Make sure that each term is in quotes so Google doesn't "correct" you when you do this kind of search (exact spelling/form).
I get more pages at Google Books for defleaed (8) than for deflead (3). That would suggest that deflead might be an alternative valid spelling, but it would be necessary to examine the citations one by one. DCDuringTALK18:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[EDIT CONFLICT] I see way more than 3 for deflead, but I used "deflea'd" in the Search Engine. Notwithstanding, none of the returns I saw contained the apostrophe. There was one as "de-flead" (on the actual book page) Leasnam (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Guide to Style (2002) says: “Formerly ’d was added in place of -ed to nouns and verbs ending in a pronounced vowel sound: concertina’d one-idea’d dado’d mustachio’d ski’d ¶ This practice is now rare in British English, rarer still in US English, as the apostrophe’d result looks odder to a modern eye than the juxtaposition of vowels without it: subpoenaed shampooed hennaed shanghaied skied” Note that they ironically use the spelling apostrophe’d themselves, but perhaps that is a different case because the vowel happens to be e. --WikiTiki8919:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sense overlap and problems here. In particular, if it means "the country indicated on a label as being the country in which the goods were made", then the usage example "It says Made in Mexico. I wonder if that is the real country of origin" is nonsensical; it would mean someone is wondering about the label, which they can already see. Equinox◑20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot like the many other words, phrases, and slogans that advertisers use that promise more to consumers than what the advertising regulators would hold the advertisers to. There is something lexical involved, bit it is more like word use in poetry than something we can readily deal with. DCDuringTALK20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added it today, and it was deleted as a creative invention. The verb has been mentioned in printed sources at least 30 times, dating back to at least 1890. So why is it a creative invention? 24.5.143.19006:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the American English sample beside the American English IPA. The other audio is Australian, so I'll leave another person who is more accustomed to Australian English to sort it out. Hillcrest98 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doddle Etymology
It has always been my understanding that doddle is an English corruption of the Scots dialect "dawdle" as in "beating the English at curling is usually a dawdle". Or "thrashing the Scots at football is always a doddle".
I've stumbled upon a term that I'm having a hard time translating. The closest I've come to an accurate translation is transmitter, but I still feel that it's not as precise as it should be. Basically, Romanian Wiktionary (here) and DEX (here) – N.B. in Romanian – say that the definition of traductor is:
Device, technical system which establishes a correspondence between the measured values of a specific system and the characteristic values of another system – used in technology, electricity and telecommunication; (specifically) a device used in telegraphy to translate received electrical signal combinations into corresponding typographical characters.
Having five senses seems like overkill. Can we merge some of them? Also, it has been observed that this word is mainly used today to describe food, e.g. a sinful chocolate dessert. Equinox◑00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think 5 and 3 can be merged On second thought, I think 3 can be removed (?) does it ever mean "relating to sin" ? (e.g. one speaks of a "sin issue" not a "sinful issue") Then 4 & 5 can be grouped. Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing 3 and merging 4 and 5. But 1 and 2 also look as though they could be merged with 4 and 5; the only apparent difference is that some kinds of sin are prescribed by religion and some are not. I think two senses might cover it. Equinox◑00:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me it's a French word, like naive or café, and I pronounce it accordingly (having learned French at school, which might not be common or useful in Australia). My Chambers Dictionary (UK) does not allow a hard /g/. I've never heard anyone say it that way, but it's not a commonly spoken word. Equinox◑03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've always pronounced it /pɔɪg.nənt/, even after learning French, and I'm fairly certain I've heard it pronounced that way more often than the standard pronunciation (I live in western Canada). That being said, I don't think I've heard it spoken very often. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The American Heritage Dictionary, Dictionary.com's Random House Dictionary, the British and American Cambridge.org dictionaries, the British and American MacMillans, and oxforddictionaries.com's British dictionary have only /ˈpɔɪn.jənt/.
Collins English Dictionary (both on its own site, and when listed as Dictionary.com's 'British Dictionary') and oxforddictionaries.com's American dictionary give /ˈpɔɪ.nənt/ as an alternative (to /ˈpɔɪn.jənt/).
The 1914 Century Dictionary has only /ˈpɔɪ.nənt/ (in their system: poi'na̤nt, as compared to cogmankog'ma̤n, cognackõ'nyak). On the other hand, Robert Nares' 1784 Elements of Orthoepy spells out that the 'g' is silent and an 'i' is introduced after the 'n', in imitation of the French pronunciation; intriguingly, he also says 'g' is pronounced (in his time) in diaphragm and paradigm, in contrast to phlegm where it is silent. (The 1886 Encyclopaedic Dictionary just says "g [is] silent".)
Merriam-Webster gives /ˈpɔɪn.jənt/ but says it can also "sometimes" be /ˈpɔɪ(ɡ).nənt/, but I've never heard it with a /ɡ/.
Since we have an Australian, a Canadian, and an American dictionary all saying they've heard /ɡ/, but no other dictionary lists it, I'd speculate that it might be a spelling pronunciation rather than a regional one. According to various websites, Laura Bush and Michelle Bachmann (who famously also mispronounce other words) pronounce the "g". - -sche(discuss)22:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
missus
There seems to be a noun sense of the Latin missus which we are missing from our entry;
A Frankish army, under the command of a reliable missus called Winigis, had been sent to Italy as a relief force to aid these Lombard rulers...
This made me wonder, at which point does substantivized usage of an adjective/participle warrant its own separate noun header? — Kleio (t · c) 09:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Privation" reverted, the reasoning?
I am concerned that I might have a big 'Revert This Guy's Edits' sign on my backside, as every edit I have made, regardless of my state of sobriety, lucidity, or self-apparent sanity whilst editing these entries seems to make any difference, and I cannot yet ascertain the reasons.
This last edit, on the entry for "privation" is of particular interest, as I followed the prevailing research (Bowlby, 1968) referred to the area of knowledge properly (I believe) and even tidied things up a bit, managing to include a link to the Wikipedia article on the same subject at the last minute just to be thorough.
So, may I have an explanation, please for the reversion?
I'd say the main reason is that the definitions you gave are too longwinded and include irrelevant details. A definition's job isn't to describe the referent in too much detail, but to give just the minimum of information to make it clear to the reader what the word refers to. —CodeCat14:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the definition in question was unncessarily lenghty, but a good definition might give a little more than "just the minimum of information to make it clear [...] what the word refers to". Methinks. And I think rather often our definitions are like that: they make it clear what the word refers to when I come across it in a text, but they don't enable me to use it correctly on my own. Kolmiel (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I can handle being considered 'windy', though I have a hard time coping with conflict between me and specific editors. Since the definition as it stands now is incorrect, and ought to be corrected to include what I wrote albeit less wordily, might someone help me be less wordy rather than perfunctorily reverting my edits and simultaneously neglecting to really give enough information about the revert so as to facilitate me, as a n00b actually getting an edit under my belt?
I can't really see anything you added that improves the meaning of the entry rather than just making it sound more elaborate. We don't need to specify that "necessities of life" include foodstuffs and shelter. We don't need to mention "the Universe" (where else would privation be happening?). We don't need a frankly incomprehensible grammatical chain like "being induced in an individual via a lack of existence of a means by which...". Please don't take it personally but the entry seems fine already. Equinox◑09:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are translingual symbols that have the same meaning in all languages. The language-specific sections just repeat the translingual meaning, but give one possible textual expansion (there is not necessarily just one). Consider that +, -, * and / have no language-specific mathematical definitions either. I think the language-specific sections should be removed unless a clearer use for them can be found. —CodeCat18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted them all. Just like the pages for Arabic numerals: don't need to add every language's word for the number (unless they are used in a non-numerical sense, e.g. texting) since 2 to mean two, etc. is pretty universal among languages. Relegate definitions to the spelled-out forms instead. Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They have the same meaning in all languages, but obviously not the same name or "pronunciation". Should the names/pronunciations in other languages be listed in English Wiktionary (like "translations", I suppose), or is it intended that English speakers who want to know how to say the symbol in another language should go to the Wiktionary of that language?
I would dispute that ∀ has a pronunciation. It represents another word or words ("for all"), which have pronunciations. We do not, for example, list a pronunciation at 3, but we do at three. Equinox◑01:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since these symbols represent ideas, it may be "translated" or "pronounced" in various different ways. For example, for ∃, er is(“there is”) or er bestaat(“there exists”) would be equally valid. And even for simple multiplication we have, in English, times and multiplied by. —CodeCat01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the underlying point here is that ∀ and friends belong to a different language (the "language of mathematics", or logic), in the same way that (say) #ifdef DEBUG belongs to the programming language C, and the only reason that these things are translingual (or have "the same meaning in all languages", as IP says) is that all of those languages have speakers who are familiar with mathematical (or programming) notation. To suggest that ∀ is English, or Bulgarian, or whatever, is rather absurd. Equinox◑01:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, when reading out a formula, there is a conventional way (or ways) to pronounce it in a given language, such as "for all" in English. I think it is legitimate for Wiktionary to record these. The now-deleted per-language sections had the advantage of giving the opportunity for doing that, albeit in a very space-consuming way. The question, I think, is whether the now-deleted "voor alle", "para todo" and so forth belong anywhere on the page ∀ in English Wiktionary.
There should be a link to access the spelled-out English form in the Translingual section, and all translations (voor alle, para todo, etc.) would be listed at the spelled-out English form. e.g. 3 and three. Hillcrest98 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But not all moisturizers are creams. In particular, aloe vera is a gel. So I had a look at the Wikipedia article and it seems to oppose "cream" and other words including "oil" with other words such as "emollient", "humectant", "lotion", "lubricant", and "ointment".
So it seems to me that "moisturising cream" is actually SOP and might not even warrant a full entry of its own.
But even if it does qualify for an entry it is not a cover term for all types of moisturizer.
We could just remove the redirect. We could reverse the redirect. Or we could instead have a redirect with one or both of those with emollient.
But as emollient is a technical term and I'm not that familiar with it, I suspect it also does not cover every kind of moisturizer. In particular, from the Wikipedia article, especially the other technical term humectant seems opposed to it.
My conclusion is that we should remove the redirect and just allow translations under the most generic term moisturizer and the more specific non-technical term moisturising cream and the more specific technical term emollient.
Separately, we should also debate whether moisturising cream is overly SOP to even have an entry.
Did I forget to sign it? Sorry about that. I've got a bit of jetlag and an annoying headcold cold I caught just before flying to the tropical heat. — hippietrail (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing it first decades ago in commercials for Dove soap, touting their content of "one-quarter moisturizing cream". This may just be one of those meaningless advertising phrases that have seeped into our vocabulary through constant exposure. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created these entries. The term "moisturising cream" definitely exists; reading off a packet belonging to my stepdaughter; "Olay essentials" "light moisturising cream + touch of foundation" ..."it moisturises, perfects and protects skin"... ..."24 hours moisturisation for long-lasting hydration"... . I don't think it's SoP, it's only intended for the skin. Oxford says for moisturiser / moisturizer "a cosmetic preparation used to prevent dryness in the skin" [2]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are moisturizing gels. There are body moisturizing creams, lotions, and gels, skin moisturizing creams, lotions, and gels, and facial moisturizing creams, lotions, and gels, and hand moisturizing creams, lotions, and gels. These all seem perfectly SoP to me. DCDuringTALK19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I separated the two topics into independent sections. Obviously the other issue is more subtle and needs discussion. But I feel this one is more straightforward and should go ahead. — hippietrail (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, no. Not all moisturizers are moisturizing creams. They can also be lotions, gels, treatments, fluids, and who knows what else. DCDuringTALK03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This verb and its derivatives are listed as class 1 strong verbs, but I'm not sure that's the case: it ends in -de, Proto-Germanic and ON both have it as class 1 weak, and the vowel change in the past is from ON umlaut (it's a *-janą causative) and not ablaut. KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to distinguish between strong and irregular verbs sometimes, but I think it's due to the vowel change from "æ" to "a". See also legge in Bokmål. DonnanZ (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually pretty easy: a verb with a dental suffix in the past is weak, regardless of anything else. Compare tell vs told. The phenomenon in question here is Rückumlaut and it's limited to class 1 weak verbs. —CodeCat16:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We current say this is "US slang", but that it is not really accurate for two reasons: (1) it can be found outside of the US, and (2) it is not used everywhere in the US. It is used by English-speaking Ashkenazi Jews basically everywhere, and also by non-Jews in heavily Jewish-populated areas, such as (but not limited to) New York. This is common with many Yiddish words and phrases. How can we accurately and concisely give fit this into a label? --WikiTiki8914:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
corbynista
Any Spanish speakers? I've just added a new entry for the English word Corbynista, but now I see that there was already an entry for corbynista, said to be a Spanish word, defined merely as "Corbynista" (which would not have existed in Wiktionary at the time last year when corbynista was created). The example sentence at corbynista seems to be something to do with political theory. Is the Spanish "corbynista" the same word as my English "Corbynista" or not? Should there be a Spanish section at Corbynista? 81.152.193.13100:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish sentence means something like: "For a Corbynista, a society with equal opportunities cannot be achieved through market mechanisms if there is a public alternative" (Google Translate). It's the same thing, but Spanish doesn't spell such words with a capital letter, so it should stay where it is. We distinguish entries by capitals; compare e.g. gift (a present) and Gift (German for "poison"). Equinox◑00:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. If it's the same meaning but the Spanish don't capitalise it then everything seems to be in order, as you say. 81.152.193.131
I think it is probably appropriate. Like -gate (which funnily enough also started with water on it), it now seems to be used without thinking too much about the original term. We do have senses at shed for "a distinction or dividing-line" and "an area of land as distinguished from those around it", but they are obsolete and probably poorly known. Equinox◑01:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An Arabic entry created and edited completely by a bot, which I came about upon the Random entry button. Something about this just doesn't seem right to me; it just gives me a feeling like it needs to be cleaned up. The reason is that the verb L4 is used 12 times in the entry. I understand these seem to be different forms inside even their own etymology. But any users who participate in Arabic editing, could I please know why this is? I'm sure there are other entries similar to this. Is it right or not and how should it be modified if it isn't? Philmonte101 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a result of Arabic not usually marking vowels. Look closely at the transliterations under each section. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The word تدرس can be transliterated "tdrs" (no written vowels, since Arabic usually does not write short vowels). But each of the twelve forms has different diacritics (the diacritics indicate vowels and any doubling of consonants, but, as in Latin, the diacritics are normally not written), so they are pronounced differently. Also, they link to two different verbs (one is "drs" and the other is "drrs"). It looks fine to me. If you copy one of the twelve forms, such as تَدْرُسَ, then go to درس and search the conjugation table for it, you will see the instances of it along with the English transliteration. —Stephen(Talk)02:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. Then I think we can drop this now, there's nothing to discuss here. I was just concerned about the repeating of L4s, which you don't see often here, so I wanted to bring it up to people who were more knowledgable about the language than me (who has close to no knowledge of Arabic at all atm). Philmonte101 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It was my bot that did this. It was not completely clear to me what goes under its own etymology. Generally when editing Arabic I put differently-pronounced forms under their own etymologies, but I made an exception for non-lemma verb forms, where (as Stephen noted) the etymology corresponds to the underlying verb. In this case, there are two different verbs, one meaning "to learn" and the other "to teach", and under each verb there are multiple forms that have the same consonants and hence the same spelling, and each of those forms corresponds to two person-number-gender combinations. Benwing2 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Wonderfool sock created this entry, and then right after that, put the discuss template by it. I wonder why... But anyway, I wanted to list it. Doesn't seem bad to me, but apparently there's something he wanted to discuss about it so let's do it. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It has "simple past and past participle shortcutted", whereas in my (Australian English) usage, it's more likely to be "simple past and past participle shortcut", the shortcutted form seeming to be overly regularised. However, I can offer no sources - for either usage. yoyo (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yahya Abdal-Aziz -- the regularizing phenomenon is well known to linguists in cases where a verb is derived from a noun which is derived from a verb (i.e the verb is not derived directly from another verb). This explains some forms such as "broadcasted", "flied out" (baseball) etc. See also "Toronto Maple Leafs", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahuvrihi etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"princely sum" is often or even usually ironic. This should be mentioned. However, should princely sum be a separate entry? I am in favour of a low bar for inclusion of common set phrases that are arguably just sum-of-parts. 86.185.218.19601:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a fine collocation to include in a usage example at princely. Irony is a slender reed on which to build an argument for inclusion of an SoP term. Do you think we should add 'ironic' definitions for all the terms like little, big, noble, etc that are attestably used ironically? What about those used in other rhetorical constructions? DCDuringTALK12:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"princely sum" is already included in a usage example at "princely". When a specific expression is often or usually used ironically, this should be mentioned. This can be done at "princely" (as I initially added, but then reverted myself), or at a new entry for "princely sum", which I would favour. 86.185.218.19612:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some expressions are often used ironically, some not so often. Almost all expressions can be used ironically. Does ironic use, potentially of any sense of a word, justify an ironic definition for every sense attestably so used? Irony is a matter of rhetoric, which, like grammar, does not provide an adequate justification for a separate definition. DCDuringTALK12:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional Chinese Character as orthodox
I wonder why here in Wik Traditional Chinese Characters are treated as orthodox, given that the majority of the Chinese-speaking population use the simplified one(or this is not true?). Is there any standards, policies or something like that dealing with this issue?
Huhu9001 (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current limitations of Wiktionary, it does not seem possible to be able automatically redirect simp to centralised trad entries which contain all the relevant information. This would make it much easier to use for most Chinese-speaking people. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: that would make it easier to use for all users of Chinese, since I am talking about having all the information about a term in a centralised page. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To Anatoli T.&---> Tooironic: Thank you for answering. I have read the disscussion. But I am not concerned about duplications or redirections. My question is what standard should be followed in Wik when choosing between multiple writing systems. Or in other words, which system should be redirected or removed to prevent duplication, and which other one should be the one that is redirected toward and remain?Huhu9001 (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that traditional characters are preferred as head words because it is often the case that a simplified character has more than one traditional equivalent, while vice versa is almost never true. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose "epiphanal" as an alternate for epiphanic
I used "epiphany" in a sentence just now, as it rolled right off my tongue as natural as can be. When I checked the spelling I was surprised to find "epiphanic" as the adjectival form of "epiphany". Perhaps for some tongues (no doubt the first to utter it) "epiphanic" rolls off as natural as can be; but, to my ear, "epiphanal", similar to "seminal", is a far smoother expression. Moreover, "Epiphanal" puts accent on the same syllable as its root "epiphany", whereas "epiphanic" shifts the accent, making it sonically farther removed from its root. Depending on context, I'm sure "epiphanic" can have its own musicality and I do not suggest getting rid of it. I simply suggest adding "epiphanal" as an alternate for "epiphanic" (perhaps technically a synonym, but only if it qualifies qualifies as a separate word?)
You misunderstand how Wiktionary works: we're a descriptive dictionary, so we document the way language is (or was) actually used- not how it should be used. In this case, there's enough usage to warrant an entry, though I'll leave it to others to figure out the details. For future reference, it would be better to make this kind of request at Wiktionary:Requested entries (English). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I favor the shortest form, unless the "particle" is virtually universal. Though of is by far the most common particle, take advantage is often used without any following particle. In such uses it could be construed as an ellipsis, but that requires some imagination or more advanced understanding of English. Also, the way our search box works favors shorter forms.
I don't think of make fun as idiomatic English, but rather a calque from a language like German, though it can be used without of in ways parallel to take advantage. DCDuringTALK04:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a few hits for "make fun" like "I will encourage other players within the team and will not make fun or otherwise upset them." I can imagine someone chiding someone else "don't make fun" (of a given thing). - -sche(discuss)05:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This, and all similar expressions, are US slangy versions. There is no such phrase as "don't make fun" in England. You can compare it to "cave" instead of "cave in", and numerous other phrases where American speakers can't be bothered to give the preposition.
A Google Books search for "make fun" reveals no uses without "of" in the sense of "to mock", with the exception of one 15-year-old with autism who is quoted as saying "I know some people try to make fun out of me but I don't particularly care about them." Page 15 comes up with "The fact that Lowell was no longer allowed to make fun came as something of a blow,..." from L.J. Davis's A Meaningful Life, but therein it means "to have sex". There's a "We make fun mostly of ourselves." and a self-published "That isn't to say that I don't have fun, make fun, laugh, tell jokes..."--I'm not entirely sure what sense that uses "make fun" in. "Chico's whole aim in life seemed to be to take every challenge and make fun out of it" is another example of "make fun" where it doesn't mean "to mock". After looking at 17 pages, I have yet to find an edited example that uses "make fun" without "of" to mean mock.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the strong genitive singular form "Jugendlicher" exists. German singular nouns need a declined article or determiner with them to form a genitive. And when there is such a thing, strong declension is ruled out. Or can anyone give me a sentence? — This wouldn't be so important. (Our verb conjugations are full of phantom subjunctives like "du rappest"...), but we also give "Jugendlicher" in the head template and it does bothers me to have such a phantom form in the head. Kolmiel (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In somewhat poetic style one might produce a strong dative, like: "Manch Jugendlicher ist die Schule ein Greuel." But a genitive seems impossible... Now, even if not, I would propose to change the form of these templates for nominalized adjective. Genitive simply isn't useful here. Kolmiel (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you've gone through the results on Google Books for this form (I can't judge whether they are in the genitive). DTLHS (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I searched around for quite a while and tried quite a few collocations, and could only find citations of the strong genitive plural Jugendlicher, not the strong genitive singular Jugendlicher. With substantivized adjectives like this, would it be better to not list any genitive singular in the headword (the absence might be conspicuous and confusing, especially if it still appeared in the table), or to switch to listing the der/die (or ein/eine?) form, i.e. "Jugendlichef (genitive der Jugendlichen, ..."?
Given that there is a reason why the strong genitive singular would be expected to not exist for substantivized adjectives, if it is also in practice not attested in a large number of cases, IMO it would make sense to also remove it from the table. (The situation would be comparable to uncountable nouns where we don't show a plural, and very different from a case where e.g. "mitternachtsblauen [hypothetically] only gets two (or zero) hits as the neuter mixed genitive form of mitternachtsblau but enough other forms get hits to confirm that mitternachtsblau inflects" — in the latter case, I think suppressing forms would be bad, as I wrote on Talk:midnatten.) - -sche(discuss)03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This noun is no different from any other. It's perfectly normal German grammar and whether it's used a lot in everyday language is irrelevant unless you actually want to propose that we send every single form in every declension table through an RFV, which I strictly oppose, even for single exceptions of the rarest of forms. (As in every debate, I oppose any removal of correct information.) That said, for what it's worth, I regularly but rarely use such a strong genitive form, without any intentions to be poetic or archaic whatsoever. For example I'd use "Mit Jugendlicher Übermut..." when referring to my teenage friend if I wanted to start the sentence with the subject in order to stress that the further account has happened specifically because she's a teenager and I felt starting the sentence with "Mit dem Übermut einer Jugendlichen..." would put the focus too much on the brashness rather than her age. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Besides poetic style, headlinese is another context where you might find substantivized adjectives without a preceding determiner, though there too the dative (e.g. Mann hilft Jugendlicher) is more likely than the genitive (Mann rettet Mutter deutscher Jugendlicher???) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First defn is simply "to acquire or obtain". I don't think this is quite right, I think "to procure" is more like "to obtain with difficulty" or "to obtain by any means, to obtain by hook or by crook". Am I right? Benwing2 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the quote from Orwell seems to illustrate this well:
Later there would also be need for seeds and artificial manures, besides various tools and, finally, the machinery for the windmill. How these were to be procured, no one was able to imagine.
Dictionary.com has "1. to obtain or get by care, effort, or the use of special means", "2. to bring about, especially by unscrupulous and indirect means". Merriam-Webster has "to get possession of : obtain by particular care and effort". Century has an obsolete sense "trans. To care for; give attention to; look after", and then "To bring about by care and pains; effect; contrive and effect; induce; cause: as, he procured a law to be passed", "To obtain, as by request, loan, effort, labor, or purchase; get; gain; come into possession of". Perhaps we should add the qualifier after an "especially", like MacMillan does: "to obtain something, especially with effort or difficulty". - -sche(discuss)01:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also procurement (as by a company or other organization) of supplies, materials, equipment is performed/managed by procurement officers/managers/specialists who presumably can be said to procure those items. To me this does not entail so much difficulty as organization/systematization. Many private sector companies usually refer to the process as purchasing. Government, especially the military, usually calls it procurement. Some would define procurement as a complex process from requirements planning, vendor selection, contract negotiation, through payment, with purchasing placed near the end of the process. DCDuringTALK03:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could at least as well redirect [[might as well]] as make it a separate entry. A separate entry would imply that it was an idiom rather than an SoP collocation. I think that as well has the same meaning when used with at least some on the short list (may, can, must?, ought?, will?, shall?, need?, dare?, might, could, would, and should) of English auxiliary verbs that express some kinds of "w:Linguistic modality". If we have entries for might as well and may as well, we should have parallel entries for the others on the short list, though I am not at all sure about those on the list with "?". DCDuringTALK10:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find ought as well significantly different in meaning from should as well, and would freely substitute either one for the other. Unless you find their usages different, if you're OK with the should version, then you ought as well be OK with the ought version - oughtn't you? yoyo (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russian words in -инг
Is there a case for a category for Russian words in -ing? These are all borrowings, but there are many of them now and it is an accepted ending at this points. Some academic articles discuss how -ing has taken off. I just looked at рейтинг, but others include кастинг, банкинг, кемпинг, тюнинг, бодибилдинг, and маркетинг. — This unsigned comment was added by 176.36.241.81 (talk) at 06:21, 9 August 2016.
No, there isn't. Words ending in -инг are not generally considered to have a suffix, even if Russians know that -ing is a suffix in English. Words with -инг are usually borrowed in full. There's no suffix-less word "бодибилд", as an example. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)06:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with Anatoli's response is that he discusses whether it is a suffix, and concludes it isn't. But the word suffix does not occur in my post above. I referred to words "ending in -ing", whether suffix or not, because finding them is facilitated by a category. I'm not suggesting it is a productive suffix, but all these words form a "class" of words, words that are painfully pronounced in Russian due to the lack of /ŋ/.
What about a category called just "Words ending in -инг"? There wouldn't have to be mention of whether it's a suffix, an ending, or neither. 189.232.18.17720:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cinematic for a useful list! I wonder what proportion of native Russian speakers know every word in the list.
The reverse index seems like it could be useful. But I don't see a need for a category of words ending in a specific sequence of letters, unless those letters have some sort of special significance. --WikiTiki8918:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, that article was just using -инг words to study the popularity of English loanwords and to test out the Russian National Corpus. That doesn't mean there is anything significant about them. --WikiTiki8912:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when it might be useful if we had some way of categorizing/tracking endings and not just "true" suffixes. Then words ending in -x/-@ like latinx/Chican@ could be more easily tracked, for instance. - -sche(discuss)03:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology 3 of Russian "вира"
Etymology 3 of Russian "вира(vira)" has a link that refers to a different etymology.
I don’t understand. Etymology 3 doesn’t have a link. Etymology 3 of вира(vira) is marked as the genitive of вир(vir), which is an archaic form of Etymology 1 of вира(vira, “wergeld”). So Etymology 1 and Etymology 3 are basically the same, except that somehow вир(vir) gained a final -а in the modern form, and the original вир(vir) came to be no longer used. —Stephen(Talk)16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look here: [4] This shows (among other things) Ushakov's dictionary definition of вир, where he defines it as "Водоворот в глубоких местах рек или озер". Where do you see that вир is an archaic form of вира? Benwing2 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the entry to the capitalized form because it seemed more common. But here, both forms are being used on the same page. The source uses "Chernozemic soils" but "chernozemic A horizon". What is the distinction here? DTLHS (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm no expert on chemistry or whatever, but since the noun it is based on is usually used in lowercase, I'd say it was incorrect to even have an entry on its capitalized form, since it seems more of a nonstandard capitalization sort of thing. For instance, notice how we have The deleted, even though so many sources use The in capital letters. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely irrelevant. The term is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, regardless of whether it is at the start of the sentence. I would like to know why both forms are being used in the same source. DTLHS (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't just saying because of the first word of a sentence. Sometimes people will randomly capitalize words in documents, as I've found. Well, maybe not randomly, but I find it happening most in words that they find complex or that they might think need to be capitalized for whatever reason. The complexity thing I just mentioned seems like what is happening in the sources you found. I've seen people use these types of miscapitalizations in newspapers, books, signs, and heck, even in formal documents by people with PhDs. Miscapitalizations are much more common than a lot of people might think, that's all I'm saying. Personally, I don't think we should have entries for words that are miscapitalized for such reasons, unless they're done so for a better reason than "oh well it's a common noun/adjective, but a complicated one so I'm gonna capitalize it, unlike everything else in this document, for whatever reason". Philmonte101 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:DTLHS I've started a new discussion at RFD about Chernozemic that will probably interest you. I have to say, thank you for bringing this up. This is a very interesting case, and I'm honestly but weirdly excited to see where this discussion will go. Philmonte101 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only other online dictionary I came across that had an entry covered both "keep one's act together" and "have one's act together" but none of the others. It used a format like paper dictionaries where phrasal entries are all listed under the keyword "act", which is a weak point of our format I suppose. We probably have entries for analogous turns of phrase if anyone can think on some.
In the meantime the best I can think up right now is to consider "get ..." and "have ..." to be somewhat similar to lemma or citation forms and variants could have soft redirects if they were to be considered for support. OR having an entry at at together or something else ugly but generalized. Interested to see what others think. — hippietrail (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the ugly (act together or one's act together) with usage examples for each verb (verb-pronoun combo?) to which users would find their way via the failed search page. Alternatively or as the center of a bunch of hard redirects from the various verb + "act together" combos, if the failed-search page is unsatisfactory. DCDuringTALK10:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that I've heard people say things like "You'd better make it so that your act is together again." Or in response to one of the idioms, someone might more commonly than that say "But my act is together." Yeah... I'm confused tbh. I'm in support of creating act together, but what about the verbs that could go in between? Philmonte101 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "act together" is a good entry, because it isn't a lemma, and doesn't really represent a part of speech ("act" is a noun here, but "act together" isn't anything). AFAICT, the only good justification for a non-lemma main entry is being a particle, and this certainly isn't one. Equinox◑20:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more expressions: "have one's act together", "keep one's act together", "hold one's act together", "one's act stayed together" (not sure what the lemma would be for that one), etc. --WikiTiki8921:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. But the noun and (adverb?) are juxtaposed rather than being a grammatical unit. My personal feeling is that we should pick the commonest one and make a full entry there, either with a ton of alternative forms and/or with usage notes exemplifying the kinds of similar form that exist. I don't think we should try to make an artificial entry for "act together" when it isn't a meaningful/moveable chunk of a parse tree. Equinox◑21:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point. I was just trying to avoid entry proliferation, since all the verbs mentioned merit an entry. We would need 'See also' sections filled with still-incomplete lists of cross-references (by virtue of omitting the most common personal pronouns) to related lemmas (like have one's act together [also hold and keep], at least).
If your point is generally agreed to for this entry, we should determine whether similar abominations should get the treatment this would get, perhaps at BP. DCDuringTALK23:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this could be extended onto the definitions of act and together, now that I think about it. For example: act: one's performance (in any situation), together: in good standing, morally strong. These definitions would probably end up better than I've worded them though. Philmonte101 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have a picture of someone with stubble in the entry, when the definition describes peach fuzz on someone unable to grow a beard? I'd just remove it if it hadn't obviously been looked over recently, given that it's WOTD. The caption sucks too...it isn't relevent where the waiter is from, or even that it's a waiter in the picture. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is both relevant and irrelevant in many ways where the waiter is from. But the fact that the waiter is (allegedly) from North Carolina (the US state) makes the image slightly less relevant for an entry that is about a term not used in the US (first time I've seen it, and that's where I'm from). Philmonte101 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Stalinism entry one of the definitions of Stalinism given is 'totalitarianism', [6]. I don't think that definition makes sense. Stalinism is totalitarian, but there are Non-Stalinist and Anti-Stalinist forms of totalitarianism. Trotskyism and Nazism are both Anti-Stalinist forms of totalitarianism. I think defining Stalinism as totalitarianism would be like defining Freudism as psychology, Freudism is only one form of psychology, and Stalinism is only one form of totalitarianism. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that definition does make sense if people in general use the term Stalinism metaphorically for all 'totalitarian' political systems. But I don't believe they do. I think more people make reference to Nazi comparisons when referring to dictatorships than Stalinist ones. But I could be wrong. RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor opposes my changing it. I don't want to change it unless I'm supported by consensus. Do you agree with me that Stalinism does not mean totalitarianism in all of its form, only that specific form of totalitarianism, or do you agree with the editor who thinks it does mean that?RandomScholar30 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page debate that previously took place over the issue. [7] I agree with Stephen that we define words based on popular use, not correct use, in a dictionary. However, I don't believe Stalinism is popularly used as a synonym for all forms of totalitarianism, I believe the popular use usually cites Nazism and Fascism as synonyms. But I could be wrong. If it is in the popular use among the majority of people as a term describing all of totalitarianism then I was mistaken to take that usage out. But I don't believe it is. RandomScholar30 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want you can challenge the definition. But only three unambiguous uses in durably attested media are required to retain the definition. The kind of metonomy that would lead Stalinism to be used to mean "totalitarianism" is common. I would expect that Stalinism would be favored over Naziism by some anti-leftist speakers and authors. DCDuringTALK09:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure its been used that way at least 3 times. I just didn't think it was commonly used that way. And most journalists and historians are on the left, so I still would say Nazi being used as a catch all for totalitarian is more common than Stalinist. But now that I know it only takes three examples to keep it, I think it will need to stay. I'm sure there are at least three. RandomScholar30 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know translation(s) of "afoul", but there is none in its article: afoul. What would it be in Portuguese? Automatic translation service did not suggest any, and my small dictionary does not have this word.
There ARE none in the article on it. I don't know what the Portuguese translation is, but "to run afoul of the law" means "to come up against the law" in the sense that you've broken the law.
Dear editors, whoever you are (having forgotten to sign your entries!): I suggest you consider translations of the core word form foul. For example, "to run afoul of the law" may also be expressed as "to run foul of the law". afoul uses the prefix a- which has become obsolete in many contexts where it formerly reigned. yoyo (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:logrolling, a user says this term isn't used in Australian English. (The definition may also need a bit of refining.) Is it used in the UK? It does seem to be attested in North American works. Let's add the relevant regional labels. I presume the distribution of the verb logroll is similar. - -sche(discuss)19:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are both "wish". Is there any difference? And if so, can we note it? — This unsigned comment was added by 176.36.241.81 (talk).
There are always subtle or less than subtle differences in synonyms.
"пожелание" is more frequently used when you wish someone something, not for yourself, in expressions: "с наилу́чшими пожела́ниями" - "with best wishes" but it could also be your own wish - "Есть ли каки́е-нибудь пожела́ния?" - "Are there (do you have) any wishes/desires?". "пожелание" has a subsense of "recommendation", "advise".--Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. A garment to keep the ears warm.
2. A garment or part worn over a single ear.
3. A sound-deadening cup or a pair of such cups worn over the ear or ears.
4. attributive form of earmuffs.
I can understand Nos 2 & 4, but the other two are puzzling. "1. A garment to keep the ears warm" - if I wear one of those headbands covering the ears (or maybe even a beanie, an ushanka &c), does it become an earmuff? "3. A sound-deadening cup or a pair of such cups worn over the ear or ears" - can the singular "earmuff" ever refer to a pair of earmuffs except attributively per def 4? --Droigheann (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but it still seems to me like defining an armchair as "a piece of furniture to sit on". And can it really be in the singular when related to both ears? --Droigheann (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may not make it to glasses and spectacles and pants to do my own research, but is it just my ignorance that simply accepts without comment the "singular, but plural in construction" notation (which i understand amounts to plurals of the verbs they are subjects for, and plurals of the pronouns referring to them)? Am i missing something? --Jerzy•t17:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
doggone has superlative form doggonest but probably no comparative form: how to declare this in the headline?
Currently doggone doesn't have its superlative form doggonest in the headline. I don't know how should the headline be changed to reflect this. Maybe the template code should be changed to allow for this? an-edj documentation doesn't say anything about this situation. Could somebody familiar with this fix doggone? 24.5.143.19021:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"(grammar) Swedish: verbform in combination with an inflection of ha (sv) to form the present perfect and pluperfect". Does this really needs its own sense? DTLHS (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the word "supine" is used in the grammatical description of all languages, but in the description of older Indo-European languages it refers to forms derived from verbs which don't decline nominally in any ordinary way, but do have kind of fossilized case endings, and are used as abstract verbal nouns or quasi-infinitives (supines in one language can resemble infinitives in another language). The Swedish usage is rather distinct from this... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Russians will often pronounce the й of -ый/-ий as a voiced palatal fricative ʝ in careful speech, trying to differentiate, for example, -ий from -ии and -и. Even so, I have never seen it represented in IPA as anything other than [j]. —Stephen(Talk)00:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Angr: I was thinking about this for a while. There is always a difference between русский and русски. It seems in my personal speech, the final vowel of русски is slightly more central and very short, while the final vowel of русский is more tense and longer. So русский is [ˈru(ː)skʲɪː] or [ˈru(ː)skʲɪɪ̯] or [ˈru(ː)skʲɪi̯], while русски is [ˈru(ː)skʲɪ̈]. (In case it matters, it seems that the precise length of the stressed vowel depends on the overall prosody of the sentence.) But that's just my quick analysis based on the far-from-perfect data set of pronouncing these words over and over to myself. Does anyone know of actual research out there on the subject? --WikiTiki8915:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Common etymology of English "Hittite" and German "Hethiter"?
The etymologies of English "Hittite" and German "Hethiter" (surely having the same origin?) both refer to different Hebrew words. If they are from the same word, as I suppose, then (at least) one is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. If they are indeed from different words, then a note not to confuse them should be added to both.
Please provide links, otherwise it's difficult to follow what you're talking about. I assume you're referring to the etymology sections of Hittite and of de:Hethiter (since en-wikt's own entry Hethiter doesn't have an etymology section). Anyway, you're right, the Biblical Hebrew form is חִתִּי (with a tav), not חִטִּים (with a tet). I've fixed our entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some trouble figuring out the paradigm of this noun. The nominative dual form was apparently *h₃ókʷih₁, but the ending *-ih₁ is for neuter nouns while our reconstruction is of a common noun. Was this indeed a neuter noun? Germanic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian all have neuter nouns, but they've all been reformed morphologically in some way. Ancient Greek ὄσσε(ósse) was also neuter apparently, and is a direct continuation of the PIE neuter dual, but ὤψ(ṓps) is feminine and has a strange long vowel. Are there any direct attestations of the singular neuter of this noun? —CodeCat14:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, a suffix is a post-root affix, and an affix is simply a morpheme that is attached to another morpheme or word. Suffixes can be inflectional or derivational. Derivational suffixes often change the word class, but not always. A morpheme can be bound, or free. Relying on these definitions, toxin is a free morpheme that can still act as a derivational suffix. In particular, I was drawn to them by the systematicity to which you could suffix stems with -toxin to create a new word, and the amount of words formed this way are far more numerous than simple two-word compounds and much more like affixation. In addition, other plain nouns can be suffixes: -gate and -fag have become suffixes in recent years, and classically -graph and -phobia and even -ism are free morphemes. Anyway, that's my reasoning. — This unsigned comment was added by EI at10s (talk • contribs) at 17:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I don't understand under what stipulation -toxin isn't acceptable as a suffix. A cursory google search reveals several sites and publications list -toxin as a suffix.
Even more, -toxic is the original suffix, which is found in far more dictionaries and terminology references as a valid suffix, and -toxin is merely the nominal form of that. EI at10s (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) People in the medical field do not always know a whole lot about lexicography. By the way, can you give some examples of words in which you think -toxin or -toxic is a suffix? --WikiTiki8918:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you that first point. I've been working on {{Category:English words suffixed with -toxin}}, specifically after finding the word picrotoxin already in the Category when I found it. I thought it was a sound placement and decided to follow the pattern. If it was entered erroneously, who's to say. I think it fits in with other scientific nomenclature, especially chemical, with other suffixes like -ide, -ine, -ase or -in. To me it's only coincidental that toxin can stand by itself. I'll correct them all if it's proven it can't be a suffix. As far as Wiktionary is concerned, though, there are also Categories for words suffixed with -craft, -head, -land, -monger, -man, or -work that seem to follow the same pattern. EI at10s (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still wish to have this more vigorously tested by a wider amount of linguists and lexicographers here. I'm really searching for some kind of consensus and a rebuttal to my other noun-as-suffix examples. How can I get this arranged? EI at10s (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple. If it can't be distinguished from the noun, then it is the noun. Can you find any example words ending with "toxin" where this morpheme is clearly distinguishable from the noun? —CodeCat22:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If using the precise definition WT has: "A toxic or poisonous substance produced by the biological processes of biological organisms," I can declare that examples such as cardiotoxin or nephrotoxin are sufficiently distinguishable, as they do not specify the origination of the toxin. Any chemical substance, biological or otherwise, can be a cardiotoxin, and this would constitute additional morphological information than the noun alone. EI at10s (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That just means that the meaning of the word cardiotoxin can't be derived from the meaning of its parts. But do you agree that the "toxin" part of the word aligns perfectly in form and meaning with the noun toxin itself? Consider coalmine by comparison; would you consider "mine" a suffix in that word, or is it just the noun mine? —CodeCat22:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I concede that toxin can never be a suffix, can we talk about the other noun-as-suffix examples? Why is -man a viable suffix, when I could make the same argument that each compound could just be more than the sum of its parts? I want to understand what underlying pattern I'm not getting here. EI at10s (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-man is a pretty controversial one as it happens. I'd argue that the man in sportsman, there's no corresponding sense of 'man'. Somehow 'adult male human being' doesn't seem to quite fit. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"-man" is also often pronounced differently: "that's a fire, man" /mæn/ sounds different from "that's a fireman" /mən/. The words in question above seem to be using "toxin". - -sche(discuss)02:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps i've failed Wikt by thinking, and maybe saying, "WP is a 'pedia that anyone can edit, and of course Wikt is a dict that anyone can edit". And, correspondingly, by assuming that my experience with WP means i can be useful in wikt without being a linguist. (I'd welcome feedback.) Specifically, wikt has, under savvy# Interjection
whereas for ordinary human beings the expression of an interjection is enhanced by putting a q-mark and an ex-pt next to each other almost solely as a comic-book trope; this implies to me that the Q-mark is about meaning (which is partly encoded by intonation), while the exclamation point has two distinct purposes (even if both purposes can sometimes be served in the use of the punctuation):
Communicating one's own surprise, and/or belief that the reader will be surprised
In recording speech, verbatim or nearly so, encoding the fact of surprise or excitement being reflected in the speech being quoted
So, summarizing a long thot, is the juxtapostion of "Interjection" and the q-mark in the same sub-section a "feature" or a "bug"? --Jerzy•t16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have persistent pressure to declare such use of an ordinary word an interjection and many here seem to lack the wit to vote delete when an RfD comes around. Pragmatics can provide a justification for such use, which is found attractive even by those who don't know what pragmatics is. DCDuringTALK18:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not in OED (to which I will lose my university-based access very soon, so grab me ASAP if you need things looked up). Equinox◑20:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"To be landed ("brought ashore") or unladen ("unloaded (possibly onto another vessel)")". Context is of a port with customs to be collected etc. DCDuringTALK22:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were you doing that thing where you pretend that an ME term is modern English, and don't even gloss it as obsolete? Stop doing that thing. Equinox◑23:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you know it's rude to assume :). Coincidentally, this behaviour has stopped. Why do you dig up things I did years ago as though I had done them last night ? Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But to be honest, if memory serves, I think I obtained that from a prefix entry (prefix be-)...beland I believe was one of the words used to exemplify a particular meaning of the prefix, and in this instance it had the force of "remove/away", and beland itself may not have even had an entry of its own--the def was summed up there where it was. But it's been so long and I've processed so many over the years. Of course it's not taken from Middle English, the concept of such a word has no bearing in today's world anyway. Why would I need to pass this off as a modern word when there are so many other words that would suit my devious purposes better :p ? Leasnam (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no offence: I didn't check dates, and actually I didn't know you'd stopped. I do quite often stumble across oddities like beflee, beclumpse, betoil, besoothe. Maybe they are old entries but we still owe it to our readers (especially English-learners) to go back and gloss them appropriately. Equinox◑23:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be moved to the singular. I would say it's not SOP. Also, the definition is wrong: one semester hour means one hour per week (of class time) over the course of a semester. --WikiTiki8914:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brobdingnagian and sapiens exist, but the last one sounds like sensengaskis, sensengasses, or sensengasities. On Google the closest hint I found that made sense was a page about Vienna [9], translated to English may be a basis for what might be the beginning of a definition:
sensengasse: the golden sense (wisdom? reason? rationality?)
I'd love to either be corrected and pointed to the right word, or have this word and the plural added by someone who can verify and improve. Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For religions, we settled on considering them proper nouns (except those that are in the grey area of being maybe philosophies); maybe someone will track down the BP link. The "-ism" art styles on the other hand seem like schools of thought (and often are defined as such, in the sense definition-line as at neoclassicism or in an adjacent one as at modernism), and IMO are the same part of speech as liberalism, i.e. common nouns. I suspect the only reason the two you name are labelled proper nouns is that they are capitalized. Many people (including even a college-level grammar textbook I found) say that anything capitalized is a proper noun, even though any Australian (or Russian, or other capitalized common noun) can point out that it's trivially obvious that isn't the case. - -sche(discuss)11:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem archaic, but I'm also not sure it's separate from the usual sense. One can also say (pulling examples from Google Books) there were "a couple of demure puss-like maidens, of some thirty autumns, habited like nuns", "you were twenty springs old", "twenty Christmases old", "twelve Passovers old", etc. - -sche(discuss)10:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these relate to annual events or periods. We also have moon, well known from movie versions of Native Americans speaking English ("many moons"). None of these seem to me to be truly lexical. I would imagine that each use of any seems to be a re-interpretation of the usual lexical meaning in light of the context. Each particular noun brings its own connotations/associations, but normal use is a deixis. If one is speaking of taxes, one might say "several tax days ago/hence" or "several April 15ths ago/hence". Canine pet time can be referenced as, for example, "three dogs ago". DCDuringTALK12:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Defined as a synonym of house number. Is that right? I thought a street address was e.g. "10 High Street" (perhaps with a town, county and postcode too), not merely the number 10. Equinox◑18:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's wrong. A street address is a number or name followed by a street/road/etc name. In some countries the order of these things is reversed. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go so far as to say the street address includes the city, state/province (if necessary), ZIP code/postal code (if necessary), and so forth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you know "he will do his homework unless there are cartoons on TV", and you know there will be cartoons on TV, do you know that he won't do his homework? I got this question from a YouTube video called "Logic Games - 2) Conditional Statements" (question 5) Siuenti (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder. If we replace "unless" with "if ... not", we get "He will do his homework if there are not cartoons on TV". Although that statement would commonly be interpreted as meaning "if and only if there are not cartoons on TV", according to strict logic, it doesn't mean that. Strictly speaking, the sentence makes no prediction at all about what will happen if there are cartoons on TV. I don't know whether "unless" necessarily has to mean "if and only if ... not", or whether it simply means "if ... not" and thus also makes no prediction as to what will happen if there are cartoons on TV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to list this as a separate word from gravidus, insisting it is feminine only? It is used metaphorically in any gender all the time (of the tempestuous sea, of the speaker with tears, etc.) It seems to me this is a somewhat trivial semantic distinction being made rather than a grammatical one. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame this on EncycloPetey. It's a fairly common misconception that the word for "pregnant" can only be feminine. We had this issue in entries from a number of languages, like Russian and Hebrew. Some real dictionaries even make this mistake. --WikiTiki8917:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't this be an idiomatic noun? This doesn't clearly show what kind of athlete is referred to, as the term actually means the reigning Olympic champion in the decathlon, and has for decades. [10][11][12][13]
-- 65.94.171.21708:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a purely descriptive phrase and hence unsuitable for inclusion in the dictionary. I see no reason to think it must always specifically refer to the reigning Olympic champion in the decathlon. 109.146.103.15810:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So my problem is this: Somewhere, some time ago, someone decided that the -lite suffix (deriving from -lith should be reconstructed as -ite. As a result, English has many words for minerals and stones that end in both -lite and -ite. Where that's a problem is that this merged with the previous -ite which indicates a person follower. I want to somehow present that these suffixes are etymologically separate morphemes and divide the current {{Category:English words suffixed with -ite}} into two sections for each meaning of the suffix, relating that one form is related to -lite. If this is a suitable suggestion to follow through with, what is the best course of action? EI at10s (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EI at10s: This is a good point. I had my robot make a list. These are the -lite words also categorised as minerals, meaning they are almost certainly mis-suffixed: User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/lite_minerals. These are the -lite words which are not categorised as minerals; but a great many are indeed minerals: User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/maybe_lite_minerals. Minerals in the latter list will need both suffixes and category tags added. If you would like (and if this seems uncontroversial to others), I can fix them mechanically in a few minutes; but feel free also to use my lists to make any edits if you would prefer. Isomorphyc (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can pretty accurately identify which are minerals and which are not (possibly in both lists) but I am not quite sure what exactly to do with them. Would the suffix for minerals still be -lite even if there is no L present, or the L is part of the root? EI at10s (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is evidence or authoritative support for the idea that -ite in any of its uses is derived from -lite. Before embarking on an extensive exercise that may have to be undone, could you provide evidence or authority to support the hypothesis. DCDuringTALK21:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon if it sounds a bit insulting but it's kinda obvious the relation just etymologically, and deriving from the pattern of hundreds of mineral names ending in -ite instead of -lite where phonotactics and nomenclature is concerned. But here are a few sources that provide the explanation.
Surely there will be a few words ending in "-ite" that are not cognates, but that's fewer than more. I can give you hematite, calcite and magnetite, which are etymylogically separate from your examples. It's just a matter of doing the etymology homework. Also, your pyrite example does in fact come from the Greek λίθος anyway.EI at10s (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, please do the etymology homework.
Why in the cases of mellite, hyalite, and tantalite do you ignore the presence of l in the stem (double ll in the case of mellite)? You did not do so in the case of bernalite.
I don't think the forum discussion thread from the Mineralogy Database derives any authority from its presence on that website. I see no evidence of linguistic expertise in that thread. Similarly for Gem Select. The Canadian Encyclopedia supports my view. I'd be more impressed by such a statement from the Mineralogical Association's Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification. DCDuringTALK22:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the OED, -ite is usually from -ιτης or -ιτις, but -lite as an independent suffix is from λιθος. My lists concerned only -lite suffixed minerals, not -ite suffixed minerals. However, I further concede that at least a large plurality of the items in my -lite lists derive from -l stems, and are in fact -ite suffixed; hence they must at a minimum be filtered manually. The OED helpfully points out two things: true -lite suffixed words were often deliberately -olite suffixed after the Greek pattern, collected here: User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/olite terminated words - some not minerals, and also that the /theta/ became /t/ because a great many of these derivations are via French, being a mostly older pattern than the -ite derivation. Isomorphyc (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For mellite I used the Greek word, which would have either indicated the -lite suffix or gemination. I suppose the rest were mistakes. I spent some time researching and I think I see where I went wrong. Nomenclature itself, apart from chemical prefixes and suffixes, are largely up to the author/discoverer of the new species of mineral, and there's no naming convention on that other than what's popular, so it wouldn't be up to the IMA or CNMNC. So they're not related.
In any case, there are still a lot of mineral names, especially those named after places and people, that have a definite -lite suffix where there is no "L" in the stem. Those lists created by Isomorphyc are still good to use. Can I take my foot out of my mouth? EI at10s (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, if the /l/ is truly unexpected, I would say the -lite pattern is more likely being followed than -ite, whether deliberately or not. Without evidence, I would preface it with something like `probably.' Whether you were initially more partly right or not, there is a lot of confusion in these entries which would be a worthwhile project to clarify. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually better to look for a Latin etymon, eg, mel, stem mell before resorting to a Greek one. The stem of μελι(meli, “honey”) is μελιτ(melit), which would yield melitite (with -ite) or melitolite (with -lite).
More importantly, thanks for your contributions to the mineralogy terms, which entries are sometimes a bit bare. Etymology, External links (to pages in WP and in high-quality sites like Mineralogy Database), and images (from Wikicommons) would definitely improve them. DCDuringTALK02:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, though it is rare, some English technical words are derived from other languages, eg, French, German, Tupi, or irregularly from Latin or Greek (deviating from the patterns above). Just give regular derivation from Latin first shot. DCDuringTALK02:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For minerals I wouldn't say it is rare. It is very common for a mineral to be first published in German or French and soon after appear in English. DTLHS (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is rare is for a reference work to credit the intermediate language (French, German, Russian etc.) rather than the classical language from which the authors derived the terms. I have mostly seen credit given to the intermediate language when the intermediate language has left a distinct mark on the term. For example, sometimes German changes a Latin (hard) C to a K. DCDuringTALK03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a verb form (a past participle), but in function it is an adverb and not an adjective in the sentence you're talking about ("all in all, as a whole").
Is this a common idiom? And if so, what does it mean? I heard it used twice by the same news reporter. It seemed to mean something like “the situation is messed up” or “the damage has been done”. I may have misinterpreted it, though. (I thought maybe like a ring that's got into the dough and can't be removed anymore.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a particularly common idiom ("baked into the cake" gets only two pages of Google Books hits, and many are literal), but it exists. In general, I think it means that something is interwoven into something else to such an extent that it cannot be removed except perhaps with great effort or disruption. Hence I can find:
2012, Robert J. Lieber, Power and Willpower in the American Future:
We should be skeptical about pessimistic predictions concerning the American future and any notion that decline is already "baked into the cake."
However, there also seems to be a meaning in finance, of "(already) incorporated by the market into the price of a stock, or into the state of the market". There, I see other references give examples like a company or the US Federal Reserve foreshadowing its earnings or policy changes (respectively) so that markets "bake them into the cake" instead of being shocked by them (and having to, I guess the metaphor would be, abruptly and disruptively inject them into the cake).
Even if the phrase is used metaphorically, which I can well believe, I'm not sure that such metaphorical usages necessarily deserve inclusion in the dictionary. Isn't there a virtually unlimited possibility for creating them? 86.167.116.16001:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no end to the metaphors and terms that could exist, but as only a finite number do, there is nothing wrong with including them when there is no limit to the number of entries we can have. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is "nothing wrong" with including various entries that I have proposed over the years, "princely sum" (above) being the latest. Judging by the almost total lack of support for most of these, I think "nothing wrong" is probably not enough. 86.167.116.16002:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Princly sum is borderline SOP, however, so I can see why it wouldn't have strong support. I would only hesitantly support its inclusion separate from princely (where "princely sum" is given as a usage example). Baked into the cake is clearly not SOP, on the other hand, so if it is citable, it is worth including separately. That being said, I would like to see a section for collocations, where something like princely sum could be included. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about "taken by the reins" (metaphorical), or "put back in the box" (metaphorical) or "eaten for lunch" (metaphorical), to give three straight off the top of my head at random, all of which are not literally SOP and are easily attestable in the non-literal meaning? As I say, I think there is an unlimited supply of these phrases. I don't see where it would end. 109.146.96.17602:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they are attestable, then all of them should be included. There is space for thousands of entries on Wiktionary, so as long as someone is willing to add them, there is no reason why they should not be included, provided they are citable (with a consistent meaning and are fixed phrases). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attestation needs to be accompanied by demonstration that the figurative meanings of the component terms doesn't help users get the meaning of the collocation.
Taken by the reins/take by the reins is an SoP common collocation using rein ("An instrument or means of curbing, restraining, or governing").
eat for lunch is IMO an SoP common collocation using eat ("To destroy, consume, or use up").
put back in the box might also be common SoP collocation using box ("a restrictive situation"), but it could also use an allusion to Pandora's box or use of box in the sense of the box in which something arrived/was obtained. Even so, put is not the only verb used with back in the box with this type of meaning.
Baked into the cake seems like a fairly pure metaphor. I don't know whether cake is where the metaphor truly resides.
BTW, "If I'd known you were coming, I'd have baked a cake" is a common expression used to express positive (or sarcastic) surprise at someone being present or arriving. I'd have baked a cake might be an idiom, since it can be used with many conditional clauses. DCDuringTALK12:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wasn't sure if the first two had any meaning beyond what I gathered without context, but I'm not challenging the idea that idiomaticity is a prerequisite for an entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's related but it doesn't seem to mean quite the same thing. If our idiom gets to the needed number of cites, I would be for inclusion. -- At any rate: thanks for the help! Kolmiel (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Set in concrete and the similar set in stone are two other idioms that often mean the same thing as baked into the cake. Unless I've missed some nuance of any of them! ;-) yoyo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Watch [14], 1:53 to 2:13. This is actually the context in which I first heard it (Donald Trump's image among the populace being incorrigible). The gentleman says "it's a great metaphor, we use it all the time". Might it be a trending phrase in this context? (Because User:-sche said above that it's indeed a rare expression.) Kolmiel (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do speak French, and the English Wiktionary pronunciation of un accueil (a welcome) sounds spot on to me! It includes the "liaison" that connects the final N of uN to the beginning of the first syllable AC-, making it sound more like u NACcueil. Please remember that languages often have markedly varying pronunciations (especially for vowels) in different places and times, and that languages are always evolving. French vowels, in particular, seem to have changed quite radically across the last two or three generations (for example, oui that I learnt sounding like "wii" is now often heard as "weh"). So all three sources you mention may represent current speech. yoyo (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the TLFi - digitised treasury of the French language) - with the phonetic pronunciation key A-K-E-I and it successfully finds accueil. So there's an authority for my claim that the pronunciation on English Wiktionary is good; it's not just me saying so. yoyo (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with Wiktionary's pronunciation, which sounds pretty typical. It doesn't even sound significantly different from the pronunciations on Forvo. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the OP was thrown off by the presence of un in the recording. If so, he isn't the first and won't be the last to speak up about it. It can be disconcerting, especially for people with little or no French, to see accueil and hear un accueil. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do when I come across it, but I can't manually do all the French nouns I'm afraid. And it would be very difficult to automate because any audio files that don't include the article will suddenly have one in the transcription. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Along the direction of a plumb line or along a straight line that includes the center of the Earth."
Many young readers will never have seen or used a plumb line, and very few have ever seen the center of the Earth! ;-) Would a definition along the lines of "straight up and down" perhaps be more accessible? yoyo (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing. We should probably add a sense that is worded from the point of view of a normal human being rather than from the point of view of the universe as a whole or of a physicist. Both definitions have value, the current one at least adding a note of levity. DCDuringTALK12:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be too much like a physicist to include mention of gravity ... and your note reminded me that years ago I proposed that if we ever do discover anti-gravity, it would be much simpler to call it by gravity's customary antonym, viz. levity! ;-) yoyo (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An extra point: a vertical line does not, in general, go through the center of the Earth! Earth is not a sphere but is flattened at the poles. A more accurate definition is along the lines of force of gravity, i.e. the direction something falls when you let it go. The plumb line is basically one way to measure that. —CodeCat14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to write 'the direction due to the net effect of gravity' but I fear that's too technical to be useful. Oh and mountains are massive enough to divert the path of a falling object away from the centre of the earth. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with all of these definitions is that they are "down". I think that almost all use of vertical is associated with "up". DCDuringTALK02:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From a relativistic perspective, it's more about orientation with respect to ones frame of reference: one can be weightless in space and still have a concept of vertical and horizontal. Basically vertical is oriented along the up/down axis, and horizontal is oriented along the left-right and/or front-back axes. It doesn't matter whether it's gravitational, or from visual cues such as floors and walls- if there's an "up" and a "down", you know what direction "vertical" refers to. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Equinox But I literally searched each one of these in Books, Groups, and News to verify them. These terms are all attested and if you want to challenge them, challenge each one individually. The fact is that they aren't SOP, because if thank you is not SOP, therefore thank u is certainly also not SOP, therefore it technically belongs here if it is attested by CFI. So there are no good grounds to this. The worst that would happen to these is a redirect. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"you" can probably be attested as "u" in almost every single phrase involving the word "you". It is completely unnecessary to list all these separately. 109.149.110.504:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect them all. Having the entries is one thing, but listing them in other entries is incredibly lame: the reader is presented with a long, boring list of trivial variations, none of which has content worth the click to get there. What's more, everything after thank you/thanks is SOP (with a few exceptions), so even some of the previosly-existing variations should be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually in the negative, in expressions like "That's not on!". "not on" is given as an example, but so are "right on" and "bang on". I question whether "on" in "right on" and "bang on" is the same sense of "on" at all, but before I delete these perhaps someone else can offer an opinion. 109.149.110.517:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish Wiktionary has sense three as «Dicho de una persona, de gusto vulgar o inferior, y hábitos incultos.» (said of a person, of vulgar or inferior taste, and uncultured habits). Maybe this is what rascal sense 3 in the English roto is meant to explain.
If it's anything like French, nouns and adjectives that describe people tend to overlap a lot, like menteur#French which is either liar or lying depending on usage, or adjectives like nouveau#French which gets used as nouns (« c'est un nouveau »). Note how the TLFi defines menteur as « (Personne) qui ment » defining both the noun and the adjective in the same sentence. Renard Migrant (talk)
See the usage note (and edit history) of see. "Many people use seen as the past tense." Can we clarify that any? I know AAVE sometimes uses seen that way; who else? How acceptable is the usage; is it nonstandard? Ngrams suggest it's about 1/30th ([15]) to 1/60th as common as "saw". - -sche(discuss)19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed the [v] dropped with other verbs, aside from cases where it was more likely an example of confusing an irregular past tense with an irregular past participle (e.g. "I drunk" for "I drank"). I've never heard something like "I run" or "I eaten" in the past tense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"come" is another example in some dialects: "An' then 'e come in and 'e sez to me ...". Possibly also "drunk", "sung", "swum" and "sunk", though some of these are perhaps more mix-ups or plain errors than dialect or nonstandard forms. 109.149.110.523:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your example seems more like use of the present tense. "And then he comes in and he says to me" is perfectly okay for telling a story in informal conversation even in standard English. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a unfortunate interpretation of the example. The point is that "he come" is used for "he came". 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's part of a larger trend across English to conflate the forms. After all, in the vast majority of verbs, the two are already identical. I suspect that it may be an indication of the evolution of future English: the total or near-total loss of a distinction between past and past participle. —CodeCat14:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing it from other kids back in the early sixties. I think it's associated with poor education and/or rural speech. It's very much proscribed, so people who think of themselves as educated would consider it nonstandard. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does marrying someone off have to be forcing them into marriage? That is what our definition currently says, but I'm convinced this is always the case. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may mean "I'm not convinced this is always the case", in which case I agree with you. In fact it is perhaps even usually not the case. 109.149.110.511:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "forcing" is not essential.
Yet another reason why we need citations when contributors are not advanced speakers.
I agree that the definition is wrong. I think the basic function of off is to allow one to have a sense of marry that has person A causing/influencing person B to marry person C, possibly enjoying a benefit therefrom (ie, prospect of grandchildren, relief from responsibility for support, etc). I'm not sure that marry alone is used in this way very often. An alternative, less commonly used, get (someone) married. One could also say get (someone) married off. DCDuringTALK11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also call it a votive candle, though to judge from the pics at Google Images, votive candles are somewhat taller than tealights. In everyday use, though, I don't think I'd bother with that distinction. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions, but neither is exactly what I'm looking for. I understand that "tea light" (tuikku in Finnish) is similar in design but small enough, about 4 cm in diameter, to be used for keeping a teapot warm, hence the name. They cannot normally be used outdoors because even the slightest wind blows them out. Also votive candles seem to be made for indoor use. A soihtukynttilä is specifically made for outdoor use and has a diameter of 10 to 20 cm and a thick wick in order to withstand wind. The package warns against using them indoors. They are called marschall in Swedish but that didn't help to find the English term. The Swedish retailer Tingstad uses the term "pitch torch" on their webpage [17] (click the little pic under the product photo in order to get a picture of the package), but I'm not sure whether that is a generally accepted term. A google pic search for "pitch torch" returns the Tingstad photos but also lots of pictures of torches made with pitch as the burning substance. Another reason for being doubtful is that the "Finnish" text on the package only resembles Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ζωή vs. βίος: differences? Usage notes to be added to relevant articles?
Title says it all. I was prompted to ask this by a question from the Greek Stack Exchange proposal (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/101509/greek-language/101561#101561) which explicitly states there is no explanation over here. I checked, and indeed, no explanations. So what is the difference between ζωή and βίος, which both translate to "life" and have given rise to suffixes (bio- and zoo-) referring to life? And should we add usage notes to the relevant articles explaining the differences? And did the difference change since Ancient Greek or is it still the same in Modern Greek?
The more fundamental problem is that both words have several definitions according to the best Ancient Greek dictionaries, links to which are in the reference sections. We have only one or two. DCDuringTALK21:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Latin script letter, so you wouldn't expect there to be a Greek or Russian entry for it in first instance. However, these languages certainly have names for this letter; it's not like the letter H just doesn't exist to Russian or Greek speakers. This information is currently missing from Wiktionary altogether. In the same vein, Latin-script languages can have names for Russian and certainly for Greek letters, and this information is also found nowhere. —CodeCat20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'ard to say. For many numbers (e.g. 3), we don't seem to include pronunciations in any languages (although we do include an English section for 1, probably because it has other uses/senses). Russian Wikipedia suggests Russian has different names for English H (эйч), German H (ха), etc, in addition to the "classical Russian name of the letter" (аш). It seems like the easiest way to handle that would be to have translations tables at, or linked to from, H#English and H#German etc. Whether it would be better to have a translation table at H#Translingual to house аш and give pronunciation at аш, or to have H#Russian to mention аш and its pronunciation, or to have neither (like we do for numbers), I'm not sure. I suppose we should recognize that even if we only have sections at H for Latin-script languages that use that letter, the page will still contain thousands of sections when it's complete, so adding sections for Russian, Chinese, etc wouldn't add that much in the long run... and it would be useful to have a page that provided the letter's name in each language... - -sche(discuss)22:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with -sche, but I don't think we need to have a Russian entry at H itself, the individual names like аш are enough (by the way, the Russian Wikipedia is not trying to say that these are Russian words for German H and English H, but that these are the German and English words for H, transliterated to Russian; some of these names are used occasionally in Russian, but not necessarily limited in meaning to a particular language's letter). --WikiTiki8911:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to take a stab at condensing my definitions into single English terms if they exist? It would be greatly appreciated! Definition three would also benefit from a word describing a thing that is a source of trouble, though the example phrase partly covers that. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the automatically generated conjugation chart for the French verb paître it gives the third person single present indicative form as "pait" instead of the correct "paît", how do I change this so that it includes the circumflex? 2WR1 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Module:fr-verb doesn't have any documentation so if you don't know how to fix it (and I don't) you can't learn how to fix it from the documentation. I've had to remove conjugation table from a different verb for the same reason. I think @Benwing2 might be one of the people who knows how it works. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SemperBlotto: No, they're like connaître, the only problem is that the third person singular indicative needs a circumflex on the i and the chart does not reflect that. I don't get how these auto chart even work, even highly irregular verbs, when I look at the wikicode, they're just written with "fr-conj-auto". I don't understand how that works for all these verbs. It has the correct placement of the circumflex for connaître and naître. 2WR1 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way it works at the moment is a but shitty, TBH. I don't agree with hard-coding these things in a cryptic way in a module that very few people will understand how to edit. There should be a more accessible interface. 109.146.96.22200:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, exactly, I've only ever seen one conjugation chart created without doing "fr-conj-auto" and the wikicode used was very confusing, and also because all the other verbs that are conjugated like paître are all done with "fr-conj-auto" so I can't even look at the way they're coded and try to copy it. It's all very frustrating. 2WR1 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed. However, the conjugation also claims that there are no compound tenses, whereas the French Wiktionary claims they do exist (with participle pu). Which one is correct? Benwing2 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I agree that the module should not be designed in such a way as to require that it be edited in order to change the conjugation of a verb. A better way, for example, is the way I designed Module:fro-verb. The module only directly conjugates regular verbs, but allows for specifying irregular principal parts of individual tenses as well as directly indicating the forms of an entire tense, including alternatives (which were legion in Old French) or overriding an individual form (e.g. 3sg present for paître). (And it's all documented.) See the definition of Template:fro-conj-conoistre for a typical example, or Template:fro-conj-aler for a particularly complex example. (Note also that this was the first module I wrote and could potentially be done better in certain ways.) Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly a minor one but "Strictly correct usage is to reserve electrocute and electrocution for fatal electric shocks" is dictating a standard onto our readers, which clashes with our principles of describing not prescribing. And yet I do feel like we need to mention the issue. Reading a few other dictionaries might be a good place to start. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "Strictly correct" to "Standard". Do you think that's good enough, or is "standard" still too subjective? It should definitely be mentioned, however, as many would view the informal usage as altogether incorrect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the first definition, "To explain someone something", grammatical? I thought one had to say "to explain something to someone". --Fsojic (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it ~is grammatical, but it is very, very old fashioned and like Equinox says below will sound very odd, yet it isn't incorrect. It's a usage-type error Leasnam (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bell or bell function that is often used in schools. More of a slang term, since kids associate those bells more with being tardy. Is this SOP? I know it's tardy + bell, but often that same bell can be used for other things than what is associated with "being late", right? For instance, the bell rings to go to your next class. I still don't know how to word this though in a definition. Do any of you? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have definitely used this term a lot in elementary school and even high school. It specifically describes the one bell in the bell schedule that designates tardiness. There would be a signal bell, indicating you had five minutes to get to class, and after that five minutes is the tardy bell; anyone not sitting down by that bell was tardy. Of note I guess that it isn't always a bell sound even though most people I believe call it a bell. EI at10s (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it from junior high and high school (in elementary school we didn't go from class to class much). There was a bell (and in my day it was a bell sound) to indicate the end of a class period, a second bell to warn you that you needed to be in class very soon, and the third bell—the tardy bell—which meant you were tardy if you weren't in the classroom by the time it rang. I don't think it's SOP since the bell itself isn't tardy. If the term were "tardiness bell" it would be SOP, but I'd say "tardy bell" is idiomatic. Not slang, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the terminology to distinguish a tardy person from a tardy bell, or a living standard from a living creature? I was explicitly taught this and can't remember. Equinox◑13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In Britain nobody uses the word "tardy" in the school or work context, only "late". I haven't heard of a "late bell" but it might exist. Equinox◑13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., I never heard it at the private school in New York State I attended through age 8. I heard it for the first time at the pubilc school in Texas I started attending at age 9. I think I had to ask my parents or the teacher what the word "tardy" meant, because I had never heard it before. I still associate it almost exclusively with school. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's SOP, though perhaps formed in an informal way. I'll add to the anecdotes: In my school, "tardy" was still the official word but had mostly fallen out of fashion in favor of "late". The "bell" was a generated tone rather than an actual bell; at one point they replaced it with music, but we still called it the "bell". --WikiTiki8912:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other things drew my attention to this entry, and I found that it's a noun in English too. But I have no idea what it means; it may have multiple meanings. —CodeCat17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I've ever used this word as a noun (which honestly I may have), it was a purposeful misspelling of the word snuggler for endearment, replacing snuggle with snug as a verb, so literally it's just one who snugs. Example: "The retriever's size and fluffiness makes him a good snugger." I doubt this is the meaning it's meant to have, in place for anything more specialized. Maybe related to snigger? EI at10s (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret them as SOP since the sense of "nationalism" which is used in them is also used 'by itself' (as bare "nationalism") when talking about "the nationalism of the Black Panther party", etc. It is also used in a large number of parallel constructions like "Asian American nationalism", "[separatist] Latino nationalism", "Chicano nationalism", etc, which can similarly be rephrased as the "nationalism of the Chicano movement", etc. [[nationalism]] may need to be expanded in order to cover that sense, though, i.e. it may not cover it yet. Consider also things like "African nationalism". As for "should I create them anyway?": well, our record of keeping-vs-deleting similar entries is mixed; we deleted Jewish supremacy but kept white supremacy and black supremacy... - -sche(discuss)21:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The personified POS game
Can't think of a better or worse place to put this. So, if you were a part of speech, which one do you feel like you'd be? And give a reason. You can use any POS that is used as a Wiktionary L3 only, such as noun, adjective, adverb, phrase, conjunction, etc. Personally, I can't think of any to describe myself.Philmonte101 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I think I'd probably be an adjective or an adverb. Since the adjective sort of "helps out" the noun and the adverb "helps out" the verb, I'd compare that to myself going out of my way to help other people when they need it. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the French verb ester under conjugation it says that this verb is not conjugated and is only ever used in the infinitive. However, on the French wiktionary it gives an entire conjugation chart showing it conjugated as a regular -er verb. 2WR1 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Academy says "no longer used except in the infinitive" ("N'est plus usité qu'à l'infinitif dans les expressions Ester en justice, ester en jugement.")[19] --Droigheann (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could try looking for conjugated forms on Google Books. And even if the forms are obsolete the conjugation can still be shown. DTLHS (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wiktionnaire says "Le verbe ester est un défectif absolu, c’est-à-dire qu’il n’est accepté qu’au mode impersonnel de l’infinitif, ce qui a pour conséquence immédiate l’emploi d’un modalisateur (par ex., vouloir, pouvoir, devoir, etc.). Voici néanmoins sa conjugaison basée sur celle de l’ancien français (The verb ester is absolutely defective, meaning that it only appears in the infinitive, and consequently, an auxiliary verb (e.g. vouloir, pouvoir, devoir, etc.) is employed with it. Nevertheless, its conjugation follows, based on that in Old French)." In other words, it is implied that the conjugated forms are not attestable in modern French. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up http://www.anglo-norman.net/D/ester today. Of course ester and estre overlap so much in conjugation and even in meaning that it's very hard to tell them apart (examples: esté, estant, estois). I'd have thought there must be some usage post 1610 but it's hardly of any importance to prove it, especially if all it means is we're going to change the usage notes to say it was used until 300 years ago, not 400 years ago. But of course if anyone wants to try, good luck to them. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a pronunciation for the English word cest in any online dictionary. Does anyone have any resources to find this with? 2WR1 (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...which would mean /sɛst/. The old Century Dictionary confirms this, notating that cest and cestus are pronounced with the same initial sound (/sɛs/) as cesspool. - -sche(discuss)04:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the usage note, "earnt" is "entirely acceptable". Says who? And if it is "entirely acceptable" then why can I find it in no other dictionary? 86.179.177.18019:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is very likely one of Google's Large Random Numbers. Visibly verifiable results run out in the hundreds. Of course, I am not denying that this spelling is used. My doubt is that it can be described as "entirely acceptable" when (1) no other dictionary that I can find allows it, and (2) it is not hard to find contrary opinions (e.g. [20]). "Of disputed correctness" seems to me to be more reflective of the actual situation than "entirely acceptable". 86.179.177.18019:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pending a Japanese editor, WWWJDIC, which I generally tend to trust, says it means "Confucianist". Suffix 家 (か) means "-ist (used after a noun indicating someone's occupation, pursuits, disposition, etc.); -er". On this basis I would be inclined to believe the Wiktionary entry, but a native or fluent speaker will have to confirm. 109.146.248.1702:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this is very surprising, since 儒家 is a very old word referring to a very old philosophy, it's unlikely to have a very different meaning in Japanese. We still need confirmation from a native speaker on this. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, 家 in Chinese also appears to have a sense, specialist (in any branch of art or science). Per Languages of China, MDBG, and even our own Chinese entry for 家 (sense 8 and / or 9 at the moment). I suspect it's a conflation of meaning between the school in general, and a particular well-versed member of that school.
If you can read Japanese, or if you can make enough sense out of the kanji to get the gist, the 儒家 entries at Weblio suggest that 儒家 can mean both the school of Confucianism, and a Confucian scholar or expert. Likewise at Kotobank.
"Although this option was shorter and better suited to through traffic, it did not satisfactorily serve the needs of Millau and its area". Is that a verb? --Fsojic (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiktionary, "fuze" -- the noun at least -- is archaic. Some other dictionaries give it as a variant spelling of "fuse" with no particular qualification or with the qualification that it is "mainly US" or "North American". The Wikipedia article makes a technical distinction. It is not a spelling that I am at all familiar with. Perhaps someone else (perhaps an AmE speaker) can figure out what, if anything, needs to be changed. 109.146.248.1719:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mineralogy Databases
Pinging the participants of the -ite/-lite mineralogy discussion: @EI at10s, DCDuring, DTLHS, Wikitiki89. I noticed that the two web databases referenced in that discussion were manually included about 2665 times, as of a few months ago. I thought it might be useful to make a couple of templates: {{R:mindat}} and {{R:WebMineral}}. Would it be helpful to replace the existing links with templates, and also, would it be wanted to add templates to the remaining c. 4000 minerals with database entries which do not have links? If anyone has a better idea than I have about the best way to cite these two webpages, or better ideas for the template names, I would also appreciate any improvements or suggestions. An example of my templates is at laurelite. Thanks. Isomorphyc (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the templates would be a wonderful idea. The names that you posit above and the look at [[laurelite]] seem OK to me. I do think it would be useful to allow the link to be to a mineral with a name different from the pagename, though the pagename is obviously the appropriate default. DCDuringTALK00:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; in both cases this is possible with a single unnamed argument. Please see my sandbox testing example: User:Isomorphyc/Sandbox1. For mindat.org this is particularly helpful due to its idiosyncratic capitalisation conventions; but for webminerals.com also there are a few cases in which several minerals with the same name are identified with parenthetical chemical formulae. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise; {{R:mindat}} ignores parameters which do not result in valid links; it is likely you tested this template with a non-mineral argument. Thank you, and Metaknowledge, for both your encouragement. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The databases are very helpful, though on occasion one will lack etymology, and rarely both will lack it, Wikipedia itself seriously helps in terms of eponyms, and there are other mineralogy articles for new minerals I use as references for etymology when neither database lists it. Of note, I am doing these articles at work, so my activity may be spotty. But I plan on completing the "project" I've made for myself. Using a reference template will only take me learning how to use it, but it would be greatly beneficial. You can change the hyperlink text, right?EI at10s (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
looking for a word in English...
I'm looking for a word in English to describe the act of judging people based on their appearance only - e.g. you only hang out with or date "hot" people, regardless of their personality or integrity. It seems like a simple enough concept that's very commonplace, but for the life of me I can't think of an English equivalent. (The Chinese term is 外貌協會.) Cheers. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Words used in animal husbandry to communicate with animals
I'd like to create a subcategory of Category:Mongolian interjections that would hold words used to induce animals to come, move, stop, etc, for example чөх or цуу цуу.
Currently there is no standard category for such interjections, but I feel it might be useful to have one for other languages too.
The problem is, however, that no appropriate name for such a group comes to mind.
I found an example of "animal calls" being used Template:quote-meta
, but it was deemed unsatisfactory.
There's also "Interjections of husbandry" in Kullman's Mongolian Grammar but I don't like it very much. Crom daba (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit startled that there isn't a word for this. I've been trying to think of a good one from Greek, but I keep getting things like zoocybernomenon, which sounds sweet like a catastrophe in which we accidentally create superintelligent cyborg animals. This does not seem appropriate.
Comment: "animal calls" is (as may have been noticed) too ambiguous, as it could also mean the calls of animals: woof, moo, etc. A number of books seem to use "cattle calls" to refer to all calls to cattle, horses, goats, etc, but this is not suitable for a category name. - -sche(discuss)03:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Do you possibly mean "What's for dinner?" with a question mark? By "well-known or stock expressions" I mean what everyone understands that to mean, i.e. expressions like "take the rough with the smooth", not random sentences like "What's for dinner?" 86.129.206.24502:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the expression to our normal way of representing it. A search for "What's for dinner?" would yield an entry for "what's for dinner" if we had one?
We have long had difficulty in determining what constitutes an idiom, for which we should have an entry vs a "random" expression. Perhaps "stock expression" is a more useful way for our purposes of expressing the notion behind idiom or set phrase Can you reduce "stock expression" to some operational criteria or do we need to rely on the component terms, especially stock? DCDuringTALK12:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may no man his hap withsain, It hath ben sene and felt full ofte, The harde time after the softe.
At the very least among opposed adjectives: take the hard with the soft, the good with the bad, the good with the not so good, the yin with the yang, the rich with the poor, the noble with the base, happy with the sad.
There are numerous additional readily findable oppositions between nouns.
In addition there are other verbs that can replace take, such as accept.
A distinction must be made here between adverb and conjunction. Would I be correct in saying that sense 1 is an adverb, while 2 and 3 are conjunctions? Kolmiel (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but actually, sense 1 is both and the example sentence uses it as a conjunction. An example sentence using it adverbially would be "Visit whenever." --WikiTiki8919:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply converted the existing section to a conjunction and created a new adverb section. Some of the translations might need to be moved (as I have done with one of the Russian translations). --WikiTiki8920:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Changed it. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)