Last modified on 26 November 2014, at 22:53

Wiktionary:Tea room

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For Translation requests, see Wiktionary:Translation requests. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations
Tea house party in Japan (not tea ceremony)-J. M. W. Silver.jpg

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 technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Tea room archives +/-

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

Oldest tagged RFTs

November 2014

affirmative imperative forms abolirseEdit

So all the affirmative imperative forms of abolirse are the same? --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Certainly they are not! I'll look at it. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I dunno how to fix it. Sorry. After 10 years on WT, I still totally suck at templates. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The faculty and I came up with a lesson plan on this.... Should the children be given double HW? —This unsigned comment was added by Eleanora Wyttham (talkcontribs) at 00:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC).


Bit of an emergency here. I just realised that no translations exist for the most common sense - unable to think clearly or understand! How did this happen? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Easy: the sense was missing altogether until recently. No one in the 10-year history of the entry seems to have noticed its absence until the entry was tagged for attention in April, and no one got around to adding the sense until this week. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Webster 1913 didn't have an entry for the adjective. Perhaps they thought it was covered by the verb definitions. If they had applied our criteria for including an adjective distinct from a past participle, they would have had such an adjective definition as searching COHA for usage of "more confused" shows that the most common current sense was nearly as common for at least fifty years before 1910. Webster 1828 lacked the sense and COHA shows usage only of thoughts, feelings, and sensations being confused, not persons. Century showed the sense as the fourth, also suggesting recency.
As to why the [entry] wasn't subsequently improved: we have no systematic review and evidently not enough users for less systematic wiki processes to work quickly. DCDuring TALK 09:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
MW 2nd (1930s) has an adjective sense more or less equivalent to the currently "most common" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Here's discussion from Cloudcuckoolander's talk page regarding the tone of the definition of MGTOW. I'm not a regular Wiktionary editor, but two editors suggested adding this to the tea room. So I'm just going to copy-and-paste what has been discussed there so far, apologies if it's usually done differently. -- 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cloudcuckoolander, you didn't give a reason for your recent changes to the MGTOW definition, so I'm going to revert back. If you want to change the MGTOW definition, please discuss it on Talk:MGTOW. -- 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The one who modified the definition without discussion was you. The fact that this modification remained in place for nearly a month was an oversight. We don't always catch things right away. Your modification, simply put, was not in keeping with NPOV. There's obviously a delicate balance to be struck when defining words. It wouldn't be accurate to define slowpoke as "a person perceived as moving too slowly," because that's not what it's used to mean. But when a definition requires us to describe an opinion or belief, it isn't neutral to present said opinion or belief as anything other than an opinion or belief. We can't state that MGTOWs are remaining single due to the "risks of marriage" without qualification because that makes it seem as if the riskiness of marriage is objective fact. And we certainly can't use a loaded word like "gynocentrism" in place of the more neutral word "feminism." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't realize these policies were so different from Wikipedia's manual of style which suggests avoiding unsupported attributions in that way. Two questions. First, would you object to the definition being stated in a less pejorative way to MGTOW? The tone of the current definition strikes me as much more condescending than it needs to be with the placement of phrase "what they perceive as" in the definition.
Would you object to a change going from:
a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.
a movement of (mainly) heterosexual men who believe the risks of relationships with women are significant enough that they have committed to remaining single and/or celibate.
That would still indicate it's a belief of people who identify as MGTOW. It would also avoid having to use the term 'feminism' (which is irrelevant to the definition) or gynocentrism, and bit about "undesirable qualities of modern women" (which also irrelevant to the definition).
Second, would you object to having this discussion in the talk page for the MGTOW article/definition? If anyone wanted to look back and see why certain decisions were made about changes to the definition, it seems like it would be more efficient to have them in one place than have to hunt around several user talk pages. That's the standard practice on Wikipedia, and I've always found it useful. Is there a reason why this is generally not done on Wiktionary? -- 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth moving this discussion to WT:TR, so that more users will see it. Wikipedia has far more users than we do, and talk pages don't get many eyeballs. Equinox 03:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The Tea Room is probably the most appropriate place to have this discussion. Definitions are based on what available citations say, so if you want to see significant changes made to a definition, you may need to provide CFI-compliant citations to support said changes. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Cloudcuckoolander, you mean provide WT:CFI-compliant citations to support that the tone of the definition should be less condescending? How would I go about doing that? -- 20:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The definitions of words on Wiktionary are derived from citations (i.e. instances in which a word is used in a book, magazine, movie, etc.). If you think the current definition of a word is inaccurate or incomplete, and wish to see it changed, then the case for modifying the definition in line with your suggestions will be stronger if you are able to provide some citations that show the word being used in a way that reflects the specific meaning you ascribe to it.
Regarding tone: sometimes entries will be intentionally or unintentionally biased, contain inappropriate humour, etc. In that case, one wouldn't need to justify editing the entry to remove said elements, since our policies stipulate that definitions be written in a neutral and serious tone. But, to be honest, I don't see anything amiss with the current definition of MGTOW, and I think what you're seeing as condescension is likely just NPOV in action. NPOV is kind of like harsh fluorescent lighting in that it often makes for an unflattering picture regardless of the subject.
The Tea Room is probably the best place to propose/discuss changes to MGTOW entry. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not neutral. Search for definitons what they perceive as, the only one containing that attribution is the MGTOW definition. If you look at the definition of atheist, for example, it's phrased like the change I suggested. I'll add this discussion to WT:TR. -- 06:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

just a snitEdit

I grew up with this word used to mean a little bit, but I just noticed that this sense is entirely missing from the snit entry. I see that Merriam-Webster's entry doesn't have that sense either.

I know that side of my family brought along a lot of dialectal German, suggesting a derivation from Schnitt (a cut, a slice, a bit) or something similar. Is anyone else familiar with the little bit sense of snit, or is this just an odd remnant of family baggage? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The OED doesn't have anything like that either, only n.1 "Obs. The glowing part of the wick of a candle when blown out." and n.2 "slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). A state of agitation; a fit of rage or bad temper; a tantrum, sulk. Freq. in phr. in a snit." --WikiTiki89 11:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I searched for "snit of"; most of the results were scannos for "suit" (e.g. "snit of clothes"), but I found this, which might be the sense you're talking about (or might be confusion between chit and slip, etc.): "When I came to I found that snit of a door girl standing over me, scowling." (2012, Natalie Essary, Helluva Luxe) Equinox 12:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I did find some instances of google:"a snit bit of", in the sense of "a little bit of something". But I cannot find much that jives with how my family uses "a snit of something" without the "bit". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Is the preposition missing the sense used in "go by sea/bus"? —CodeCat 01:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If it isnt sense 6, which seems to be the bus seems to imply by (way/means/method of) bus and is instrumental. Is this not covered by 6? Leasnam (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey look below¶ this page is categorised as a Spanish verb ending in -ir !


At Talk:chugger This, that and the other noted in July that they removed the given etymology "first appeared in print in London newspaper Metro's Say What Column in June 2002, as a provocative invention of jounalist Keith Barker-Main" on the grounds on incredulity.

Happening across this in early October I did some research and found that this etymology is actually correct and the word can be dated to 26 June 2002 [1][2] (more sources and explanation on the talk page).

As such I suggest that it should be restored to the article, but I thought I'd bring it up here first as my talk page post hasn't generated any responses in a month. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't believe it because it was badly written (misspelt "journalist", and Column shouldn't have been capitalized) and also because Metro, as a free newspaper, wouldn't be expected to have the intellectual "power" to coin words. (I certainly know that any attempt to coin a word in my local free commuter newspaper would have no chance of catching on.) These, along with the prominent mention of the person's name (I suspected self-promotion), raised red flags for me. However, it seems like I was wrong in this case. I'd be happy to see a properly-formatted version of the etymology restored to the article. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlisted English Idiom (New/Regional?) "All over hell and breakfast"Edit

Maybe it's simply that nobody has bothered to enter it, or that it is very new, but perhaps it's a regional expression? Where I come from (South/Central Texas), we use the phrase "all over hell and breakfast" often to describe someone or something constantly moving about or changing locations rapidly. For example, if I went to many different places in town this morning, driving about seemingly at random and appearing very rushed, you would say "He was running all over hell and breakfast this morning". If I was looking for something specific and had to search several stores to get it, you could phrase it as "He looked all over hell and breakfast for it" or "He went all over hell and breakfast to find it".

It's also used, albeit less commonly, when objects are scattered in a mess. Imagine someone drops a bag full of small items (such as marbles); when the bag lands, the impact causes it to burst and the items are strewn about randomly, and you have to search the whole area to gather them all. Telling this anecdote, you might say "They(the items) were scattered all over hell and breakfast".

I hear this expression commonly enough, but does anybody else? If so, perhaps someone should create a page for it and add it to the list of English idioms.-- 17:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"All over hell and breakfast" gets 7 hits on, which is good; "between hell and breakfast" gets 30, which is even better. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this sense of "off" covered?Edit

> A quote:

Two rooms open off of the library and are named for their decorative schemes, the Room of the Mausoleum of Hadrian, and the Room of the Festoons.

I wonder if this sense is covered in Wiktionary. I've discovered this sense at Stack Exchange English Language Learners, thanks to a comment made by a native speaker. ---CopperKettle (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See [[off of]]. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
To say that a room or corridor "leads off" another is also common. Equinox 12:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, DCDuring, Equinox! A passage by J.K. Rowling uses "off" without "of"; this use could be common too. Does it mean the sense should be added to off, not only to off of? The quote:

The room set aside for the guidance department at Winterdown Comprehensive opened off the school library. It had no windows and was lit by a single strip light. (The Casual Vacancy, J. K. Rowling)

--CopperKettle (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that many authorities, eg, Garner's Modern American Usage (2009), consider off of to be a usage inferior to off, ie, of is superfluous. In the example above, it is superfluous, but very common in speech. One could also use from instead of off of in that example. Equinox's alternative verb suggestion may be better yet, but some would say lead off of. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

isomorphic - problems with biology explanationEdit

I find the biology explanation of this word, isomorphic, to be ambigous and a bit hard to understand.

quote "(biology) Having a similar structure or function to something that is not related genetically or through evolution."

First of all it should be "nor through evolution" not or, right?

But the issue I have is the word "related" in reference to evolution. Isomorphic definitely means that there is no genetic relation between the isomorphic structures or functions. But the process which will make similar structures appear through evolution at different places independently makes them related in the sense that they produce the same typ of structure. If a trait is not related genetically then that implies that it does not share a common ancestor with that trait. Emphasizing that the branching in evolution happens before the development of the isomorphic trait would be good for explanation. As it is now the "or through evolution" part confuses by adding something that is obvious from the previous statement (genetically related).

My suggestion: Having a similar structure or function that has evolved independently at a different place and/or time.

Other suggestions? —This comment was unsigned.

I would replace "at a different place and/or time" by something like "in different species". Dakdada (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If biologists can say that 'humans are more closely related (genetically) to fungi than to plants' (They can and do.), then the very wording "not related genetically" is problematic. A similar problem exists with 'through evolution'. Even 'evolved independently' doesn't work without 'independently' implicitly needing to exclude the possibility of having an environment with shared characteristics.
I think the idea is that the isomorphic characteristic has evolved in descendants from a common ancestor that did not have the characteristic. I'll try to find someone who has defined and used the term that way. As the term is being used technically, in the context of biology, we can use technical terms in the definition.
Another approach is the simpler approach of saying 'not closely related genetically'. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We could also define it with reference to isomorphism. See isomorphism ("the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry") and w:Isomorphism ("a similarity of form or structure between organisms, generally between organisms with independent ancestries, e.g. after convergent evolution."). DCDuring TALK 13:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Isomorphism: "identity in form; in genetics, referring to genotypes of polypoid organisms that produce similar gametes even though containing genes in different combinations on homologous chromosomes." This is how several medical dictionaries define it, focusing on the genes that account for the characteristic, rather than the characteristic itself. This has the advantage of avoiding the problem of characteristics that may only develop in response to macroenvironmental conditions, but the disadvantage of depending on more biological knowledge than many users will have, even if they studied some biology. We may need this kind of definition in addition to the one in question. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That medical definition is quite different from the evolutionary one. Dakdada (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It is talking about the same phenomenon, but more causally. I would propose that it be added, not that it replace a simpler definition that focused on apparent traits. The WP definition is better than the one this discussion started with. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I would prefer this definition from above because of its conciseness and brevity, preferably with reference to the wikipedia article on isomorphism. "the similarity in form of organisms of different ancestry"-- 16:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The definition is definitely problematic. As DCDuring points out, all known living organisms are genetically related. Also, as it can be about structure, you could actually have two structures within the one organism that are isomorphic (i.e. having a different genetic basis, although performing the same function). Terms like "genetic basis" or "convergent evolution" or "independent ancestries" (as used in w:Isomorphism (biology)) might help. Pengo (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


There's nothing to cover sympathy in the sense sympathy for Communism, sympathy for Islamic extremism, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had a go at adding something. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Kyara (伽羅) is a special type of incense made from agarwood, and it's known to be very expensive. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

So, what's your question? We have neither English kyara, nor Japanese 伽羅 (きゃら) (kyara) entries. Are you requesting creation of these entries? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
My sources say the Japanese term means "aloeswood"; Taxus cuspidata and aloes-wood perfume. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just finished adding an entry for 伽羅. Please have a look and adjust as deemed necessary.
FWIW, aloeswood and agarwood appear to be synonyms, at least as far as the relevant senses of 伽羅 are concerned. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Massive. Thanks! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


I added a quote to emergency, and called it an adjective. However, I'm not convinced it is an adjective. What do you think? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

makhorka, махоркаEdit

Can someone pls. check the taxonomy and formatting? Calling @DCDuring:. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Webelo vs. WebelosEdit

The term "Webelos" is generally preferred in the Scouting community (even in singular usage) over "Webelo" because the final "s" is derived from the word "Scout". Whether you use "Wolf, Bear, Lion, Scout" as the origin of "Webelos" or the more contemporary "We'll be loyal Scouts" as its derivation, the word Scout(s) is a key word in the words being contracted to form the term "Webelos". The Boy Scouts of America own a trademark on the term Webelos

I propose to move the main definition of the term from "Webelo" to "Webelos". Because singular words in English rarely end with the letter "s", the term "Webelo" is occasionally seen when the term is used in the singular, although this variant is not used in publications by the Boy Scouts of America, the owner of the "Webelos" trademark. I'm not sure how to write the definition of "Webelo" to indicate that this spelling is sometimes seen, but is probably incorrect. Since there is a trademark involved, the normal logic of a dictionary that any commonly seen spelling is correct may not apply in this particular case. I am unaware of any usage of the term in any spelling that refers to anything other than the Scout program, so I don't think that claims of a generic use of a trademark term could apply here.

A previous attempt by another editor to indicate that Webelos was the preferred term was reverted. Because of this, I am proposing this change in the tea room, rather than starting an edit war directly on the "Webelo" and "Webelos" pages. ToddDTaft (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind we are descriptivist and we define terms by how they are used, rather than how certain organisations want to have them used — trademarks or not. Does real-world usage reflect what you are saying? Equinox 18:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


The entry for asbestos includes an adjective sense meaning "of or related to asbestos". There are lots of translations there too. However, I don't think it should be listed as an adjective, as it is just an attributive use of a noun, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd bet on it not being a true adjective. As it is a question of attestation, we would give the section an RfV. This is a very common problem, but I don't think we can short-cut the RfV process. It might be useful to insert usage examples under the noun PoS, one with it being used as a nominal, another with it being used attributively. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose almost all noun definitions should have both noun and attributive-use translation sections. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think we can skip the RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

pennorth (plural pennorths)?Edit

Hi :) First time newbie here, please be kind.

Concerning the entry for the word 'pennorth'. It says:

"pennorth (plural pennorths)"

I believe that the plural is like the word 'cannon': ie one cannon, many cannon. No terminating 's'. Indeed, the 'derived terms' shown agree with me:

"two penn’orth, twopenn’orth, two pennorth"

Sorry, I have no references I can cite to back this up.

Now, having said all that, I'm confused -- because I did try to edit the page to remove the offending text [ie amend "pennorth (plural pennorths)" to simply "pennorth"] but ... I couldn't find that text, so couldn't remove it!

Here's hoping you're having a good day :) Pendant (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think both forms are encountered. You can see "pennorths" in some books here: [3]. Equinox 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the examples from Equinox, I think there's actually a subtle difference between "two pennorth" and "two pennorths" in a lot of writing. two penn'orth means "an amount of something that is worth two pence" while two pennorths means "two amounts of something worth one penny each". Compare these two examples:
"Let's have a glass of whisky - Irish, hot, and two pennorth of rum."
"Three two pennorths of rum for himself and wife would have amounted to four weeks' subscription, and this would be considered a very 'small Saturday night allowance' by hundreds of men and women. "
But I'm not sure this distinction was universally maintained. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm drawing a blank: do we have a standardized way of noting that kind of distinction? (Compare Bier.) - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
We do the same thing at fish and trade union - give both plurals in the inflection line, and then explain them in the usage note. I think that's the most user-friendly way of doing it - while we could do something like "(plural pennorth (single quantity) or pennorths (discrete quantities))", trying to get that information into one or two words hinders rather than helps user understanding. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


I removed dialectal from this because it's not; as I said in the edit summary, it's used in standard English in books about magic and witchcraft, whether fiction or nonfiction. It does need a tag; "counterclockwise" is the unmarked general English word for "widdershins", so "widdershins" needs a context tag noting that. I just don't know how to concisely define how it's used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(in paganism and dialects), perhaps? Or (uncommon outside paganism)? - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Paganism doesn't really describe its use in modern fantasy; it's a much more common word in everyday use then deasil is. And I actually find the use of dialectal to be problematic in and of itself. Saying it's limited to some group of people isn't very helpful; what group?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

gain ground and lose groundEdit

The definitions (written by a Wonderfool sock in 2011) for gain ground and lose ground are really not very good. Can someone do better? --Type56op9 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added definitions consistent with other dictionaries' definitions and RfVed what we had, though I think the new defs include the existing ones. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


While we're on the topic of shitty WF entries, the definition for unforgiving ("not forgiving") could do with improvement too. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a run at this one too. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Much better. Taking the liberty of striking this. Equinox 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


While on the topic of lousy definitions, the entry for department leaves a lot to be desired too. I might have a go at improving later myself, if nobody else feels like it. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. The right venue is RfC, though definitional cleanup sometimes doesn't always get full attention there. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I took a run at this one, mostly de-Websterizing it, which goes a long way with many English entries. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


There’s a »w:Gini coefficient«. You might consider adding »Gini« to your various variantions of »gini«. If Gini relates to Gino, I don’t know. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You could have done it (and added [[Gini]] too). Those variations are accessible using the edit tab. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


I just added a quotation here, could someone check if it's okay? (Q: Should I have added it to Citations:meed instead? What's the difference?) Thanks much ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It was fine. I added some WP links: not essential, but good for users.
Citations pages are handy for showing time pattern and for placement of cites that are "too" numerous or not particularly good illustrations of usage. The latter situation can arise because we need peculiar quotes to establish idiomaticity, what word class a term falls in, or some other point other than meaning.
In this case it would have been nice if someone had said which sense the citations supported. Perhaps they weren't sure. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the [YOUR ITEM HERE] departmentEdit

The rfv of in the trouser department has brought to light a hole in our coverage, but I'm not sure how best to deal with it. This expression is just one of a huge number of possible permutations of what looks a lot like a snowclone: "in the X department", where X is some attribute or aspect (or metonymic reference to one), almost always in the singular.

To show some of the variety, here are the first couple dozen permutations gleaned from Google Books:

There were a few repeats of "in the brain department" that I left out, but otherwise there was only one of each- these aren't set phrases.

Is there a way to define this as sense of department, or are we stuck dealing with it as a snowclone? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be possible to cover it at department, though I'm certainly not up to that challenge right now. DCDuring TALK 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we possibly need a non-gloss definition - eg, Used to frame the subject of discussion indirectly or euphemistically - and then a couple of good usage examples. Even if we have this though, I'd say "trouser department" is an exception that we should keep, since it seems to be uniquely metonymic and opaque. For example, I can't find any evidence for "in the blouse department" as a euphemism, and only one of the usages of "in the bra department" on Google Books seems not to refer to actual bras. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree and think the opacity is ascribable to its being euphemistic. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at in the chest department. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


There is nothing at this entry about the meaning "any division of a window or door created by a mullion", a variant of "light". 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Is this edit OK? Perhaps there's been a change of policy for initialisms and the like that I am not aware of. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Can someone with Korean knowledge please look at danso - there's odd formatting, and potential etymology. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

enough to choke a horseEdit

This is an adjective, not a noun, right? Or am I missing sth? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an idiomatic phrase that doesn't really work very well with the traditional parts of speech notation. "Determiner" probably works best here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Prepositional phrase? — Ungoliant (falai) 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Upper or lowercase? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think both (not sure about both senses though). Upper case seems to be more common and we should probably move the primary entry there. Equinox 22:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing vertebrate binomials: the most commonly found in booksEdit

Here's the most common binomial names of vertebrates (mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, etc), as found in books (via google ngram data), that we don't have entries for:

  1. Xenopus laevis - Xenopus - African clawed frog - clawed frog
  2. Macaca fascicularis - Macaca - long-tailed macaque - macaque
  3. Salvelinus fontinalis - Salvelinus - American brook charr, brook trout - charr
  4. Peromyscus maniculatus - Peromyscus - deer mouse
  5. Castor canadensis - Castor - American beaver - beaver
  6. Parus major - Parus - great tit - tit
  7. Ursus americanus - Ursus - American black bear - black bear
  8. Hirundo rustica - Hirundo - barn swallow - swallow
  9. Saimiri sciureus - Saimiru - South American squirrel monkey - squirrel monkey
  10. Lepomis macrochirus - Lepomis - bluegill
  11. more... (the complete top 100, including blue links)

Each of these binomial names appear in a huge number of books/volumes/papers. (And it would be great if they were added to Wiktionary)

For all species, not just vertebrates, see User:Pengo/2gram-species, which also has more details about the methodology. [Note: the English common names listed are from a database, and are not necessarily the most commonly accepted names or capitalizations] —Pengo (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have edited the English vernacular names above to the canonical lowercase form we use (same as WP's) and will do the same on the longer list. I am relieved that we at least have vernacular names for five of the top ten above, genus names for eight of the top ten, and vernacular hypernyms for four of the five missing vernacular names. Our coverage remains very spotty. At User:DCDuring/MissingTaxa#From_11/01/2014_dump are the most-linked-to (using {{taxlink}}) missing taxa. At User:DCDuring/Vernacular plant names from Wikipedia disambiguation pages are some vernacular names used for more than one species, sometimes for species from different families and even kingdoms. Regional genus and species lists are available, such as the county and state lists available from the USDA Plants Database. Any of these approaches will lead us to add some of the taxa that users are more likely to come across. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As before, the list of the top 100 has a large number of species of disease agents, presumably found in medical books. As there often are no distinctive vernacular names, the {{taxlink}} approach will not prioritize many of them.
Cool. Just to clarify, 2gram-species is basically the same list I posted before. The above list, extracted from 2gram-chordata, is from the same source list but with everything but vertebrates filtered out (and common names added). Pengo (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

'shun!' as a military commandEdit

  • I've been watching a movie and a ship officer there gave the following command: "Ship's company .. shun!" I started looking online and found that it's an abridgement of attention. Might such niche military use merit the inclusion of this sense in the article shun? --CopperKettle (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. It probably belongs at 'shun as eye dialect or pronunciation spelling or something. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've added it in {{also}} at shun. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you, DCDuring! Back to my movie, "In Which We Serve" (1942) as a fact, it has some jargon in it. (0: --CopperKettle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    They pronounce the first two syllables as well, but they are pronounced in a low voice, quiet and drawn out. It’s one of the drill commands. Drill commands have two parts, the call and the execute. The call tells the group which command to prepare for, and the execute is a sharp utterance to go. Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN! Dress-riiiiiiight-DRESS! Stand-aaaaaat-EASE! Shoulderrrrrr-ARMS! Orderrrrrrr-ARMS! Abouuuuuut-FACE! Column-riiiiiiiight-MARCH! The group hears the entire sequence, but onlookers may only hear the execution syllable. Another common pronunciation of Attennnnnnnnn-SHUN is Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! This one is common among less professional groups, small police forces, marching bands, etc. The U.S. mililtary does not permit the use of Attennnnnnnnn-HUT! —Stephen (Talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    In my limited military career shun was the third element of att - ten - shun. The first two elements being help get the timing right (as in Ready, Steady, Go). S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing to itEdit

This isn't a noun... --Type56op9 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just don't try to call it an interjection. The definition wording has it as an adjective, which is inadequate.
This is certainly used as a polite response in lieu of "you're welcome", which would warrant a non-gloss definition that also explained how it differs from you're welcome. It is also used literally, so {{&lit}} is warranted. I think it can appear after forms of be both with a literal meaning and one related to the use in the "you're welcome" sense (needs cites). In the last uses it is certainly a nominal. We usually call noun phrases 'nouns', but this one seems so restricted in how it can be used that it might better be called a phrase. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Someone with Korean knowledge could improve this. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


A crappy Wonderfool entry. It's gotta be an interjection, right? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Classic WF. Yeah I've changed it to an intj. Equinox 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What emotion is the snake expressing? DCDuring TALK 12:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Intjs are not always emotions, animal noises especially. Equinox 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't add it, you wouldn't have to nominate it. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Why is this term even here? It's an Onomatopoeia, but somehow, it just doesn't seem like an actual "word". Muaadth on fire (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Equinox: Under what definition of interjection can this be called an Interjection? Here are MW Online's definitions:
1 a : the act of uttering exclamations : ejaculation
b : the act of putting in between : interposition
2: an ejaculatory utterance usually lacking grammatical connection: as
a : a word or phrase used in exclamation (as Heavens! Dear me!)
b : a cry or inarticulate utterance (as Alas! ouch! phooey! ugh!) expressing an emotion
3 : something that is interjected or that interrupts
If there is another definition under which it does fit, we should attest it and add it, and notify MW as a courtesy.
Also what 'meaning' does 'sss' have? DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Meow" and "woof" are interjections but do not express emotion any more than "sss". Chambers has "a syntactically independent word or phrase of an exclamatory nature, usu (EQUINOX NOTE: NOT ALWAYS) expressing strong or sudden emotion". Equinox 19:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See sss! at bottom of table. —Stephen (Talk) 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Pshaw! DCDuring TALK 20:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

TV landEdit

Might this be a proper noun? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent question. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


What part of speech should this be? I put it in as an initialism, since Category:Hindi initialisms already exists, but it's not really a Hindi initialism so much as a Hindi transliteration of an English acronym. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would call it a Hindi acronym. —Stephen (Talk) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright infringementEdit

Hi, I hope I'm putting this in the right place. I'm the wiktionary user Habemus, and I really haven't been active for a long time, but I think I wasn't really worrying a lot about copyrights. I feel I probably used and maybe a book I have for some of the Kanji [Chinese Character] etymologies I worked on a long time ago. Is there a way that should be added... or....? And a lot of the stuff I added I wasn't really paying attention to copyright.... Like should I have cited Google searches or dictionaries? Maybe it's best just to leave anything other than the kanji or delete anything I did. I was maybe like 15~16. So, maybe just undo any changes I did other than the kanji pages and link the kanji etymologies from that website? Would that be best? I don't want to be doing anything wrong, so it would be great to clear up that stuff. >< I really don't plan on being an editor much and it would be great if someone could just help clear that stuff up. And while it probably didn't violate copyright, I probably used Bachelor for Ainu stuff if I did much. Thanks, Habemus (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Habemus: Thanks for alerting us: an admin will probably take a look. Why is it you don't plan on editing here much? We'd be happy to have you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, other than being scrupulous about copyright infringement, no reason in particular. Just "not my thing"? But thanks for that and thanks for all you guys do! Thanks again! Habemus (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: Hi - has there been any progress on this? Thank you! Habemus (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Looking at stuff I did, like the Ainu/Sicilian I don't see many sources. Would someone be able to just remove those or source those? Or is there really no necessity. Or my entry cataglottis - looks like I put it in but maybe I got the wording from somewhere but who knows? Or my sicilian conjugation template for ~ari verbs - did I make that or copy it? Can it all just be deleted? Habemus (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

front gardenEdit

If you are a speaker of American English could you look at the image at front garden and tell me if that is a 'front garden' to you? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely 'English', but a front garden. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but now I am really confused. I thought that that would be a front yard to you. What is a front yard? I was going to mark 'front garden' as 'British'. Kaixinguo (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'd call it a yard if a child could play in it, eg, it had a relatively level lawn, though I'd rather call that a front lawn. As I read the entry for front garden, that term is used/understood in all Anglophone countries, but front yard is a synonym only in the US, as in the UK it has a different meaning. I'd also call something a yard if it were walled, with walls one could not step over, or were paved (whether or not walled), as few front lawns/front yards are in the US, in contrast to back yards/patios, which often are. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What that pictures looks like to me is a front garden that takes up all or most of the front yard, so it is both. Had it not flowers and such, it would be a front yard, which is typically a lawn, but in this instance the front yard is clearly a garden, with a lined walk. Leasnam (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
For me, what's shown in the photo is definitely not a front yard, because it's not an expanse of grass. I wouldn't call it a "front garden" either, because that's not a term in my dialect. I'd just call it a garden in front of the house. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind if I ask what your dialect might be? Thanks. So, how would the following be described in America? link link and picture five on this link: link? Kaixinguo (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
How about this (first pic):link? To me that is still a 'front garden' even though there are only a few poxy roses. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
And this: (pics one and three):link? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd call all of them 'yards', front or back by their location. For the one in which only a small patch of grass is visible through the gate, I assume it is mostly lawn beyond the wall. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I speak American English. I guess I'd call all of the things in those linked photos "lawns", except maybe this one since there's no visible expanse of grass. It's difficult to be sure what American-English term I'd use for something that isn't usual in America, and the landscaping in these photos isn't usual in America. It's sort of like roundabouts, which Wiktionary tells us are called traffic circles in America, but in fact, they pretty much are only found in New England, so those of us from the rest of the country don't have a word for them, and when we encounter them for the first time in the UK, then we call them roundabouts because that's what our British hosts call them. Likewise, if I were staying in one of these houses, I'd probably call the outside area the garden, simply because that's what my British hosts would call it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)\
I would call them 'lawns' too, but lawns in 'front gardens' or 'back gardens'. I am still not clear on whether or not 'front garden' and 'back garden' ought to be given label the 'UK'. I wonder whether the 'UK' definition of 'front yard' which I added ought to be deleted as well; in reality when is a yard (enclosed paved area) ever at the front of a house? Perhaps my definition is really an account of how someone from England would imagine a 'front yard' if we didn't realise that it is synonymous with 'front garden', rather than being a term that is used ever in the UK. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the American definition of a garden is more rigorous than the UK one; any lawn or even a few square metres of paving with some nice potted plants could be called a 'garden' in the UK. Perhaps there is some relation to the tradition of having a garden and that it is seen as a bit of a failure here to just have a lawn and no plants. Also, I like the house in Highgate quite a lot, I only need an extra £2,749,990. Kaixinguo (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For me (southern California), it's a front yard with a garden in it. I would call any open space adjacent to a house a yard, whether it's got plants, concrete or bare dirt in it. If you mention a yard to me, I'll visualize a lawn with plantings around it, but none of those is necessary for it to be a yard. As for "front garden", I've never referred to anything that way, even if there's nothing but plants in front of the house. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That's my usage as well. (I grew up in New York.) JulieKahan (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


"A vessel in which articles are subjected to the action of steam, as in washing, and in various processes of manufacture."

I was thinking of broadening this to include a hand-held steamer. Here's a link to one on sale at John Lewis (just the first good picture I found). I'm not sure if it justifies and additional sense because it does the same job using steam, just it isn't a vessel. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A possible cheat is to add one or more "or"s to the definition (as "or device" after "vessel"), rather than a whole new definition. If some languages make a distinction an energetic contributor could subsequently split the senses. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

full speed aheadEdit

Given as a noun, says it can be used as an adjective and an adverb. However, the quote looks like an interjection. Bit of a confusion for the humble reader. --Type56op9 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So add usage examples. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

how muchEdit

Adverb? --Type56op9 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

much is defined as an adverb, so I'd say that requires that this be an adverb too. —CodeCat 10:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is always a determiner, with the use under Adverb being an instance of a fused-head use. This would be in accord with CGEL (2002), I think. It functions as a nominal in the usage example and can even be the object of a preposition ("You're selling that for how much?"). But I would not want to call it a noun or pronoun. The OneLook references (us, Oxford, UD) provide no help on word class.
I don't know how normal users interpret and get value from either of PoS headers, but we have chosen to add Determiner to the more traditional ones. I think it conveys more information to those who understand it than Adverb does in this case. Perhaps a usage note on fused heads would help some users a little, without harming too many others (because they probably would find it easier to ignore a usage note). DCDuring TALK 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:en:Sports abbreviationsEdit

Could this be a viable category? Purplebackpack89 00:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather name it Category:English sports abbreviations. —CodeCat 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But...could it work as a category or not? Purplebackpack89 00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dún Laoghaire Pronunciation.Edit

The entry for Dún Laoghaire recently had pronunciation added. I don't understand IPA, but noticed there is only one pronunciation given. The usual is "Dun" rhyming with "bun", but I've also heard it said as "doon". Is this a regional variation?--Dmol (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's actually the Irish pronunciation. In English in my experience it's pronounced as if spelled "dun leary" /dʊnˈlɪːɹi/. —CodeCat 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't know the answer to your question, but I have to say that that's Irish pronunciation not English. The pronunciation it gives would sound a bit like "Doon Leera" (with a dark L and a tapped R). I've always pronounced it "Dun Leary" (/dʌn 'lɪəri/), but that's definitely my ignorant Sasanach pronunciation. I don't know what actual English-speaking Dubliners call it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
When I was in Dublin, I heard the local English speakers pronounce the first word to rhyme with bun and the second word to rhyme with dearie, which is what CodeCat and Smurrayinchester both said. The Irish (Gaelic) pronunciation of the second word depends on the speaker's dialect: in Munster it's /l̪ˠeːɾʲə/; in Connacht and Ulster /l̪ˠiːɾʲə/. The first word is /d̪ˠuːnˠ/ in all dialects. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


Goes in circles through derivatives, but is never defined. Something I distain. --Dcshank (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Would it be possible to add a new label Muses to topic cat? --Fsojic (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Citations:lean intoEdit

The term lean in/lean-in seems to be gaining some traction in a non-SoP, figurative sense. I think it means "to put oneself into (an extended effort)". It is now the title of a book by Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, who first publicly used the term as shown below.

  • 2011, Sheryl Sandberg, Forrestal Lecture at the United States Naval Academy.
    We need to find a way for women to not drop out, but to lean in to their careers and give them the flexibility they need to stay in the workforce.

I have not yet found much independent use of the term (Books, Groups, News) and lean in at OneLook Dictionary Search shows no reference defining it in this sense. It's hard to find web use of it. Does anyone have any intuition one way or the other about this? DCDuring TALK 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

lean into is definitely better, though lean into at OneLook Dictionary Search doesn't have this sense, only an Irish slang sense. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Can someone who knows the nitty-gritty of German grammar take a look at this diff. Obviously marking an entry "Ambiguous part of speech" is a bad idea, but is the IP correct that this is more of a pronoun than an adjective adverb (in sense 1, at least)? Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The senses needed to be split; that probably caused or encouraged the IP's edit. I have split them. When the word means "personally, by one's self / by oneself", de.Wikt labels it a demonstrative pronoun; DWDS also labels it a pronoun. When it means "even", de.Wikt labels it an adverb and a particle; DWDS labels it an adverb. The Duden labels it a particle in both meanings. "Particle" seems to be our catch-all for things which don't unambiguously belong to another part of speech, so we could use "particle" for one or both headers, if there were disagreement about using more specific headers. - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
When meaning "personally, by oneself", it seems to be an adverb as well. At least, it occupies the same syntactical position that an adverb would. The same for Dutch zelf as well. —CodeCat 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


ive, wasnt, theyre, etc. etc. as "nonstandard alternatives" for I've, wasn't, they're... Are these useful entries in any way? Equinox 19:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not very, but citations and distribution of alternatives might be useful for the study of such non-standard orthography. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)



Would somebody have an idea when the first occurrences of these words go back to? I've the feeling that they can't be that old. --Fsojic (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

According to “nonsense” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).: "1610s, from non- + sense; perhaps influenced by French nonsens." Same source has nonsensical around 1650. I suspect ultimate source is OED. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Relationship between and etymologies of English gog, agog, goggleEdit

I encountered the word agog recently for the first time in a while, and I got to wondering about it. I hypothesized that this term is a- (adjectivizing prefix indicating state, as in afire or awake) + gog (to bug one's eyes out, meaning inferred by me, not listed in our entry). By extension, goggle would be gog + -le (verbal suffix indicating frequent or continuous action, as in crackcrackle).

Upon looking up the terms here, though, I find conflicting and apparently incomplete etymologies (which I omit here; please see the entries themselves), pointing variously to French, Italian, Welsh, and Irish. I cannot trace any of these further back, however, as all are dead ends (French gogues, Welsh gogi, and Irish gog do not exist, and there's no etym at Italian agognare).

Does anyone have any more detail that could be added to our entries? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

One promising possibility is goggle-eyed in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 which has a Middle English source for that term. The same page may be the source for gog and goggle etymologies given. The Middle English is confirmed in the apparently exhaustive multivolume Middle English Dictionary here. The ATILF entry for gogues doesn't seem to me to support gogues being from Old French. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


There are three question marks in this article, where (I guess) an editor doubts the veracity of the meaning. --Type56op9 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

back to natureEdit

An adjective? --Type56op9 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My first thought would be adverb. But that question is best settled by citations. Keφr 09:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of Google Books citations for "the back to nature", but usually with hyphens and often within quotes ('the back-to-nature movement', 'the "back-to-nature" women). Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphsEdit

Wikihiero has too little hieroglyphs (less than A100 in JSesh is A500), am I allowed to post images of Ancient Egyptian words.Can someone import hieroglyphs from JSesh to Wikihiero, Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by Xand2 (talkcontribs) at 16:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

We have no control over this. You should ask at mw:. Or at bugzilla:. (Sorry, phabricator:. Another over-hyped and confusing piece of software WMF introduced for no reason.)
Speaking of hieroglyphs, given that they have been included in Unicode since at least version 5.2, why are we not using Unicode hieroglyphs? Keφr 08:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikihiero allows much more complex composition than you can do with Unicode. Kaldari (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
-1 for going with Unicode! 1) there are many hiero variants for one word and so putting the definition under the transliterated title makes more sense; 2) can't get arrangement; 3) can't enter them with Manuel de Codage syntax; 4) they are thin and tiny and I can't see how anyone can read them. Hyarmendacil (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

euforia, euforíaEdit

Are these synonyms? Alternative forms? Cognates? —CodeCat 02:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Two extraneous facts are relevant here:
  1. The authoritative DRAE doesn't recognize euforía.
  2. The euforía entry was contributed by Luciferwildcat.
That's not to say euforía doesn't exist- it gets 99 hits on Google Books- but euforia gets 477,000 hits. I would call it either an alternative form or a misspelling, but I don't know Spanish well enough to say which. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I went through the GB hits and wrote down the author’s location:
  • Alicante: 1
  • Argentina: 8
  • Bolivia: 2
  • Chile: 1
  • Colombia: 1
  • Cuba: 1
  • Ecuador: 2
  • Germany: 1
  • Granada: 2
  • Madrid: 3
  • Peru: 1
  • Seville: 2
  • Spain (other): 2
  • Uruguay: 2
  • Venezuela: 2
  •  ?: 6
A clear case for the labels rare and chiefly South America. Nonstandard may also be necessary, as one of the authors placed a sic after the word, another surrounded it with quotation marks and one hit was an etymological work mentioning that people only use academia and euforia but not academía and euforía. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Two vulgar termsEdit

I have difficulty believing that cunt lips written as two words refers to the labia majora, while cuntlips written together refers to the labia minora, but I have no inclination whatsoever to research these two terms on Google Books. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think either term is that specific in intent. bd2412 T 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


According to De Vaan 2008, in early texts there is a distinction between lavere (transitive, to wash something) and lavāre (intransitive, to wash oneself). The former is contained in compounds ending in -luere. Is this an Old Latin distinction (which we now treat as a separate language) or was this carried on into Classical Latin? —CodeCat 17:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Enucleate: additional definition: "explain"?Edit gives an additional definition of "enucleate" (and quotes sources for it): [archaic] to explain, elucidate or clarify. This definition also appears to be applied by a crossword on which I am working, which uses Chambers as its authority. Should this additional definition be added to the entry for "enucleate"? It's not clear to me how this definition relates to the others already given, other than, perhaps, in the sense of extracting (i.e. finding) the hub or nub of something.

Confirmed that Chambers has this sense. We should probably try to cite it for ourselves. Equinox 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

public transport and mass transitEdit

Is there any difference between public transport and mass transit? If not, I think we should add a "trans-see" to mass transit. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that mass transit only seems to apply to local transport within cities, which makes it slightly narrower than public transport. I've never heard Amtrak or Greyhound buses referred to as "mass transit" (see, eg, this cite), but their British equivalents (long-distance train companies like Virgin, and National Express) are very commonly referred to as public transport. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Both terms have only been in wide use in the second half of the 20th century. Mass transit, public transit, and indeed the associated sense of transit seem to be principally US terms.
I think there are negative social-class/status associations derived from the words mass and public, but that it is stronger with mass. For example, I think mass transit in NYC tends not to be used often to refer to commuter railroads, which serve a generally more affluent ridership, though they do not radically differ from subways. (Cost and crowding differ predictably.) As both terms are very colloquial, usage is probably sensitive to the tendency to avoid referring to class distinctions needlessly. In the US (COCA), public transit is nearly three times as frequent as mass transit. Public transit does not appear at all in BNC.
So, I think the desirability of not using {{trans-see}} depends on whether we have good enough usage notes and labels to allow translators the opportunity to capture connotative distinctions. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Comparing all six combinations of mass/public and transit/transport/transportation shows that public transport overwhelms all others combined 45 to 1 in the UK. (Most use of mass transport in both the UK and the US is in scientific and technical literature in a completely different sense.) In the US the terms used are public transportation (43%), mass transit (32%), public transit (16%), public transport (6%), and mass transportation (3%). I am not sure I can tease out all the differences or account for relative frequency. I'd be inclined to say that transit is used distinctively in the US, that public transport merits an entry for whatever its UK meaning us, and that there is no corresponding lexical term in the US. But apparently Wiktionary contributors abhor vacuums. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

spelling hepful/hepfullEdit

I find the differences between American and English spelling confusing; looking up the word "helpful(l?"), I find that the spelling "helpfull" to be an archaic form. Does that mean it is no longer English English? How about all the countless other words ending in -ll or -l? Any answers appreciated to help clear up this matter for once and for all for me. —This unsigned comment was added by Finnjim62 (talkcontribs) at 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

Helpfull has been much less common than helpful at least since 1700. The one-'L' spelling of words compounded from full seems to apply to all such words that are in common use, careful. See Category:English words suffixed with -ful. Unfortunately nobody has created a comparable category for English words ending in full, but looking at a few cases should confirm that double-'L' spellings are archaic and would be considered non-standard, though they would be understood. DCDuring TALK 16:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're getting mixed up with verb forms like traveling (US) vs. travelling (UK). In the case of the -ful suffix, it's spelled the same in both regions. Equinox 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, travelling, traveller, cancelling, canceller etc. is used in New England as well. Encarta makes note of such too. If I could find anything aside from Encarta supporting what I already know about that, I would have it added to Wikitionary, but wellawoe, I cannot at the moment. Tharthan (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

higher than a kiteEdit

I was gonna make this as a comparative form of high as a kite. What do you reckon? Maybe an alternative form? --Type56op9 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative form indeed, comparisons do not grade (because what would be the superlative?). If this is attested, at least. Keφr 14:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
the highest kite in the world? --Type56op9 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

head coveringEdit

This entry needs a better definition. Does "head covering" refer to anything which covers the head, from a motorcyclist's helmet to a Jewish kippah, or is the meaning more limited? A Google search for pictures of "head covering" would seem to indicate that the term chiefly refers to some sort of scarf or other textile worn by women to cover their hair. Then, on the other hand, we define "hat" as "covering for the head, often in the approximate form of a cone or a cylinder closed at its top end" and "helmet" as "protective head covering". Why is headgear not mentioned as synonym? Confusing, to say the least. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is not merely an SoP term, then it must be defined better. I have heard it used as you say to refer to "scarf or other textile worn by women to cover their hair", usually in a place where custom requires that a woman not be bare-headed, such as places of worship in certain religions, where usually men are supposed to doff their hats. It seems to be explicitly intended to allow wide latitude in how one conforms to the stricture against female bare-headedness. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
For religious use, see Christian headcovering. -- 14:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

tried to enter a new entry for shabka but marked as spam?Edit


I tried to create a new entry but it got marked as spam. Seems it was something to do with <ref> </ref> although that seemed fine.

The entry was for shabka and is below - any help appreciated.

Sarasincom (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several fatal problems here: first of all, the spelling shabka is only for the English word (note that I used lowercase)- the stuff about Arabic usage would go at the spelling in Arabic script. After searching Google Books a bit, it looks to me like only your second section applies to English. I went ahead and created an entry based on it. Secondly, we don't use references like Wikipedia does- all of your inline citations and links are unnecessary. Third, this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia- you're supposed to define things, not explain them. If you take more than one or two lines per definition, you're doing something wrong. Another problem is that we don't have Wikipedia's {{reflist}} template- our version is for a completely different purpose.
To sum it up: you were trying to create a Wikipedia encyclopedia article instead of a Wiktionary dictionary entry, and you were trying to cover both Arabic and English in one place. If I had seen your version as a new entry, I probably would have deleted it as "No usable content given", since it would have taken more work to figure out which part of your lengthy dissertation could be converted to a definition of an English word than it would to just delete it and start over from scratch. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Shabka is the common and widely accepted English transliteration of an Arabic word  شبكة that translates as net, web, network or ring.  While the precise origins of the word Shabka are not easily pinpointed, indications are that it came from the area of Egypt/Sahara.  Usage varies across the Middle East and North Africa, but all meanings stem from a common root: net, web, ring.  It is used, for example, to denote netting embroidery in North Africa and the Gulf; communications networks, human and electronic; and engagement rings across the Middle East in general, the net association being related to traditional designs of these rings that included a section of netting.  
#:''steep ravines running in all directions which give it the typical aspect which the Saharans call '''shabka''' (net)''
#*'''1938''', E.J. Brill, ''E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936'', Luzac & Co Netherlands

These are the most common uses of shabka
*1 In the Sahara and North Africa it is used to describe a complex network of overground and underground ravines and waterways.<ref>[ E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936]</ref>.<ref>[ International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Volume 4]</ref>
*2 Across much of the Middle East at large it is used to describe the ‘intertwining/tying’<ref>[ Population Reference Bureau]</ref> of a couple together through an engagement ring that was traditionally a ring with a golden net <ref>[ Egypte Mond Arabe]</ref>.  This is a highly contentious issue in many places as this ‘engagement ring’ is prohibitively expensive for many people.<ref>[ Al-Ahram]</ref>
*3 In Sumero-Babylonian mythology it is attached to the Annunaki to mean a spatial web or net of everything past, present and future and multiple dimensions.<ref>[ De Lafayette Mega Encyclopedia of Anunnaki, Ulema-Anunnaki, Volume 2]</ref>
*4 In the Arabian Gulf it is used to describe a headdress that is literally a ‘net’ such as this at the British Museum<ref>[ The British Museum]</ref> and as described in the Oman and Zanzibar Virtual Museum.<ref>[ Oman and Zanzibar Virtual Museum]</ref>
*5 It is used by groups to describe networks of people and organisations such as [] and [ Arab Network for NGO's].

*6 It is a new Arabic TLD domain name شبكة which was approved by ICANN <ref>[ ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)]</ref> in March 2013.

*7 It is used to describe the network mesh found in mosques such as Hassan Mosque in Morocco<ref>[ Rough Guides]</ref> and Mosque at Qayrawan in Tunisia <ref>[ A Global History of Architecture]</ref>
*8 It is a family name used in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon as well as a company name used by some businesses across the Middle East that are involved in either telecoms/electronics or networking.



host countryEdit

I'm not satisfied with the senses I've described here. Any suggestions? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete it, IMO. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You forgot "country that harbors parasites". But in all seriousness, I think the definitions you added are all SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Feels SoP to me too. They are all countries that are hosting something; you could equally say "host nation" for any of them, so this isn't even a specific set phrase. Equinox 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm honestly not entirely sure that we have all the required senses covered at host.
Also, it may be that there are definitions of host nation in national or international law that are thereby idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 03:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I also feel that there is nothing idiomatic here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Host" is ambiguous, and because not all of the definitions of "host" can be used with country. Purplebackpack89 03:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, it's "brown leaf" again, "leaf" can be a book page... like hitting my head against a brick wall though. Equinox 12:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that you comparing things to brown leaf has brought me around to the position that having brown leaf isn't that bad of an idea, right? That's on you. When I started here, I might have agreed with you that it was fine for brown leaf to be a redlink. Now, your continual slippery-slope arguments (if we have this, we have to have brown leaf or whatever) have brought me around to the position that having brown leaf would do nobody any harm whatsoever. I see no practical purpose for SOP. It's not like GNG on Wikipedia, which makes sense: articles should be sourced. It's just an arbitrary cut-off that seeks to arbitrarily limit the number of entries we have. Purplebackpack89 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."- Emerson... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way: the "brown leaf" thing isn't a slippery-slope argument- it's reductio ad absurdem. It doesn't matter whether all of those entries are actually created: the point is that applying your reasoning to perfectly normal cases produces nonsense. Likewise, "four score and seven years ago" is a set phrase, it's of great political and cultural importance (in the US, anyway), people nowadays are likely to want to know what it means, and score is quite ambiguous (did I miss any of the usual arguments?), but it would be a complete waste of space as a dictionary entry. There's nothing in it that you can't find by looking up its component words and using a little common sense.
I think the central issue in all of these deletion debates is that, as a wikipedian, your instincts are based on notability: if the concept is significant or important, then the term for it deserves a dictionary entry. We don't have a notability requirement- we have SOP and the like. There's nothing wrong with wikipedian principles- they were arrived at by the Wikipedia community for the purposes of developing an encyclopedia, and are very good for that. Our CFI were arrived at by the Wiktionary community for the purposes of building a dictionary, and- in spite of need for adjustment here and there- are very good for that. I have no intention of going to Wikipedia and challenging the notability requirement- that would be dumb. Why are you coming here and challenging SOP? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Chuck, there are a lot of things that I disagree with in your previous comments, some of which are just plain wrong:
  1. "Waste of space". We're not paper. We've got space to waste!
  2. "Why am I coming here and challenging SOP?" It's not like I went here and the very first thing I did was vote keep, and the second thing I did was have a BP or TR thread about abolishing SOP. But the reason I'm challenging it is because I don't believe it makes intuitive sense the way GNG does. GNG solves the problem Wikipedia had: that there were a lot of low-quality unsourced articles. Wiktionary's problem, as I see it, is that it's lacking in entries other online dictionaries have, meaning that people who want those entries will never use Wiktionary.
  3. "I have no intention of going to Wikipedia and challenging the notability requirement." OK. You could if you wanted to, though, that's the thing. The way wikis work is that nothing is completely set in stone, and if you don't like a policy, it's OK to express displeasure with it. There are many Wikipedia editors who consistently vote against GNG, and yet have a 0% of being blocked or having their editing privileges taken away. Why? Because voting isn't disruptive. Disruption would be creating or re-creating loads of junk entries. But I haven't done that.
Just because I disapprove of SOP (and, to this day, that is your primary complaint about me) is not a reason to block me, sanction me, or agonize me in hopes I leave. Purplebackpack89 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If you want to have a policy discussion, take it to WT:BP. See w:WP:VOTE for what others in Wikimedia community think about votes and discussion, policies, guidelines, and practice. The principal purpose of policy for this page is to eliminate such fact- and argument-free, repetitious, boring blather as yours on whatever inclusion/exclusion decisions tickle your fancy. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that there's a vote going on right now about whether or not to allow what you call "blather" in RfD discussions, and right now, the people who want to eliminate blather are losing, right? But don't worry, DC, your Christmas present will be a VOTE on demoting CFI to guideline in lieu of coal. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
What is this "demoting to guideline" that you speak of constantly? Keφr 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir:: I've explained this to you once, but if you missed it, here it is again: policies and guidelines are two different things. Policies generally cover all or almost all the project, guidelines need not. Policies have to be followed 100% of the time; guidelines can be disregarded for a specific case. Wiktionary doesn't seem to make a differentiation between policies and guidelines, but it should. While the intent of the original crafters of CFI may have been for it to be a guideline, it's been held of late that CFI is policy. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me see. In 2005, User:Jun-Dai added WT:CFI to Category:Policy - Wiktionary Semi-Official. In 2006, User:Richardb changed it to a {{Policy-SO}} tag, which back then looked like this. In 2007, User:Connel MacKenzie redirected {{Policy-SO}} to {{policy}}, which looked like this back then. I see no record of anyone objecting to these changes. I think the intent of early drafters (and not-so-early drafters) is clear: even though they acknowledged that WT:CFI might be an incomplete rough draft, they wanted it to eventually become a binding document. But of course why bother researching facts… Keφr 21:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kephir: Note I said "may". It's becoming increasingly clear that many editors, perhaps a majority, disagree with CFI at least in part. We seem to be having a vote right now on the bindingness of CFI. If that fails, some people believe that CFI will essentially be reduced to a guideline. Why not make it official? Purplebackpack89 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the content CFI and disagreeing with the concept of CFI. I think you are the only one who disagrees with the concept. --WikiTiki89 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Only if "dropping SOP and demoting it to a guideline" can be defined as "the concept". Purplebackpack89 00:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After e/c... @Purplebackpack89: It is worth noting (and I hope you do note) that your actions here are causing a tremendous amount of disruption. From where I sit, it looks a lot like you're trying to overturn any and all barriers to term inclusion. Most editors here (who participate in forum discussions, anyway) appear to disagree with your actions, myself as well to some extent.
This disruption, and your failure so far to present cogent and convincing arguments in favor of your positions, has earned you much displeasure from the rest of the Wiktionary community. I think it's important for your ongoing participation here that you be aware of this.
As you note, some other editors might take similar actions to your own, yet are not censured. I hope your question of "why" is rhetorical, and that you actually do understand that you make something of a spectacle yourself. One cannot be a lightning rod for controversy and then be justified in wondering at all the attention.
My own suggestion to you is to be clear and explicit in stating your case, and ground your argument in objective facts, not just your opinion about how things should be. As exemplified over at WT:Requests for deletion#fringe group, or indeed in this very thread, you sometimes fail to state your case in a way that others can understand very well. An argument that isn't understood by the other party is little more than squabbling. And it is difficult to respect someone else's argument, even if one doesn't agree with it, when that argument can't be understood. For my part, I would have an easier time respecting your views as an editor if you could explain them better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting in RfDs isn't disruptive. If people don't like the way I vote, dammit, that's just too bad! I'm entitled to my opinions, and I'm entitled to express them from time to time. Half of the disruption is caused by people trying to shout me down anyways. If they just let me have my vote and not act like it's the end of the world that something's kept, there wouldn't be any disruption. By the way, the "other people" I'm referring to are on Wikipedia, not on Wiktionary. In the last 48 hours, I've laid out to you (all of you) my fundamental theorem of how I think Wiktionary should work (to review, it's the general idea that Wiktionary will fail as a project used by readers if it is not more expansionist and easier to edit). Once you understand that, it should be clear. Purplebackpack89 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"I've laid out to you (all of you) my fundamental theorem ..." — well, where is it? Would you mind showing me a proof in, say, ZFC? I am also fine with assuming V=L. Keφr 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ping it to in a thread, or tag you in a thread on Eirikr's page. Purplebackpack89 21:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have looked at it. This is not a theorem, nor even a sketch of a proof of one. It does not bother to lay out the axioms, nor even establish the most rudimentary formalism. Just a bunch of subjective assertions not backed by anything connected to the real world. It would not stand five seconds of peer review. In fact, I doubt arXiv would accept this, never mind a serious journal. Keφr 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

社会 and 社會Edit

Calling Japanese editors: you may wish to make it clear in these entries what the difference is between these two. In Chinese they are just simplified and traditional forms, but in Japanese they may signify different things. Either way, it should be explained. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I've stubbified the 社會#Japanese entry. There's no real difference in meaning between the two, one is just the pre-reform spelling of the other.
The 社会#Japanese entry needs expansion (missing etym, pronunciation, etc), but it looks fine for now as a basic JA entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I'm surprised you didn't know about kyūjitai (旧字体) and shinjitai (新字体). The entries say so. Unlike Chinese, it's more common to use Japanese terminology in reference to Japanese. @Eirikr: thanks for the change but I think the template itself should make it clearer that kyūjitai is not a lemma anymore. There are too many pre-reform entries. I also suggest linking to kyūjitai and shinjitai in the header. User:Wyang suggests stubbifying simplified Chinese entries, see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/December#New_changes_to_Chinese_entries, perhaps Japanese kyūjitai should also be stubbified (although the suggested lemma is the opposite of Japanese)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I absolutely support linking the terms through and clarifying that kyūjitai spellings are not the lemmata anymore. I'm not sure of the best changes to the infrastructure to make this work, and I don't have the time right now to really dive in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You agree in principle, so that's OK. Not asking you to make changes immediately. Another thing, I think kyūjitai should be categorised to make it easier to address them, not sure about shinjitai. I sometimes hesitate making kyūjitai entries (even I think they are necessary) because I'm not happy with the current format either. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


The English Wikipedia article w:Pancake has this as its Latin counterpart. Is this a real word used in by the Romans or is it a modern neologism? More to the point, is it includable? —CodeCat 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a Classical Latin word [4], though it isn't clear to what extent it corresponds to the modern pancake. Apparently a glossary equates it with Ancient Greek τηγανίτης (tēganítēs), which is translated "pancake" because it's derived from τήγανον (tḗganon), a variant of τάγηνον (tágēnon, frying pan). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Lewis and Short define it as "a kind of pastry" and give it as a diminutive of lucuns (same definition). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-manyEdit

I was going to create entries for the latter three terms based on the definitions given at the first one, but then I realized that those definitions suck. I'm not good at writing these kinds of definitions, so can someone fix them and possibly create the other terms? --WikiTiki89 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely flatter some dictionary that has a definition. DCDuring TALK 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Such flattery can cause copyright problems. --WikiTiki89 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)--WikiTiki89 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Compare a few definitions. We stand on the shoulders of giants. DCDuring TALK 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
OED explains one-to-many as being a synonym of one-many. The quotations in both entries (one-to-many and one-many) relate to relations or correspondences rather than to the more specialised multivalued functions. There are more quotations for one-many than for one-to-many. JoergenB (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe when those OED entries were written, one-many was more common, but look at this Ngram. --WikiTiki89 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
See one-many at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89:. Please take a look at one-to-many. It is not a copyvio. Looking at other definitions I thought I couldn't do too much worse on my own. Please improve it, especially by shortening it. Also, what is the relationship to surjection/injection? DCDuring TALK 23:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, IMO. ("The second set" actually may or may not coincide with "the first set"; whence formally "the second elements" or "the right elements" (as contrasted to the "first" or "left" elements) might be better than "the elements in the second set"; but in this case probably such formalism would make the concept "one-to-many relation" harder to understand. I also doubt it could be made much shorter without making it harder to understand; and I like Wikitiki89's illustration.
However, I suspect that the increase in usage of one-to-many that Wikitiki89 documented is more related to one-to-many functions; and these may be defined by means of the concept "multivalued function". If I am right, the relation definition you two wrote and illustrated might be shifted to many-one. I'll write a suggestion for a function definition in the present item, but not move the other stuff without hearing your opinions.
Nota bene: Some (but not all) mathematicians prefer to define functions as special cases of relations. Even so, "one-to-many relations" should encompass more than "one-to-many functions", since for the function, each "first element" is demanded to relate to at least one "second element". I do not think that most authors would demand this of an arbitrary "one-many relation".
As for injectivity and surjectivity: Injective functions are often called one-one or one-to-one. This can be slightly confusing; some authors distingguish injections from bijections by calling the latter "one-one correspondences". On the other hand, if you like to define functions as a kind of relations, you may wish to note that these special relations are many-one or many-to-one. JoergenB (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I intentionally focused on the discrete-set case because I could see my way clear to definitions that might be both valid and intelligible. I could not see the point of explicitly including the case of the two sets being the same, though such cases are often encountered (the set of people; relations such as sibling-of, parent-of, legally-married-to). We could add a clause to make that possibility explicit, though every additional clause makes the definition harder for 'normal' users of the entry to grasp. I could imagine doing definitions for projective geometry cases (except for many-to-many). More general definitions are beyond my pay grade. I also doubt they will be missed.
We can have more than one mathematical/logical/database definition at the same entry. If the "to"-less synonyms are significantly more commonly used than the "to" versions with one definition rather than another, we could split the definitions between the entries.
I wonder whether the definitions are any clearer than the term itself. We need some usage examples and links to any WP articles (or sections thereof). Feel free to make new entries, new definitions, and whatever changes to existing content you think are appropriate, bearing in mind that some of the definitions should be comprehensible by normal users and all definitions should be in accord with WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

allotroph vz. allotropeEdit

Both in en-wp and here, there has been some confusion about these (potential) two words. At the bottom lies a confusion of words with -troph- (ultimaterly referring to nourishment) and -trop- (ultimately referring to turning, and hence to (alternative) forms); probably due to a confusion of -ph- representing the Greek letter φ. and -p- representing π. I'll write a comment on this in talk:allotroph; but there may be more confusion of "the φ words" and "the π words" going around. JoergenB (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

that usage noteEdit

Can someone rewrite the usage note for that to make it easier to comprehend. Right now the second bullet reads:

Historically, "that" usually followed a comma: "He told me, that it is a good read." As for example, Joseph Robertson, among most Middle Modern English grammarians, in On Punctuation, recommended comma usage with a conjunction. However, if the subordinate, conjunctional ellipse, null complementization, or syntactic pleonasm of "that" is punctuated with a comma, then, in the English grammar, stylistically speaking, it is a comma splice, especially in formal writing. Instead, a semicolon ought to be used to avoid ungrammaticality: He told me; it is a good read.

What the hell is "null complementization"? Also, is there such a thing as "Middle Modern English"? Cheers! bd2412 T 02:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think "null complementization" is something like "I wish ∅ he would leave". We could have "that" where ∅ appears, but if there's nothing there, it's null. Equinox 03:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
There must be a way to write this thing up so that it is easier to understand. The sentences are also excessively clause-y. bd2412 T 03:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Even after a perfect rewrite, how important is the historical point? Just bury it and the third usage note under {{rel-top|historical and technical notes}}. DCDuring TALK 03:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


Did Aristotle Make Pathos, or was it there before him?

Aristotle didn't make up words. --WikiTiki89 05:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Aristotle definitely didn't coin any words? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

medical cannabis and medical marijuanaEdit

There is a Wikipedia article on this; would it be considered idiomatic to warrant an entry on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. medical (pertaining to the practice of medicine) +‎ marijuana is quite straightforward. I have not considered making it a translation target, however. Keφr 08:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But surely "medical" in medical cannabis/marijuana means something more like "having a therapeutic effect"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
More like medicinal, then. I can see "medical alcohol" in Google Books but it's much less common than "medicinal alcohol". Equinox 16:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Well, I've added the extra sense now anyway. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Our entry lists no reflexive meanings, s'attendre is an orangelink, while conjugation table lists the auxilary verb as avoir. However, other dictionaries seem to contain a separate definition for s'attendre, for which the auxilary is apparently être. Could anyone look at this? Keφr 08:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The auxiliary verb in the perfect sense is always être for reflexive verbs, whether the object is direct or indirect. So je me suis frappé (I have hit myself) and je me suis donné (I have given to myself). The reason is that reflexive forms get listed under the non-reflexive page names. So the correct page name is attendre but the context label should say {{context|reflexive|s'attendre à|lang=fr}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
But of course Guernsiais doesn't have to follow the rules for French. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Siver Grey, an entry of WiktionaryEdit

Why nothing is mentionned regarding the Siver Greys, a fraction of the US Whig party, aroiund 1850 ?

Do you mean silver-grey? Not even Wikipedia has an article on the group called Silver Grays (with an "a" since they were American), though they're mentioned briefly at w:United States Senate election in New York, 1851 and w:Francis Granger. It sounds like the sort of thing better discussed in an encyclopedia than a dictionary anyway. If you have sources about the Silver Grays from U.S. history, you can go to Wikipedia, register an account, and start an article about them. Alternatively, if you don't want to register an account, you can go to w:Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/History, and ask someone there to start the article for you (be sure to list your sources, though). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
And check your spelling (faction, not "fraction") as well as your typing and grammar ("Why is nothing mentioned... Silver...around). --Thnidu (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically, any faction of a political party will represent some fraction of that party. Obviously not what the poster intended, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. bd2412 T
Indeed, the German word for faction is Fraktion, which threw me off the first time I encountered it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


"To nullify a spell or magic enchantment." I fail to see the distinction between this and "To free someone from illusion, false belief or enchantment; to undeceive or disillusion.", unless the distinction is transitive/intransitive, e.g. "I am disenchanting" (I am nullifying a spell). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Usage as in “Artifacts can be disenchanted, just like any other item” match the second definition, but not the first. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The first definition appears to be talking about enchantment in the physical sense, not the magical sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have edited the definitions to make clear the type of object, reworded them as for transitive verbs, and added a sense "To disappoint", which sometimes seems closer to the way the term is used. Is the sense is question used that way outside of fantasy, gaming, and magic, eg, in children's stories? DCDuring TALK 03:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

sustainable developmentEdit

Anyone else think the definition given here could use some cleaning up? Especially the second sentence, which seems quite informal. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

positive senseEdit

Doesn't look like an adjective. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an adjective (as in "positive-sense RNA"/"the RNA was positive-sense"), but it's more normally written with a hyphen. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


I added a second meaning to zetetics, "A branch of algebra which relates to the direct search for unknown quantities", and put the source in the edit note:

I also added a cross-reference from zetetic to zetetics. --Thnidu (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Surprised we don't have an entry for this. In Chinese it is known as 床板 or 铺板. Or could it be that "bedboard" is Chinglish / not idiomatic English? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never encountered the word. Are we talking about a board underneath the mattress, or a vertical board at one of the ends? The latter would be either the headboard or the footboard. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've never encountered it either. Here it seems to be a board underneath the mattress, while here it appears to be the headboard. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm being bold and creating both definitions Angr found. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


"the Styx" seems to be an alternative to "the sticks" (see e.g. google books:"out in the Styx"). What should we have this as? Alternative spelling? Misspelling? Separate entry? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We could consider this covered by homophone entries under Pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's an eggcorn. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we include attested eggcorns? The one-word ones should be homophones, at least in some dialects. Multi-word mondegreens seem different to me as there typically no lexical entry for the collocation that is misinterpreted. They are less likely to be attestable, I think, but may be more entry-worthy when they are. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

know someone in the biblical senseEdit

Is the entire phrase necessary here? I see results for "lay with" someone "in the biblical sense" "meet" someone "in the biblical sense", etc. I also see phrases using "a biblical sense" rather than "the biblical sense". I think "biblical sense", as an adverb basically meaning "sexually", is the productive portion of the phrase. bd2412 T 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This was all discussed at its RFD a while ago (see Talk:know someone in the biblical sense). "know someone in the biblical sense" is the original phrase, from which in the biblical sense/biblically was derived - it's the origin of the phrase in the WT:JIFFY sense. It's also unique in that "know" actually does mean something different in the Bible, whereas "meet" doesn't (AFAIK), and "meet in the biblical sense" just highlights the innuendo in a nudge nudge wink wink/as the actress said to the bishop way. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I had forgotten the earlier discussion! I guess the issue stuck in my head. bd2412 T 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

works vs. the worksEdit

I was editing an entry and discovered that the works was a redlink. works, however, has two definitions (4 & 5) that always take the form "the works". At present, I've redirected "the works" to works, but is this the solution we want long-term? Do we eventually want to move definitions 4 & 5 of "works" to "the works"? Do we want definitions 4 & 5 at both "works" and "the works"? Purplebackpack89 06:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any consistency about things like this. I can't currently think of any examples, but I've seen it both ways. Theoretically, the works would be the correct place for it, but people seeing this are likely to just look up works or even work. A comparable issue is how we handle reflexives in French: compare se souvenir (which has its own page) and se rappeler (which is a redirect). --WikiTiki89 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We certainly want the definition to appear at works, possibly also at work with a definition line link to works. IMO hard redirects from the term with the should be applied in virtually all such cases. They could even direct the user to first of the specific senses involved using {{senseid}}.
I think that covers the needs of normal users better than alternative that split the definitions among the three entries, whatever the possible theoretical deficiencies. If we wanted to have a style guide, I'd think we could agree on documenting that approach, though perhaps not. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually with you that we should avoid splitting definitions among multiple entries, but (I guess to play devil's advocate a bit) what about the man? --WikiTiki89 14:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. It's worth testing the adequacy of such a presentation.
First, our determining whether every sense at [[the man]] is in fact more than the + man is made harder by splitting the senses. (Are the second and third definitions in fact anything other than the + man?) If there are multiple definitions "(with the)", that common beginning-of-the-line label should help users compare the possibilities, even if they are not listed consecutively. Second, a hard redirect using {{senseid}} would address the problem of searching for the sense at [[man]] for the normal user who types in "the man" in the search box. Third, however a normal user gets to [[man]], the ability to scan and compare the various senses on one page is advantageous. (The option of comparing senses that do not appear on the same screen because of the length of the entry is available by opening another window to the same page.) DCDuring TALK 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the third definition is inadequately defined, since it is frequently just used as a complement ("You're the man!" = "You're awesome!"). But my question is really that even if there are senses of the man that are not simply the + man, why should we (or shouldn't we) split the definition onto a separate page from man? --WikiTiki89 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That is my belief as well. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
Another interesting case is that of new#Noun/news. I have added to [[new#Noun]] a new definition line that simply refers user to [[news]]. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm currently reading The Silk Road: A Very Short Introduction by James A. Millward and I came across the following sentence: "...the line between steppe and sown was not as firmly drawn as Gibbon, Sima Qian or Ammianus imply, but was in fact politically and culturally fluid." Is this usage of "sown" common? It seems like it means something like "farmland" (in contrast to the grasslands/the steppe). ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an example of what CGEL (2002) would call a fused-head construction. It is as if the noun were understood, in this case by reference to steppe, perhaps lands. In many contexts the omitted, "understood" noun is obvious from an anaphora: "We have both hot and cold dishes today. The hot [ones/dishes] include [] " Very many adjectives can be used this way. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


In the Hunger Games, they talk about "Quarter Quells". I was surprised to see that quell isn't a noun (apart from one meaning a spring - BTW, is that attestable?). Could it be used outside the Hunger Games universe? --Type56op9 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

food for the soulEdit

Is food for the soul, used to mean things like fine arts, music, and philosophy, sufficiently transparent that we don't need an entry for it? I thought of making one, but landed squarely on the fence. bd2412 T 22:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

that's gotta hurt. food for the soul at OneLook Dictionary Search draws a blank. I think we have the figurative sense of food ("Anything that nourishes or sustains"). I added "food for the soul" in a usex. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

almuerzo, almoçoEdit

Is anybody else doubtful that the ‐l‐ is from Arabic? Is it reasonably possible that the consonant mutation was native? --Romanophile (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are saying. almuerzo began as admorsus (ad- + morsus). Arabic speakers in Spain, finding the word useful and convenient, adopted it, and, since Arabic does not have prefixes such as ad-, con-, pro-, pre-, dis-, and so on, but does have prefixes that are definite articles, conjunctions, and prepositions, the Arabic-speakers arabicized the word by changing ad- to al- (Arabic definite article), and "al-morsus" was created. Since most people were bilingual in Arabic and Old Spanish, the arabicized word re-entered Spanish as almorso. So the Latin prefix ad- became al- under influence from the Arabic definite article ال (al-). —Stephen (Talk) 11:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I just remembered something today: A Spaniard made an interesting case against Arabic influence here. I think that it’s worth taking into consideration. --Romanophile (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • After reading that thread, I have to ask, is there any chance that the Asturian phonetic shift towards "L" was at all influenced by Arabic? I'm not familiar enough with Arabic to tell if there are other potential influences that would prompt shifts towards "L" beyond just the definite article. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Asturias was the the region with the least contact with Arabic speakers, but Asturian many more cases of ad- → al- than Spanish or Portuguese. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m also doubtful, but that’s what the sources say. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


There is an entry for "cōtempt" but all it says is Obsolete form of contempt. It implies that it was used in Modern English. There are no citations and I know it was common for scribes to indicate an "n" with a bar over the immediately preceding vowel. Is this merely a scribal variant or did people pronounce the word as indicated here with a long "o"? In the category page "English terms spelled with Ō" all the other words I recognise seem to come from Oriental languages. "cōtempt" looks like a misunderstanding to me. Danielklein (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the See also to cõtempt, it looks like someone was adding scribal variations. I'm almost surprised they missed ꝯtempt and ↄtempt. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it should be deleted then. Danielklein (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As much as I dislike wasting time on such variations, I suppose that this is a term that should be included because "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means". (See WT:CFI.) Nowadays one can readily find scanned manuscripts on-line that might having scribal variations. Whether having all these that are attested will really be of much help to readers of such manuscripts is unlikely. But do we have an appendix on the Middle English and Modern English "scribal notations" (or common ways of reducing the ink required to write a diary or an entry in a book of accounts) that make up these variations? DCDuring TALK 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

'Woah' not misspelling.Edit

'Woah' should be listed as an alternative spelling of 'whoa', not a misspelling. It's commoner than 'chamaeleons' and 'moochin'---[5] two valid words---so it isn't unused.

I agree, it's not a misspelling. Changed the entry. This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No objections but see Talk:woah for prior discussion. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, guys! Something doesn't cease being a misspelling just because it's more common than some other arbitrary valid words that you care to conjure up. There are lots of common misspellings. My feeling is that "woah" is, indeed, just a misspelling, and the entry should be put back to how it was. 01:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Woah is a misspelling of whoa. People that don't realise that whoa is /ʍoʊ/ misspell it as "woah". Case closed. Tharthan (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it /ʍoʊ/? I don't have the whine/wine merger; for me, /ʍ/ is a fully functional morpheme, but I still pronounce whoa as a homophone of woe. I've always viewed it as an exception where wh represents /w/, much as who and whole are exceptions where wh represents /h/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, for instance, whole and that vulgar word that begins with wh (not that I use the latter because I don't use vulgarities) are examples of words where wh is not /ʍ/, but I'm pretty sure that whoa is /ʍoʊ/. Most other people that I have heard that lack the wine-whine merger also pronounce it /ʍoʊ/. Now it's possible that, due to it being an interjection, whoa might often be pronounced as /woʊ/ in dialects that lack the wine-whine merger, but I can't vouch for that. Tharthan (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no case made for "woah" being a misspelling. As for relative frequencies, see (woah*50),whoa at Google Ngram Viewer; that suggests alternative spelling rather than a misspelling to me, but is a borderline case (recall that Google Ngram Viewer shows spellings from copyedited works). Above, anon only tells us his "feeling", making no case. Among OneLook dicts (woah at OneLook Dictionary Search), Collins[6] considers "woah" to be a "variant spelling". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Its appearance in copyedited works is probably due to the same reason "wile away" appears for "while away" in some works: the wine-whine merger. Tharthan (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
(wile away*50),while away at Google Ngram Viewer suggests "wile away" to be rather common indeed; but it also seems to find many uses of wile-verb-sense2 "Archaic form of while, to pass the time". These do not seem to be misspellings. One particular phrase is google books:"wile away their time". This sense of "wile" is not only in Wiktionary but also in Merriam-Webster[7]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that "while" is the intended verb, yet due to its uncommon verbal use outside of "while away", speakers are basing their spellings on ear. Can you find any other citations outside of Merriam-Webster, by the way? Tharthan (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As for other dictionary entries (not attesting quotations) having this sense of "wile", you can check wile at OneLook Dictionary Search. By checking that dictionary search, I further find Webster 1913[8], AHD[9], and[10]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, then (for "wile" anyways). Nevertheless, it's still defined in that 1913 Webster's with "while away", indicated that it's merely an alternate spelling and pronunciation. Tharthan (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is very easy via Google search to find numerous people who agree that "woah" is a misspelling. The "most official" I found is this. At minimum, the entry should say "considered a spelling error by some", or some similar caution. 02:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tharthan (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss as "sometimes proscribed"? Equinox 08:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. Tharthan (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC) linked to above is from that sort of site from which you expect a prescriptivist advice (Wiktionary is descriptivist). Their article on which vs. that ( does not mention any facts of usage, merely the usual prescriptivist simplification; check, by contrast, Which vs that? I have numbers! by Geoffrey K. Pullum, from Language Log. Nonetheless, "sometimes proscribed" seems accurate to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Tharthan (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Irrespective of the merits of this particular case, a purely descriptivist dictionary is a misguided concept, and not one that, in my opinion, anyone truly believes in. 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is somewhat misguided, but the problem with prescriptivism is that there is never any agreement as to what should be prescribed and what should be proscribed. See, for instance, I am an Anglo-Saxon linguistic purist (though I don't really write in such a way outside of poetry and the like) and, as such, I might prefer certain things that jibe with that and not like certain things that don't. In addition, I have my own personal pet peeves separate from my linguistic purism. For instance, I don't recognise "y'all", "vacay", "he**a", "Murica", and some others, as legitimate terms to ever be used in the English language. Other people feel similarly about some other words. But the point is, no one really ever agrees on those kinds of things.
So, yes, descriptivism doesn't work, and prescriptivism doesn't work either. So what does one do? Well, one sticks with descriptivism because there are less issues doing that than the opposite. Such is life. Tharthan (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary presently isn't purely descriptivist though, and neither should it be. There are numerous labels and usage notes that express an opinion about correct versus incorrect usage. The fact that these may be couched in weasly words like "many commentators consider", or "sometimes proscribed", or whatever it might be, does not fundamentally alter this. A purely descriptivist dictionary would list common blatant misuses and misspellings on equal footing with correct usage. I do not believe that anyone wants that. Sure there are grey areas, but so there are with virtually every aspect of human endeavour. It doesn't mean that a sensible course cannot be taken in most actual cases. 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Latin 3rd declensionEdit

In Appendix:Latin third declension it was stated that nox, noctis, f. belongs to the Latin 3rd declension with i-stem, and in entries like nox such things are still said (via declension template, template:la-decl-3rd-I in contrary to template:la-decl-3rd-N-I-pure).
Pons dictionary lists 3 types of the 3rd declension (consonantic, i and mixed), each with a distinction between genders (m./f. and n.). Examples are:

  • consonantic, m./f.: honor, honoris, m.; regio, -onis, f.; vox, vocis, f.
  • consonantic, n.: nomen, -minis, n.; tempus, -poris, n.
  • i, f.: turris, turris, f.
  • i, n.: mare, maris, n.
  • mixed, m./f.: civis, civis, m.; urbs, urbis, f. -- that's how nox is declined.
  • mixed, n.: os, ossis, n.

[] labels the i-declensions as "pure" or "mixed".
So it should be "i-stem declension & mixed declension" (the mixed one between consonantic and i-stem, thus not part of the i-stem declension), or "pure & mixed i-stem declension". Something like simply "Third declension i-stem." as in nox shoudn't be used (as it's irritating/confusing as "pure" i-stem declension is by the name part of i-stem declension too, so questions arise). So:

  • Should it be changed?
  • To what should it be changed?
  • How should it be changed technically? (Bot replacing templates?)

-IP, 23:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Would this be considered an includible word for Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a well-established rule yet, but you could probably guess why I don't think it is as my tendency is well-known. DCDuring TALK 06:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion no, it is two word, not one. A hyphen often functions like a space, so well established is not a word it is two words, and well-established the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

crowd disease or crowd disease?Edit

The sentence I just read: "That millions of people in the Americas with no prior immunities died from exposure to old-world crowd diseases is just one of the profound effects of the Columbian Exchange." Is "crowd disease" here crowd disease or crowd disease? I can't work out what sense of "crowd" is being evoked here. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd never heard that combination before, but that would be diseases spread by contagion within crowds of people, usually with human hosts, contrasting with diseases that have animal hosts and those endemic in the New World. DCDuring TALK 09:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it transparent enough. A disease that effects crowds. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Could someone look at this entry? I am not sure I interpreted these citations very well. Keφr 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have considered this "informal" but I suppose this is hard to pick up from the citations, aside from the use of scare quotes in a couple of them. I certainly wouldn't ever expect to find this in formal mathematical textbooks or papers. This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well… in one book I found a mention, which makes it invalid for the purposes of attestation, but it shows there might be some truth in your gut feeling:
  • 2013, Michael Beaney, The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford University Press (ISBN 9780199238842), page 331
    This has generated the argot 'epsilontics' for rigour in this style (sometimes used perjoratively for a perceived excess of rigour obscuring central ideas).
However my main concern is with grammar. Some authors use the word as plural, some as singular — how should I label it? I am not sure if it actually warrants two senses for the "calculus done the Weierstrass way" sense, or if it needs an additional metonymous sense of "overly rigorous presentation of mathematics" (which arguably is already cited). Also, why is it not "epsilonic" and "epsilonics" instead? The "-tic" suffix suggests a derivation from, say, French (compare erratic, symptomatic), but for some reason I doubt it even though I can find citations of epsilontique from 1954 and 1937 (which is earlier than most citations I can find in English). I would rather believe a direct derivation from Greek. Keφr 11:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I had always assumed it was a fanciful, pseudo-mathematical portmanteau of "epsilon" with "antics" or "pedantics" or something like that. That's just another gut feeling, though... This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


This is weird - a "Zazaki misspelling", but all the entries indicate that it is a misspelling of itself. Huh? bd2412 T 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess, the head word in bold says tenya each time (n first then y) but the page name is teyna (y first then n). Could an admin speedily delete this as no usable content? I have no objection to such an entry with correct content, just this is not it. Inform creator to see if we can fix it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Marmase is known for sloppy copypasting. I have deleted the entry. --Vahag (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Rule by ignorance.

Does not appear to meet WT:CFI. Equinox 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


I think we should have an entry for Kindle (the Amazon device). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it can be cited per WT:BRAND, then it's fine. bd2412 T 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
For example:
    • 2012, A. C. Stratford, When You're Cold, page 121:
      As the train pulled into the station in DC, he put his Kindle away and grabbed his bag of clothes for the week.
    • 2014, CB McKenzie, Bad Country: A Novel, page 101:
      An old Hispanic man was reading the Bible on his Kindle, cursing in Spanish as he tried to manipulate electronic pages that, he complained loudly, kept flipping inexplicably from Genesis right to Revelations, from creation to destruction.
Find another cite spanning an additional year and you're golden. bd2412 T 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


I noticed that this word doesn't seem to have been used much since the early 20th century. Does anyone know if there is a more modern term? DTLHS (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Some dictionaries have multinucleosis. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

English has a mahoosive 1,025,109 wordsEdit

In case you had not read the OED believes the English language has 1,025,109 known words. I notice that Wiktionary has 3,880,149 entries. Can someone explain the significant variance between the two numbers 2,855,040 (3,880,149 - 1,025,109). Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Because Wiktionary is not just English, and even if it were, not all entries are lemmas English Lemmas: 375,718
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 10:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Does anyone feel we should have another statistical list for English words, so we can track our progress against other dictionaries, i.e. comparing apples with apples. In addition, so we know how many actual English words are in Wiktionary? I think this would be a positive thing for Wiktionary. thank you WritersCramp (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I always feel that word counts need to be accompanied by an explanation of how words are counted. 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The first column in WT:STATS is useful. --Vahag (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Vahagn Petrosyan: Is the number in the first column at WT:STATS only for definitions in lemmas (within its approximate accuracy)?
Number of English entries (A) > Number of English lemma PoS sections of distinct etymology (B) > Number of English lemma etymology sections (C) > Number of English lemma entries (D).
I would think that we would want B as our main concept for 'words' so that we counted separately any lemmas written the same that were etymologically distinct or distinguishable and/or of different PoS. Any effort to do this also requires that entries be consistently formatted with only well-known and documented variation. Do we have that assurance with our existing suite of maintenance bots?
I don't think that such counts can be done in real time or near real time, even asymptotically, as our categorization system, even if faithfully implemented, is naturally page oriented. I suspect that a lot of effort would be required to develop and maintain supplemental categories for pages that had multiple lemmas on a page.
I also suspect that it would be tedious to debug and verify a program that did this correctly on the XML dump. But once done and verified, it could be rerun against each dump. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Each definition is analysed individually in order to be classified as lemma or non-lemma. My first attempt tried to identify HWL templates, but that proved impracticable. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: So it would seem like a good base to work from.
At WT:STATS, it says "This information is inexact." What is the source of the inexactitude?
How hard would it be to work from the count at WT:STATS to a count of lemma-etymology-PoSes (B above)? DCDuring TALK 22:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The source of uncertainty are the non-lemma forms with manual formatting instead of templates. The program does try to identify them, but it’s impossible to make the identification foolproof. This is why Italian has been “losing” gloss definitions lately; it’s the language with most manually-formatted inflections and people have been fixing them faster than new definitions are added. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The first column at WT:STATS, "Gloss definitions", is said to be "the number of senses the words in that language have", which I understand to mean the total of all separately numbered definitions over all words. However, "entries", which I understand to be the number of separate pages that include at least one definition in the relevant language, i.e. the number of headwords, is a larger number. Does that mean that there are more headwords than definitions? Is that really correct? Is it because there are many contentless redirects or something? 12:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not exactly contentless, but of lesser content. dogs is an entry. "plural of dog" is, in a sense, a definition. dogs is NOT a lemma. The lemma entry dog has multiple definitions, which are what Ungoliant intends for that count to definitions to include and be limited to, excluding "definitions" like "plural of dog". DCDuring TALK 15:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still confused. The entry dogs has five numbered English definitions. The entry dog has 18 numbered English definitions. What amounts do "dog" and "dogs", respectively, contribute to the figures in the two columns at WT:STATS that I mentioned? 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have picked a simpler example or actually looked at the entry for dogs before selecting it, as dogs#Noun is a lemma entry. But the example actually illustrates an issue. The entry for dogs probably (I didn't write the code.) contributes three to the count, the plural of dog#Noun and the third-person present indicative of dog#Verb being excluded. The entry for dog contributes 17 or 18, depending on whether the code counts what could be considered a duplicate: "(slang, almost always in the plural) feet", which is the same as "(slang, US) Feet, from rhyming slang dog's meat. [from early 20th c.]".
The count of definitions is perhaps more arbitrary than the count of lemma-etymology-PoSes, as one can split definitions to a greater or lesser degree. What counts as a distinct etymology can also be a bit arbitrary, eg, homographs coming into English from Latin via French for one set of meanings and directly from Latin for another. Even the number of PoSes is arbitrary. For example, some English prepositional phrases are presented as both adjective and adverb (counting as two PoSes), whereas others are presented as only as prepositional phrases (counting as one). Some entries for nouns include a separate section for use of the word as an interjection, some do not. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, it is certainly arguable that the definition of dogs as "Feet" ought to appear as a separate etymology ("From rhyming slang dog's meat"), at least if the etymology is authentic. Thus, we have another example of arbitrariness in the count, this time at the etymology level. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In an ideal world, I think WT:STATS needs proper explanations of what the statistics mean. At the moment, to be honest, the numbers are virtually useless given the lack of clear information on that page about how they are obtained. 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you find a clear and complete explanation for any count of 'definitions' or 'words' provided by any actual dictionary, please let us know, so we have an example to emulate. This problem of determining what numbers mean bedevils almost any effort to count real-world phenomena of any but the simplest kind. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a different issue from the one of explaining what the numbers that we have at present at WT:STATS actually mean. The WT:STATS numbers are (presumably) created by a predictable automated process, and their derivation can therefore (presumably) be precisely explained. 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of arilEdit

I've started a discussion about this if anyone's interested. --Person12 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


The example sentence I added for the adjective sense - They wanted to know the inside story behind the celebrity's fall from grace. - does not seem to be supported by the definition given - Originating from or arranged by someone inside an organisation. - but I'm not sure how to refine it, any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For that usex I think we need we need a different definition, something like "behind the scenes/behind-the-scenes".
Or maybe just "of, relating to, or coming from, or being on the inside#Noun" and let inside#Noun do some of the work. DCDuring TALK 04:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

get on to / get ontoEdit

I just created get on to as it was a red link in the list of derived terms at get. I added the "contact someone about something" meaning, but now I have noticed that the same meaning is already at get onto. Now I feel a bit uncertain. When you "get on to the company to complain", for example, is that "get onto" or "get on to"? I thought it was "get on to". 04:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We should have get on to "(UK) make contact with (about something)". An Oxford dictionary has it with that spelling. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure the second definition you gave is both in actual use and idiomatic, rather than being get on + to? DCDuring TALK 14:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The second sense, which is now the third, illustrated by "I'll get on to it tomorrow" is in natural everyday use where I come from (England). Perhaps my definition can be improved though. Although these things can be a fine judgement, my feeling is that it is idiomatic in this meaning. It does not feel right to me as "get on + to" for any natural separate usage of "get on". On the other matter, do you think that definition #2 at get onto, "To contact a person or organisation about a particular matter", is also correct? Are you saying that you think both "get onto" and "get on to" are correct in this sense? It seemed kind of illogical to me that both could be correct, but having looked at it several times now, I no longer feel able to form any sensible judgement about it. 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
When I say it is not idiomatic, I mean that, in the now-third sense, it may not 'really' be a single term, ie, it may be get on + prepositional phrase headed by to or get + on + PP headed by to. I'd bet that get on to is much more common that get onto. The Oxford dictionary I looked at had get on to. The way we would determine whether get onto was a good entry was by finding usage. (See WT:ATTEST.) Determining which is the more common form might be done by consensus of those who might have seen it in print or by looking at relative frequency at BNC. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you meant by "not idiomatic". My belief is that the questioned sense is separately idiomatic and is not naturally explainable as "get on + to" or "get" + "on" + "to". 00:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
An initial look at BNC shows me that the "contact" sense is spelled both ways with the get on to form being more common. So we would have get onto as an alternative form of get on to unless there is more to it than what I saw. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
However, comparing get onto at OneLook Dictionary Search with get on to at OneLook Dictionary Search, more dictionaries have get onto than have get on to. DCDuring TALK 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

gloves come offEdit

Did I do this phrase soft-direct correctly? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't use "See" very much, but I think it is necessary in many cases and should be used more. The case at hand seems like a good use to me. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case I prefer "Alternative form of ...". I think it is more precise. 00:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It may be more precise, but it is not an accurate characterization of the connection between the two terms. Is come an alternative form of be? DCDuring TALK 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"Alternative form" is the characterisation given at gloves are off, which is where I took it from. Perhaps "Variant form" would be better. 12:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
{{synonym of}} has its uses too. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology of Bad CitationEdit

Discussion moved to Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

frentero, frenteraEdit

What is the lemma of this adjective? Is "frentera" the masculine form as well, or is there a frentero? —CodeCat 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There’s frentero. Moved. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

'campaignee' the wordEdit

'Campaignee' is an entity for whom a campaign is undertaken. Did we get that wrong? A Campaigner undertakes a Campaign for a Campaignee. Right? We undertake or carry out promotional campaigns for our promotees or campaignees via Social Media. One of them is at (SPAM LINK REMOVED BY User:Equinox). We would like to call our clients (for whom we undertake a campaign) as campaignee/s apart from simply 'client'. We are the campaigner/s. 'Campaignee' has not been found in many dictionaries. So we seek light! Thank you.

Does it exist? Where? Wouldn't it hypothetically mean one who is campaigned upon? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

electric multiple unit, elektryczny zespół trakcyjnyEdit

I created these two when I found red links at multiple unit, but now I think they are completely SoP. The main added value in the entries are the abbreviations EMU and EZT, and possibly images, but this looks like a better fit for Wikipedia. What is your opinion? --Tweenk (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

think outside the boxEdit

What is the opposite of this? As in, if one were to mentally shut off certain facets of the mind so as to force oneself to think in a specific manner.

Is there such a term?

If not, what would be the best way to describe such a thing?

The only thing that comes to mind for me is "selective thinking". Tharthan (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Think inside the box. Not common but it exists. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"Selective thinking" does seem to be a set phrase, and there's also "selective perception". "Compartmentalized thinking" is related to some extent. Also, Wikipedia has an article on "filter bubbles", although it's worded as if only other people (not you yourself) can put you into a filter bubble. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a strong relationship between this phrase and connect the dots but I can't think of it yet. How do you ping someone you think would be useful to a discussion... like Purple? --Riverstogo (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
That worked. @USER: works. FWIW, I believe "think inside the box" to be verifiable, because of this. Purplebackpack89 21:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Purple, if I can call you that? But I need to verify if "it is better to think ...inside the box?" --Riverstogo (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it's probably better to think selectively/think inside of the box if one has recently dealt with something traumatic. Otherwise, allowing oneself to think outside of the box is the better option. Tharthan (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: Conventionally the box was the metaphorical perimeter formed by the outermost dots of the puzzle. You were not instructed to stay inside this box, the convention of connecting the dots one at a time with straight lines meant that you simply could not see any reason to do so, given that there were no dots visible to you outside of this conventional boundry. The act of drawing your pen through this imaginary limitation was wrong in the strong sense many children learn to understand, similar to knowing when colouring in to stay within the lines, or having recently dealt with something traumatic not to read between the lines.
@Chuck Entz: Likewise you expect a paragraph to follow on from the previous one, this is just another arbitrary rule. If a child dares often enough to complete puzzles bypassing the restriction of convention they may eventually no longer see in the same way, as it is unreasonable to simulateously choose to think freely and think to choose unfreely. Either you liberate yourself; pinging the truth to see the point of a picture as you try and test a solution which conforms to a constantly evolving story or you just puzzle at the dots... which conventionally completes the tried and tested rubbish […] --Riverstogo (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, shoulda no-wiki-ed that: {{ping|Purplebackpack89}} generates @Purplebackpack89: (FWIW, the purple font coloring isn't necessary in this case). Anywho, since think outside the box redirects to outside the box, I have created inside the box and redirected think inside the box to it. Purplebackpack89 22:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It was my reply to <nowiki>{{ping|Tharthan}}</nowiki> which I have not yet saved to the tea room that I dealt with something traumatic... the truth is a synecdoche! More is revealed with every ping [...] --Riverstogo (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Think inside the box... I use this quite often for situations where a tried-and-tested solution seems like the best one. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

lexical peacemakingEdit

I'm not sure if this shouldn't be discussed in the beer parlour, I guess I'm not good at being bold, sorry. I need to know how to avoid escalating a lexical war of quotations? We are already up to two exclaimation marks!! I am not sure if I should bother adding a special case as Equinox seems to imply in the history, or if and how I can convey that this type warfare is moving online rapidly, concisely? I don't even know where to begin with a citation that isn't suitable...?Riverstogo (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean quotations that contradict each other? Add 'em all! Terms often have more than one meaning which is why one definition won't fit all the attestations. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

aboriculturist, aboriculturalEdit

At first I thought they were misspellings of arboriculturist and arboricultural, but there are a lot of hits in serious-looking books. Does anyone know if these are valid spellings? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't valid spellings. The morpheme "arbor" has a rather unusual shape for English, so it's easy to lose the repeated letter "r" in longer combinations. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I’ve converted them to misspelling-of entries. I think they are common enough to warrant inclusion, but if anyone doesn’t, feel free to RFD them. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin flexio = inflection (grammar)?Edit

Does Latin flexio also mean inflection (inflexion, flection, flexion) in grammar, i.e. the changing of a word (noun, verb)?

  • [] & [] & [] include "Flexio"/"flexio" in a grammatical context.
  • []: "flexio, -onis f. script. flectio: [...] 3 translate: a gramm. i. q. [greek word], declinatio - Flexion, Deklination [= flexion (inflection), declination (declension)]: Erchanb. gramm. p. 17,13 casus est -o (-ctio var. l.) vocis per varias qualitates nominandi corporis sive rei.". That sounds like flexio (per book title: in Medieval Latin) (also) meant inflection.
  • []: "Flectio, onis. f. The declining of a word ap. Gramm. [...] Flexio, onis. f. A bowing, or bending"
  • [] "Flexio Nominis dicitur Declinatio [...]". That should mean "The flection (inflection) of a noun is called declination (declension) [...]" and should proof that Latin flexio (also written Flexio) means inflection.
  • []: "Declinatio s. Flexio Nominum.". That should mean "Declension or inflection of nouns.", where s. stands for seu or sive (or).
  • []: "Flexio Verborum Arabicorum." That should mean "Inflection of Arab verbs [or: words]."
  • []: "Abwandeln, v. a. [= verbum activum] bei neuern Sprachlehrern statt conjugiren, flectere verbum, Varr. L. L., auch declinare, Quint. Abwandeln, das, -ung, die, eines Wortes, flexio verbi, auch mit Verbis." That seems to mix grammatical terms, but should verify that flexio was used in grammatical context and had to do with the changing of words or verbs.
  • []: "Wir sagen Biegung, Flexio, Declinatio, Umendung, Krümmung des Geraden; [...]". "We say inflection, Flexio (inflection), Declinatio (declension), declension, bending of the straight; [...]". "bending of the straight/upright" could refer to casus rectus. Anyway, "Flexio" should be Latin like "Declinatio" is Latin and it should mean "Biegung" (German) or "[in]flection".

Thus: Latin flexio -- related to German Flexion and Spanish flexión -- should indeed mean inflection.
Can anyone verify that? Or: Can it be added to wiktionary entries or is there any objection? - 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Chinese sashimiEdit

Regarding the entry over at sashimi, does anyone know what the relation between 刺身, 生魚片 and 魚生 is in modern Chinese? Chinese Wikipedia keeps separate articles for 刺身 and 生魚片. The latter appears to defined as a general term for various forms of "raw slices of fish or meat"-type dishes. The English definition for "sashimi", however, refers only to the Japanese dish, which makes me skeptical to keeping 生魚片 and 魚生 as Chinese translations alternatives at sashimi. Especially since 生魚片 is also defined as the similar ancient Chinese dish called / (kuài).

So is 生魚片 a term for several specific dishes, or is it a general term for "raw slices of meat or fish"-type dishes? My thought here is that it's more akin to "omelette" which an refer to numerous different specific omlette-type dishes like Italian frittata or Japanese tamagoyaki?

Peter Isotalo 10:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Latin translation of English attribute?Edit

1. In attribute it is "Latin: attributum m". Is it really masculine and not neuter?
2. Is there a Latin translation of the grammatical term attribute?

  • [11] & [12] & [13] & [14]. That shows: attributum was used in grammatical contexts.
    • [15]: attributum in grammatical context, but with a general and not with a grammatical meaning.
  • German dictionaries:
    • [16]
    • [17]+469: "attributus (adt.), a, um, Pa. eigentl. was einem Gegenstande beigegeben ist, daher substantivisch attributum, i, n. 1) (nach no. 1) das aus dem Staatsschatze angewiesene Geld, Varro L. L. 5, 36, 49 -- 2) in der grammatischen Sprache: das Prädicat, Attribut, Cic. Invent. 1, 24 u. 26; Gell. 4, 1 fin." & "attributio (adt.), onis, f. 1) [...] 2) in der Grammatik: das Prädicat, Attribut = attributum, Cic. Invent. 1, 26.". The second quote means: "in grammar: predicate, attribute = attributum". "adt." could mean that attributio comes from "ad + t~ [word starting with t]" becoming "att~", or that it was also written adtributum sometimes.
    • [18]: "attributum, i, Eigenschaft"
    • [19]: "Prädicat [= predicate], attributum, i, n."
    • predicate is praedicatum in Latin, at least in grammar. Thus the translation "Prädicat (, Attribut) = attributum" seems strange. Possibilities: a) Maybe it's not refering to attribute in generel or to grammar, but to philosophy. b) Maybe the terms were once used differently (like declinatio meant something different in ancient times than it does nowadays) or were sometimes used incorrectly.
    • [20]: "Praedicatum das Praedicat in der Logik und Grammatik neulateinisch für attributum (Cic. Inv. [Cicero: De Inventione] I, 24, 34) oder attributio (Ebend. I, 26, 38).". That is: "Praedicatum, praedicate in logics and grammar, New Latin for attributum ([..]) or attributio ([..]).". But as far as I understand Cicero's text, he isn't refering to preadicate/attribute as it's used nowadays in grammar.
  • Spanish:
    • [21]: attributum = atributo (Spanish), but seems like it's refering to something other than grammar.
    • [22]: attributum = atributo. No context is mentioned, so might include but also might exclude grammar.
    • [23]: attributum = atributo in grammar. Also "atributivo: attributivus, a, um.", which should be "attributive". But: The book refers to modern Latin -- very likely to very modern Latin from 20th & 21th century, which is something different than older Latin prior to the 20th century.
  • [24] (french): "ATTRIBUT n. m. [...] latin attributum [...] 2 Emblème caractéristique qui accompagne une figure mythologique, un personnage, une chose personnifiée. Le caducée est l'attribut de Mercure, le sceptre celui de la royauté. |> emblème, symbole. Il était revêtu de tous les attributs de sa fonction. |> signe. * 3 LOG. Ce qui s'affirme ou se nie du sujet d'une proposition. |> prédicat. * 4 GRAMM. Terme décrivant la qualité, la nature ou l'état qu'on rapporte au sujet ou au complément d'object par l'intermédiaire d'un verbe (être, sembler, paraître, devenir, rester, demeurer). Attribut du sujet, du complément. -- APPOS. Adjectif, nom attribut.". Accourding to en.wiktionary: sujet = subject, du = of the. So it should refer to attribute. But "latin attributum" should simply mean that french attribut comes from the Latin word attributum and not that the Latin word necessarily has the same meanings.
  • [25]: "An attribute, attributum, 2." (2 could stand for the declension).
  • [26]: "ATTRIBUTIO, onis, f [attribuo] 1) An asignment of money. 2) Attributum.     ATTRIBUTUM, i, n. [attribuo]. Tech. t., in gram., a predicate, an attribute."
  • [27]: "Adiectivum, quod substantivo subiungitur proxime adpositum, ut in [Arab] vir doctus, attributum sive epithetum vocari solet. Quod vero, verbo interposito, ad substantvum refertur, ut in [Arab] vir ille erat doctus, praedicatum nuncupatur." Here attributum and praedicatum should be what attribute and predicate are.

So, is attributum a Latin translation of attribute in grammar? - 11:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


This says that it's a form of llamar. Is this a mistake? —CodeCat 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wonderfolly. It’s been fixed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Read between the LiensEdit

While reading about the film "The Tigger Movie" I noticed a sublinked text called "read between the liens" which was obviously a spelling error, and the correct word should have been "lines" instead of "liens." I just wanted to alert somebody to do the editing. The link also led to a Wiktionary page upon clicking. —This comment was unsigned.

We can't fix it unless you give us the Web address of the page containing the error. Equinox 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (The Tigger Movie): Plot para. 3. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

va banqueEdit

Is also a noun meaning "all in", a hand in a poker game and, by extension, a risky business with high stakes? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The noun I know of is tapis. I have a book in French about poker, though it is translated from an English one. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


I can't figure out the English translation for this Italian word from astronomy. Its definition (translated from Italian sources) is "the point of intersection, in the celestial sphere, of the meridian of a place with the celestial equator". Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a simple translation. It is transparently "middle-sky" or "middle-heaven", but from the supplied definition is not the zenith (being that point directly overhead), but the point on the celestial equator (which is not necessarily directly overhead the geographic equator), corresponding to the defined latitude. See Declination. Is it an astronomical or astrological term? That will teach me to read all the details.
Or, the mezzocielo is the celestial point at the given latitude and declination 0.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

cause and effectEdit

I feel like we should have an entry for cause and effect, but for some reason I feel if I create it, it will unfortunately be deleted. Is it a keeper? --Enterloppd (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've given it a stab. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You've defined it as karma?! For example...? Equinox 06:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine it happen, though probably only as a weakly metaphor-ish interjectional: "Why does this keep happening to me?" "You are nasty to people, they return the favour. Cause and effect.". But the other senses are quite SOPpy, and I doubt even this usage is common or standard. Ultimately this should be determined by citations, I think. Keφr 11:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/sibiz (Engl. sieve, German Sieb)Edit

I'm just flagging an inconsistency here. The termination here is -iz, which would make the word masculine or feminine, but the gender stated is neuter. Is it *sibiz, feminine, matching the gender in Dutch; or is it *sibi, neuter, matching the gender in German. Given the comparative rarity of neuter i-stems (such as *mari, sea), I imagine the first alternative is more likely. Dave crowley (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's move it. Leasnam (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Are we missing the medical sense - i.e. "we found shadows on your X-ray"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've extended sense #1 a little. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


tidy-up and tidy up exist as separate entries, both claiming to be a verb. Is the former not a noun? Compare clean-up, clean up. —This comment was unsigned.

They are probably both found as nouns. I'm not so sure that all the inflected forms of tidy-up (especially tidied-up and tidies-up) exist. The gerund tidying-up might and the bare form tidy-up might, as the entry suggests. As a matter of style I would never write the hyphenated form for any inflection of the verb, but others seem to differ. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


Can someone better qualified than I have a look at this? I believe the third 'noun' usage is in fact an adjective. There is, however, no section for use of the word as an adjective while we speak of landmark events in history and landmark rulings in law. Perhaps I'm missing something? Happy New Year to all S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's attributive usage, like "crisis point" or "tractor parts". You can't be "very landmark", or say "the event was landmark". It's not truly adjectival. Equinox 15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's plausible as an adjective, "a very landmark ruling". I say plausible because I haven't checked for usage. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
google books:"very landmark" has enough citations without searching for more, including a couple from Jimmy Carter. google books:"quite landmark" gets 5 hits that I can see and google books:"the most landmark" gets hits as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


What is the specific, official, meaning of FLIFO. Any dictionary I can find, including here, only states it means flight information, but I am sure it has an official, more technical meaning. Thanks. --Dmol (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

in no small measure, in no small partEdit

Are these worthy of entries, or should they be parsed as individual words? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither is in a OneLook reference. In no small measure seems to use measure in a sense, possibly archaic or even obsolete, and in a construction that is not common. In no small part uses the same construction, but a common and current definition of part. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template problemEdit

The pinyin at this page was wrong for the example 她借着闪烁的烛光读书, which is «tā jiè zhe shǎnshuò de zhúguāng dúshū» and used to be «tā jiè zhù shǎnshuò de 燭guāng dúshū». I tried to correct it, but the template doesn't let me fix it. Right now, the phrase is given only in simpl. characters with [trad. and simpl.] beside it, and the pinyin is only half corrected in that the character in the middle of the pinyin is now properly pinyin-ized, but the "zhe" (著|着) is transliterated to zhuó. How do I fix this? Also, see how Google perfectly transliterates «她借著閃爍的燭光讀書». Why does the template get things wrong? And the phrase is translated with the past tense, but could well be present tense without context, right?

The Pinyin is now fixed, all I needed was the tr= optional parameter. MGorrone (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

brick wallEdit

How can we add the sense as in, "having a conversation with you is like talking to a brick wall"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've had a try now. ---> Tooironic (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


If stopcock is 'UK', then what do Americans call their stopcocks? Thanks. Kaixinguo (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To judge from the Wikipedia article on the stopcock, Americans don't have them. I'd guess residential water supply is set up differently in the U.S.  From my childhood in Texas I vaguely remember my father talking about turning the water off "at the mains" when work needed to be done on the pipes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"shutoff valve" DTLHS (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh. My wife and I are both US-East-Coast-born English speakers, and we both call the shutoff valve for a toilet a stopcock. Neither of us has spent any time living in the UK. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
shut-off valve. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
By the Pawley they-call-it-an-X,-we-call-it-a-Y principle, we need an entry for shut-off valve. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. I don't know who Pawley is. I think we can use 'shut-off valve' as well in the UK. has only two result, but does have some results; although it doesn't seem to refer to the 'stopcock in the road' (the water mains shut-off valve), it does have some more general usage as far as I can see.
Sadly, 'stopcock' is being usurped by 'stop tap', leading to one water board website to explain that 'stop tap' means the same thing as 'stopcock'. Kaixinguo (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How about ballcock? Ball rooster :) ? Kaixinguo (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kaixinguo: Andrew Pawley is a New Zealand linguist who wrote an interesting 20-page article ("Lexicalization", in Deborah Tannen and James E Alatis eds, Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application (GURT '85)) listing various types of evidence that support treating a collocation as part of the lexicon, ie, worth/requiring a dictionary entry. User:DCDuring/Pawley has a summary of the 1985 article that someone here prepared. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Ooh thanks, that sounds interesting. Kaixinguo (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It is interesting, but it is a long way from providing us with what we need for speedier RfD discussions. DCDuring TALK 01:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

sort of, kind ofEdit

From my experience and intuition, sort of sounds to be more British and kind of more AmEn, maybe because sort of being direct borrow from French. Google Ngram suggest they're not, the only English dialect where they are close is BrEN2009 around year 1840. The rest of dialects are the same, in all kind of gaining momentum around 1940. In AmEn, % are higher. Any knowledge or idea? Sobreira (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I only sorta, kinda get what you're tryna say. Wanna try again? DCDuring TALK 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not positive (given your suspicion that sort of is more used in BrEn) is due to any association of the word sort being ultimately from an Old French word. The word sort has been in English for hundreds of years. It is no longer thought of as being connected at all to French, or France...that mindset may have existed in Mediaeval times in Middle English but it certainly doesnt exist today. In English, the two variations sort of and kind of (despite the ultimate origin of the two words sort and kind) are not representative of any Germanic-Latinate pair in the same way that cow and beef are. Both were created in English as variations because the words are synonyms. Leasnam (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Is it an alternative spelling of acquiescence, or a misspelling? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it was originally entered as a typo, so presumably misspelling, but how common? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

fetherstane and the -d- of 4 in GermanicEdit

On w:Crimean Gothic, an IP added the following text, talking about the presence of -d- in the word for 4 (Germanic *fedwōr): "However, one should not forget "fetherstane" (cromlech), from Old Northumbrian (Germanic) "four stone", which indicates a partial survival of this D in some dialects of West Germanic." Is it true that there are attestations of this word in Old English which preserve the original -d- intact? —CodeCat 20:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! But not as -d-, it has been modified to -ð-, as in the prefix fiþer- (four-, tetra-). Leasnam (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
So the IP was wrong, and this is not a remnant of the -d- of *fedwōr? —CodeCat 11:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, it depends on how strict or exclusive you choose to be. Would I consider it to be a remnant? Yes. The prefix ultimately is tied to, if not derived from the numeral *fedwōr, so the Old English prefix fiþer- does preserve a reflex of the more original form of the word in regards to it containing a medial dental consonant. But I wouldnt say that it is a survival in the word for 'four', I have never seen a dental in any form or variation of Old English fēower. Leasnam (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Should this not be a proper noun? I don't usually edit English entries so I am checking here. Kaixinguo (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but since there's no clear definition of the difference between a proper noun and a common noun, it's impossible to know for sure. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello all,

I'm very new, indeed I joined to add this very word, but I'm also an avid dictionary enthusiast and I greatly appreciate the service done here for mankind, bravo!

So, when I searched online for this term, there are bloggers and individuals using it as I do, very few, it seems very new. It is of concern to me as the term fits me rather well. No "outrovert" was listed here, so I created it, and then signed up immediately afterwards. Since, checking for the term, brings up a false definition! At least it is not one I, or anyone else online, is using.

Outrovert is not just a pointless other term for extrovert, and here I'm a tad annoyed, I shall confess, extroverts already have so much attention and are assumed 'normal', introverts are my under-dog brethren, and "outrovert" is actually being used, in the wild, to mean, well as I already defined it in my entry, an introvert that takes to the outdoors for their solace and recharging time, rather than hiding indoors. It's such a positive term, and one empowering a minority of people to club together, I see it as rather a poor use, and even an injustice, to have it being a mere synonym of extrovert, as a silly quip from introvert. No no no.

Kindest regards, K

I've restored your preferred sense (reworded somewhat to be a suitable definition for a noun rather than an adjective and to be more concise) but left the "extrovert" sense as well, and I've started a request for verification for both senses so that we can see how the word is actually used in durably archived sources. It's possible, of course, that both senses are attested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Angr!

People who invent a word for their personality, and get upset about who uses it, tend to be making up words that nobody else uses. We will see how the RFV turns out. Equinox 01:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

foot loose and fancy freeEdit

Surprised we don't have this relatively common idiom. Still not exactly sure what it means though. Any ideas? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this really an eye dialect spelling? Isn't the pronunciation somewhat peculiar? --Fsojic (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not eye dialect, though "goverment" would be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Angr: If it isn't eye dialect, what is it? It certainly seems to me to be attestable as eye dialect, however else it may be used. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It's just a nonstandard form. It would only be eye dialect if the standard pronunciation of government were /ɡʌbmɪnt/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. I think we have a lot of use of {{eye dialect}} to clean up if we use that definition rather than "the use of misspellings to identify a colloquial or uneducated speaker" (AHD, WordNet and its followers). I don't think we have been using the term as the coiner intended. If we had been, we would/should have created {{pronunciation spelling}} to cover the spelling we now include and show as eye dialect.
  2. The spelling is certainly often used as a way of indicating something negative about those who purportedly use the "non-standard" pronunciation, which is implied as being one used by poorly educated speakers from "red" states. DCDuring TALK 11:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, people have long been misusing {{eye dialect}} here. I try to clean it up as I discover it. I've changed it now to:
{{nonstandard spelling of|government|nodot=1|lang=en}} {{i|used to reflect a nonstandard pronunciation}}
Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
We could also call it simply an alternative spelling of gubmint. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is, should gubmint follow the same formatting as gub'mint? Or does it deserve a full entry? --Fsojic (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
They are both eye dialect by the definition of eye dialect that has been used here and seems to be the one most accepted, non-prescriptivist one. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition we have here isn't different from the one implied by Angr or the one we can find on wikipedia, it has just been misunderstood because it's incomplete, in that it doesn't say that the spelling is only suggestive and doesn't reflect an actual change in pronunciation. So this doesn't apply to gubmint. --Fsojic (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this would not be eye dialect. I disagree with Angr, and with their edit in gub'mint. Some definitions here: AHD[28]; Wiktionary in old revision before Angr changed it: this revision: "Nonstandard spellings, deliberately used by an author to indicate that the speaker uses a nonstandard or dialectal speech." --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    Later: Angr may be right, and my diff wrong. We need to clarify that. I placed some quotations at Citations:eye dialect. Please let us collect more quotations, even mentions; I think mentions will be more helpful to clarify the various meanings in which "eye dialect" is used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    The wikipedia article sums it up pretty well:
Eye dialect is the use of nonstandard spelling for speech to draw attention to an ironically standard pronunciation. The term was coined by George P. Krapp to refer to the literary technique of using nonstandard spelling that implies a pronunciation of the given word that is actually standard, such as wimmin for women; the spelling indicates that the character's speech overall is dialectal, foreign, or uneducated. This form of nonstandard spelling differs from others in that a difference in spelling does not indicate a difference in pronunciation of a word. That is, it is dialect to the eye rather than to the ear. It suggests that a character "would use a vulgar pronunciation if there were one" and "is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well."
The term is less commonly also used to refer to pronunciation spellings, that is, spellings of words that indicate that they are pronounced in a nonstandard way. For example, an author might write dat as an attempt at accurate transcription of a nonstandard pronunciation of that.
I think we should just stick to the former definition (as does, again, the article), and speak of "pronunciation spelling" in relevant cases. --Fsojic (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are proposing a change in our practice. I'll quote from Talk:eye dialect: "RFV-failed as sense in that entry (but kept as the definition of the term in our glossary, because it's how our entries and templates use it)." In sense definitions, it seems Wiktionary has been using "eye dialect" in the broader, AHD sense; you now want to change that. The current manner by which Wiktionary uses the term should be verifiable by the current content of Category:English eye dialect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
See also Appendix:Glossary#E, "eye dialect". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I do. Wiktionary is a linguistic work, and should be as accurate as possible. There is no reason for us to choose the broader meaning that encompasses two different concepts, especially when there is an appropriate terminology at hand. --Fsojic (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You are implying that the broader meaning is inaccurate, which I do not think to be the case. "cat" originally used to refer only to the domestic animal, and now is used in a new sense to also refer to the likes of tiger, and being late on scene does not make the broader meaning of "cat" inaccurate. If the narrower meaning is much more widely used, a switch in Wiktionary practice may be advisable, though. Such a switch is much better suited for Beer parlour than to Tea room, which discusses individual words rather than changes in practice and policy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The difference is that eye dialect is a technical term, and cat isn't. Eye dialect is more comparable to felid; it has a firm definition in its field, and although nonspecialists may sometimes use it imprecisely, a reference work like a dictionary should be careful to use it in its technically correct sense. So even if we find that eye dialect is sometimes used to mean nonstandard spellings that reflect a nonstandard pronunciation, we can add that definition (with an appropriate label like "loosely" or "by extension" or something), but we still shouldn't use the {{eye dialect}} tag in the nonspecialist sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If eye dialect is a term with a technical sense and a more general sense closely connected with the component terms, the technical sense is totally inappropriate for use in a definiens in a general-purpose dictionary for the general population, as Wiktionary is. It seems that the better approach would be to rename or redirect {{eye dialect of}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} and then use hard categories or switches to add categories for finer distinctions. This particularly true as the history of our use of the template clearly uses a definition close to spelling pronunciation and not the narrow, original sense. Clearly we need to show a bit more respect to the work done in the past before wantonly attempting poorly thought-through unilateral reforms. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel any particular need to show respect to poorly researched work done in the past. People who don't know what eye dialect is shouldn't go around labeling things {{eye dialect of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Such an approach is not appropriate for a work funded by charitable donations and volunteer effort and intended to serve a broad population of users. It smacks of elitist prescriptivism. The use of technical definitions of terms that seem to have a surface meaning significantly different from the technical one is wrong for Wiktionary in all cases, as wrong as using obsolete, rare, and sesquipedalian words unnecessarily in entries. Non-academic published works try to find terms that allow better communication with normal folk.
It seems to me that the solution to the problem is to redirect {{eye dialect}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} immediately, bot-edit all uses of {{eye dialect}} to {{pronunciation spelling}} when convenient, and look for the relatively few instances of actual "eye dialect" and hard categorize them to subcategories of Category:eye dialect. The last thing we need to do is once more subject curious readers unnecessarily to the ambiguity of a term such as eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Without getting into the question of which meaning of "eye dialect" is correct, my impression is that the number of entries which use it in the way DCDuring describes do dwarf the entries which use it in the way Angr describes. Hence, if we want to discontinue use of the term with the meaning DCDuring describes, his suggestion of bot-renaming all current uses is sound, and I would add that we should probably also discontinue {{eye-dialect of}}, lest new uses take us quickly back to the current lopsided ratio of DCDuring-like-uses to Angr-like-uses. However, I question if "pronunciation spelling" is the best replacement term; The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style suggests that it means the same thing as "pronunciation respelling" and refers to a nonstandard spelling used to more closely reflect a (standard) pronunciation. But perhaps if we included, by default, text along the lines of what is currently added by the optional from= parameter, it would work. I.e., by default the template would display "[whatever term we decide to use] of x, representing a dialectal pronunciation.", and by setting the from= parameter one could optionally specify which dialect. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds good to me, though I hypothesize that most folks wouldn't look up the term in The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style but rather in a reference such as those at pronunciation spelling at OneLook Dictionary Search, specifically RHU and AHD to find a more transparent meaning or construct the transparent meaning from the components. RHU uses pronunciation spelling to mark the entries we have been calling eye dialect. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportMr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

judging byEdit

Would "judging by" warrant an entry as a conjunction with the meaning of "according to"? E.g. Judging by the market reports, this sort of product sells well. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO no. Standard grammatical construct. Could also say "if we judge by __", "when judged by __" etc. which is not the case with "accord" ("*I hope it will accord to __"). Equinox 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a meaning for SabreEdit

anyone knows what Sabre means??

I'm sure someone does. But I don't know what you mean: sabre, any of w:Sabre (disambiguation), or something else? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


To which sense does the quotation belong? DTLHS (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

'eponymous' usageEdit

I'm discussing the cocktail called the Ramos Gin Fizz. Its creator H.C. Ramos called it a New Orleans Fizz, but his name was ultimately the one that stuck. I'm tempted to say the following: The New Orleans Fizz first served by H.C. Ramos didn’t become eponymous with its creator until the early 1900s. I'm not sure this is acceptable, however, and I think I have two related concerns:

  • Can something become eponymous? (my guess is yes)
  • Can something be eponymous with someone? (I have no idea)

I do see some scattered usage in Google searches but nothing that's set my mind at ease. With thanks —JamesLucas (" " / +) 14:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at COCA finds with to be the only preposition that heads a prepositional phrase complementing eponymous. But Google books search shows abundant use with of and to also. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that source. I did see plenty of uses of "eponymous with" but none of them seemed particularly reputable. I think I'm going to scrap this. —JamesLucas (" " / +) 21:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

... has your name on itEdit

Was just watching a TV show where one of the characters visits a fortune teller who says, "You will have some very interesting connections in Indonesia in the future. You’re coming and going, coming and going. Indonesia has got your name on it." Was wondering how we can cover this construction of "x has your name on it" on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We have have one's name on it. Cassell's Dictionary of Slang has have one's name on.
Google "have|has|had|having|got my|your|his|their name|names on" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) and Google "have|has|had|having|got my|your|his|their name|names on it" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) show that the literal senses dominate. The extended, non-SoP meanings include "is owned by one" (nearly literal} and "is destined for one". Variant forms like "have one's name all over" and "have one's name written all over" will show a higher proportion of the extended meanings, I think. DCDuring TALK 03:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the original form referring to a bullet "with ones name on it" - meaning one was certain to be shot? Maybe World War One? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt that it was the original usage, but it certainly popularized the "destiny" sense of the term. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've moved have one's name on it to have one's name on in line with the first usage example, which had her instead of it. Feel free to move it back, split the entry etc. It's just a suggestion. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

affair and love affairEdit

I think we have a problem here. An affair or love affair just means a romantic or sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other right? It doesn't have to be adulterous as far as I know. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) What I mean is, it can refer to an adulterous relationship, but it can also refer to a non-adulterous one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that any two people can have a "love affair", but a plain "affair" in the context of the relationship of two people tends to imply that at least one of them is married to someone else. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Or in a steady relationship. Usually talking about marriage, just not always. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I think there is always an element of betrayal, that, for at least one partner, the affair is not with the person with whom one is in a more public, long-term committed relationship. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

you never knowEdit

From my understanding, this phrase can have two meanings: 1) it's possible 2) it's not impossible. For example, if my friend says she will never accept a low-paying job, and I say, "you never know", what I mean is that she could actually find herself in a situation where she might accept a low-paying job, that the future is unpredictable. I am not, as the entry currently suggests, speculating about a slight possibility - I am actually expressing doubt about an impossibility. Right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I interpret that as "actually, there is a slight possibility that you will accept a low-paying job". Equinox 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Today's Guardian newspaper has a picture of these strange German things. There is no entry in the German Wiktionary but their Wikipedia has an entry for w:de:Silvesterklaus. My German is not good enough to add an entry here, and I don't know if it should be "Silvesterklaus", "Silvesterchlaus" or even "Silvesterkläuse". I don't know how to translate it as the English Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an entry. Any ideas? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's Silvesterklaus with the nominative plural Silvesterkläuse. I know that in France every day has a saint's name and the 31st of December it's Saint Sylvestre, so la Saint-Sylvestre is the most common name for New Year's Eve. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Chlaus I think is an archaic form of Klaus. Also see Silvester which explains what I was saying about saints. Quite common in Europe it seems, but not whatsoever in the UK! Renard Migrant (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Chlaus (IPA [xlaus]) would be a Swiss German form of Klaus and related to Nikolaus (called Chlaus in Switzerland as well). I've never heard of a Silvesterklaus or anything of this kind. It's probably restricted to Switzerland, or southern Germany at most.Kolmiel (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. It's a Swiss thing, it seems even restricted to a certain part of Switzerland. (I hadn't seen the Wikipedia article you'd mentioned.)Kolmiel (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It's true, of course, that Silvester (also spelt Sylvester) is the normal German word for New Year's Eve. (Actually the only word there is, I think.) But the chlaus-thing is not common at all. As I said I had never heard of it, even though I'm not uninterested in regional traditions.Kolmiel (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


I was wondering about this greek. This word basically means whole,everything or like the whole universe. Is this where peter pan got his name? I would certainly like to know the origin of the peter pan name and if it came from this word.

Peter Pan’s name comes from the Greek god Πάν. See the etymology on that page. —Stephen (Talk) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


apparently truculence in French means vividness of style. This is rather different from the meaning in English. Only the English definition is currently available in Wiktionary. RP

translation needed from english to sanskritEdit

hi. i would like the below verse translated into sanskrit. Live every moment, Laugh everyday, Love beyond words, Accept Life.

Sorry, it is too complex and difficult. I would have to spend hours trying to understand the meaning of some of those lines. I usually allot only five minutes or so to a free Sanskrit translation. —Stephen (Talk) 11:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You almost certainly mean "Laugh every day", not "Laugh everyday". 18:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalisation of venturi termsEdit

venturi effect, venturi mask, venturi scrubber, venturi tube. From a glance in Google Books, I think for each of these terms the V is overwhelming or always capitalized. Not so sure about venturi itself. Equinox 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A look at COCA suggests otherwise, but does not provide enough data to be relied on. I am afraid that each collocation needs to be looked at individually. Some attributive use of lower-case venturi seems to be attributive use in the sense "venturi tube". DCDuring TALK 15:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
venturi scrubber looks more common than Venturi scrubber in running text at Google Books, based on sample of 30. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
None of the following suggests overwhelming capitalization: venturi scrubber,Venturi scrubber at Google Ngram Viewer, venturi effect,Venturi effect at Google Ngram Viewer, venturi tube, Venturi tube at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

pronunciation of etymology 2 of damEdit

Can someone check a definitive dictionary for the pronunciation of this? I've only ever seen it used in writing by Gilbert White, I don't know if it's an alternate spelling of the more common word, and has a diphthong, or if it comes from french damme, and has the same vowel as that one, or perhaps as the other sense of dam, the structure? edit: copied to tea room, I was confused about which section to use for these discussions —This comment was unsigned.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you "check a definitive dictionary"?
I would pronounce it like dame#French. I think that the dam spelling is intended to avoid pronouncing dame to rhyme with aim. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Are we talking about the English word? If so, etymology 2 is pronounced just like etymology 1, and they're both homophonous with damn and rhyme with ham and jam. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the pronunciation of etymology 2 of dam is [vɛəɹiənt ʌv dæm]. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How to denote a noun that consists of two nouns joined by "and"?Edit

I'm a bit unsure how to write the entry schering en inslag. These are two nouns, and the combined phrase acts grammatically like any other conjunction of two nouns. It can be compared to something like fire and water in English. Because it's two nouns, it doesn't really have grammatical gender, and plurals in Dutch have no gender. But this is not really a plural either because it doesn't require plural verb inflection, just like an English phrase would (both "fire and water is" and "fire and water are" can be used). So what is it? —CodeCat 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

dvandva ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, that term also has a semantic implication. It looks like a dvandva is something that uses two words to denote a semantic "boundary" where the combination includes everything in between. That wouldn't necessarily apply here, especially as this combination is an idiom with a totally different meaning. —CodeCat 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The definition for dvandvas is how they behave syntactically, not what the resulting compound means. Idiomacity is just an additional semantic constraint that precludes exchangeability of the constituents. Wikipedia article is too biased in favor of grc/sa, a better overview can be found here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Like fish and chips, clicks and mortar? We seem to class them as nouns, though "noun phrase" might be more accurate. Equinox 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
But in a language like Dutch, the gender is not clearly determined either, which makes it more difficult to call it a real noun. Unfortunately, gender inflection in Dutch adjectives is rather rudimentary, so it's not so easy to figure out what the gender of a combination like this is. I wonder how languages like Spanish handle it. —CodeCat 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would leave them genderless. Spanish, French, etc. would use the gender of both nouns, mixed genders being masculine. In Russian, it would only matter if they are animate or inanimate. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If it's genderless, then it can't be a noun. Which kind of makes sense, because it's two nouns. Also, if such a phrase is used as the subject, does the verb inflect as singular, plural or either in those languages? If it can be singular, what gender does an adjective have? For example, if you say "X and Y is/are (adjective)"? —CodeCat 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In German, they would either be a noun phrase in the plural and thus without gender (Feuer und Wasser sind, never *Feuer und Wasser ist). Or they would be nouns of their own right with a gender, most often neuter (e.g. das Hab und Gut, das Fish & Chips).Kolmiel (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) --- (Or at least I can't think of any that are singular and do not have a gender. Of course, gender might sometimes vary, but speakers would give it a gender.)Kolmiel (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this word attestable in English too? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Singular 'they' for animals/objectsEdit

There is a discussion if singular they can be used to refer to animals or objects at Talk:they#Singular_senses. We are thinking of combining senses for unknown gender singular and known gender singular if there are citations for singular with an animal or object as its referent. Timeraner (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


Years ago as a kid, I used to read those Commando war comics. One word that often came up was "kato". It was used by Japanese characters as an insult for the allies, as in "Die, you kato dog". But I could not find any evidence of it now. Anyone remember it, or able to find it.--Dmol (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This was on WT:REE for some years. I searched a few times, but found nothing, so eventually removed it. Equinox 00:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Japanese is such a bonkers language in terms of homophones, but one "kato" (actually "katō"), 下等, means something like "inferior" or "low-class". I wonder whether it could be that? 13:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


There is a sense missing. I mean the one that is often found in casual online forums or speech as in "someone farted "cough" brian". Can someone add that sense please? I would really appreciate that. Thank you. 00:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a run at this, but the non-gloss definition could be improved (replaced?) and more usage examples added. DCDuring TALK 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't think it would qualify as an interjection? DTLHS (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think hardly anything qualifies as an interjection except for words that are: 1, not derived homonyms of words of other word classes, 2, are expressions of emotion (broadly defined), and, 3, occur in grammatical isolation from the sentence(s) surrounding them. Others here classify anything that is in grammatical isolation as an interjection, which would included absolute expressions and prosentences if they were consistent. I have not seen a definition offered here that would include all and only what we include as interjections. DCDuring TALK 03:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Letter "ⴻ" in Central Atlas Tamazight (and Tashelhit)Edit

This letter, meaning the absence of vowal (and double following consonant), seems to be no more popular in modern Tifinagh writings. For example, my reference book (see here) do not use it, but notes the double consonant.

For example : ⴰⵎⴻⵍⴰⵍ => ⴰⵎⵍⵍⴰⵍ

Transliteration is the same (amellal). Pronounciation is /a.məl.'læl/

--Lucyin (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see both forms are in Wiktionary. So, it should be evidenced that it is the same word, with the same pronounciation, just differences in orthography conventions.

--Lucyin (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I completed both articles with alternative forms and pronounciation. Is it right ?

--Lucyin (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Chuck Entz and I have a dispute on the wiktionary page for blasphemy. You can see my correction and his revert here. My attempt to resolve our disagreement can be read here.

A draft version, that I submit for comments to Tea room participants, can be seen here. Contrast it with the reverted version.

Reasons I favor the draft version:

  • While I am fine with including the definition of word as "insulting a deity", this is incomplete because these are not redundant. A God is a deity, but a deity is not necessarily a God. A deity can be demigod, non-god, natural object, etc.
  • Per WT:NPOV poilcy, wiktionary definition should express all significant meaning, viewpoint. The predominant use, most widespread meaning of blasphemy relates to "certain speech and action against God or a sacred entity". (See any major dictionary or encyclopedia; for exampe: Meriam Webster (2012), Blasphemy, Quote: "great disrespect shown to God or to something holy"; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2013), Quote: "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God or a sacred entity."). The older/reverted version did not mention "God" anywhere, not even once.
  • The older version alleged the word to mean "irreverence to deities". But "blasphemy against deities" fails attestation, clearly widespread use, per WT:CFI policy.

Which version of blasphemy definition is more consistent with WT:NPOV and WT:CFI, and why?

RLoutfy (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If blasphemy can't apply to any deity, but only to a god, then "deity" should be replaced. Otherwise, it is fine as it is, "god" is redundant as "deity" already encompasses it (see the definitions at deity). NPOV means that we should describe all meanings, so limiting it to just "God" is showing a preference to the monotheistic view of religion, which of course is definitely not neutral. —CodeCat 21:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we should have both, monotheistic and polytheistic usage, to respect WT:NPOV. The current version is inadvertently pushing only the polytheistic angle, which is not the widespread sense of use of word blasphemy.
Can you attest, per WT:CFI guidelines, that the word blasphemy applies to "any deity" or "deities"? I find none for "deities", nor for "any deity" (universal sense). Yes, there is some historical usage for "deity" as well as "gods", but predominant usage is "God or sacred entity". RLoutfy (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a slippery slope, though, because there are as many POVs as there are religions and gods. Are we to replace "deity" with "God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Odin, Jupiter..."? We use the term "deity" because it encompasses all those things. That said, it's easy to find references of blaspheming against a variety of things. Just look for "blaspheme against (insert deity here)". —CodeCat 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The context of any above is demi-god, natural objects, non-gods - all of which can be deities in various pagan traditions. My concern is that blasphemy doesn't apply to any deity, nor deities. Disrespect, criticism, cursing demigod deity, non-god deity, natural object deity was/is not blasphemy in some pagan traditions.
The word God, in English, includes the various contextual sense of words you list. On search you recommend, I have done that already (e.g. "blaspheme against deities") - a sense reflected on the current wiktionary page. I get two hits on google (one in a forum), none in any book, none in scholarly publications. The results for "blasphemy of deities" thus fail WT:CFI.
Why not include both poly- and mono- theistic versions of the definition? RLoutfy (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It may not be blasphemy in some religions, but it is in others. For example, what an Ancient Greek might have considered blasphemy against Zeus is probably not considered blasphemy by modern-day Orthodox Christians. Recently, many people considered the publication of pictures of Mohammed blasphemy, but many others did not. This is the slippery slope. We can't possibly list every single sect's nuanced version of blasphemy. So the definition we have is general enough to include the overall aspects that these various definitions of each religion have in common.
And as for your search, have you tried searching for things like "blasphemy against Odin", "blasphemy against Artemis" or "blasphemy against Vishnu"? —CodeCat 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"Blasphemy against Odin" etc are not mentioned on the wiktionary page. All it mentions is "deity" and "deities". That is what is relevant for WT:CFI.
Show me WT:CFI-compliant attested use of "blasphemy against deities", or "blasphemy against demi-god/nongod deity".
Once again, I am not saying "do not use deity" or "replace deity everywhere on the page with the term God" on blasphemy page. I am suggesting that include both "God" (widespread) and "deity" (fringe, historic) sense of meanings, for WT:NPOV. I am also suggesting that we remove "deities" per WT:CFI. RLoutfy (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Um... but you realise Odin is a deity, right? Therefore, the definition fits. That's what's relevant for CFI. Furthermore, people still use the word "blasphemy" to refer to an act against a polytheistic god or other kind of deity. So that's a modern sense, modern utterances are still created with that meaning. And "fringe" is completely irrelevant for a dictionary entry. —CodeCat 23:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. And that would be covered by including the "blasphemy against deity" sense of meaning. The issue is that that is not the only, nor even widespread sense of the meaning. That creates WT:NPOV issue.

Your position ignores the fact that deity or deities do not mean God in Islam, for example. The Shahada (Arabic: الشهادة‎) of Islam states, "There is no god but God". Blasphemy in Islamic context isn't "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning deity or deities". Blasphemy in Islam, for example, is "Contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God". For neutral point of view, the monotheistic version of the definition should be included. RLoutfy (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it's the entry deity you want changed. It currently defines it as "a divine being; a god or goddess". This definition includes the Islamic god. But I get the feeling you're just trying to push your POV while calling it neutral. I already said that we can't include every single religious group's particular definition of what blasphemy is. The current general definition already includes the Islamic definition. Any act that is blasphemy by Islam is also blasphemy by the current definition in the entry, if I'm not mistaken. For example, insulting the Islamic god does fit the description "act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for any religion's deity or deities". If you don't understand that then I don't know what else to tell you. —CodeCat 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow, did PaM hire a gang of Islam kooks to come and screw us up, after he got banned? Equinox 23:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Codecat - Not at all. I do not want "deity" page changed. It matches the widespread meaning of that word.
My focus is the blasphemy page. I am saying include both definitions, monotheistic and polytheistic senses of definition. I gave three reasons above (God is deity, but a deity is not necessarily God; etc). I have even added references to help you verify attested use. Monotheistic concept of God is different than monotheistic concept of deity (god) - I have given you proof above. You are alleging that polytheistic definition covers the monotheistic definition, which is neither true nor have you provided evidence/attested-use to prove so.
I am open to constructive collaboration with you to improve the blasphemy page. While you accuse me of POV, I refuse to accuse you of anything. Let us assume good faith. RLoutfy (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Would changing it to 'against a god' make you that much happier? In term of polytheismgoogle books:"blasphemy against Odin" google books:"blasphemy against Vishnu" both get a hit. You seem to be by your own admission, ardently arguing to replace one word with a synonym of that word. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not seeking replacement of "deity" to "god". I am seeking that we add, "4. Disrespect, contemptuous or profane speech or action concerning God" with capital G. That is the widespread use, and attested in every major dictionary and encyclopedia I have checked (see two examples above). RLoutfy (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
But as I said, that sense is redundant to the existing one, because a capital God is a deity. —CodeCat 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "God" is "a god", which is a deity. And which God is the God depends entirely upon who you ask. You are seeking to make a distinction without a difference, to include a specific example of a general term purely so that monotheists can feel fuzzy and included because they can then continue to make believe that their God is not somehow "a god", and that they are uniquely special, and the definition is written specifically for their God, and not for any of those heathen imposters who call themselves "God".
You are pushing a point of view (that "God" is somehow not "a god") which is semantically nonsensical, and you are pushing it in a passive-aggressive "I'm being nice and reasonable so you aren't allowed to call what I'm saying bullshit", "I'm being NPOV if I say I am" way. And I'd have a bit more respect for your position if this argument were not literally the only thing you've done on Wiktionary under this name. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
CodeCat - Not so. See: google books:"God is not a deity" for attested counter-examples. RLoutfy (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of those examples are part of sentences which directly contradict you ("But the true God is not a Deity who can neither help nor injure men"... ie., God is a Deity), and even if not, the existence of a sentence does nothing to argue for the truth of that sentence. See: google books:"I am a teapot" for attested examples. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Attestation doesn't make truth, google books:"Elvis Presley is alive" and so on. RLoutfy has made his point, it's been rejected, and we should all move on. Good day everyone. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Catsidhe - See Pierson (ISBN 978-1490426334).

Quote - "The Pagan gods and goddesses of pre-Christian Europe like Odin, Thor, Mars, Aphrodite and Venus are deities. Deities are human like. God is not a deity."

If you want to go by "most of the examples", then most examples of attested use of "blasphemy" are with the word "God", not with the word "deity", never with the word "deities". The current blasphemy page never uses the word god or God even once. Once again, I am not asking to replace deity with god on that page. I am asking, why not include both polytheistic definition and monotheistic definition. I have already shown attested examples that it is not redundant - "God is not god" in some cases, "God is not deity" in some cases, and "deity is not God" in some cases. A WT:NPOV version would include all attested sense of meanings.

Folks - I am not going to edit the disputed page, if I fail to persuade you. I do appreciate your feedback here, and that I sense is the purpose of Tea House. I am going to sign off for now. I hope you will weigh the evidence on both sides, and revise if appropriate, or leave the page unchanged if appropriate. RLoutfy (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pushing your own point of view against majority wishes while citing WT:NPOV. That'll make you popular. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in. My thoughts, after reading this through:

  • Checking this user's global contributions shows an odd focus on blasphemy.
  • The above arguments made by RLoutfy fail to follow logic, and fail to persuade. I can find no sense in the motion to change the blasphemy entry.

Keep unchanged. The context of this user's edits makes this whole thread seem like part of a broader obsession that I neither share nor understand. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


The entry says that "billiard" is an adjective but no examples are given. If it is referring to uses such as "billiard ball", I feel rather doubtful that it is a true adjective. 14:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now moved under the noun section. Equinox 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Is this standard usage or is it a misrepresentation of summons as a plural? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not standard usage at all. As you know, the contributor who added that isn't a native speaker of English and tends to overlook a lot of details Chuck Entz (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be formatted like kudo, with a second etymology section. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I've greatly expanded our entry on that, and although the usage notes may need more work, I think the senses are now pretty complete — as complete as what Century had and what Merriam-Webster has. There's just one use of the word that I'm not sure how to cover:

Merriam-Webster has this as pronoun 2 sense 2b, "according to what : to the extent of what — used after a negative", but that definition makes it sound more like a conjunction than a pronoun. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see why MWO def for conjunction 1a(4): "used as a function word to introduce a subordinate clause modifying an adverb or adverbial expression <will go anywhere that he is invited>", isn't sufficient for the usage example. Also couldn't one say, in response to "Was Simpson there?", "Twice that I saw."? Ie, not with a negative. How is the negative supposed to change the grammar, so that switches word class from conjunction to pronoun? DCDuring TALK 19:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point re "twice that I saw". OK, I've added two usexes (one with a negative, one without) of this sort of usage to that sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


In the translations for the first sense: "Dutch: auto (nl) m, wagen (nl) m, automobiel (nl) m (deprecated)"

I had a bit of a chuckle at "deprecated" there. Seriously though, I think deprecated is an inappropriate word here. Is "automobiel" archaic? Obsolete? Just old-fashioned? This, that and the other (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably just dated. People wouldn't use it. —CodeCat 16:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


The current definition of "manslaugter" seems to be wrong because it explicitly defines it as "unwillful" killing. It seems that manslaughter can be both "willful" and "unwillful". Wikipedia's w:manslaughter distinguishes between "voluntary manslaughter" and "involuntary manslaughter". ---- This is particularly relevant because we translate "manslaughter" with German Totschlag and Dutch doodslag, both of which are explicitly restricted to "voluntary manslaughter", i.e. killing with a will to kill but without prearrangement or premeditiation. ---- An alternative definition could be something like: A criminal act of killing a human being considered less culpable than murder, with legal definitions varying by jurisdiction (unless there is someone who could provide a more detailed definition fitting the situation in the "Anglo-Saxon" laws). What do you think?Kolmiel (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

AHD has: "The killing of a person without malice aforethought but with either the intention to commit an unlawful act that leads to an unintended death, or with an otherwise murderous intent that is extenuated by some partial defense, such as acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance occasioned by a substantial provocation on the part of the victim."
Legal definitions are complicated and may differ by jurisdiction, eg, by country and, in the US, by state. In the absence of an ability to definitively analyze all laws for the jurisdictions, we either have to restrict our definition(s) to what we can cite or rely on authorities while avoiding copyright violations. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
All right. Thanks. (And sorry for answering so late) ... Now what would you propose? At any rate the current definition is wrong, isn't it? We could probably use "malice aforethought". My English isn't good enough to give a perfect solution, just something along the lines of: "The crime of killing a person unlawfully, distinguished from murder by the lack of malice aforethought, and therefore considered less culpable. (Precise legal definitions vary by jurisdiction.)" Do you think you could make some edit of this kind? I mean what harm can it do if the current definition is explicitly wrong?Kolmiel (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kolmiel: I have reworded using Webster 1913, which is copyright-free. I can't distinguish the substance from more modern definitions. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

additives to hashishEdit

When I was young in the 70's I didn't know what my peers were getting me high on. So I wonder now if I'm being a drug in my adult life what was Hashish mixed with in the 70's? Was in heroin, was it opium, was it cocaine? To ask what it really was is the very ignorance of my youth and it greatly concerns me today. All my mental illness may stem off of the drug I was taking and if it wasn't pure hashish then I'm concerned about what I'm to do about it today. What the question I ask is what are the additives they mixed with hashish back in the 70's to know what I can do about it in my adult life? This opinion only stems off of what drug we are when it comes to that we need to take notice it is how our mind works today. I can understand when we where just teens they would give us an unpure derivative of hashish for a cheaper price. Maybe none of us knew what it would do until they decided to get me high on the drug. How dumb of me when I trusted anyone and everyone I was with. It is time to concern ourselves in 2015 what is legal in the six states that cannabis is legal when it amounts to a pure extraction of marijuana.

Sorry, but this is a dictionary staffed by volunteers, not the Source Of All Knowledge. Even if one of us knew about that stuff, it wouldn't be ethical to discuss it here. The closest thing we have is definitions for slang terms for drugs, but I wouldn't stake my life or well-being on their accuracy. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Soute (FR) - tasinko (FI)Edit


I use Wiktionary too seldom to remember the knobs and buttons....

Could someone establish a link between "soulte" in French and "tasinko" in Finnish ? They are the same word in both languages It would be useful to create the English translation too (amount one has to pay to somebody in case of unequal shares in an inheritance)


--BeeJay (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


I just read this on the ManCity homepage: "Our live stream is available in all territories excluding those listed below, but you can watch the game courtesy of these alternative broadcasters."

However I don't quite understand the meaning of courtesy in that sentence, since English is not my native tongue. Could someone explain that to me? What is a game courtesy?-- 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • See the preposition courtesy of. (I've added your quote) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (EC) In this case, it's part of the phrase "courtesy of", meaning "thanks to". Another way to write it would be "You can watch the game, thanks to these alternative broadcasters", or "These alternative broadcasters will let you watch the game". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


"A feeble utterance or complaint. I don't want to hear a peep out of you!" That's not my understanding of the word. I think it means the smallest possible sound (along the lines of whit or jot for the smallest possible amount), so "not a peep" means not even the smallest sound — whereas our definition of "a feeble utterance or complaint" suggests something closer to "no dissent". Equinox 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

bicarbonate -- year coinedEdit

I just edited Wikipedia's article on "bicarbonate" to include the date (1814) on which the term was coined.

If you want to add that information to Wikitionary's article on "bicarbonate", here's the information:

The term "bicarbonate" was coined in 1814 by the English chemist William Hyde Wollaston.[1]

[1] William Hyde Wollaston (1814) "A synoptic scale of chemical equivalents," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 104 : 1-22. On page 11, Wollaston coins the term "bicarbonate": "The next question that occurs relates to the composition of this crystallized carbonate of potash, which I am induced to call bi-carbonate of potash, for the purpose of marking more decidedly the distinction between this salt and that which is commonly called a subcarbonate, and in order to refer at once to the double dose of carbonic acid contained in it."

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

blackheart treeEdit

Wirlu is a Martuthunira word that references gloss as "the blackheart tree". Related languages use wirlu to denote acacias, so the blackheart is probably an acacia. Can anyone figure out which one? The Lincoln Library of Essential Information (1962), page 1072, says "The Blackwood, or Blackheart, an Australian species (A. melanorylon), now grown in California", while Australian Dry-zone Acacias for Human Food (1992, ISBN 064310240X), page 62, lists it as a common name of Acacia coriacea. @DCDuring: since it's a taxonomic issue. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not finding blackheart as a vernacular for any species of Acacia. I searched for additional sources both at Google books, at the general taxonomy and plant taxonomy sites and some specialized Australian and acacia sites. No further joy for blackheart. A melanoxylon is usually called blackwood. It is native to the eastern parts of Australia from Tasmania to southern Queensland. There is also an Australian species called blackheart sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), but it is only native to Tasmania and Victoria. But Martuthunira was spoken in Western Australia per WP. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    This search on a Western Australia database for acacia tree species native to the Pilbara found a long list that included A. coriacea. I'd go with that or get in touch with someone in language studies or botany at the University of Western Australia. HTH. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's a lot more information than I had been able to find! Thank you! - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


The ety says "Used in English since the 14th century, and as a term of abuse since the 17th century." Yet we have no definition of "pork" as a term of abuse. Equinox 14:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a job for the OED.
But, could it be that for "as a term of abuse" it should be "pejoratively" and refer to the sense we limit to US political slang? DCDuring TALK 16:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2015/January#forecastle.

Kanji/Hanzi etymology sourcesEdit

It seems the source for an etymology was removed some time ago, also possibly on pages of other charaters to which I added etymologies from that site: * Habemus (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)