Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/September

< Wiktionary:Tea room
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.

Feedback on a possible entry or two

Pulchrism (and Pulchristic) See the etymology and instances of its use here. Do other editors think that this warrants inclusion here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperBlotto: Actual attestations have it capitalized. Why not capitalize it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1] uncapitalised except at the beginning of a sentence. [2] ditto and also within Jesse Waugh on Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

creating slut's wool

I've just created this page but am not sure how to properly format a noun plural form with two (or three, if you count 's ) parts.

Also I don't have a page number for the quotation, I got it from Google Books [3], not having a copy of the book with me. Not sure I included that link correctly either, I just guessed. --TyrS (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - just worked out how to do the headword line, so the only remaining potential problem (that I know of) is my quotation reference (per above). Thanks. --TyrS (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of the book either and so can't add the page number, but I reformatted the quotation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any info on the etymology? Is it a joke "opposite" of virgin wool? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More likely the older sense of slut: "a slovenly, untidy person, usually a woman". Equinox ◑ 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OED concurs. I've added an etymology. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

one night with Venus, a lifetime with Mercury

Is it a real proverb/saying? Apparently it means: you get a syphilis infection after a quick sexual relation and then you must spend the rest of your life treating with mercury. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chaîner conjugation chart

(moved to Module talk:fr-pron)

asseoir conjugation chart

On the conjugation chart for the French verb asseoir, for the 3rd person plural assoient, the automatically generated IPA gives /a.swaj/ instead of /a.swa/. I don't know how to fix this. 2WR1 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Looks like @Kc kennylau needs to deal with this. EDIT: Or maybe @Benwing2? Hard to tell who did what from a glance. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes from this diff when Kc_kennylau changed the format for it. I think I've fixed it. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 12:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinrleung: Yes, it's fixed! Thank you! 2WR1 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my region we do say "ils s'assoillent" ;) Julien Daux (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

very carefully

I've heard this as a sarcastic response to "how did you" questions from many people in my area (southern US). For example:

  • Q: "How in the world did you start this club, anyway?"
  • A: "Very carefully."

It's sort of a sarcastic response to the question; sort of a copout, possibly to show that they don't want to take the time to answer your question fully? But does it have actual, lexical meaning? Has anyone else heard someone use this? Is it SOP? Does it merit an entry? Philmonte101 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not lexical. Just a joke with many variants. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may have come from an old joke about porcupines having sex, adapted to other notoriously prickly situations. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the joke: "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!" Equinox ◑ 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the actual meaning, it means [[very]] [[carefully]], which is the whole reason it's a joke. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A valid lexical question...How do the Welsh eat their cheese? --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Caerphilly! Renard Migrant (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of my top 3 favourite cheese jokes. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vanishing cream

The OED disagrees with us on this; it claims it means any cream or ointment that "leaves no visible trace" on the skin. Which definition is correct? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've got to be kidding me

Idiomatic? It basically means "Are you serious?", "I can't believe this!", "This is not good!". I feel like it has some idiomaticity because the speaker usually does not genuinely believe that the "you" person is joking. Although, I have a pretty weak feeling about making an entry for it, since it's like you have got to be kidding me. What do you guys think? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms: you must be joking, you've got to (gotta) be joking, you must be kidding me, etc... the range of variations makes it sound perhaps less idiomatic and more SoP? Equinox ◑ 22:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Seriously though, bit of a toughie. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually used ironically, I think, but it's one of those borderline phrases which can be said without an ironic tone of voice, and still be understood in the ironic sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it's a lexical item. It looks like simply using a metaphor to indirectly express disbelief, interchangeable (aside from the metaphor) with "no way!" and "I can't believe this". As a metaphor it's not to be interpreted literally, but the words used are secondary to the concepts expressed- you could paraphrase it in a variety of ways and it would still be understood the same: "you're not serious", "you're having me on", etc. ~~

тошнить

No perfectives of this Russian verb are listed. But the Russian Wiktionary has вытошнить, затошнить, стошнить. Is there a difference? Is затошнить "to suddenly start feeling sick"? And is вытошнить not to just feel sick, but "to throw up"? If I'm right on those two, what's стошнить? Спасибо за помощь!

The Russian Wiktionary often lists questionable perfectives that don't quite have the same meaning, as you noted. Benwing2 (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the Russian Wiktionary says стошнить is a synonym of вытошнить. Benwing2 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

historian

Why isn't something like "someone who studies history as a career", or something along those lines, one of the definitions? That's how people have always described the word "historian" to me; "writer of history" makes sense but just sounds really strange to me for some reason. I feel like "documenter of history" or "writer of historical or chronological documents" would make a bit more sense. Philmonte101 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think yours is sense 2, not sense 1. Equinox ◑ 08:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, sense 2 does a poor job of capturing it at the moment. Maybe "one whose field of study is history, especially someone for whom it is a career"? - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed sense 2 to "One who studies or researches history", which I think is close to what the previous def intended from the start. Equinox ◑ 11:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I live in the US, should I mention. If I was talking to someone, and I told them "Hi. <insert things about me here> and I'm a historian," they would not specifically think of me as someone who was "knowledgable about history", or "a writer of history". They would legitimately think I was someone who studied history professionally on a regular basis. The person I was talking to might ask me, for instance, "Oh, cool! Do you work for a college or university?" rather than "Oh, so do you mean you're a writer of history, or someone who is just good at history?" No, the assumption from "historian" is almost always that it is a career. Although, "amateur historian" (I know it's SOP but I'm using it as an example) might mean someone who studied it but didn't do it professionally, for instance a history student. I might say "I am not a historian (yet), but I am very interested in the field of study." (which is true of me, as a matter of fact) I also have seen on, say, syllabi in high schools "Welcome, young scientists, to _____ High School!" but I think that's just used as a way to make students feel better about being in the class. I question whether that gets a sense of its own. So I suppose any career related to the subject learned could be placed there, which in this case would be "Welcome, young historians, to ______ High School!" Philmonte101 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to enhance all of our entries that are comparable, making sure that we have a sense to allow for compensated vs uncompensated participation in the activity involved. Perhaps we also need a sense for those who identify themselves or are identified by the activity. Even more generally, we should enhance all kinds of entries by offering definitions for all kinds of relevant modalities of their application. Hospital clown offers a clean slate for this kind of effort. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German Sphinx

For the German word Sphinx I am trying to make the Gender both masculine and feminine and I can't figure out how to do it. For French you can just put "mf" in the gender section of the code, but I got an error when I tried that. Also, there are two possible Plurals for Sphinx, Sphinxe and Sphingen, and I can't figure out how to add two plurals for one word. Can anyone help? 2WR1 (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:de-noun: "To specify more than one gender, use g2= or g3=. Additional plural forms can be added with pl2= and pl3=." Equinox ◑ 08:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(We should probably, by the way, standardise how these templates work as far as is practical.) Equinox ◑ 08:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: Thank you! Ya, I assumed they would work the same for both languages, it's a little confusing to have to learn a new way to do it for a different language. 2WR1 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some languages inflect differently based on gender, so the masculine declension and feminine declension might be different so specifying mf causes all sort of problems in having to specify which is the plural when feminine and which is the plural when masculine. Also some templates can't simply use {{{3}}} for a second plural because it's already in use for the genitive or something. I think this is the case with {{de-noun}}
Oh, ya, I see, that does make sense. 2WR1 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example sentence for fille = "girl"

This example sentence:

Les parents regardaient leurs filles courir dans le parc.

Does not exemplify the meaning "girl". Can someone fix? Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot. Feel free to revise. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

half past

Labelled a noun. Does not seem like a noun to me. (Same goes for five past, ten past, five to etc.) 86.129.206.245 19:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... looking again, I wonder if this definition was supposed to be for usages like "The meeting's at half past", rather than, say, "The meeting's at half past one". However, this contradicts the "example of usage" which actually is "half past one". 86.129.206.245 20:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the usage example problem. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The translations are another problem- they seem to be specifically for the "half-past one" usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's mostly necessary. Otherwise, a substantial number of the world's languages would simply have no translation for this, even though the concepts are clearly similar. —CodeCat 22:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can a part of speech be ascribed to "half past" in e.g. "half past one"? Perhaps there should be two definitions, and the translations should be assigned to the latter one? 81.152.193.175 19:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By analogies to, "... a mile before the creek.", "... on the half-hour.", "... at five of."? Wikidity (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not up

The tennis term "not up" ([4]) ought to be defined, but I am perplexed as to whether "up" has a separable meaning. Would it be reasonable to define "up" as "(of a tennis ball) not having bounced for a second time", or would it be better to have an entry for "not up"? 86.129.206.245 22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case is not out. I experimentally searched Google Books for "ball was still up" and found one book describing a tennis game. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While logically 'not up' the existence of 'up' with the opposite meaning, logic is not truth, and especially not when it comes to languages! Therefore, no, it is not reasonable to define up to mean not having bounced twice because it's not necessarily used that way. I've never come across it (tennis is my favourite sport) but 'not up' is common. Probably gets said by the umpire about once per match. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking some more about this, actually I think people do use "up" outside the expression "not up", per Equinox. For example: Umpire: "Not up!" / Player: "It was up!". I think I may have heard this usage, in which case "up" is separable for sure. 86.129.206.245 22:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

shitizen

The entry of shitizen simply states that it is a vulgar, deliberate misspelling of citizen...but isn't it more than that? Doesn't it imply that the "citizen" is either a piece of shit (for lack of a better term) or shitty in some way ? Leasnam (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French arguer

I'm very confused about the French arguer and the pronunciation of it's conjugated forms. The infinitive is pronounced /aʁ.gɥe/ but the conjugation chart shows the u being silent for the conjugated forms. I thought this was probably just a problem with the auto-conjugation module, but when I looked on the French wiktionary as well, the conjugated forms also had silent u's. This is made more confusing because the 1990 reform spelling created is argüer so you would expect forms like "argüe" to come of that, but the conjugation chart I found on French wiktionary gives "arguë" which is a distinctly non-1990 reform way of spelling /aʁ.gy/ but I also can't find evidence that the spelling "arguë" is used before the 1990 reform. 2WR1 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the French Wiktionary has both pronunciations. There are two different, homographic verbs, one pronounced /aʁ.gɥe/ and the other /aʁ.ge/. The conjugations of both are supplied, with the latter pronunciation on the first tab and the former on a second tab. Our entry is just incomplete, it would seem. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy: Ah, I see that now, could a similar thing showing multiple conjugations be done on the English wiktionary? @Benwing2 do you know? 2WR1 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@2WR1 I'll look into it, thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 Thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

couscous

Couscous is not a pasta, surely? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Couscous. It really is a pasta. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's made out of semolina, I'm not sure that makes it pasta. Keith the Koala (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For us the question is not fundamentally whether the referent of couscous is a kind of the referent of pasta or whether they are made the same way (typically!) from the same ingredients (typically!, except for the egg often in pasta and fresh pasta being made from soft, not durum, wheat). One might as easily claim that couscous balls are a type of dumpling. The question is more whether the two words are used as if couscous was a kind of pasta. There are many instances in which couscous and pasta are linked by or or and, which indicates that they are viewed as distinct. Some texts refer to using couscous instead of pasta. OTOH a small number of books (probably by culinary Platonists) do refer to couscous as a kind of pasta. The great preponderance of usage does not suggest that writers or readers view couscous as a type of pasta. DCDuring TALK 01:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there persuasive indication that the experts see some functional, ethnic, etymological, or constitutional difference, or that it is just an appositive, or a careless redundancy, or irksomelocution.
Wikidity (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

本番

Senses 1 to 3 probably are comprehensible but is there a better way to word them? —suzukaze (t・c) 10:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the definitions. Really speaking, they all have the same meaning: "The real thing", as opposed to rehearsal/practice. The sexual meaning is just an obvious extension, like "going all the way". Imaginatorium (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and actually I was unsure about splitting the definition so finely but it was done in reference to Wikipedia. —suzukaze (t・c) 17:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wah, weh, weeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh, etc.

Isn't this also imitating a baby? Like I've heard things like this happen in conversations:

  • Speaker 1: "Agh! I forgot my homework today!"
  • Speaker 2: "Oh, weh weh! Quit your complaining. I don't even do my homework."

So it would be synonymous to "boo hoo".

Also, I think weh and wah are literally used as an onomatopoeia for babies' cries. For instance:

  • "The baby said 'weeeeeeehhhhhhh' when I took out her pacifier."

I just don't know exactly how to word this or which forms are more common. Anybody else know? Philmonte101 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existing sense: "A cry of fright, distress, etc." That's what babies do, isn't it? Equinox ◑ 16:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I feel that the term arose from the fact that babies will do it. I don't think of a 24 year old man saying "wah" ever, personally, unless he was trying to imitate the baby's cry, like, say, in a roleplay. It seems like more of a childish thing. And, though I see roleplayers use "weh" all the time to mean the exact same thing, weh doesn't have an English entry. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add the entries and additions and such. Sources indicate that adults say these words a lot too. But that confuses me, because I've always heard "wah" to be only something that a baby says (pretty much). For instance, of an adult saying it. "I have to paint today?! Wehhhhhhh." Philmonte101 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly onomatopoetic, and perhaps expletive, or poetic reference to an attitude or sentiment.
Wikidity (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leastwise

Is it true that leastwise is an informal way of saying at least? I have always thought of it as being more formal.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A good quoted search string to find examples is "leastwise, that's...". Equinox ◑ 17:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The results for "at least, thats..." are pretty similar, though. Come to think of it, "leastwise" seems more informal in writing, but out of place in speech, to my ears. I might have had the impression that it was more formal simply because it is rare in my dialect. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

one

Adjective sense #8 ("one A. Lincoln") doesn't sound like an adjective to me - more like a determiner. Cambridge classes it as "number, determiner"; Oxford has it a subsense of the cardinal number. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, and I would also question whether some other senses are truly adjectives, such as #1, #2 and #7. 109.148.9.190 17:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this use different from and article, as in ("A Jane Doe" was reported rummaging in the alley) or like "Some Jane Doe" ...?
Wikidity (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

artificial tears

Could someone make a lemma for this? I think it means contact-lense fluid, but I'm not sure. Kolmiel (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, along with many more related terms when I saw them, as you can see, such as keratoconjunctivitis sicca and dry eye syndrome, to name a few. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could this also be used in a theatrical but non-coloquial (more easily translated) sense for 'Crocodile tears'?
Wikidity (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, as could "fake tears" or "inauthentic tears", but those seem like sum-of-parts terms, whereas "crocodile tears" have nothing to do with a crocodile. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

combientième

I'm having trouble defining the French word combientième. Does anyone have any input on a good way to explain it in English? 2WR1 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the word whatth, which I added to the entry, but I can't think of anything better.
Note that we don't use the header "interrogative adjective," but prefer to just use the "adjective" header, and label the sense as "interrogative." Also, it is typical practice here to write only English entries as sentences, keeping definitions for other languages lowercase and without a period. Be careful when copying Wiktionnaire's entries, because they have different standards there than we have here.
All that being said, thanks for the work you've been doing on French! I've noticed that you seem to be pretty active with your contributions to it, which is nice to see. :) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added an example sentence, which should be sufficient to convey the meaning of the word. Are you going to add the pronominal sense? It's good to make entries as complete as possible when first created, because incomplete entries are far less readily noticed than ones that are missing altogether. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy Thanks for your revision! I totally missed the pronominal definition, I'll add that now, thanks for pointing that out! 2WR1 (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy Can you think of a good example sentence for the first pronominal definition? Also, I wasn't sure how to format an example sentence which includes two voices, can you check my formatting? Thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the formatting is probably fine. I added an example sentence, as requested (guess what I'm eating for supper? ;)). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy Haha! Yes, I like your sentence! Thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd translate it as "howmanieth" or something similar. At least, that's my first instinct, "whatth" doesn't really do it as well. —CodeCat 01:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (though "whatth" came to mind almost instantly when I was trying to think of a translation, and it's just the sort of word I would use). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeCat, Andrew Sheedy I think that's mainly because in English we don't have a separate word for "how many" like combien. If you want to ask somebody what king they just mentioned you might say "Henry the whatth?" because we are asking for the ordinal number and we ask for that with a "what". But because number are usually asked for with a "combien" in French, I guess the term was created with that in mind. 2WR1 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I added "howmanyeth" to the entry anyway. (Incidentally, it may actually be citeable. See the bottom three books at howmanyeth.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy Ya, I get that, but I feel like it sounds more natural to say "That's the whatth hotdog you've eaten today?" than "That's the howmanyeth hotdog you've eaten today?", maybe that's just a personal preference. 2WR1 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either are particularly natural, TBH, which is why I didn't translate the example sentences literally. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy I mean, ya, I guess, I don't say "whatth" very often, but I'd sooner say it than "howmanyeth", haha. 2WR1 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid the construction all together: "how many hot dogs does that make for today?" Chuck Entz (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that whatth makes a lot more sense than howmanyeth. --WikiTiki89 10:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be my Dutch background. In Dutch, there's hoeveel, which is literally just hoe (“how”) + veel (“many”), and the ordinal becomes hoeveelste. So "howmanieth" is just a direct calque of that. —CodeCat 13:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
how manyth is readily attestable; I have added an entry. 81.152.193.175 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial (and Math technical) Spanish is enésimo. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 15:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We translate the Italian ennesimo as umpteenth. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wuxtry pronunciation

I can't find the pronunciation of wuxtry anywhere, I'm assuming that it's /ˈwʌks.tɹi/, but I want to be completely sure. 2WR1 (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈwʌks.tɹi/ looks right. It was a popular pronunciation in the 1940s by newspaper boys in New York City. The word extra can also be pronounced "extry" even today, and wuxtry just adds a 'w' in front (with a slight vowel change), but I have also heard it pronounced /ˈwɛkstɹi/ and /ˈwɛkstɹə/. I don't know where the 'w' comes from. Possibly a slurring of oh. I read somewhere that wuxtry may have come from Cockney, but I don't know if that's true. I used to hear it a lot in some old World War II movies, as well as movies about crime and the mob (such as Al Capone). —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

о́, а́, etc. in Cyrillic

I know that we don't create any entries at all with Cyrillic accent marks in the titles. However, don't these individual accented characters still deserve their own Translingual entries, seeing how someone might want to look up what the symbols actually mean? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Wikitiki89, @User:Atitarev, etc., does anyone want to help me with this? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need these. No language considers them separate letters or even separate characters. They are simply vowels with an accent mark. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, they are separate characters and they are attested. When I type à, I don't have a key on my computer that is specifically for "à", but I press option + ` + a. Also, I once tried to look these separate characters up because I wanted to learn more about them, but was disappointed to find that no entries were created for Arabic, Hebrew, or Cyrillic-scripted accents. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Unicode status of characters doesn't really have any merit for whether we include them. We could include a combination of a base character and a combining diacritic, and still call it a "letter" if a language uses it as a single letter. These characters exist in Unicode but they're not a character in any language. They're also, technically, SOP: о́ is just the plain o with a diacritic, and its meaning can be derived from these individual characters. —CodeCat 20:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that "technically, they are separate characters"? --WikiTiki89 21:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CodeCat I feel like SOP only counts when there are two words that you can find the meaning to individually, always separated by a space or a hyphen. @User:Wikitiki89 Because they just are. "а́" is clearly pretty different from "а". And if we have Latin diacritical symbols, it's unfair that we don't have the Cyrillic, Arabic, and Hebrew ones too, as well as any other script that has these. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"They just are" is not an argument. We have entries for Latin diacriticized characters because in many Latin-script languages they actually are treated as separate characters and their functions cannot always be described in terms of the character and diacritic separately. For the Cyrillic diacriticized chracters you bring up, that is not the case. We do have entries for some Cyrillic diacriticized characters for whoch that does happen to be the case: й, ё, ї, for example. The same goes for the Arabic and Hebrew diacritics, but even more so. For Arabic, for example, this would necessitate over 400 entries for character-diacritic combinations, that are all completely useless because all the indicate is essentially that the letter for "b" combines with the diacritic for "a" to make the sound "ba", and that the letter for "b" combines with the gemination diacritic and the diacritic for "a" to make the sound "bba". And it's not as though it's difficult to figure out how these diacritics are written. They are written exactly the same way regardless of which letter they are on. --WikiTiki89 22:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ضيعة

I have no idea how to edit or display Arabic, after several attempts, so I can't fix this myself. The Arabic word d.ay`ah "village", which should be the linked title of this posting if I'm lucky, has a shadda on the first letter under the Noun subheading. This should be removed. This is presumably because someone created this page through the etymology of the Spanish aldea, which is from the definite form. --Hiztegilari (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed. --WikiTiki89 11:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ΆΛΣ, ὁ; and ΆΛΣ, ἡ

Am still not clear whether these two lexemes are distinct etymologically: the first meaning 'salt'; and the latter meaning 'sea', being poetical from Homer et cetera. Andrew H. Gray 13:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Werdna Yrneh Yarg.

ὁ ἅλς and ἡ ἅλς have the same etymology. —Stephen (Talk) 08:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@—Stephen: Thank you so much; it seemed too much of a coincidence otherwise. Andrew H. Gray 13:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Andrew talk[reply]

shatei

In what context is this used? DTLHS (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so yeah

I tried to word this the best way I could, but I still feel like something's wrong with it's definition. I've seen "so yeah" be used at the beginning, the middle, and the end of sentences. I gave an example sentence of its usage in case some of you haven't seen this phrase used before. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could produce some citations acceptable for attestation? The usage example you have provided is not consistent with the definition you have provided, the speaker saying more after using the term. DCDuring TALK 21:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've changed the entry to include two definitions, the second one being a bit more rare, but I didn't include the "rare" label because I feel like it's used quite a bit in colloquial speech and writing. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But we still have no evidence from actual usage which would bear on how the expression is used. If you cannot provide any, I will RfV the entry. We will see whether anyone can produce evidence in support of the two definitions or any other definition, other that so + yeah. I also have a feeling that the way the expression is vocalized conveys most of the meaning, which is very hard indeed to document from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give me at least until tomorrow night please before RFVing. I'm tired. *yawn* PseudoSkull (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is SOP and these shades of meaning are conveyed just by the "yeah". For example, there's also "and yeah", "or yeah", "but yeah", "well yeah", etc. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think there is any idiomatic content to "so yeah" beyond "so + yeah", and neither is it sufficient of a set phrase to merit inclusion. 31.49.180.211 02:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet against it, but who knows? DCDuring TALK 02:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more of a construction than anything else: "so, no" seems to be exactly equivalent to "so, yeah", but for negative questions, as in "so, no, I don't agree". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it. It's a filler phrase used in all sorts of situations. so no is SOP, but so yeah is not. I'd argue that but yeah is a synonym in some cases. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that addition of so no is usually used in response to a yes or no question. so yeah can be used regardless of what kind of question, if any, is asked. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the usage at sense 1 not be considered a separate POS, like a Conjunction ? Leasnam (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cognate (linguistic sense)

Is there a stricter sense alongside the one we mention? In German (cf. w:de:Verwandte_Wörter), words are usually regarded as cognate (urverwandt) only when they are inherited words assumed to have existed in a common predecessor language. This means that borrowings, parallel formations, etc., aren't cognates, and that there can be no cognates between unrelated languages. (The looser use is not entirely unknown in German, but less common, to my best knowledge.) Kolmiel (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Our definition is somewhat open to interpretation, but example sentence 3 definitely mentions words that aren't urverwandt in the above sense. Kolmiel (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I just simplified the definition a bit, but I hope that that doesn't invalidate anything you said. The first time I was exposed to the word cognate was in French class in middle school and high school, where "cognates" were word pairs with obvious connections like arriver and arrive, and "false cognates" were pairs whose meanings differed like attendre and attend. It seems to be that that is the way cognate is most commonly used among non-linguists. --WikiTiki89 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pronunciation of Calcutta

For some reason I thought Calcutta was a 19th century anglicization of the Bengali pronunciation of the name [ˈkolkat̪a] (now represented by the new spelling Kolkata) or [ˈkɔlikat̪a], and originally pronounced /kɔːlˈkätə/ (when strut was a low central vowel), then somehow had /ɔː/ replaced with the front vowel /æ/ through spelling pronunciation. It is probably a crazy theory invented by my brain (such phoneme replacement would be rather strange without some kind of dramatic event to make people forget the old pronunciation), and there is no indication here or on Wikipedia that this could be true, but does anyone know if there's a source with transcriptions of 19th century English pronunciations of Indian place names, so that the theory can be definitely disproved? — Eru·tuon 05:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is such a source, but it's good to keep in mind that place names are not always borrowed from the locals' own pronunciation. Calcutta might (for all I know) be filtered through a variety of other languages, such as Hindi or Portuguese. (Consider Japan, which obviously doesn't come straight from Nihon or Nippon but rather through some variety of Chinese like Min Nan Ji̍t-pún, then Malay, then Portuguese and/or Dutch.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

go through

One of the definitions of "go through" is this:

  1. (intransitive) To progress (deprecated template usage) to the next stage of something.

In my opinion the italicisation of "to" looks odd, and the reason for it is unclear to the reader, and the link on "to" has little value. I removed both, but another user has restored them; see explanation here. I remain unconvinced. Possibly what the editor is trying to achieve could be done by putting brackets around "to the next stage of something". Comments please. 109.148.9.190 17:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly shouldn't be using {{term}} to do that (or anything else, for that matter). At best, it should say:
  1. (intransitive) To progress (to the next stage of something).
What do others think? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the standard approach in other dictionaries, which we tend to follow, the parentheses imply that one must provide an object of the specified type, which is inconsistent with it being intransitive. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's a prepositional phrase complement, rather than a direct object, that's in parentheses. I think it's clear enough to any user what they mean. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but we really owe it to our users to be consistent in our presentation, especially of actual content. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DCD, though I'm not sure exactly how it should be solved. I was the one that italicised "to" in this case, as I've done in similar entries, a practice which is used by several print dictionaries. I've seen other entries here that spell these things out long-windedly with a context label like construed with "to", which is also an option, I guess, although I think it makes it difficult to write a definition because one inevitably needs to use the preposition as part of the definition as well. Ƿidsiþ 06:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) It seeems to me that there are two cases to consider. The first is a usage like "Manchester United went through", for which the definition "to progress to the next stage of something" is logical and directly substitutable. Then there is the case like "Manchester United went through to the next round of the cup", for which the definition "to progress to the next stage of something" is not strictly substitutable, but should strictly be "to progress (to the next stage of something)" analogously to the way DCD has explained for direct objects. Having two definitions for these two cases would be way too fussy though. I would be content with either. I don't believe the italicised "to" would be widely understood. 81.152.193.175 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) Very well, since there have been no more comments, and I do not see much support for the present treatment, I have removed the italics and delinked "to" (again). Please put "to the next stage of something" in brackets if you prefer. If any editor absolutely insists on putting back the italicised and linked "to" then I will not change it again, but I am quite strongly of the opinion that most readers will not understand it. 86.185.70.239 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K/S

  • Not sure if "K/S" should be on Wiktionary. It is simply an acronymized specific case of slash fiction, that of Kirk/Spock (Kirk slash Spock). K/S is arguably the most notable form of slash fiction, but I think it is something that perhaps could be used within an example on the entry for "slash" (e.g. "A common slash fiction is that of Kirk and Spock, often abbreviated as 'K/S.'") instead of as a main entry. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

offhand

I believe this is also a noun, referring the hand other than the one you prefer to use? For example, if you're righthanded, the left hand is your offhand. I've seen it used mainly in the context of swordfighting. —CodeCat 14:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it more to be a noun-headed phrase, "off hand," when using this sense. EI at10s (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cup noodles

I'd like to get assistance in creating this entry. There's one in Japanese, but not one in English. I'm sure it's not SOP as the type of cup and the type of noodles are fairly specific when referring to this. Etymologically it's a genericized trademark. I am unsure how to provide solid examples and references for this, but I can vouch it's part of my vocabulary and that of many of my peers, to say "cup noodles" to refer to any product with dried ramen in Styrofoam cups. EI at10s (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term I'm familiar with in the UK is "pot noodle" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_Noodle), also a brand name that has become somewhat genericised. 81.152.193.175 20:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created cup noodles with only the Portuguese section and one citation. It's not SOP in Portuguese either, nobody says "cup" or "noodles" but "cup noodles" is common. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nuncupatory

I didn't want to play with the extant material, but I believe that sense 2 as given here for the word-- 

 irrelevant, not pertinent (idiosyncratic usage in the works of science fiction author Jack Vance [1916 – 2013][1]; used nowhere else in this sense)

--is incorrect. Vance was acerbically sarcastic. The example given, "The question is nuncupatory," is always said by a profoundly shady character attempting to avoid too-close questioning. I, at least, think it clear that Vance intended those characters to be consciously bedazzling their opponents with tricky words they won't understand. The character saying that is only, in effect, saying "the question was asked orally," but he sounds as if he is airily dismissing it as in some way technically (and ridiculously) defective.

Anyone reading this who agrees might want to suitably revise the definition of that sense (or, perhaps best, just scrub it, and let new Vance readers have the pleasure of figuring it all out for themselves.)

If it's really used only by Jack Vance then I think we shouldn't have it anyway, since that makes it a single-use nonce word, and we no longer include those. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

تلا فلاال عغ عغعاا غ

I think this should be speedied. It's not Arabic and is probably gibberish. Benwing2 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you want something speedied, just add {{delete}}. Or log into your other account and delete it. No need for Tea Room discussions. --WikiTiki89 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I wasn't completely sure it should be deleted, that's why I posted here (maybe it's in some weird language I don't recognize?). Benwing2 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, there was no usable content in the entry. --WikiTiki89 14:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of damn with an /n/?

Ian Flemming in Moonraker has one slightly vulgar character utter the word as dam’, apparently marking the absence of a spoken N. Was that a thing, should we add it? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. To me it seems like a classic case of "true" eye-dialect. --WikiTiki89 18:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either eye-dialect or written euphemism (like "d*mn" would be). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that the author saw "damn" as being a shortening of "damned," and the apostrophe thus represents the ommission of the /d/ sound, rather than a /n/. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a monosyllabic expletive, I'd suggest it's a truncation of "Damnation!". -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. It doesn't seem any different when followed by "it", which is very common. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the old Century Dictionary (which often includes old, then-current pronunciations) has no pronunciation with /n/. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, noun

"A remainder of a music or video release." What does this sense mean? I don't get it. Equinox ◑ 22:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it belongs as a noun. I think it's more the sense "Deleted scenes" or "deleted track." EI at10s (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's "remainder" in sense 4, "Excessive stock items left unsold and subject to reduction in price". See for example the uses in this article:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RAkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT69&dq=%22deletes%22
109.146.248.82 11:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{senseid|en|commerce}} to [[remainder]] and linked "remainder" in the challenged definition of delete to it. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, shouldn't "Excessive" be "Excess"? 109.146.248.82 03:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've changed it, and am RFVing the "delete" sense. Equinox ◑ 10:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

heigh-ho

The entry for heigh-ho seems odd because there's only a verb definition and no definition for an interjection. Does this seem incomplete to anyone else? 2WR1 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Equinox ◑ 19:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox Looks good, thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

given to / prone to

I just added given to (in the sense "in the habit of (doing)") as an adjective. Now I notice that prone to, which seems grammatically similar, is listed as an adverb. I feel doubtful that it is an adverb. Comments please. 109.146.248.82 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an adverb. We already have your sense at given, though the entry notes it's only used with to; however, I think it's better there, because of constructs like "a habit to which she was given". Equinox ◑ 16:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with relying solely on the entries for given (or prone) is the way search works in the absence of an entry for given to:
  1. As one types 'given to', 'give' appears, leading to a long entry, with 18 definitions of which number 14 is relevant.
  2. Then 'given' appears, leading to an entry with 3 PoS sections and 7 definitions, of which the last is relevant.
  3. 'given to' would NOT yield those entries, but instead a "failed search" page showing entries with 'given' and 'to' in the headword, then entries with those words appearing somewhere in the text, mostly separately. Neither [[give]] nor [[given]] are high on the list.
A fast or determined typist is likely to skip over 1 and 2.
This is an argument for having some kind of entry for given to. I prefer a redirect to the appropriate definition (using {{senseid}}) on [[given]] (not [[give]]).
This argument applies to many entries, including those for terms called phrasal verbs, but which are not really phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case I have changed "prone to" to adjective. If anyone disagrees then please change it to whatever part of speech you think it is. 31.49.180.129 17:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bb

Notice: image File:BBC News screenshot - bb.png deleted, and removed by User:CommonsDelinker.

Appears at the end of this BBC story - see screenshot in case they fix it. Is this journalist slang for "bye bye" maybe? Keith the Koala (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the initials of the journalist who wrote the article. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could also be a random "falling on keyboard" kind of typographical error. If it was initials I would expect a space and/or capitals, though who knows ...109.146.248.82 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to have been removed now, so it must have been either a typing mistake or some internal code. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i griega

The definition ("Former name of the letter y. Now called ye.") makes it seem as though no one calls it i griega anymore, but I suspect that many people still do (considering that the new name was only officially accepted by the Real Academia Española in 2010, and the old name was never officially rejected). --WikiTiki89 15:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the user who tried to get all the pre-2006 Dutch spelling reform words deleted. I got taught i griega back in 2007/08 when I did Spanish and I doubt it's dropped out of use since then. "i griega" sorted by date backs this up. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: "I griega" is far more common than "ye" in practice and "be (corta)" is far more common than "uve" for v. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have just made these two edits. Regarding v, it seems that uve is the only name for it in Spain. In Latin America, ve is more common (with or without a clarifying adjective corta, chica, chiquita, pequeña, or baja), but uve also exists. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: I'm not sure that ye was actually introduced by the Academia. Wikipedia says it was proposed in the 20th century (before the Academia adopted it), but does not say by whom or even exactly when in the 20th century. --WikiTiki89 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

frak

Supposedly a verb, but of the three citations, two are "what the frak" (noun?? anyway not a verb) and the other is "frak off" (phrasal verb, a single unit). Equinox ◑ 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, noun. Also, in B S Galactica, it was used as an Interjection as well, which we don't seem to have Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OrphicBot

user:OrphicBot is broken/buggy from the 12 September 2016 update. It doesn't check the existence of pages before removing "redlinks" if the new page hasn't propagated then the link is red, but the destination page exists. This can be considered a problem with either Wiktionary's MediaWiki (cache lag) or with OrphicBot itself (not taking into account server lag)

example: chíp/chip/ChIP delinked new page CHiP

-- 65.94.171.217 04:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Isomorphyc: How are you checking for pages' existence? --WikiTiki89 14:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, technical issues are posted to WT:GP, technically-minded editors are much more likely to see it if posted there. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89: It is not quite necessary to test for pages' existence in realtime (Wikimedia prefers titles queried in groups of 5000 where possible), but I made two small errors: I neglected to refresh my day-old titles list, and I should have skipped over pages edited more recently than the time at which my my titles list was loaded. I believe fewer than half a dozen pages were involved, but I will correct these. The realtime client works from the RecentChanges feed and does not have this type of issue-- this was a one-time subtractive bulk update for ten years of accumulated red links. Sorry for deleting the valid arguments-- they also would have been added back in the next additive iteration. Isomorphyc (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the log of the changes: User:OrphicBot/EditLogs/13September2016_Incorrect_Argument_Deletions. The title is a bit of a misnomer; most of the pages except CHiP are recent changes without incorrect removals. But this gives a sense of the daily activity needed to keep the {{also}} templates consistent: about 50-100 edits/day. Isomorphyc (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dun and Dehra Dun

Etymology 3 at dun gives the gloss, "A valley in the Himalayan foothills, e.g. Dehra Dun." Dehra Dun is listed as an English proper noun, presumably borrowed from a language spoken in that area. The Google mostly gives it as a single word, Dehradun.

I've never heard of dun to mean "Himalayan valley", and it's not in the OED online. OED includes: a fort (in Scotland or Ireland), from dun or din meaning "hill" or "hill-fort" in Gaelic and in Welsh, but nothing I can see from South Asia.

When the sense that is now etymology 3 was added on 12 May 2007, User:LADave speculated "A valley in the Himalayan foothills, e.g. Dehra Dun. [...] Etymology: possibly by analogy to the valley of the Doon River in Scotland." I've seen a couple of pieces online – none that seem all that reliable – deriving Dehradun from द्रोण (droṇa) or from a word in an unnamed language meaning "valley". My guess would be that Sanskrit is more likely than Gaelic.

My question is: is the "Himalayan valley" sense actually an English word, or might it be a misunderstanding? Perhaps it only exists as part of various place names and not as an independent borrowing. Cnilep (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to be English: see Dehradun#Etymology. Equinox ◑ 16:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cōnsors

Discussion moved from WT:RFV#cōnsors.

Cōnsors can sometimes appear in the ablative as cōnsorte, although on this site it is only declined in the ablative as cōnsortī. There is an example of this use in Ovid's Metamorphoses, book 1 line 319: "cum consorte tori parva rate vectus adhaesit,"

I have no idea where to suggest this fix nor how to do it myself. — This unsigned comment was added at 12 September 2016.

Feminine of cock-a-doodle-doo

Gender of Juniperites

Would someone kindly check the gender of Juniperites and update the {{taxoninfl}} template accordingly? Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To judge from Juniperites subulata and Juniperites acutifolia in the 1835 quote, it's feminine, which is odd since -itēs is normally masculine. But since neither Wikispecies nor Wikipedia has ever heard of Juniperites, and since our quotations all come from the 19th century, shouldn't we change the definition to something like "(historical) A name formerly applied to certain extinct fossil plants resembling the juniper, when they were believed to be a taxonomic genus"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't feel qualified enough to judge if the term is now entirely historical and no longer in common use, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that @DCDuring has revised the definition – thank you! — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The few modern discussions don't seem to credit the 19th century diagnosis. Thees and similar fossils don't seem to offer sufficient distinct features to make modern authors comfortable with assigning the fossil specimens to genera. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "obsolete" label? OK. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Juniperites alienus, Juniperites harmannianus, Juniperites brevifolius and aculifolius, in addition to Juniperites aliena, Juniperites brevifelia, Juniperites baccifera, Juniperites subulata. This seems, in other words, to be both masculine and feminine. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The -ites ending is often tacked on to morphotaxon names: these are names for fossils that simply don't show the necessary details for identification or classification. Such names aren't taxonomically valid, so you can't find them in taxonomic references. Thus the name Juniperites can be assigned to any fossil that sort of looks like Juniperus, but can't be identified for sure. I'm sure there are lots of organisms that are known by multiple morphotaxon names: a tree might have wood fossils, leaf fossils, etc., with no way to know that these are all the same species, unless someone finds a more complete fossil that can be matched to the incomplete ones. I don't believe these names are covered by the taxonomic codes, so lack of gender agreement wouldn't be at all surprising. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The single online source that might have the name is Fossilworks. Paleontology seems also to retain older names and classifications. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on both the Wikipedia and Fossilworks links, but they give no results. Is it useful to keep those links? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake – there is an entry in Fossilworks, though it is pretty brief and says "there are no occurrences of Juniperites in the database" (which I didn't really understand as I'm not familiar with what data Fossilworks contains). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but how can Translingual entries have genders (and pronunciation, for that matter)? I know that Latin has genders, but that isn't retained in all languages.__Gamren (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but the documentation of {{taxoninfl}} which is for use in translingual entries relating to taxa specifically requests that editors indicate the gender "based on the etymology, on actual practice as shown in the gender of specific epithets used with the genus, or on some reference source". — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuconlaw I've removed the pedia template. The entry is in the nature of a placeholder. The raison d'etre for the database is to provide records of specific fossil specimens, organized under taxa or taxonomic-type names. Either there is no specimen or specimen information has not been entered.
@Gamren Genus names (except for those of viruses) have genders because many specific epithets are in the form of Latin adjectives (others are attributive nouns, genitive forms of nouns, etc). Some specific epithets are actually classical Latin adjectives. The practice of making the specific epithet agree with the genus name has endured from the first use of Latin binomial names as species identifiers. Names above the rank of genus are mostly in the form of Latin plural nouns. Gender does not matter for them because adjectives do not modify them. In the case of viruses, the ICTV started with a relatively clean slate and dispensed with most of the Latin baggage that the taxonomic name authorities (ICZN and IBC/IAPT) retain. Some modern plant higher-group names (as used by APG) are in the form of English plurals (eg, rosids, euasterids I), but there are also corresponding Latin plural names. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

family values, missing senses?

To quote myself from a talk page: "When I encounter this term in the context of actual political discourse, it seems to always be some ideal that discoursers refer to to justify discrimination against homosexuals (see for example some pages I took from the first page of a Google search). Is this a separate sense, or a sub-sense of the existing one?"__Gamren (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can a native speaker clear this up?__Gamren (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to family values advocates, only a man and a woman can form the base for a valid nuclear family, but you're right that common connotations could be explained a little more... AnonMoos (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citations, not intuition, even of a native speaker, would be the best way to illustrate how the terms are used. It would also be nice if the citations were a representative selection. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That specific euphemism for homophobia seems a recent 'hijack' of the term from its natural family meaning of a family theme of family life. There was even a movie, "Addams Family Values", which outside of 'acceptance of individuality', hand nothing to do with homosexuality. My father wrote 'ours' in our family Bible as "patience and acceptance" which we took as a guidance for our childhood household, & in my generation, my wife wrote ours as "kindness & curiosity". You might also recognize that European (& probably other) heraldry & child-naming have traditionally used 'Familial values' as a theme. I'm sure some research would find literary references also.
Wikidity (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collective term

I think it's worth an entry, but I'm stuck for a good definition. DonnanZ (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, what does that mean? — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a word that generally covers some other terms, but putting it in a nutshell... DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like sheep covers ewes, rams, hoggets, wethers, lambs, not to mention different breeds. DonnanZ (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a word is called a hypernym. I don't know whether it is also called a collective term. Have you tried looking for quotations of the latter? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synonyms listed on the hypernym page are blanket term, genus, superordinate, hyperonym, superset and umbrella term. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not thinking of collective noun are you? 31.49.180.129 23:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. DonnanZ (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing note on one/alone

ōn → ōōōn → wōn → wōōn → wŏŏn → wŭn.
How is that to be read? /oːn → oːːːn → woːn → woːːn → woon → wʊn/? Could someone do us the favour of rewriting both notes (which are also not identical) in a more intelligible way? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense to me. I would just write ōn → wōn → wŏn → wŭn. --WikiTiki89 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it, whoever wrote it intended ōō to stand for /uː/ and ŏŏ for /ʊ/ (and ŭ for /ʌ/). Anyway, in IPA I would put /oːn → woːn → wuːn → wʊn → wʌn/. --WikiTiki89 21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a /uː/ in the history of the word, though. The word had ā in Old English, the same as stone and broad. So it never would have rhymed with moon. —CodeCat 23:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So how about /ɔːn → oːn → ʊon → wʊn → wʌn/? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You had it right: After the OE period, it went from /o:n/ > /u:on/ > /won/ despite the long ā in Old English. This word is a special case, probably due to the initial placement of the vowel and the stress placed on it when spoken. It parallels the northern English forms which went from æn > eean > yan/yen "one" Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to remember what they are, but I'm pretty sure there are a few examples of Modern English oo coming from Old English ā. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only ones I can think of involve the incorporation of a w sound in front of the ā, as in OE hwā > who, OE hwām > whom; OE wāse > ooze, etc. Leasnam (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the note (one copy can be found at Talk:one) until it can be referenced, made to use a standard pronunciation transcription system, and preferably templatized since it appeared on multiple entries. - -sche (discuss) 14:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

afterthought, why is it a prefix?

I'm not quite sure what the reasoning is for considering after- a prefix here. In what way does it differ from the regular word after? —CodeCat 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that after does not form nouns. --WikiTiki89 17:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a rather ad-hoc explanation, and could easily be countered by saying it does form nouns, because it formed afterthought. So there must be more to it than that. —CodeCat 18:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fore in forethought also not a prefix ? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I see your reasoning of it being an adjective ? Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that it's an adjective. Just that I'm not sure how the prefixes after- and fore- differ from their standalone counterparts. I'm trying to figure out why Wiktionary makes a difference. What's the essential point, if there is one? —CodeCat 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like under- and over-, fore- and after- have always been prefixes in English...so when the word was created it was natural to assume that it was formed from the prefix + the stem Leasnam (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what makes them prefixes? —CodeCat 18:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're going :) ...for me, it's historical precedence (of course ;)...I understand the train of thought that says a prefix/suffix cannot be a standalone word, but I leave that to the consensus of the team Leasnam (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly reasonable explanation. When after is used as its own word followed by a noun, it forms an adverbial phrase. Forming nouns from other nouns is a function of the prefix after-. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's after thought, a prepositional phrase. But afterthought is one word, a compound. I'm trying to discern whether it's a compound of after and thought or of after- and thought, and how we might tell the difference if there is one. —CodeCat 18:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because "after thought" can only be an adverbial phrase, and "afterthought" can only be a noun. They are entirely different things. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm asking whether the "after" morpheme, found in the word afterthought, is identical to the word after or the prefix after-. And what would allow us to distinguish these two possibilities? How is prefixation with after- different from compounding with after? —CodeCat 19:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to think of afterthought as "that is a good after thought" where after is an adjective is odd. It's not "a thought that is after", but a "thought what comes after", or later (adverb) Leasnam (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After is not an adjective, it's an adverb and an adverbial preposition. Certain adverbs can be used in predicates. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have it as an Adjective in the entry though, that's why I said it... Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It looks to me that the original form is the prefix, but some people sometimes insert a space. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The sad thing about English is that the longstanding prefixes over time begin to look identical to the adverb, and many simply analyze them as such. Unlike classical prefixes which have an intermediary vowel (-i-, -o-, etc.), English prefixes are left to die in hospice :( Leasnam (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not very many dictionaries find it necessary to have an entry for after- (prefix). DCDuring TALK 00:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If after exists as a stand-alone word (it does) and if the sense it embodies in derivations is the same as the one it embodies on its own (it is, or at least in the majority of these), then there is no reason to postulate its existence as a prefix. I have previously speedy'd fodbold- and jern- for just this reason, and I would have speedy'd hånd-, as well, if I didn't think it has a particular sense (being powered or operated by hand).__Gamren (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as Wikitiki states above, the standalone form is a likely derived from the prefix, which is older (the standalone form being an incorrect separation of the prefix from the stem). If that be the case, how can we do this and still be right ?Leasnam (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Leasnam I didn't read it that way before. I suppose that may complicate things, if it is true. Can you give me any sources for that conjecture?__Gamren (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have a source, per se (--come to think of it, don't even know where this info could be looked up offhand, except in the OED ?), but per NGram viewer, for "afterthought"|"after thought"; "an afterthought"|"an after thought", and "afterthoughts"|"after thoughts", in all 3 cases the prefixed version occurs earlier [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] if that can perhaps suffice as any reliable indication Leasnam (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I really don't see what that indicates. English has compounds, and sometimes the compounds are written without a space; surely you would not argue that dog- is a prefix because doghouse is a word? OED says there is a prefix, but that it is derived from the standalone word. Merriam-Websters and Oxford Dictionaries do not even claim its existence, and my physical Oxford ALD only has the prefix defined in the after entry, defining it: "happening or done later than the time or event mentioned", which is precisely what after means, which, in my view, renders it unnecessary. Or do I misunderstand your point?__Gamren (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamren, after- is a prefix in Old English (æftercweþan, æfterfolgian, æftergenga) and in Middle English (aftermete, aftertyme, etc.) and is inherited as a prefix in Modern English. When the OED says that it is derived from after, do they mean in Modern English, or in English as a whole (spanning its entire existence) ? In any event, after- has a few senses not covered by the standalone word, such as "subordinate" "inferior", and based solely on that alone deserves recognition as a prefix. Leasnam (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Leasnam I apologize for the extreme delay. Yes, the senses not covered by after obviously need to stay, but what about sense 2? An afterlife, for example, is just a life that comes after something else, and afterwit is wit that comes after. A similar thing is going on with self-, where we have self-abuse (abuse of oneself) and self-critical (critical of oneself). It is entirely possible that I'm being dense, but what difference does it make that these constructions were made in Old and Middle English? æfterfolgian seems to be equivalent to efterfølge (“succeed, replace”), which is a plain old compound, no prefixes required.__Gamren (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Gamren. An afterlife is not "an after (adj) life". Something can't be "very after", so the labelling of after as an adjective should be reviewed. I absolutely get what you're saying. I'm not sure however that I agree with it :/ Leasnam (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar situation with mega and mega-. Would it be right to remove mega- as a prefix because we can analyse it as a compound of mega + (whatever) ? That is convenient for many reasons I know, but I am of the opinion that if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Same with affixes: if something behaves as a prefix, it's a prefix, regardless if it's a standalone word. Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
mega adjective is not general-purpose, though: we gloss it as informal or 1990s slang. Equinox ◑ 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And what, though, if it were not glossed, if it were general-purpose ? (I'm speaking hypotheically of course). Would it be considered the same way ? Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

age-reversal

  • As a noun, shouldn't the correct form be age reversal? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the form I would prefer, but hyphenation in English is notoriously variable. My Chambers Dictionary on CD-ROM has icecap, ice cream, and ice-skater. Attestion is king... Equinox ◑ 23:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never seen the hyphenated term used before, but from the definition provided, it seems that the context of the hyphenated form is specifically for age-reversal therapy and not for age reversal in general. In that context, one could say perhaps "I am going to age-reversal this afternoon," meaning "I am going to an appointment for age-reversal therapy this afternoon," and not meaning having a plan to reverse age (get younger) in the afternoon. It is an unusual spelling and wording though, so I would suggest marking it as "rare" unless citations are found showing a common usage. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

赤幟 usage

I read the usage notes but I'm still not sure how to use 赤幟. Maybe someone could make them clearer, or shorter, or delete them entirely but I have no idea what I just read. Cheers Pengo (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to remove usage notes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History lesson is cool but kind of useless. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool stuff moved to the talkpage. Wyang (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hoot(s)

hoot has a Scots definition, interjection, "Precedes a disagreeing or contradictory statement" and a note "Frequently used in the set phrase Hoots mon". It is not clear how the usage in this phrase relates to the definition given, nor why "hoot" has changed to "hoots", nor why this usage is listed under "hoot" and not "hoots" (where there is no mention of it, despite the heading of the entry for hoots mon linking there). I don't know how to address this. 109.146.248.31 03:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was "hoot mon", not "hoots mon". — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, I always thought it was "hoots mon". I don't recall ever hearing "hoot mon". I wonder whether "hoots" could be prevalent in BrE and "hoot" in AmE? 109.146.248.31 14:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
British Scots vs. American Scots? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is another problem, actually. "Scots" is just English with dialect words and point-y spellings. It should not be a language category. It only exists for political reasons. If Scots was a separate language then there would have to be Scots entries for "in", "it" and "the". There would have to be Scots entries for "cheetah", "leopard", "submerge" and "occur". There would have to be Scots entries for a million other English words that are used in "Scots", and for which no one has managed or bothered to contrive a phonetic Scottish spelling. The fact that none of these exist, nor would reasonably be created, shows that "Scots" is not a language at all. 109.146.248.31 19:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if we treat Portuguese and Spanish as separate languages, we'll have to have separate entries at words like gato, and if we treat Swedish and Norwegian as separate languages, we'll have to have two separate entries at katt (which we don't; we have three, Swedish, Norwegian Bokmål, and Norwegian Nynorsk.) There is no non-political way to divide a dialect continuum. There are already thousands of entries under Category:Scots lemmas; the fact that nobody has done a bunch of grunt work proves nothing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) I confess I do not quite understand how your examples are supposed to support your argument, but it scarcely matters since nothing you or anyone else says will ever convince me that "Scots" is a separate language, and with this I rest my case. 86.185.70.239 04:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no evidence can shake your opinion and you don't care to try and understand any argument, I fail to see why anyone should care to try and convince you. The Scots main page looks to an English speaker just like the Catalan Wikipedia page might look to a Spanish speaker; yet we still keep a bunch of Iberian Latin dialects around as separate languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These works suggest that "hoot mon" is common in Britain and Ireland and is not merely prevalent in American English: [8] (1780), [9] (1809), [10] (1829), [11] (1844), [12] (1848). "Hoots mon" appears in these works: [13] (1839), [14] (1872), [15] (1873). Based on the admittedly unscientific Google Books search, my impression is that "hoot mon" is far more common than "hoots mon" (only one page of results for the latter, compared to numerous pages for the former). — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In GBS I see 16 pages of visible results for "hoots mon" (i.e. where the phrase is visible in bold in the excerpt) versus only 13 for "hoot mon". That's at ten results per page. I'm not sure why we should be seeing such different results. 109.146.248.31 18:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek vs Greek graphical accents

I doubt this wasn't discussed somewhere else, sorry in that case. In ὄρνεον we can see that the accent is acute, the descendant όρνιο mentioned is Modern Greek with simple accent (no spirit) but still acute. When gone to the page όρνιο, the accent at the top is vertical. There is that inconsistency. As far as I know, Modern G has only one accent, vertical. Or is just an effect of the spirit? Sobreira (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the font. I guess some Greek fonts show the acute accent as vertical. --WikiTiki89 10:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Apparently when monotonic orthography was introduced for Modern Greek, some typographers set the tonos as a vertical line rather than as a conventional acute accent. That's very confusing for polytonic writing (as in Ancient Greek) though, where the acute has to contrast with the grave. Ideally Ancient Greek should never be printed in a font that uses a vertical tonos rather than a slanted one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow somewhere I got the idea that the vertical was the official Modern G standard (maybe from its different name and position in Unicode?), but reading again w:Greek diacritics I got cleared. Sobreira (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, it doesn't have a different name and position in Unicode. A word like τόνος (tónos) is Unicode-spelled exactly the same in monotonic/Modern and polytonic/Ancient. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Angr Well, well, well, at least they have a different name when joined with psili and dasia, and a different absolute name in a different later set ~>8050:
Html UnicodeNr UnicodeName
ά 940 Greek small letter alpha with tonos
έ 941 Greek small letter epsilon with tonos
ή 942 Greek small letter eta with tonos
ί 943 Greek small letter iota with tonos
ό 972 Greek small letter omicron with tonos
ύ 973 Greek small letter upsilon with tonos
ώ 974 Greek small letter omega with tonos


ἄ 7940 Greek small letter alpha with psili and varia
ἅ 7941 Greek small letter alpha with dasia and varia
Ἄ 7948 Greek capital letter alpha with psili and oxia
ἕ 7957 >Greek small letter epsilon with psili and varia
ἤ 7972 Greek small letter eta with psili and oxia
ἥ 7973 Greek small letter eta with dasia and oxia
ἴ 7988 Greek small letter iota with psili and oxia
ὅ 8005 Greek small letter omicron with dasia and oxia
ὕ 8021 Greek small letter upsilon with dasia and oxia
ὤ 8036 Greek small letter omega with psili and oxia


ή 8053 Greek small letter eta with oxia
ύ 8059 Greek small letter upsilon with oxia
ώ 8061 Greek small letter omega with oxia

Data from an old MDB of mine, sourced somewhere on the net, I don't remember now. But you can see that the behaviour of the &# is different (ή-ή; ύ-ύ; ώ-ώ; maybe you cannot see it here, but try copy-pasting into the search box), unless this is not Unicode. Sobreira (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know about those last three. In fact, there are separate code points for all of the vowels with oxia, not just eta, upsilon, and omega:
U+1F71 ά &#8049; GREEK SMALL LET­TER ALPHA WITH OXIA
U+1F73 έ &#8051; GREEK SMALL LET­TER EPSILON WITH OXIA
U+1F75 ή &#8053; GREEK SMALL LET­TER ETA WITH OXIA
U+1F77 ί &#8055; GREEK SMALL LET­TER IOTA WITH OXIA
U+1F79 ό &#8057; GREEK SMALL LET­TER OMICRON WITH OXIA
U+1F7B ύ &#8059; GREEK SMALL LET­TER UPSILON WITH OXIA
U+1F7D ώ &#8061; GREEK SMALL LET­TER OMEGA WITH OXIA
U+1FBB Ά &#8123; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER ALPHA WITH OXIA
U+1FC9 Έ &#8137; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER EPSILON WITH OXIA
U+1FCB Ή &#8139; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER ETA WITH OXIA
U+1FDB Ί &#8155; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER IOTA WITH OXIA
U+1FEB Ύ &#8171; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER UPSILON WITH OXIA
U+1FF9 Ό &#8185; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER OMICRON WITH OXIA
U+1FFB Ώ &#8187; GREEK CA­PI­TAL LET­TER OMEGA WITH OXIA
However, the MediaWiki software apparently merges them. When I type [[βουλ&#942;]] and [[βουλ&#8053;]], they point to the exact same article (not even a hard redirect from one to the other): βουλή and βουλή. So while a typesetter might be able to make the difference in a printed document, we here at Wikimedia projects can't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want to, we can do it with Lua (e.g. replace the literal ή with &#8053; when the language is Ancient Greek, which will affect the display, but not the link target). --WikiTiki89 15:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unicode Greek is a mess, where decisions about how to do things changed a couple times in the early days of Unicode. Basically Tonos, and Oxia and Acute Accent are all the same in Unicode, and canonical normalization will make them all the same character; pedantically, fonts that treat ά (U+03AC) and ά (U+1F71) differently aren't perfectly Unicode-compliant. Smart fonts should do different things for stuff language tagged el/ell and stuff tagged grc. I'm not arguing for or against pragmatic solutions, but Unicode tools and MediaWiki are going to fight us some.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitiki89 I guess there could be cases where GRC and EL conflate (converge) but then should be in different pages. Sobreira (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I for one do not want βουλή#Ancient Greek and βουλή#Greek on separate pages, and if I've understood Wikitiki89 and Prosfilaes correctly, it isn't even technically possible for us to put them on separate pages. (Personally, I'd prefer to have ἅγιος & άγιος as well as βουλή & βουλῇ on the same page too, but there doesn't seem to be much popular support for that.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe our Ancient Greek entries should not have accents at all in the entry names, but only in the entry text, much like we do for Latin macrons. For Modern Greek there is a much weaker case for that. Unfortunately if we do it for Ancient Greek but not for Modern Greek, the entries would only be on the same page for monosyllabic words. --WikiTiki89 14:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another drawback to doing that only for Ancient Greek and not for Modern Greek is that Modern Greek was spelled polytonically until 1982 (and in some cases still is), which means we could wind up with three pages where we currently have two: αγιος for Ancient Greek, ἅγιος for (obsolete/archaic/dated) Modern Greek, and άγιος for post-1982 Modern Greek. So far I don't think we have any entries in polytonic Modern Greek, but in principle there's no reason we couldn't, is there? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation for abbreviations

I have recently been working adding syllabification marks for the pronunciation of words. Seeing https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alder.#English and having just edited the pronunciation for https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Alder#English , I decided to put a pronunciation in for the abbreviation for Alderman i.e. "Alder." What I don't know is if the community has decided that the pronunciation for an abbreviation should be for the full word i.e. Alderman or for the abbreviation as written. Could anyone give me some insight ? Thanks --- Bcent1234 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no consistent rule about this:
  • Some abbreviations are read in the same way as the full word. For example, "No. 5" would be read as "number 5", not "no 5", and "etc." is read as "et cetera" and not "ettick" or "ee tee see". I think that "Alder." is probably read as "alderman".
  • On the other hand, there are some abbreviations that are read as spelled, such as "et al." (I don't think people generally expand it to "et alii"), "RSVP" and "the UN".
  • Acronyms are also usually read as spelled rather than substituted with the full phrase that they stand for: "ASEAN", "Pan Am", "UNESCO".
— SMUconlaw (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community does not "decide" what "the pronunciation for an abbreviation should be". We document what the pronunciation is. There's no way to guess it other than by having heard it, or by finding references. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically yeah, add the pronunciation for the way the word is actually pronounced. It's pretty simple, really. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So for the case of "alder." which is an abbreviation I don't use, should I just remove the pronunciation I put there, or replace it with the pronunciation of the whole word. Given my druthers, I'd probably put the pronunciation of the whole word, as that is what I'd read it as, should I see it in real life. Bcent1234 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be best to leave it out if you're not sure then. Having nothing is probably better than wrong information. —suzukaze (t・c) 18:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one good thing about the now deprecated Initialism and Acronym headers was that they indicated the type of pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This can be indicated using {{acronym of}}, {{initialism of}}, etc., although in foreign languages it gets trickier because it often doesn't make sense to use {{acronym of}} in the definition line. For example, the definition of Russian НАТО (NATO) is simply "NATO". At one point I cleaned up all the Russian abbreviations, and in the process I created templates like {{ru-etym acronym of}} for use in an etym section, which indicates in the etym section that the abbreviation is an acronym. I also did create {{ru-acronym of}} for use in a definition line, if it makes sense to do it. The reason for creating a separate template is that Russian (and other foreign-language) entries aren't normally capitalized, which {{acronym of}} does by default as it's designed for English. (Also, {{ru-acronym of}} puts the term both in CAT:Russian acronyms and CAT:Russian abbreviations, which is consistent with how things were done previously in Russian; whereas {{acronym of}} only puts into "FOO acronyms", and doesn't but probably should also put things into "FOO abbreviations".) Benwing2 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is enough a determiner in "Are you man enough to fight me?"

The article for the word enough has this as an example of enough being a determiner. Can a determiner really follow the noun? Yurivict (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In linguistics it would be termed a "quantifier" (not sure whether that's a recognized dictionary part-of-speech category)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Det following noun looks suspect to me. Isn't it the adverb, meaning "sufficiently"? Equinox ◑ 10:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of that as well, but would "man" then be an adjective? We seem to be missing that at the entry for man. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 13:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of man doesn't have enough features to put it in the word class adjective.
Other ways of saying this are:
Are you enough of a man to fight me?
Are you enough a man to fight me?
The second seems a bit awkward, but the first is very common.
Woman and child could fit in similar constructions. Other words can be found in similar constructions with lower frequency, eg, soldier, teacher, dog, bitch, table, house, room, car, coat, shirt, jewel. All these nouns seem to have uncountable senses in the construction.
I think that enough is a quantifier, which could be called a type of determiner. I don't know that there are very many other English quantifiers/determiners that are used postpositively. Perhaps others know some. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com considers it a determiner, both before and after a noun (they give the example "there'll be time enough to relax"), ditto Michael Swan's 1980 Practical English usage. OTOH, Howard Jackson's Lexicography: An Introduction calls it an adjective, like aplenty and galore. MacMillan notes that the use is not restricted to any one noun, with examples of "reason enough" and "fool enough" [to trust someone], which it does not however seem to indicate the part of speech of. It seems to require a plural or mass noun ("I had reason[s] enough to dislike it", but no *"he adopted dog enough", but with the universal grinder I can imagine "there was dog enough all over the road already"). Eugene A. Nida's A Synopsis of English Syntax says "Substantive expressions [...] occurring without determiners may have the following adverbial attributives occurring preposed, except in the case of enough, which occurs postposed", and then lists several adverb-ish words which can press nouns into adjective-ish use which we probably get by analysing as nouns. Nida's examples include "it was too tenth century", "you are too sledge-hammer in action", and "he is not High-Church enough". Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt's Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (2000, →ISBN calls it a "deferred determiner" (as contrasted with "only" which is a "limiter"). Neither Nida nor Mair/Hundt seems to be using typical parts of speech. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

living conditions

English. It seems odd to me how it's "plural only". I've certainly seen this used in the singular. For instance "Gee, that guy's living condition is pretty bad." Also, could it be SOP? "the condition in which one lives, i.e. (...)" PseudoSkull (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's far less common in the singular (so use a "(nonstandard) singular of..." entry?). I looked at the first Google Books page for "living condition": there were several academic texts by people who may not have L1 English (Swedish, Japanese and Singaporean names); one uncountable use ("a concise description of poor living conditions/housing. One dimension of poor living condition..."); one religious use ("Our legal position is what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross, while our living condition is what Jesus requires of us in our response to Him"); and some specialised use in biology ("When the feedback mechanisms that create and maintain homeostasis fail, the living condition is threatened"; "consuming raw foods as close as possible to their living condition"). The religious and biological examples do not seem like the singular of "living conditions" in the sense of e.g. human hygiene and housing. Equinox ◑ 10:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aio

Regarding āiō: I'm wondering if it, like maior, which is sometimes written māior, actually has a short a but a double i (/jj/). The first-person singular present doesn't occur in the Aeneid, so I can't use metrical evidence, but the i derives from Proto-Italic gj, as it does in maior.

Related concern: {{la-IPA}} does not currently understand that intervocalic i or j in maior or major is a double semivowel rather than a separate vowel. But that should be discussed at Module:la-pronunc, I suppose. — Eru·tuon 03:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that all i between vowels in Latin is actually /jj/. The same thing is supposed to apply to eius as well. Benwing2 (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Georges writes: "Die ursprüngliche Länge der ersten Silbe beweist Ciceros alte Schreibweise aiio, s. Quint. 1, 4, 11, u. die Doppelkraft des i übh., wie in aio u. in aiunt etc., zB. bei Enn. ann. 186, jedoch trat in ais, ait die Kürzung der ersten Silbe ein." (The original length of the first syllable is proven by Cicero's old spelling aiio, [ref], and the double force of i in general, as in aio and aiunt etc., e.g. by [ref], but in ais, ait the first syllable got shortend.).
Allen & Greenough write: "Between consonant i and a preceding a, e, o, or u, an i was developed as a transient sound, thus producing a diphthong ai, ei, etc., before the consonant i. In such cases but one i was written: as, âiō (for †ai-iō), mâius (for †mai-ius, pêius (for †pei-ius)."
That should mean that it's aj.jo:. The dictionary and wiktionary spelling āiō and māior hence are misleading, as one could assume that the vowel a is long and maybe that the i is a vowel too. -84.161.18.15 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Of or relating to" or "of, or relating to"

Do we need a comma in the expressions used frequently in definitons: "of, or relating to", "of, from, or relating to"? --Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, in English, a comma shouldn't go directly after the word "of" unless it is part of a list (for example, "of or relating to" but "of, from, or relating to"). I might be wrong though, so I'm looking it up. --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at several sites, which seemed to say the same thing, but this one was a little easier to read (they were usually kind of hard to decipher). It seems to have to do with whether a comma goes before the word "or", not after the word "of". If the conjunction "or" is connecting two independent clauses, you need a comma, but if it's a short phrase or connecting just two words, you don't need one, so I believe in this case you don't need one. As a note, I don't think I've ever seen a comma in "of or relating to". https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/conjunctions.htm --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"of, or relating to, X" is a valid style if the desire is to set apart "or relating to". However, it seems unnecessary in most cases. "of, or relating to X" is less justifiable. 109.146.103.153 19:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I searched this wiki for "of, or relating to X". It seems we use it a lot. Even "of, or relating to, X". Can this be corrected by a bot? --Panda10 (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a style sheet, we could appeal to that. Without a style sheet, I don't see how we can justify a bot. Which one of the three is wrong? DCDuring TALK 22:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one with only one comma is wrong; it should either have no commas or two. I clean up single-comma entries when I run across them. - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need the "of" at all? Wouldn't "relating to X" be sufficient? --Panda10 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An idea of Freud is rather different from an idea relating to Freud. Equinox ◑ 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Anyone else who goes to fix this: note the existence of other forms like "Of[,] or pertaining to". - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also note that the default suggested wording when creating a new page using the "adjective" template is "Of or pertaining to ...". I suppose that template should use the preferred wording. Mihia (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another grammar question

I just want to confirm if my understanding on this is correct. In English, a sentence can have two tenses, by employing two different clauses, right? Consider the following example sentence: "Even when he was living at home, he would stay away for days." Do we count was or living as the main verb? And do we count would or stay away as the main verb? Lastly, what tense is being used in those two clauses? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head: Was and would carry much of the grammatical water (tense/mood/aspect) for the verb phrases. Was living is (simple) past in tense (was), progressive in aspect (living). Would stay away is past (would) with a habitual/repetitive aspect associated with the durative semantics of stay away. DCDuring TALK 12:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "main verb" is used in two ways, either to mean the main verb of the sentence, which in your case is "(would) stay" not "(was) living", or the verb carrying the meaning, as opposed to any auxiliary verbs, which in your case would be "living" and "stay" respectively. Mihia (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gingham and its putative origins in Malay

I was researching the etymology of the Japanese term ギンガム, which was tangentially sourced to Dutch at the w:Glossary_of_Japanese_words_of_Dutch_origin page. Poking around, I found that the WP article at Gingham claimed a derivation from Malay genggang ostensibly meaning “striped”, but researching that term, I could only find native Malay meanings related to ajar and apart, as listed at http://dictionary.bhanot.net/g.html and http://malaycube.com/?term=genggang. The WP article sourced the putative Malay meaning to an online dictionary entry at http://prpm.dbp.gov.my/Search.aspx?k=genggang (in Malay), but running the provided citation through Google Translate and individually confirming the words shows that this citation does not mean what the WP editor thought -- it parses out instead to "genggang: fabric patterned in stripes or checkers; genggang lapis: layer cake made from flour". The Malay word for “striped” appears to be berbelang or berjalur-jalur, not genggang.

Are there any Malay editors active at present? Is there any basis for a Malay derivation for the English term gingham? I'm leaning more towards the alternative WP suggestion that this term is a corruption of the French town name Guingamp, where this cloth may have been produced. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with this meaning in Malay, but I don't have much in the way of Malay resources here. The OED does trace the etymology back to genggang, and cites C. P. G. Scott's Malayan Words in English (1897) to back it up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on the loose, on the run

The first is entered as a prepositional phrase, and the second as an adjective. There seems to be some inconsistency here. DonnanZ (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford gives both of them as phrases, pure and simple, and the same for at large [16], [17], [18]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're both prepositional phrases that have come to be used as adjectives- so for our purposes, they're adjectives. If they were really functioning prepositional phrases, you could say *off the loose or *off the run, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see on the run has an adverb entry also. I think it would be better if editors didn't try to be too clever, and treat them all as simple phrases. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of having {{en-PP}} and {{en-prep phrase}} was to avoid fruitless discussion and attestation effort as to whether a given English prepositional phrase was used as an adjective or as an adverb. Most English prepositional phrases can be found used in both ways. If we view our L3 headers as showing the word class(es) the headword is in, then English prepositional phrases are obviously not in either an adjective or an adverb word class. Wording the definitions to make them substitutable in both types of usage requires that one define each prepositional phrase with another prepositional phrase or a single word (eg, hard) that itself is used both as adjective and adverb. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK, admittedly on the run looks better now. But don't expect me to use the term "prepositional phrase" in Norwegian! DonnanZ (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't usually intentionally seek to impose English standards on other languages, though some such impositions may be convenient, this being English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, prep-phrase please. We probably need to use that more. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cause célèbre

Should the French pronunciation be included? I suppose people might pronounce it as in French, but I still question the use of the qualifier. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the most common English spelling in print and on UseNet? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See here [19]. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Compare “cause celebre”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. with “cause célèbre”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only form I've ever seen is cause célèbre, but that doesn't mean a lot, since I've rarely ever encountered it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it is the US-based dictionaries that seem less in thrall to the French. Perhaps this will change with Brexit. I expect Canadian dictionary editions might also honor the French orthography. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Paris is only a Eurostar journey away from London. That won't change, hopefully. But which form is more common in Canada? DonnanZ (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will check Monday at the library in the Canadian Dictionary(ies), but a casual search of anglophone Canadian news sources suggest more use of 'celebre' than 'célèbre', which should be a style guide item but apparently is not (CP, Postmedia.) - Amgine/ t·e 16:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting pages

I accidentally made the pages fouanne and fouannes with an extra n, they should be spelt "fouane" and "fouanes". I don't know how to delete these and I don't think I have the power. 2WR1 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you can use {{delete|(reason)}} to mark entries created in error for deletion. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy Just put it at the top of the page? 2WR1 (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@2WR1: That's correct! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf Okay, thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Yup! See my modification of fouanne. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seekini

I was looking up trikini and seekini came up as a suggested search. Having clicked on it, I haven't a damn clue what it is (I assume a see-through bikini, but no). PS not CFI meeting unless I'm mistaken. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

piconazo

Hey baseball fans! Can you give me an English equivalent of a Spanish piconazo? It's defined as "Lanzamiento en el que la pelota pica en el home plate antes de llegar a la mascota del receptor", or a "pitch which hits home plate before landing in the catcher's glove". A chopper? Or hopper? bouncing pitch? Probs not a Baltimore chop, which one dictionary suggests. This is apparently a piconazo, although it doesn't land in the glove. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any term (been watching baseball since 1998). If it just has to bounce in front of home plate or on it, then one-hopper (to the catcher) definitely explains it. A ball in the dirt is one that hits the infield dirt, usually behind not in front of the plate. But not real 'set' term that I'm aware of. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The one-hopper in the video looks kinda like the piconazo in the video. But most basebally things look the same to this untrained eye. The same deal happened when I was adding definitions of Spanish bullfighting terms a few years ago. They all look like they're doing more or less the same thing to me. --Q9ui5ckflash (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US pronunciation of otter

The phonemic transcription seems off here. In this position, /t/ and /d/ are indistinguishable, both pronounced as [ɾ]. So on what basis can it be concluded that [ɾ] in this word maps to /t/ and not /d/? —CodeCat 17:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of comparison with other dialects of English. A purely linguistic transcription of just US English would use a single phoneme for the merged sound, but I don't think that's necessarily desirable. Also, when some people enunciate, they pronounce it as [tʰ], but that might be a so-called "spelling pronunciation". --WikiTiki89 17:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that the original phoneme is recoverable through the spelling, but that would be a spelling pronunciation, yes. I think we should show the merged phoneme, since that's the only information that's recoverable for someone listening to speech. Using /d/ seems like the more logical choice. When I hear Americans speak an unknown word, and it contains [ɾ], I think I map it to the phoneme /d/ in my head. —CodeCat 18:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual sound is somewhere between [d] and [ɾ] (at least it doesn't sound exactly like the /ɾ/ from languages like Spanish), so I would have no problem with using /d/, except that I don't think we should show this merger, because it would complicate a lot of things. For example, I pronounce writer and rider differently, even though the consonant is the same. If we show the consonant merger, than we would need to also show the former consonant's effect on the vowels. And that's just the first of the complications. --WikiTiki89 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would an American enunciating say it? Would someone explaining syllables say /ɑ/ (clap) /rər/ (clap), or would it be /-tər/ or /-dər/? I wish more of our editors were American children who cannot yet read... Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either as [tʰ], as I mentioned above, or as a hard [d] if they're not paying enough attention. I've never heard of anyone clapping between syllables. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not between, on them, to explain the concept to primary school children. I'm reasonably sure it's not only a German thing, I remember an (adult) Englander doing it to a (adult) Swede. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about it, many consonants are only phonetically manifested in their affect on the surrounding vowels even as far as articulation goes, so the difference in preceding vowel length for some speakers between voiced and unvoiced consonants would suggest that the underlying phoneme hasn't completely merged, even if the place of articulation of has. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same issue as was discussed on Talk:thirty#Pronunciation_-_final_consonant. It's a tricky. If we're going to provide a broad transcription, Merriam-Webster, Oxford etc all agree the phoneme is /t/ not /d/. (One might jocularly derive a verb and say the otter gets its name because it "otts" [ɑts] — like a refrigerator refrigerates — and would use /t/ in that verb.) An issue with showing the merged sound in the broad transcription i.e. having /ɾ/ as I notice we do on refrigerator is that I'm not sure it meets the basic requirement of being distinctive in a minimal pair, does it? Is there a pair of words different only in that one has /t/ or /d/ and the other has /ɾ/, in any position?
That's a key distinction, IMO, between words like this and words like German Grab, where I support our practice of displaying the final phoneme as /p/ (against the objections of at least one person who would assert /b/), because it is indeed the very phoneme /p/ that (in other positions) contrasts phonemically with /b/. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotal evidence here, since my objections on our German pronunciation practice are consistently met with silence on the respective pages: The Swiss people I met were surprised that final obstruent devoicing is considered proper German in Germany, and Wikipedia, iirc, says that Austrian German doesn't have a codaic fortis-lenis merger either. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a broad transcription but a phonemic one. The question is how we can tell that this is the phoneme /t/ and not /d/, when there's no difference in the actual pronunciation. I simply think that we can't tell, and therefore to assume /t/ is misplaced. The argument of "otts" is not relevant here, since that concerns a different word with different phonemes. "Otts" has /t/, but whether "otter" does I highly doubt. You can't tell the phonemes of one word by looking at another word; phonemes are recoverable from the word in isolation, to go any further gets you into Morphophonemics. Morphonemically, there is indeed a /t/ in there, but phonemically, there isn't. The phone [ɾ] can't be assigned to /t/ or /d/ based on the phonetic information present in the word.
Something similar happens in Central Catalan where the two earlier phonemes /e/ and /a/ have collapsed into [ə] in unstressed syllables. Again, morphophonemics lets you recover the underlying vowel (which may reemerge with stress shifts) but with pure phonemics, you can only examine the word itself and therefore the original phoneme is unrecoverable. For that reason, we assign it the separate phoneme /ə/. We could, in theory, try to assign it to either /e/ or to /a/, but this is essentially arbitrary. In the same way, [ɾ] could be considered /ɾ/, a phoneme in complementary distribution with /t/ and /d/, or it could be considered one of /t/ or /d/ but always the same one consistently. To choose one in one circumstance but the other in another circumstance implies incorrectly that there is phonetic information that makes the phonemic distinction recoverable. —CodeCat 20:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignore morphophonemics, the whole concept of phoeneme vs. allophone breaks down. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeCat: We can tell that this is the phoneme /t/ and not /d/ because the surface pronunciation is not invariably [ˈɑɾɚ]: it's free variation between [ˈɑɾɚ] and [ˈɑtɚ]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may only be tangentially related, but I would also like to point out the interesting case of the word ninety, in which the "t" has merged with "d" in a position (i.e. after /n/) where normally a "t" would not merge with "d". Because of this, I added the transcription /ˈnaɪndi/ to it. I'm wondering whether that was the right way to handle this. --WikiTiki89 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flapping is always optional in American English, and doesn't occur 100% of the time in environments where it's expected. Even if they're unaware of the spelling, Americans will generally be aware that otter has a /t/ and odder has a /d/, despite usually making them homophones. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CodeCat -- some American English speakers do make distinctions between "otter" and "odder" which can be successfully recognized by many other American English speakers, so if both words are transcribed as [ɑɾɚ] or whatever, then that transcription would appear to be inadequate to represent the phonetic facts of the speech of such people. In any case, I'm not sure we want to enforce 1950s-style structuralist "biuniqueness" as an absolute strict requirement on quasi-phonemic transcriptions...
Wikitiki89 -- in my speech, "ninety" does have an ordinary unflapped [d], while the 30-80 words have flaps of some kind (except [t] in "fifty" and "sixty", of course). Not sure what the detailed reason for this is... AnonMoos (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I think I only flap "forty"--the rest are all [d]. I would describe it as a flapped /d/, though, as I don't think [ɾ] accurately represents the intervocalic flap in my speech. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't [d] defined as [ɾː], i.e. only differing by length of the closure? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. It's probably better described as a short [d] rather than a flapped [d]. I definitely say it more like [d] than [ɾ], but it's not the same [d] that's in dog. The [d] in forty might be the same length as the [d]/[ɾ] in better, actually, but there's definitely something different about it. Maybe the position of my tongue. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the OED indeed uses /d/ in these cases. One of the arguments for doing this is that they, like us, give both UK and US pronunciations, and the realisation of this consonant in such conditions is one of the most obvious differences in the two accents. (OED transcriptions for otter are UK /ˈɒtə/ and US /ˈɑdər/.) I think this is a good system, personally. It also helps account for the many US misspelling you sometimes see, like "petal to the metal", which could never be made by UK speakers. Ƿidsiþ 16:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There can be some degree of confusion (but also in "congradulations", which no one pronounces with a flap). If the OED transcription indiscriminately merges a distinction which a significant amount of American English speakers still make (despite flapping), then it would be a very poor system... AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't merge that distinction. The OED transcriptions are actually a little more phonetic than the slashes would suggest, though still not very close. Ƿidsiþ 06:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it transcribes metal/mettle/medal/meddle all the same, then it does merge the distinction. If it doesn't, then you haven't described it clearly. AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aicsean

The definitions here confuse me a bit. The first says it means "action", and doesn't qualify it with a context so it's used generally. But the second definition repeats the first, except qualified with a context. So this term means "action" in general, but in the military it means "action"? The second sense is redundant to the first. —CodeCat 00:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just a way of getting the entry into CAT:ga:Military. Sense 2 can probably be removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Danish Daniel

I consistently hear /deː-/ in that name, and I heard /eː/ for ⟨a⟩ in some other words (which I forgot) from Clement Kjersgaard too. Can anyone shed some light? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very strange to me. I'm still learning IPA, but the transcription given at the entry seems good except for the missing primary stress (before the d). It may also be pronounced trisyllabically ([ˈd̥æːˀniəl]), although that may sound a little affected. Do you have a clip?__Gamren (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
qwOx-pFXDKA?t=796, tale, only example I can find right now and it's not the best. It's a good deal off from /eː/, not as I heard Daniel from Odense say his name, but I can't bring my ears to hear anything lower than [ɛː] in this example either, or to use a description of my Swedish friend [æ̆ɛ̆ĕ]. ps.: It's a Youtube link. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, sorry, I cannot hear that, but that may just be my untrained ears.__Gamren (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Gamren Another question, unrelated but, why is it that many places list the word dansk pronounced like /dansk/? In recordings, and when I speak to Danish people (which I rarely do), it always sounds to me like /dænsk/ or /densk/ for some odd reason? Never with the long a. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's [ˈd̥anˀsg̊]. To be completely exact [ˈta̝nˀsk] or [ˈtænˀsk], but convention is to write it as /dansk/ and [ˈd̥anˀsg̊]. --80.63.3.167 18:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burkinabe and Burkinabé

The former is shown as a noun and the latter as an adjective. Maybe they are interchangeable, but I don't know. Oxford lists Burkinabe as both noun and adjective [21], also gives Burkinan as an alternative. It would be nice to clarify this and add translations sections. DonnanZ (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found Burkinese as well. It's head-scratching time. DonnanZ (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

perfect

For the English entries, how on earth does it make sense to have two etymology sections if the second etymology is just for the verb meaning "to make perfect"? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's to separate the pronunciation sections, which isn't necessary, as we use {{qualifier}} for that. We don't, to be honest, it's just a mistake. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it's OK: the EN verb comes from the EN adjective, and this from FR adjective (no way EN verb from FR adjective or a supposed FR verb —which one?). Sobreira (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could do it that way, I'd just rather we didn't. Something like "the verb is derived from the noun" or "the verb is attested before the noun" under a single etymology header. Mostly because having extra etymology headers doesn't help anyone understand the word or anything else in the entry. Nor is it really accurate to say that perfect (adjective), perfect (noun), and perfect (verb) have different etymologies. Occam's razor. If there's a simple way and a complicated way to achieve the same thing, use the simple way. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the etymology itself, the term must have been respelled as some point to more closely match the Latin perfectus, as Middler English perfit couldn't become perfect in any other way. Can we include this somehow please? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV priss

Can any Russian check the translation? The IP editor of February 2014 included the equivalents, but also a vandalism. Sobreira (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
спаси́бо Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 06:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard plurals of place names

This is a very rare case, but I have seen this happen in conversations. For example:

  • Speaker 1: "For some reason, I feel like we need more southern states."
  • Speaker 2: "Why's that? What, do you think we need more South Carolinas? Ha!"

This seems to be highly informal and usually jocular or hypothetical, but still a used alternative in the English language. I have not found a single entry like this, but since they are words, I feel like Wiktionary needs them. How do you guys feel about adding these, as many I find are attested. Many country names, city names, state names, province names, etc., seem to be pluralized in this manner in a number of sources. If we do add entries like these, should we have a Usage notes template that explains the plural form's usage? PseudoSkull (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created South Carolinas#English, since I found three sources skimming through Google Books. For ones like Alabamas, it's hard to find sources for the plural of the state name since many refer to the Indian tribe. Any feedback on this entry would be greatly appreciated. (This is one out of hundreds of possible entries that could hypothetically have plural forms.) PseudoSkull (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had once a whole week learning about w:The Californias, w:The Canadas, w:The Carolinas, w:The Dakotas, w:The Floridas and w:The Virginias. I have been mesmerised by names like The w:Catalinas, w:The Ozarks and w:The Appalachians. Sobreira (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases the plural form is widely used, such as Koreas (South Korea + North Korea), Germanies (West Germany + East Germany), and Berlins (West Berlin + East Berlin). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the opposite of the universal grinder. Equinox ◑ 10:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not just place names that can be made countable in some circumstances, but all proper nouns, subject only to the restriction that some are too rarely pluralized for the plural to meet CFI. "There are two Elizabeths in town, from very different Londons, preaching rival Christianties: one from the slums extolling the benefits of love and sharing, the other rich and threatening deviants with brimstone. Could their Jesuses really be the same person?" Any that can be attested can be added; I previously went around and added many attested personal-name plurals (Aaliyah/Aaliyahs, etc). - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really worth anyone's time and MW's server resources? It's part of the grammar of English, not the lexicon. DCDuring TALK 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you say the same thing about toys? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could, would, and do (hereby) say so: plural forms of English nouns formed by adding "-s" do not require a separate entry. If we must, we could have redirects to the lemma instead. There's a stronger case for irregular plurals. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone can give a counter-example, I would suggest that any proper noun can be pluralised in special contexts, simply as a result of the grammar of English, as DCDuring says. It may be a heresy to say so, but whether or not anyone has actually used such a plural in a written source that we can find seems to me of relatively little consequence (unless, I suppose, there is a doubt about how the plural should be formed). However, whether all these plural proper names should be included in Wiktionary is another matter; I feel undecided. By the way, I looked at WT:CFI for information about whether and why place names such as "South Carolina" should be included at all, and I found it far from clear. Mihia (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At a time when I started adding a lot of -ings (bitings, grindings, flyings, etc.) I remember that DCDuring seemed to oppose them on the grounds that they are trivially formed from any -ing by adding -s. This is of course true but there are still some that are CFI-attestable and others that are not. We could say the same about -s plurals in general: there are some rare countable nouns that haven't been CFI-attestably pluralised three times. Not making a specific point here but it feels like the same sort of... itch. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SemperBlotto, User:Equinox, User:DCDuring, User:Renard Migrant, User:Mihia, User:TAKASUGI Shinji, User:-sche, User:Sobreira, I have compiled a list (User:PseudoSkull/Systematic US state plurals) of the seemingly systematic US state plurals. I checked many of the ones that looked funny on Usenet. The thing I found funny was that two states ending in -o were pluralized both as "-os" and "-oes", except for "Ohio", and I can see why since that would look extremely weird to me. Anyway, pretty soon here I'm gonna start mass creating entries for these rare and nonstandard proper noun plurals for state names, just like I did for Danish states for the past week, since the majority of the ones I've checked are attested via Usenet at least, but I will check each individually before adding their entries (but I'm pretty sure all nonstandard plurals will get an entry). Any additional suggestions before I begin this? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're going to edit the singular entries to show the plurals (like this) and then use the WT:ACCEL gadget to create the plurals?
(I suppose that some might argue that the "-|s" format should be used (like on rain), to display "usually uncountable, plural Xs", but I'm not sure it's "usually uncountable" so much as "usually not counted", for which reason I used the "s" format that can be seen in Richard when I added given names' plurals.)
- -sche (discuss) 03:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If entries for all these plurals are to be created (which I am not personally 100% enthusiastic about), then I don't agree that they should be labelled "nonstandard", as is currently the case with South Carolinas. I don't really see much advantage in labelling them "rare" either, even though that may be statistically true. Mihia (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonstandard, because youre taking a noun and adding -s to form a plural. That's a standard plural. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now I have just remembered this very usual expression: es:w:Ser de España#Las dos Españas. It was used by many writers and philosophers: Larra, Machado, Menendez Pelayo or Ortega. Also used in Portuguese: as duas Espanhas. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aubergine

The etymology uses the word "manlard". What does that mean? Equinox ◑ 15:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I can't find any uses of the word "manlard" in connection with the eggplant anywhere on the Net except this entry of ours, its mirrors, and people quoting it. Looking through the history, the word "eggplant" was replaced by the word "manlard" in an edit which Chuck Entz hid as "graffiti/vandalism" but neglected to actually revert. (Those links are probably visible only to admins.) I'll revert it now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

off

Adjective sense 8 of off is "Designating a time when one is not strictly attentive to business or affairs, or is absent from a post, and, hence, a time when affairs are not urgent." One of the examples is "He took an off day for fishing." I don't recognise this as natural English, and I can't tell whether it is supposed to mean what I would say as "He took a day off to go fishing" or something slightly different. (off day can also, of course, mean a day when one is not performing well, but that seems not to be the intention in the "fishing" example). Any comments? Mihia (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some population of users who say off day where you and I would say day off. An {{rfv-sense}} would be a good way to attempt to get citations in support of the definition, if there are any to be found. Also, the OED often is a superior way of looking for uncommon meanings of common words. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the sense per se, just with that one usage example ... whether it is actually natural English. There are Google hits for this type of usage of "off day", but then there are Google hits for almost any English error or misuse too. Mihia (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnaturally natural, if that makes any sense (i.e. it's rare or restricted to workplace talk, but becoming more common). We say it here at work to mean a day that where one has taken off (i.e. day off). Leasnam (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I always considered "off day" to be a compound noun. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Korn, I think you're on to something there: off-day or offday = "day off"; while off day = a day where one is not performing at ones best/having a bad day. Leasnam (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally: I've definitely heard of someone having an "off day" (a day that is just bad, or not up to their normal standards), sort of like a bad hair day. OP's sense doesn't seem to match this. "An off day for fishing" sounds very strange to me too; of course it's a "day off". Equinox ◑ 23:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re wikis in general: it's always worth checking whether the person who added the sense is the same person who added the usex. I've seen some ridiculous implausible usexes added to acceptable senses: one I will never forget is "The naughty witch wanted to destroy the planet!", to differentiate obsolete evil-naughty from modern mischievous-naughty. This is one of the areas where we owe a debt to hoary old Webster 1913. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps off-day ("day off") is a this-side-of-the-pond-ish thingy ? Leasnam (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, (and I've used this myself actually), I might tell someone at work, "These are my off-days: Saturday and Sunday--the rest of the week I work." Where it's slightly different than a day off. It is a day when one never works, when one's always off. I might take the odd Tuesday as a "day off" however. Leasnam (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if anyone has heard of a day off being an "off day" (on any side of any pond) then we should just do the RFV-sense, as DCDuring said. P.S. I suppose this might also be something deserving a "predicative only" gloss, or something! "Every second Saturday is off" (???) gawd i dunno but not *"this was an off Saturday". Equinox ◑ 00:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found one already, the very first hit in Books:
I still wonder whether that makes "off day" a set phrase, rather than making "off" an adjective. Could you, for instance, say "it was an off, sunny day"? Equinox ◑ 00:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An "off, sunny day" would mean a day that was sunny, but it was a not-so-good type of day (at least to me). I would agree that it's a set phrase, or a use of some sort of prefix form of off Leasnam (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But "a sunny, cold day" is fine. If you can't separate "off" and "day" then it suggests we are dealing with some sort of fixed phrase rather than a typical adjective that can just be stuck in an adj list, right? Equinox ◑ 00:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that, yes Leasnam (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is the same construct as "off season". Maybe that's the root of it Leasnam (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's also "off week", "off year", "off time", etc. Leasnam (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I habitually set aside a particular day for shaving gnats, I can then refer to it as my "gnat-shaving day". How is this different from referring to the day I'm off as my "off day", or the day I'm busy as my "busy day", or the day when I don't work as late as my "early day"? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not different, you're forming compound nouns. The difference between the 'off day'-noun and the 'off' + 'day' phrase with an adjective is perceivable in speech too, where the noun is something like an /ˈɔf˦˥ ˌdɛɪ˥˩/ and the adjective phrase is something like an /ˌɔˑf˥˩ ˈdɛɪ˩˨/. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

chrissake

Etymology says "A euphemistic replacement of Christ in the phrase for Christ's sake". To me this does not seem like a "euphemistic replacement". That description almost suggests that "chris" is the name "Chris", or something like that. I would say that "chrissake" is merely a written representation of a loosish pronunciation of "Christ's sake". Anyone agree or disagree? Mihia (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the pronunciation is /kraɪsːeːk/, yes, I agree. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not a euphemism, merely a spelling of a lax pronunciation, a bit like dammit for damn it. (Okay, the n is silent anyway, but you get the idea.) Equinox ◑ 23:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFP: I have asked for the pronunciation, or can I use that /kraɪsːeːk/? /kraɪsːejk/? Sobreira (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like /ˈkɹaɪˈsːeɪk/, although for me it's more like /ˈkɹɐɪˈsːeɪk/ since my speech has Canadian raising of /aɪ/ (phonemic in the famous writer-rider minimal pair, note also that spider /spɐɪɾɚ/ and rider /ɹaɪɾɚ/ don't rhyme for me). Benwing2 (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd avoid the long mark and write /ˈkɹaɪsˈseɪk/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do all these transcriptions have two marks for primary stress? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the way you say it. Both syllables feel equally strongly stressed to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it so that when all syllables are stressed, no syllable is stressed? Isn't primary stress exclusively relative to other syllables with a lower stress level? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to unstressed syllables of other words in the same sentence, both syllables of chrissake(s) are stressed. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think information about the rest of a hypothetical sentence belongs in the pronunciation section of an word entry. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not information about the sentence, it's information about the word and how it's used in a sentence. Some words are almost always unstressed (such as the) and we mention that in the pronunciation section. The only reason we know it's unstressed is in comparison to the rest of the sentence. How is this different? If you want another way of looking at it, every prosodic unit must have at least one primary stress; chrissake(s) is a prosodic unit, therefore if the two syllables are equally stressed, they must both be primary stresses. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that any prosodic unit must have at least one primary stress, iirc, the Japanese 平板型 words are usually described as having no stress at all. My question here was not about actual stress but correct IPA usage, namely of the primary stress mark, which I thought was exclusively intended to describe levels within a word. I don't have access to the IPA manual myself. It's a somewhat minor technicality, but I learnt on Futurama that being technically correct is the best kind of correct. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant in English (and probably all stress-timed languages). If you are just talking about the written IPA, I think it is less confusing to show two stresses than to not show any stresses. The latter just looks like someone accidentally left out the stress mark. --WikiTiki89 13:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding, I added both of Benwing, double stressed, I don't know whether for the place I used the qualifier right. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An incidental question: Who in the US does not have so-called "Canadian raising" of /aɪ/? Do any American Wiktionary editors pronounce writer and rider identically? Wikipedia says the raising is found throughout the US except in the South, but doesn't clarify how prevalent it is. Benwing2 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fancy oneself

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. We don't usually have separate entries for reflexive verbs, and senses 4 and 5 of fancy#Verb already seem to cover this. Maybe add a reflexive quote or usex to one of them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"portage" citation

Just saw that portage needed a citation from Shakespear, just as I was looking up the word while reading Henry V: "Let it pry through the portage of the head, like the brass cannon." I haven't added citations before, and don't have time to figure it out right now, so just leaving it here. --88.88.174.11 15:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Thanks. Equinox ◑ 17:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

soda etymology

I found out today that the word soda is from Arabic. Its page says its transliterated Arabic word is "suwwad", and the script is needed. I'm an Arabic native speaker. From the transliteration I can say that this word is written "سُوَّد". But I am not able to recognize this word nor find it with this meaning in a dictionary.

The only related word I can find is the word "سُوَيْدَاء" [suwaydāʾ] which means "suaeda", which in turn is a genus of saltwort, the meaning of the Arabic original word of soda. Noureddin95 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See   Salsola soda on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . Salsola soda was the source of Levantine soda ash for Venetian glass c. 1600. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr. DCDuring! But I can't find anything about the original word in this page. Moreover, I found in this page, List of English words of Arabic origin (N-S) (the last word in the list), that it may or may not be of Arabic ancestry. So...? Noureddin95 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MWOnline give the transliteration of the etymon of Suaeda as "suwayd".
Another (taxonomic) source says Suaeda is Arabic for "salty".
CRC World Dictionary of Medicinal and Poisonous Plants] associates nine different transliterations for the Arabic word meaning "salty" with Suaeda.
You might find Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “soda”, in Online Etymology Dictionary. interesting. The OED is usually very good (but not infallible) about such matters. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you, Mr. DCDuring for your time and effort! I just edited the etymology in soda page to be "from Arabic سُوَّاد (suwwād, “saltwort”) or Arabic سُوَيْدَاء (suwaydāʾ, “Suaeda”)" and added a reference to this discussion. Noureddin95 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Noureddin95, please indicate all the sources on the entry page itself rather than linking to this discussion, which will eventually be archived. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't receive email notifications or log in regularly on Wikipedia, @Smuconlaw. I just removed the link to this discussion, and indicated that it may be from Arabic. My problem is the I can't be sure of its origin; for example, Online Etymology Dictionary doesn't help much. But as Oxford English Dictionary says it's from suwwad, I linked to it. Feel free to fix or modify it if needed.
Noureddin95 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

furniture

In the usage notes the entry states that furniture transitioned from countable to uncountable during the 20th century, but doesn't cite a source for this, and I'm not convinced it's correct. See for example, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=furnitures%2Call+the+furniture&year_start=1650&year_end=2000&corpus=15, which doesn't indicate such a shift in usage during the 20th century. 109.255.182.13 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

caricature

I heard this pronounced by Bill Shorten today as kuh-RIK-a-choo-ah. Is this a common variant pronunciation? ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to what? That looks like perfectly reasonable pronunciation. --WikiTiki89 00:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By who? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. DTLHS (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I suppose you meant as opposed to the initially-stressed variant. Yes, I would say it's common to stress the second syllable. --WikiTiki89 00:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never noticed that pronunciation. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was doing an affected Italian pronunciation I would expect the stress to go on the fourth syllable, not the second. DTLHS (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over analyzing the last bit. That's typical in some non-rhotic accents (the mentioned Bill Shorten is Australian). --WikiTiki89 00:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Longman Pronunciation Dictionary by John C. Wells usually does a good job of listing widespread pronunciations even if they're nonstandard, but it makes no mention of a version stressed on the second syllable, only versions stressed on the first and last syllables. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have never heard caRICature. If it exists at all it would have to be British or something, like conTROVersy and adVERTisement. What do our resident Brits say? Benwing2 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The usual British pronunciation is CAricature. I couldn't say for sure that no one ever pronounces it caRICature, but it sounds odd or unusual to me. Mihia (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've indicated caRICature as rare. Benwing2 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the regional distribution? This suggests it's rarely found in British English, and above an Aussie and a Canadian are familiar with it, so perhaps it's found in British and derived dialects, "(UK, AUS, Canada, rare)"? Walker's old pronunciation dictionary (1823) seems to indicate stress on the final syllable! Century has stress on the first syllable, like modern dictionaries (Random House, Merriam-Webster), which incidentally provide several phonemic transcriptions of the final syllable. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know I was Canadian. Also, I was probably over-I-don't-know-what-word-to-use in my previous post, so I would probably say that it's not common but exists. I'm guessing it has nothing to do with region, but more to do with certain people having only seen the word and never heard it until the incorrect pronunciation is ingrained in their minds. --WikiTiki89 20:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

random applause

After listening to Amy McDonald's Scottish for the last four years I have never understood what she said before "applause" ("random applause"!?). Today with Emily Heller, I got it better and decided to look for the collocation. I found it as "round of", here as a noun but [oxforddictionary.so8848.com/search1?word=applause Oxford] labels it as quantifier. I found also the very same example with applause for that meaning. Can we provide an example with other noun ("round of laugh(ter)(s)")? Is this collocation that fixed? Only with "applause"? Should it deserve a round of entry? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think round of applause is the right entry, for the reason you state. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A round of: golf, play, negotiations/talks/meetings, betting, carols, drinks/whiskey/whiskeys/beer/beers/shots, financing/venture capital, lessons, knitting.
Some older uses with: drives, drudgery, smallpox, duty, invitations, oaths.
I am not sure which groups of these warrant a distinct definition of round, but the golf sense might be and would certainly warrant inclusion in a usage example. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think those are a different sense of round, a 'round of applause' isn't a round at all, as far as I can see. It happens all at once, not like a round of betting or a round of lessons. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Applause is a kind of what? "audible personal expression"? Consider: a round of: oaths, thank yous/thanks, good nights, grunts, groans, protest, giggles, laughter, devotion, yips, questions, lies, "fellowshipping", disagreement, cheers, huzzahs, introductions, claps.
All of the examples are taken from the first 450 or so Google Books hits. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A literal round of applause would mean each individual applauds, stops, and then the next person applauds, and so on. But that's not what it means, it means everyone applauds together. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least oaths, grunts, groans, protest, giggles, laughter, yips, questions, disagreement, cheers, huzzahs, claps fit with round as used in round of applause.
If applause is a kind of group evaluative signal, then round of can be used with other evaluative signals: amens, boos, hisses, congratulations, cheers, jeers, catcalls, moans, complaints, whistles, raspberries, "Ayes", claps, calls, rice-throwing, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[[round of]] would have nearly as many definitions as [[round#Noun]] does now (or would even after cleanup).
If we were or had a phrase book or a listing of common collocations, round of applause would be included. But we are not. A cleanup of round#Noun is needed much more than the suggested entries. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This comes off to me more like a counter noun. Like, head of cattle, ream of paper, pack of cigarettes. There's a distinct "X of Y" structure that just indicates plurality for a (usually) uncountable noun, where X is a special group word for Y. In this way, I think round's 3rd sense is suitable enough. EI at10s (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 3 is not the only definition for uses usually followed by a prepositional phrase using of. Senses 5, 6, 8, and 10 are similarly used in partitive constructions. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just noticing that most of DCDuring examples are used in plural, but not all. I guess that's the difference between the uncountable used mentioned by EI at10s (and the "of applause" I've heard, use which surprised me, a lot) and the plural. I couldn't help but notice too that some of them deserve very different translations. That can perhaps be blamed on the goal language, but I conjecture that not always. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 19:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why "round" has to be restricted to MG's sense. A "round of drinks" isn't a sequential thing either. A round can just be a sort of turn or session. Equinox ◑ 08:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira There is an often unacknowledged and certainly unresolved conflict between the goals of making a great English monolingual dictionary and making a great translating dictionary. The translating-dictionary goal benefits from inclusion of SoP collocations; the monolingual does not and is made more confusing by treating collocations as idioms. It is misleading to English learners at some stages of learning to present an English SoP collocation as if it were an idiom, rather than nudging them in the direction of the constituents of the collocation. I've always thought that embedding the collocations in usage examples was a great way to cause the failed-search page to headed by the page for the word with the unusual or unexpected definition in the collocation. DCDuring TALK 12:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't interpret me wrong. I wasn't pushing or trying to impose any agenda on translations. I was just mentioning in case it's of any help, because sometimes contrasting languages helps to understand them. Exemplifying with collocations is a good idea, but is less informative when you have already some of that same information. Unless of course it's not an idiom. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira I was just trying to put the matter in context. "Deserve different translations" is what raised the question. To clarify, when you write "some of that information", are you referring to translations? DCDuring TALK 16:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring No, the "some of that info" you already have is beforehand, it's the one you are looking for. For example, if you are looking for a frequent collocation (from "home, sweet home" to "curiouser and curiouser" to "Colombian bachata" to "read my lips") and, let's say, you look s.v. sweet, curiouser, bachata and lip (I can't make up better examples), and you find examples with coincidentally those collocations, then they are less informative than finding other examples. If they give you as examples exactly the quote where you got the doubt from (a carpet; Alice in Wonderland; a magazine; GW Bush), then the example is meaningless: they provide you with something you already have. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dead link

Is Category:Context labels in Template:qualifier/documentation for any reason? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 19:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one got around to removing it- until now. Before everything was converted to Lua, every context label had its own template, so categories were needed to keep track of them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

coalface

According to the OED, the figurative sense is restricted to British English. Is this the case? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly never heard of it here in the US. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. A quick look at Google News confirms (with ANZ, Ireland, So. Africa). DCDuring TALK 11:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made the relevant edits. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK/US edu system

Correct me if I'm wrong and I misunderstood university (UK) = college (US) and high school (2, <>), but since a graduate finishes high school (secondary) in the Americas or university degree in the UKs: doesn't graduation take place at respectively around 16 and 20 years old and taken into account into different senses? Surprisingly for me, undergraduates and postgraduates present only British (university) sense. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 14:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US speaker, clearing up the US senses.
  • A graduate can refer to either a high school (secondary education) graduate, or a college (university) graduate, but most often a high-school graduate. An important item of note is that a US grade is not the same thing as a UK year, in education: [see this table for reference]. In the US, graduation from high school is traditionally at age 18, and a four-year college degree student graduates at 22 (though this is changing as more and more students go through nontraditional education routes).
  • A graduation is usually both the finishing of high school and the finishing of college; but, this largely depends on what the school decides to call it. The words promotion and commencement also pop up when referring to these, and promotion includes things like moving from elementary to junior high, and junior high to high school.
  • An undergraduate specifically refers to a college student who has not graduated and earned a Bachelor's degree.
  • In US English there is usually no postgraduate, just graduate or graduate student. EI at10s (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after e/c) In the US: School, college, university are used pretty much interchangeably in the colloquial language to refer to institutions giving bachelor's degrees (well sort-of, each word has its own typical usage, but they can all refer to the same educational institutions); but, these words do have official meanings (that most normal people are unaware of) and also specific meanings particular to individual educational institutions. Graduation is a general term for finishing any level of education (whether it's elementary school, middle school, high school, or any university degree program), but it is most often used for high school and bachelor's degree programs; however, an "undergraduate student" is a university student who has not yet attained a bachelor's degree, while a graduate student is someone who has attained a bachelor's degree and is continuing his education (usually for a master's degree or Ph.D.). --WikiTiki89 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet, junior high school (11/12-15) and senior high school (15-18yo). Thanks both. If I got it well then, bachelor degree (22yo) is the first certification of the university, later (maybe other or not, at 24-26yo), master and doctorate (confusingly I use the descendant of baccalaureat for high school graduate. What certificate do you get after high school?). Promotion is not for university, only graduation. You can also graduate from a master or doctorate. So, wouldn't it be better whether we place a label (US, UK, Canada) in sense 1st of graduate, for the sake of clarifying what could be regarded in complementary geographical distribution with the 2nd. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A high school completion certificate is usually called a diploma, but more often than not high school diploma. In the US, at least, there is also something called an associate's degree, which is 2 years in college, usually at a city or community college rather than a university. EI at10s (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't associate's degrees be plural of associate's degree like associates' degrees? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "higher level degrees" is a set term, it just refers degrees that are of a higher level than the one(s) you were previously talking about. I think "associates' degrees" is wrong, it should only be "associate's degrees" ("associate's degree" is a name of a degree and there is no reason to pluralize "associate"). --WikiTiki89 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created high school diploma upon deffinition on Wikipedia. And associate's degrees (based on associates' degrees; which I changed to {{misspelling}}) but {{head|en|noun plural form}} gives links!
Isn't high school diploma more than SOP as bachelor degree? I changed Associate's degree to "usually given by community colleges". Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The degree sense of bachelor is (I think) a back-formation from bachelor's degree, which itself originates as a "degree given to a bachelor" in which "bachelor" means an aspiring knight, so is no longer applicable in today's world. But high school diploma is literally a diploma that you get after finishing high school. --WikiTiki89 15:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, at Google Ngrams I find that bachelor's degree is a lot more common than bachelor degree, while associate degree is a little bit more common than associate's degree. Go figure. --WikiTiki89 15:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira: Let me also point out another point of confusion you seem to have had:
--WikiTiki89 19:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And graduate is only the person and graduation only the achievement. Imma think it's better studying/coursing and passing than naming. It's curious that BAS is the main entry for BAS/B.A.S./B. A. S., BASc is the main entry for BASc/B.A.Sc./B. A. Sc. but B.Eng. is the main entry for BEng/B.Eng./B. Eng.. Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 22:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sobreira: I would say graduation is the event, not the achievement. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why noun postgraduate is labelled "US, Australia, New Zealand". The word is commonly used in the UK, and according to a comment above it usually isn't used in the US. I wonder whether the label "US" is just an error/typo for "UK"? Mihia (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "UK" so it now reads "US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand", though this looks a bit odd (overly inclusive) to my eye. I will leave it to a US editor to remove "US" if that is necessary. Alternatively, if the word is used in the US then perhaps the label can be removed altogether. Mihia (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "I have only heard postgraduate used in limited educational contexts", which country are you talking about? Mihia (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the frequency of "postgraduate" relative to "graduate" in British vs American English on Ngrams, I find that Brits use the word more than Americans, but both use it. (In the US, it seems to be about 1/25th as common as the word "graduate", which is notably also a verb.) And it's also used by various Indian academic sites, i.e. it seems to be a general term. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postgraduate is a common term in the U.S. It refers to a course of study undertaken after completing a first degree (i.e., after the bachelor's degree). When you begin studies for your master's degree/doctorate degree, you are a postgraduate and you are taking postgraduate courses for your postgraduate degree.
In the U.S., a university is a conglomeration of colleges. For example, at SMU (Southern Methodist University), you will find a College of Humanities and Sciences, School of the Arts, School of Business, School of Engineering, College of Law, School of Theology, and School of Education and Human Development. —Stephen (Talk) 09:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Greek definite article in masculine accusative singular

According to the English Wiktionary page ο, the masculine accusative singular for the definite article is το(ν) with a final τελικό νι which is only preserved before vowels and certain consonants. This reflects an older rule but contradicts the The Greek language entry, the [The EU style guide] as well as [what is apparently taught in schools]. Is it now alright to maintain the final νι? Biocrite (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That comes from the template {{el-art-def}}, written by Saltmarsh. Saltmarsh would be the one to talk to about this. —Stephen (Talk) 08:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gawk

What is the difference between Etym_1 sense 2 and Etym_2 of gawk? Can they be merged ? Leasnam (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure about Etym_2 being an Americanism. This sense is also found in Scots and Northern English Leasnam (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as "What is the difference?" is concerned, the entry seems to me to be saying that two separate etymological routes led to the same meaning. If this is true then I would say that the entry is laid out correctly, but whether it is true I have no idea. Mihia (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Etym for 2 is incorrect. The source of the "fool" and thus the "simpleton" senses arise from the "cuckoo" sense..."clumsy" may have developed from gallock (“left-handed”)...but I fail to see how gauche could have reflexed to something like gawk within the past hundred years. The pronunciations are too different Leasnam (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently (per Online Ety Dict), this is one analysed by Liberman. I'd go with his, usually skeptical, analyses. Etymology 2 would seem to require contact with written gauche, which seems wildly implausible for the hills of Appalachia, where even French trappers didn't go with printed matter. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I propose moving Etym_2 to the second sense of Etym_1, unless there are objections Leasnam (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone could tell Etymology 2 apart from Etymology 1: since Etymology 1 is old enough to have been the source of Appalachian use, strong evidence would be needed to show that Appalachian use had a different source, and such evidence is missing. Hence, I agree that they should be merged. In the event that we found evidence of French influence on the word, I think the usual wording would be "[Possibly] reinforced by..." or "[Possibly] influenced by...", as seen on alike. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. I have merged them. Leasnam (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2016/September&oldid=71472911"