogus for a general translation, though contextually applicable. It means conditions envisioned by law. What do you think do we do in law school all the time and from the first day? Subsumption; Tatbestand → legal consequence. The first part I have not found a translation for yet. Them Anglo-Saxon jurists talk around all the time, or use more specific terms. As Straftatbestand becoming “criminal offence”, when this is indistinguishable from Straftat (“criminal offence”). Fay Freak (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

DWDS says: "die im Gesetz festgelegten Merkmale einer Handlung" (the legally specified characteristics of an action). Oxford Dictionary: "gesetzlich festgelegte Merkmale für eine bestimmte Handlung oder für einen bestimmten Sachverhalt" (legally specified characteristics for a certain action or a certain circumstance). One usually says "etwas erfüllt den Tatbestand des XY" (something fulfils the Tatbestand of XY), which, as far as I know, means that some real-life event fulfils the criteria for being defined by some legal term or concept. Especially, that some action fulfils the criteria for being defined as a certain crime. Maybe this helps. 2.207.102.51 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Though it’s not the whole truth that it must be statutory. Take a kaufmännisches Bestätigungsschreiben. Or basic contract law: “Dann aber, so macht die Revision geltend, fehle es am Tatbestand einer Willenserklärung.” A uni sheet reformulates the decision: “Bei fehlendem Erklärungsbewusstsein liegt eine Willenserklärung dann vor, wenn der Empfänger die Erklärung als Willenserklärung aufgefasst hat, er sie auch so verstehen durfte und der Erklärende diesen Tatbestand bei Anwendung der im Verkehr erforderlichen Sorgfalt hätte vermeiden können.” Some assessment that can be avoided to be the case. It can be anything we mentalize to be a legally relevant concept, and morally relevant concept for everyday use.

I have difficulties to own that there are in fact two definitions, which most dictionaries claim for simplicity, such as in the example in Luxembourg: “den Tatbestand richteg analyséieren”. We would never say this (den Tatbestand richtig analysieren), this is overly confusable (since we analyze the law as well as opposed to reading and understanding the description of the facts) and in my view beyond the boundaries of the even peripheral meaning of the word; instead one uses Sachverhalt when actually meaning the facts (as they have been described). Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)