The two references cited pertain to neither of the two definitions given. While I do not have access to a print American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, an online version of the fifth edition mentions only the Latin abbreviations "anno Hebraico" and "anno Hegirae", and the ordinary, interjective definition of ah. The Dictionary.com link reference does not preserve the capitalization, so it returns the entry for "ah"; if a search for "Ah" is forced by using quotation marks, no relevant results are returned.
So does anyone have solid references for either of these definitions? The second in particular seems questionable. For one, I'm skeptical that it has achieved sufficient English penetration for inclusion in an English dictionary as a borrowed word. (For comparison, AHD does have an entry for Japanese "-san", which is more formal but is otherwise analogous). Secondly, since Chinese does not have upper and lower case, it cannot be said that the capitalization of "Ah" is intrinsic to it, the way it is for, say, GmbH, which Dictionary.com has an entry for.
This also impacts the entry for 阿, which links to English Ah as a descendant.
Definitely yes to holy fool for Eastern Christianity. I'm not aware of any non-SOP uses in Western Christianity. I'm not familiar with the use of blessed fool outside of old-fashioned exclamations. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entry does have citations -- I'm not contesting its existence. However, no one addressed my argument that none of these citations show unambiguous usage of the term ashiyuas English. They all treat the word as a non-English Japanese term. See also the related earlier Tea Room thread Wiktionary:Tea_room/2018/April#ashiyu, wherein the English entry's creator, Donnanz, also stated "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word". If it's not an English word, I continue to hold that we shouldn't have it listed under an ==English== header.
If we follow Donnanz's additional contention there that "the mere fact [a word] is recorded in English script should be enough", we wind up describing pretty much anything and everything as "English" as soon as it's mentioned in any English text. This strikes me as an unuseful approach.
English is an omnivorous language. It readily absorbs words from other languages, from camel to kimono, so it does not take great scrutiny to assume that a word has been so absorbed. bd2412T19:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that you're not going to get any satisfying answer to this question, and we're better off defining rules such as "italicized uses do not count", or do count, even if they seem arbitrary. DTLHS (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was the oldest RFV remaining, and hadn't been commented on since 3 May 2018. Sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns. DonnanZ (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble the other day deciding whether Bryde is an English surname, and ended up creating an English entry by default, although I suspect it is of Danish origin. DonnanZ (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that ashiyu is in that funny middle ground between a transliteration of Japanese and full adoption as an English word. Languages are constantly evolving, and it is rare that a borrowing goes straight from "foreign" to "English" in a clear-cut step. I am comfortable either with calling it English or with calling it a transliteration of Japanese. As for the broader question, I suppose we are best off with a simple rule such as "italicized uses do not count". Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In previous RFVs, I've searched Usenet to avoid arguments about italicization, but as Google Groups has gone downhill perhaps that will no longer be a issue. Since italics are not just used for foreign words, it's not enough just to say that "italicized uses do not count".
I do agree that English, unlike some other languages, aren't at all exclusive of words from other languages, and there's no bright line between a transliteration and an adoption.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some hints on distinguishing code-switching from borrowing in the essay Code-switching, but indeed, as stated there, there cannot be a hard and fast criterion for making the distinction. (Disclosure: I myself added that statement to the essay.) --Lambiam11:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I have noted that "moisture-resistant" is included in Wiktionary lists as an adjective, there seems to be no "moisture resistance" as a noun form/phrase. The connection is surely crystal clear, so perhaps you/we can agree on adding it to the Wiktionary collection?
Scott MacStravic
By the way, it happens that "resistance" and "increasest" are anagrams of eachother!
There are so many things a fabric can have resistance to: abrasion resistance, pilling resistance, flame resistance, UV resistance, stain resistance.[2] Rubber crumbs can improve the cracking resistance of concrete.[3] Building materials vary in fire resistance.[4] Therefore I think moisture resistance is a SOP. --Lambiam10:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The gender for сіль is given as masculine inanimate, while the Wikipedia page listed is titled uk:Кухонна сіль, implying a feminine gender. The feminine gender is also consistent with Russian соль, Serbo-Croatian sol/so, Polish sól, Czech sůl and Slovak soľ (but not Belarusian соль if that is correct). Can somebody verify this? If Ukrainian сіль is indeed feminine, as the Wikipedia page implies, then one might also need to change the entire declension table. OosakaNoOusama (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add an eye-dialect entry for "poifect" (meaning "perfect"), labelling it as New York. However when researching citations I came across this book about language of the New Orleans area, so I need advice from those more familiar with US accents and dialects than I am about how widespread this is, and what a suitable label for it would be. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there’s that oft-quoted description of New Orleans yat dialect: “There is a New Orleans city accent… associated with downtown New Orleans, particularly with the German and Irish Third Ward, that is hard to distinguish from the accent of Hoboken, Jersey City, and Astoria, Long Island, where the Al Smith inflection, extinct in Manhattan, has taken refuge. The reason, as you might expect, is that the same stocks that brought the accent to Manhattan imposed it on New Orleans…” I don’t think this phenomenon is much more widespread than NYC and parts of NOLA, though. A straightforward label to use might be Coil–curl merger. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This strongly suggests that the section Coil–curl merger on Wikipedia ought to be modified, as it currently states that ”[t]his merger did not however exist in the South”, and made to mention its presence in New Orleans English. There is already a reference in the other direction. --Lambiam13:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which sense this relates to in aspect. A signal aspect is what colour it's showing - red, green or amber. I have just added a quote to sense 2 in the hope that is the right one, maybe it should be sense 3 instead, both senses currently have {{rfex|en}} added to them. DonnanZ (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such a definition is arguably a specialized subsense of a definition like "Appearance to the eye or the mind; look; view." I'm not sure any of our current definitions cover this very well. DCDuring (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are right. This sense (of aspect) is used in both Am. and Br. Eng. I created a new sense rather than a subsense (you can always change it), found another Wikipedia glossary which lists it (added to References), and found other glossaries. One mentioned -
"Change of aspect - NFF
An unintended change of aspect (the colour shown - red, yellow, green) by the signalling system, :which when tested, could not be found to be faulty. (No Fault Found.)
(Signalling systems are designed to 'fail safe' with any change always being to a more restrictive :aspect, e.g. yellow to red.)"
Probably the same, I can't remember the term being used for semaphore signals, I would need to plough through old rail books and magazines stored in my loft. The semaphores, although unlit in daytime, were lit at night, with the light from the lamp shining through a coloured spectacle at the inner end of the signal arm, the colour shown depended on the position of the arm. DonnanZ (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe oil lamps were used for lighting semaphore signals into the 20th century. An old practice was using fogmen at signals during thick fogs to place detonators on the track to warn drivers.
I just added a quote which doesn't match the given sense. In this case, an unfinished new underground station, a service pipe would appear to be any pipe that carries water, or effluents, waste water etc. Any ideas? DonnanZ (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your example appears to be using a definition of service particular to the utility industry that we are missing: "the supplying or supplier of utilities or commodities, as water, electricity, or gas, required or demanded by the public.", from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/service (def #2). Another more specific meaning which I do not have a citation for and may be misremembering is a kind of underground conduit which bundles unrelated utilities within a shared outer jacket. 75.131.55.11406:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 78,
In the same fashion as *The boss seemed considered guilty of bias is agrammatical (incidentally, but what about the following phrase structure? The boss seemed to be considered guilty of bias which should be synonymous in meaning to It seemed that the boss was considered guilty...)
∗The plants were very/too watered by the gardener is aggrammatical because watered here is a verb, not an adjective; but is the following aggrammatical too? The plants were very/too watered --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Very/too watered" is wrong but "well watered" (as in our example) is fine. "Seemed to be considered" sounds too convoluted to be used in reality. Equinox◑09:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this intended for literally any compound that rhymes, or only for ones formed in a sort of reduplicative way? Someone just added it to redhead, which strikes me as (probably?) not having been formed for the sake of rhyme; that rhyme might be coincidental. Another example would be blackjack (not currently in the category). Equinox◑09:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Equinox: That said, I feel the colloquial sense of bedhead ("the condition of having unkempt hair, generally as a result of having just woken up from sleep") and some senses of deadhead (for example the 10th: "zombie") are intentional coinages. I'm not sure all those senses belong in a single etymology section. Canonicalization (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
verbs that belong to both auxiliary and lexical classes: BEedit
According to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, page 92, the auxiliary verbs of English are:
[modals]: can, may, will, shall, must, ought, need, dare
[non-modals]: be, have, do, %use
Need, dare, have, do, and use are dually categorised: they belong to both auxiliary and lexical verb classes.
"An intensifier for interjections created with the adjective holy. Holy guacamole Batman!" I don't believe this is best classified as a "particle". It's more like Sherlock in "no shit Sherlock": just the proper noun having a certain pop-culture-determined use. Equinox◑16:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this clip Robin says “Holy understatements Batman!” (at 0:48). There the proper noun is clearly used as a vocative. Other uses of the snowclone “Holy [noun phrase] Batman” are entirely analogous. --Lambiam21:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is an aspect of a Hindu deity? I've been hearing about it in a documentary about religions, and I can't find it in other dictionaries, and it doesn't seem like simply "any specific feature, part, or element of something". Is it used to describe deities in other religions? Ultimateria (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Therefore, the linga exhibits the Ardhanrishwara (half male and female) form of God. […] As one looks at the linga, the concave area on the left represents the female aspect, Parvati. The center portion in front of the linga has the shape of Ganesha. The right side is convex and reflects the male aspect, Shiva." [8] Right now, my guess at a definition is "the personified manifestation of a characteristic of a Hindu deity". The personification I think sets it apart from these Christian quotes. Ultimateria (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that. I've added the sense as "religion, mythology: The personified manifestation of a deity that represents one or more of its characteristics or functions." Ultimateria (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that sense two is actually a derivative of the Latinate "gust" (sense two of "gust"), rather than being related to sense 1? Perhaps it is even from "gusto"? Tharthan (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt "impassioned" is the right definition anyway. It's a gusty sigh; sighs are exhalations; so it would seem to be something like a gust of wind, i.e. a strongly exhaled sigh. If it does mean "impassioned" then could we have a "gusty kiss" etc.? I'd think not. Equinox◑21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collins English Dictionary defines the figurative sense as “given to sudden outbursts, as of emotion or temperament”. Surely this derives from the suddenness of wind gusts. The “gusty sigh” is probably a more literal metaphor. --Lambiam19:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intercity should mean inter- + city, and is so defined here. A discussion on Wikipedia, and a quick Google Books search reveals that it almost exclusively means something more limited, that it usually is a contrast between commuter rail or municipal bus systems and transport systems that serve major hubs with high-speed, minimal stop connections. Should we delete (or RfV) the basic meaning? I can find but one clear cite for it, in State-Space Search: Algorithms, Complexity, Extensions, and Applications, but the more limited meaning is hard to clearly establish as separate, unless you can find something talking about a Las Vegas-North Las Vegas bus route as "intercity".--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's helpful to quote the meaning you are talking about, so future editors looking at the archived post will understand. Are you saying that this word does not usually mean "adj. that connects cities with other cities"? (BTW, I wonder if it's broader, just "between cities", e.g. an intercity comparison in statistics.) Equinox◑08:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except for that one cite in State-Space Search, I saw no cites on Google Books that weren't about transport, and I looked at all of them that were showing text. There is a distinction between commuter rail that connects, e.g. Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts and intercity rail that connects Boston with Portland, Maine; Portland, Maine is a minor city, whereas Providence is a metropolis, but the Portland-Boston route is run by high-speed train that makes few stops, compared to Boston-Providence, that makes every little stop on the way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That Lexico/Oxford also has the definition of "Denoting express passenger rail services in the UK." I'm saying it's more than the UK, and probably more than just rail. Note that even among the example sentences at Oxford, there's only one non-transport usage, and there's clear examples of the definition I'm pointing at: ‘Outside the Paris area, transport authorities said that 40% of regional services were running as well as 60% of high-speed intercity lines.’ That's contrasting regional services (which are presumably between cities) with high-speed intercity services.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The collocation intercity comparison finds hundreds of raw Google Books hits. Other collocations with hits include intercity agreement, intercity commission, intercity gap, intercity development. Little of this usage had anything to do with transportation. DCDuring (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books is getting pretty bad about biasing the results towards what it thinks you want, then. The results need to be interpreted more carefully then I was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently wikt says it's Hansards, but as I just checked, neither Oxford nor Cambridge dict recognises this. It seems Hansard might be a mass noun.--Roy17 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried googling "old Hansards" and got quite a few results. Apparently the House of Commons and House of Lords have separate Hansards, according to Wikipedia. And the word Hansard is also used in other Commonwealth parliaments. So I guess it can be countable, and Oxford doesn't call it a mass noun. DonnanZ (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the world have too much Hansard? We have Donnanz's word that there is evidence that Hansard is countable. Do we have any evidence of uncountable usage? DCDuring (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a quote for this, but looking at patch#Noun I can't decide where to put it, possibly sense 3, not knowing how permanent one is, or sense 12, a patch file. Or is it a sense that deserves its own entry? DonnanZ (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found Patch (computing) which helps. It's obviously a fix for a programming bug, so I added the quote to sense 12. It's the wording "patch file" that confused me, perhaps that should be clarified. DonnanZ (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, patches all came in the form of discrete files. It wasn't until the last decade or two that you got updaters that downloaded data and made changes without the details of files coming into play. I'd say it's stepping further away from the core idea of a patch (of a new thing applied to an old thing to repair a problem (in the most core sense, a physical hole) in the original) but it's a logical progression of meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if the wording of sense 12 was reversed, to say "Changes made to a computer program that fix a programming bug; historically (from?) a patch file" which has its own entry which can be referred to anyway so there's probably no need to add any more, would that fix the "bug" in this entry? DonnanZ (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could say that it changes the behaviour of the software. Bug fixes are sort of implied since that's naturally the sort of change that would be desirable. Equinox◑14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, however, that "patch" normally implies that some sort of incorrect working is being remedied? I don't think I have heard of a "patch" being used to introduce brand new features. Mihia (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every change to the Linux kernel is passed around as a patch file before being added to the main release. In open source projects, especially more old school ones, a lot of changes, for whatever purpose, get introduced as a patch file on a mailing list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the entry to remove the unnecessary mention of a "patch program", per Prosfilaes' comments above. I have seen these too: e.g. when a fan modifies the levels of Super Mario or whatever, and they can't distribute the whole patched game for copyright reasons, they just distribute a sort of changeset and there are special programs to apply the changes to your own copy of the original game. But that's by no means the most common type of patching nor the oldest, and adding "patch program" into a definition of "patch" itself is circular. Equinox◑11:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you're counting, that might be the most common type of patching. Most patches out there require a patch program to apply, but the patches that don't are way more common and used by way more people. We might want to note the original form of patching where holes in paper tape were physically covered, but as this doesn't have a separate etymology, there's no obvious place for that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use a Danish pronunciation as even indicative, let alone evidence, of Norwegian pronunciation. Don't let the similar orthography fool you. Remember that in Swedish, mission and nation don't even rhyme.__Gamren (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in some form. The expression point the finger at means "to blame, accuse", as in:
High profile policy makers, including former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and then Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd, were quick to point the finger at Australia's intelligence community and its alleged shortcomings […].
Besides blame and suspicion one can find other nouns after of, such as:
scorn, guilt, condemnation, shame, accusation, fault, wrath, derision, responsibility, retribution, terror and fear, criticism, failure, outrage, odium and disappointment, denunciation, reproach, doubt, disdain
pathology, racism, treason, terrorism
truth, taste, justice, change.
These would seem to support an entry for point the finger of with multiple definitions: 1., "direct"; 2., "direct an accusation of"; and, 3., "direct a negative assessment by a standard of"). I'm not satisfied with the wording of any of these. DCDuring (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In entry scrupulous the second adjective example sentence does not match with the second definition, when one goes and checks the mentioned words scruples or compunctions. Rather the example seems to match the first adjective definition.
And in fact, the definitions at scruple mention hesitation and reluctance rather a lot, when scruples can also be a motivation to do things a particular way - the 'right' way. Strange that a definition that might mean to say "hesitation to do the wrong thing" does not also somehow include a "direction to do the right thing".
Could someone reexamine scrupulous and kin? I'm just surprised that nothing matches the looked-for meaning as seen at dictionary.com "having scruples, or moral or ethical standards; having or showing a strict regard for what one considers right; principled:" Or M-W "having moral integrity : acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper". And another "characterized by extreme care and great effort". It's just weird how Wikt misses all that. Shenme (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the etymology, from a word meaning "small sharp or pointed stone; [...etc.] uneasiness of mind, anxiety, doubt, trouble" then the existing definitions IMO seem reasonable. Pure moral imperative is not really a scruple; a scruple is when you feel the doubt or anxiety that makes you want to do a different thing than what is proposed or imagined. Equinox◑16:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Kbb2 insinuates, the way Danish vowels are typically transcribed phonetically does not conform to the way IPA is "supposed" to be used. This deviation is done to avoid diacritics and to make it so that no character represents multiple phones. I made and have been using this, also here on the English Wiktionary, but a sustainable solution is to either make an Appendix detailing our standard or to resolve to follow English Wikipedia. What do you think? There's value in inter-project consistency, but an encyclopedia is primarily oriented towards people with no prior knowledge, while dictionary entries necessarily assume some basic familiarity with the language.__Gamren (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds idiomatic, but I'm not sure how common it is, not that that would make any difference to some contributors. I have added a quote containing this to kid Etym 1 noun sense 6. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that this is just one of a number of possible "biggest kid in/on ..." phrases, and probably isn't specifically idiomatic enough to warrant an entry. Mihia (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In or on, whatever. My source, a magazine I bought, definitely has "in the playground", which sounds fine to me. British English? DonnanZ (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm thinking that to non-native English speakers it may not be readily understood as "the result of arguments returned by a search engine query"...it might be misunderstood as "an outcome of any type of search (e.g. a search for a lost child, etc.)" (?). I'm thinking of the sense specific to the former. Just wondering... Leasnam (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the pronunciation can be slightly different between the two, with the first being /ˈsɝt͡ʃɹɪˌzʌlt/ and the latter /ˌsɝt͡ʃ ɹɪˈzʌlt/. Still SoP ? Leasnam (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could be the result of any kind of search. What are the chances that it would not be reasonably obvious what kind of search and result were involved from the immediate context? DCDuring (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be ascertained from context. Perhaps it might be useful as a translation hub, but I am not advocating for that at this time ;) Ok, I'm good. Thank you ! :) Leasnam (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My current personal opinion is that "search result" maybe should have an entry, as a translation hub if for no other reason. In Finnish it's just one word, hakutulos, and the Finnish Wiktionary even has an entry for that (https://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/hakutulos) even though entries like kahvinjuonti 'coffee drinking' are banned from fi-wiktionary. Another reason why I'd support creation of "search result" is that, if I remember correctly, the Finnish version of Windows XP used "etsinnän tulos" for search result in a hard-drive search. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a red linked plural Tiger tails, but (at least to my knowledge) no one refers to the ice cream flavour that I started this entry on in that way. Is there any way to remove this non-existent plural form in the entry? Clovermoss (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm new here and automatically followed Wikipedia's article title conventions. I understand things are different here, and read the guide that was part of the welcome message, but I'm probably going to have to look at it again to make sure I don't make another mistake like that. Also, are you implying that the other ice cream flavours should have an entry or that this entry on tiger tail shouldn't be included because these other ice cream flavours don't have entries? Clovermoss (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion here [[9]] for the moment. It doesn't mean that I'm trying to destroy your work, I'm just seeking clarification as well. Please feel free to add your input and comments there :) Leasnam (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not long ago I met a Mexican Spanish speaker who told me that the Mexicans pronounce mid word tl's in the same syllable and Spaniards/non-Mexicans in different syllables. When she pronounced Atlántico in her own accent, she devoiced the /l/ [aˈt̪l̥ãn̪t̪iko], when imitating a Spaniard/non-Mexican Spanish speaker she didn't (though she herself didn't seem to be aware of this devoicing - so for her, the difference was in the syllable boundary and for me it was in the (de)voicing of the /l/). Since, as far as I know, Mexican Spanish does have word-initial /tl/ while other Spanish dialects don't, I'm wondering why the stress mark in the pronunciation guide at Atlántico has been placed before the "t" instead of before the "l" (suggesting that the /t/ and the /l/ are in the same syllable) without saying that the pronunciation is or is not Mexican. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason may have been that this pronunciation was added by an editor born in Aguascalientes City in Mexico. They may have been unaware of a different pronunciation. The Spanish Wiktionary gives both syllabifications without further regional label. --Lambiam13:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be imprudent of me to suggest moving sense 8 and sense 9 so that those senses are directly below sense 3 or sense 4, considering the obvious original derivation? Tharthan (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that simple? Putting a term in front of the subject can be analyzed as a form of topicalization, but except for Yoda-speak (“Clouded this boy's future is”) it is rare to do that with a complement. Also, semantically the uses of the pattern “X it is” do not fit the topic-and-comment function of topicalization. The theme (topic) is not “X”, but “it” (viz. the definitive choice made), and “is X” is the rheme (comment about the topic). Compare “it’s a boy!” (from the pre-gender-reveal era). Also, this way of announcing something as definitive, marking the end of the debate, is (as far as I see) exclusive to this specific pattern. You don’t announce the choice of the next site of the Olympic Games as “Nairobi the Committee has chosen.” --Lambiam18:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have read this NYT article, in which the term is taken or surmised to mean a (male) “pool attendant”. As the “white-uniformed male attendants brought fresh towels and positioned umbrellas for tips”, I doubt that in this case these were also tasked with cleaning the pool. On the other hand, the character Ethan Sinclair from Devious Maids is described as “a hunky pool boy”, and he is indeed supposed to clean the pool. So I guess the sense is “a boy (sense 5) who has a set of (low-level) functions associated with a pool” – regardless of what the function is. That is somewhat similar to terms like “office boy”, where it is not easy to delineate the task package. --Lambiam16:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard "pool man" and "pool guy" as well for the person who takes care of swimming pools. I'm not so sure this this is a set term. It seems like it's just a term for a person, modified by whatever it is they're associated with. Someone who mows lawns is a "lawn boy/girl/man/woman/person". I'm sure someone who maintains whatsits would be "the whatsit guy". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of pools at private homes, where the owners are wealthy enough to have their pool cleaned. Perhaps a summertime job for teenagers. DonnanZ (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pool boy is also stereotypically used to mean "anyone who looks like a pool boy" i.e. a very attractive, physically fit young male (regardless of their actual profession), especially one who is "kept" around specifically for their looks (etc.) and given the nominal job of "tending the pool" as a cover. yeah...very informative right ? Don't ask... ;) (I actually heard a female friend using this term about another friend's husband saying that "she had gotten herself a pool boy"...they didn't have a pool at the time, and he was cutting the grass shirtless) Not sure this same application applies to pool man and pool guy as well, but I don't recall ever hearing those used in exactly the same way (but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not) Leasnam (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox, I know that the French, in France, like to lift their right arm fast, with: their ellbow half bent AND a fist (of their right hand), and stopping this movement with their other (that is: left) flat hand at their upper right arm, often making a loud noise. As far as I know it can mean one of two different things: "I don't care!" ("Ca. m'en fou!") or something similar to lifting the middle finger. Steue (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox, I have seen a forearm lifted horizontally: before/in front of the breast and close to the breast, as a very respectfull greeting, done by civilians / non-military persons, who are not expected or allowed to greet in the typical millitary way that is: with the hand at the head. Steue (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for this term and, finally, found something via a search engine (MetaGer).
Here, in wictionary, I found something only after reading a loooong! list of possible definitions and translations into other languages.
What I would have expected was:
General meaning: 'little hills'
Special meanings:
'inhabitants of the hills'
'little breasts'.
And only then a link to 'Translations into other languages.
I don't know (and , honestly, here, as well as in the wikipedia, it takes so much time, to find out how things are done correctly) how to suggest an article like what I described above, therefore I 'm trying to suggest it here. I hope someone helpful moves this into the right place. Steue (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 citation is pure gibberish as far as I can see. Does it make sense to anyone? There are some mentally ill people who self-publish books that then turn up on Google Books, and sometimes I have seen obvious word salad. IMO we should not cite these. Citations are meant to demonstrate meaning, not mere syntax divorced from meaning. Equinox◑20:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It reads very pretentiously but I believe the sense is probably correct: "dreams foreslay as they foresee the future", i.e. they both predict it and "kill it in advance" (prevent it from happening?). Equinox◑01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of examples of the "word salad" authors who turn up a lot in my searches:
1. "Hymie Hitler" (also under many other pseudonyms): I cite his Beasts of Prey: "...Norma Sheareresque Doughnut King had been a Ptolemy-esque, Hubblesque, Stalinesque, Lewis-esque, Lawrence-esque, millionairesque, billionairesque, and superior cure of wops and kikes' quasi-absolute puppets, who were less popular than the wereleech, weresandflea, werefluke, or wereflea..."
2. John O'Loughlin (also to be found talking and blogging about himself on YouTube and various other places): this person has perfected the art of "sounding like a sociology paper" but he is not a recognised academic and none of his books seem to contain a shred of sense: e.g. "Conversely, if it is punishing for a female to be at cross-purposes with her gender actuality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche in what amounts, under sensibly male hegemonic pressures, to a psychic emphasis towards which the counter-devolutionary binding of soma is modestly acquiescent, like Antimother to Antidaughter in either of the female Elemental contexts, it is not - gender-bender exceptions notwithstanding - graceful."
Here is a capsule review of Goodby’s Illenium. Experimental poetry oscillating between mise-en-page lacunae and lines lost sagging or folding into blankness is probably not the most felicitous source for usexes. --Lambiam02:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for 'hillies' and one of the results is entitled: 'delicious'. But what is said to be delicious, in this result, is the 'houses'. So, as I understand it, from / in this result, 'delicious' is NOT a meaning of 'hilly'. So, I think: this one result should not be entitled 'delicious'. Steue (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word “hilly” occurs on the page with page title “delicious”, so the Google search results may include that page. But the Google search result is only entitled “delicious” because that is the page title of the page on which the term occurs. That is how Google search works in general; it has nothing to do specifically with Wiktionary. If you search for “bad voice” using Google, Google will show the page entitled “cuckoo” as one of the search results, for no other reason than that the term appears somewhere on that page. --Lambiam23:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for 'hillies' and the result page was titeled 'Special page'. But I could not find a link to a discussion page for this page. Is there none? I think: these search result pages should have a discussion page too. Steue (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“Special page” is not the page title but merely an indication that this is not a normal page. There are many kinds of special pages; see Special:SpecialPages (itself a special page). Unlike normal “subject” pages, a special page has no associated discussion page. --Lambiam23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the 'Wikipedia' there is the option to edit a word in italics. But if I do this here, in the Wictionary, this does not work. I wish it would. Steue (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you enclose a segment of text between a pair of repeated single quote signs, like ''qwerty uiop'', it will appear in italics, like qwerty uiop. If you use three single quotes signs instead of two, as in '''qwerty uiop''', you get bold text, thus: qwerty uiop. And if you combine these, like '''''qwerty uiop''''', you get the combined effect: qwerty uiop. --Lambiam22:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it is, then so is take notice of. But is it? The term “idiomatic” has two distinct meanings, which is confusing because it is not always clear which one is meant. An idiom is a phrase that is commonly used to express a meaning that may not be clear from the individual words forming the phrase. For example “not to turn a hair” does not mean you are not twirling your locks around your finger; an ESL learner may not understand the expression without looking it up. Thus it is an “idiomatic expression”. This is the meaning used in the Idiomaticity criterion for inclusion and in the “NISOP” argument for deletion. The other meaning is “expressed in the way a native speaker would say it”. Often it is used in a negative form, as in “his English was not idiomatic”. If a native German speaker attempts to answer the question “Who is there?” by a word-by-word translation of the German answer “Ich bin es!” and says, ”I am it!”, they may be understood, but their English is not idiomatic. Their next attempt, ”It is I!”, does not quite cut it either.
The entry “take no notice of” is labelled as “(idiomatic)”, which is defined in our Glossary in a broad way, encompassing both of these senses. Now the use of the verb “take” in this phrase is idiomatic in the sense of “that is how you say it” – you don’t say that someone *“collected no notice” of an issue, even though this will likely be understood. But the meaning is clear from the individual words – for notice sense 1 – and so this is IMO a NISOP. --Lambiam14:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we may be missing is the appropriate sense of night, as used in "Let's call it a night." I think the meaning is something like "the end of the activities of an evening or night". DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of "let's call it a night" is "that's enough to make a full/complete night, so we can stop now": I don't see night as meaning "end of night". Equinox◑19:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but it doesn't have to be a "full/complete", ie, positive, night. It could just as well be after something unsatisfactory or unpromising. DCDuring (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you make of "Alex planned on an early night", "Nancy decided to have dinner in her room and get an early night", and "After a late night with Sherlock Holmes and the Mystery of the Speckled Band, he dares not sleep with his back to the wall"? All seem to focus on the termination.
Both early and late put on the noun they modify in the frame of an event (possibly extended, like a season, for which the combined term means "onset of"). Among the words collocating with late night are the verbs have, get, be, do, make, mean, anticipate, plan, etc. and prepositions like after, despite, of, from, etc. IOW, I don't think that the core meaning resides in call. Alternatively, we could simply ignore call it a (late|early) night and focus on the other collocations. DCDuring (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, night in "early night" means an early onset but in "late night" means an early conclusion? That seems odd. Both of them could be explained by a single definition like "the time one goes to bed". Equinox◑20:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying Canonicalization): @Fay Freak I did a lot of hacking on {{fr-IPA}} to make it work for most entries. One thing I think needs thinking about is the handling of â. Currently, â is rendered as /ɑ/, and a without circumflex is rendered as /a/. But the pages on Wikipedia that discuss French and Quebecois French phonology make it clear that there are many exceptions in both directions, even excluding the more-or-less "predictable" ones where a precedes written s. Furthermore, the distinction between the two is lost in standard (i.e. Parisian) French, and dialects such as Quebecois, Swiss French and Belgian French that still make a difference between the two also have several other differences (e.g. between e and ê) that we don't reflect in {{fr-IPA}}. On top of this, the pronunciation that's rendered in verb entries such as aimer reflects â in literary tenses as /a/, as do the direct invocations of {{IPA}} in various non-lemma forms such as aimâmes (many of which were bot-generated). For these reasons, I suggest we change {{fr-IPA}} to render â as /a/, possibly with a parameter such as |acflex=1 to restore the old behavior. Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I asked myself whether {{fr-IPA}} depicts any real pronunciation. Why not give multiple pronunciations for any such cases reflecting ideal regiolects (and perhaps chronolects?), like given with {{fa-pronunciation}}? Fay Freak (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak Unfortunately I don't know enough about Quebecois phonology to do it justice. But I'm thinking another thing we could do is render both /.../ and [...] variants, since the conventional phonemic representation of French doesn't very well represent the way that certain sounds are actually pronounced, esp. the nasal vowels but also /ɔ/, vowel lengthening before voiced fricatives, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionnaire gives phonemic pronunciations with both /ɑ/ and /a/. See for example the entry for pâte. I don't believe they do that with any other pronunciations that vary between dialects, so I don't think there's a need to worry about the find details of other dialects. I think we should display both pronunciations as phonemic, since â is traditionally pronounced /ɑ/ and many dialects retain this contrast with a, but prominent dialects have merged the two into one phoneme. We can get fancy and add information about which dialects do which, if someone knows enough to include it, but I don't think that would be necessary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2: I'm a native speaker of Belgian French. Although I'm not too well-versed in IPA, and although the finer details of each dialect (Liège, Namur, etc.) would have to be left to someone else, I think I can help you with setting up a pronunciation module for "standard" Belgian French, by telling you how I pronounce words.
By the way, it doesn't seem true to me that /a/ and /ɑ/ are still distinguished here. I've lived both in the south of Belgium (near the French border) and in Brussels, and I never hear /ɑ/. Canonicalization (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Canonicalization Thank you. If you can write up something about the aspects where Belgian French differs from standard Parisian French, it would be greatly helpful. I'm thinking of generating the standard phonetic representation using the following rules:
/ɑ̃/ -> [ɒ̃]
/ɛ̃/ -> [æ̃]
/ɔ̃/ -> [õ]
All vowels are lengthened before final /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʁ/, /vʁ/ (e.g. in cave, base, rouge, terre, ivre)
The following vowels are lengthened before any final consonant: /o/, /ø/, /ɑ̃/, /ɛ̃/, /ɔ̃/ (e.g. in faute, meute/jeûne, tante, sainte, honte)
/ɔ/ does not sound to me like a canonical /ɔ/, but more like /ʌ/. I'm thinking maybe of indicating it as [ɔ̜], with the IPA symbol for unrounding.
Please also note, I've fixed several bugs in Module:fr-pron, and I have another round of fixes currently in testing. I've tested them carefully to make sure they don't break things. A few things of note:
I'm changing the handling of 'ien', 'éen'; formerly, the module generated their pronunciation as /jɛ̃/, /eɛ̃/ whenever not followed by a vowel. The new handling does this only when word-finally or followed by a final silent consonant (bien, européens). This will remove the need for respelling in lots of cases (e.g. orientale, science, réengager, etc.), but necessitates respelling in a few new cases (viendr-/tiendr-, bientôt/bienvenu, Vientiane).
Final x is only made silent after i and u (e.g. prix, deux, chevaux). This should remove the need for respelling of index, duplex, Alex, manx, tox, Max, etc.
x is only rendered as /gz/ in the following circumstances: (1) initial x-, ex-, hex-, inex-; (2) in -ex- that follows a vowel (coexister, réexaminer). In all other cases it's /ks/ (except when silent as above). Formerly it was /gz/ in all occurrences of ex. This should remove the need for respelling of lexical, flexible, sexuel, etc.
Schwa is no longer deleted in VɲəʁV, VɲəlV (e.g. indignerez, agnelet). Hopefully this is generally correct.
Initial eu- is rendered as /ø/ (formerly /œ/). This should fix words like 'euphémisme', 'eucalyptus', etc. Currently there's no exception to this rule in the case of 'eur-'. French Wikipedia gives the pronunciation of 'euro' as /øʁo/ and says 'européen' can have either /ø-/ or /œ/. I'm not sure which one is more common; if /œʁ-/ is more common I can make an exception here.
BTW I have a tracking category for redundant respellings; at some point after the pronunciation module stabilizes again I'll remove all of them. Benwing2 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definition may also be an issue: "To agree with someone, often sarcastically". This doesn't imply (sarcastic) fervour or repetition and would (incorrectly?) cover even a sarcastic nod. Equinox◑11:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mother never used the expression sarcastically, not did she think that I was being sarcastic when I yessed her. Insincere, certainly, but not sarcastic. It does seem SoP. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the specialist legal sense #4, we have three senses here: #1. "necessarily"; #2. "in and of itself; by itself; without consideration of extraneous factors"; #3. "(chiefly in negative polarity environments) As such; as one would expect from the name". No usage example is given for #1. Could it not be merged with #3? What is the difference supposed to be? Equinox◑17:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression #1 and #2 can be merged with the definition “in and of itself; intrinsically”. As I see it used, the definition “as such” for sense 3 is fine, but the part “as one would expect from the name” (which name?) is not helpful. Examples of this sense: “Meghan Markle is not a fan of dieting per se”; “a high P/E ratio is not a good or a bad thing per se”; “the Democrats’ actions are not about Trump per se”. In some cases you can substitute “not intrinsically” for “not per se” and in some you can use “not necessarily”, but neither works in all cases.
As to the law sense, I think the usex is misguided and misleading. If there is a per se law for DUI, it will state that it is a crime per se (in and of itself) if you are caught driving with a BAC of 0.08 or higher, or whatever the legal limit is. You cannot use the defence that you were actually quite sober; true or not, it is irrelevant. You can try the defence that the testing equipment malfunctioned. So while the law makes drunk driving illegal, it is not the “drunk driving” that is illegal per se. The better solution is probably to have instead an entry per se law. --Lambiam23:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is just about a discernible difference between #2 and #3, but the present example sentences are rather poor at bringing this out. The "substitute teacher" example is hard for me to even understand. I have tried to create new examples that illustrate the uses more clearly. I don't understand #1, "Necessarily". If this sense exists then an example is needed, and, in any case, it probably should be demoted from first position. Mihia (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that as such is not very helpful as a definition in #3 as it has several different definitions itself, which may overlap the fine distinction between #2 and #3. Mihia (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this piecemeal commentary. I replaced "as such" with the relevant definition from that article, namely "In a true or literal sense". Mihia (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology entry for kärpänen says "equivalent to dialectal kärväs (“fly egg”) + -inen.", but the entry for kärväs only gives "a wooden rack with many branches used to dry grain" as a definition and has no etymology. I tried using google translate with Finnish > English but it translated kärväs to bitter, with no mention of either fly eggs or wooden racks?
Could any Finnish speakers please clarify, I'm at a total loss here!
The mistranslation “bitter” probably comes from the Google translate software mapping an unknown term to the closest known match: karvas. A Google image search for “kärväs” shows plenty of upright sticks with many short side branches, schematically or loaded with drying hay (not grain!). If the word is also a dialectal, non-standard form, it may be difficult to find attestations. It is strange that Proto-Finnic *kärpähinen is said to be equivalent to dialectal kärväs + -inen, since that suffix forms adjectives from nouns, so the meaning would be something like “fly-eggish”; what strange convolutions could turn that into a noun meaning “fly”?
"A faster shutter speed wouldn't go astray". "A pinch of salt wouldn't go astray". "A bit of research wouldn't go astray before commenting." How would we define this common usage of "go astray"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think X wouldn’t go astray in these examples means the same as it wouldn‘t hurt to [have|do] X. (BTW, we do not have an entry for the common idiom it wouldn‘t hurt.) It is hard to define just go astray, but this sense of wouldn‘t go astray can be defined as “Would be helpful”. --Lambiam05:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have this sense at go amiss. It is the only sense given now, which is wrong: the meaning of a sentence like “We must find out what went amiss in order to avoid such mishaps in the future” is not “We must find out what was unhelpful or inappropriate in order to avoid such mishaps in the future”. As far as I see, the idiom exists in a variety of synonymic versions, but the part “will not go”/“won’t go” or “would not go”/“wouldn’t go” is obligatory, which is not clear from the current treatments. --Lambiam12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that "wouldn't go astray" is definitely used like this by some people, but I tend to agree with Equinox. Are we sure this usage isn't just an error/misunderstanding for "go amiss"? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows Albanian? (re User:IMIPER's recent contributions)edit
User:IMIPER added some junky declension tables to a number of Albanian proper nouns, e.g. Dritan, Drit, Shkurt, Afërdit, Dit, Lindit, Driton. I am trying to convert them to proper invocations of the normal Albanian declension templates such as {{sq-noun-m}}, {{sq-noun-f}}. A page like Drit has both a masculine and feminine inflection table (the latter properly belongs on the page of the feminine equivalent Dritë), and I was able to convert the masculine table to {{sq-noun-m|ë}} (although without the vocative), but the feminine table has indef gen/dat/abl sg "Drita", which {{sq-noun-f}} doesn't support (it wants the form to be "Drite" instead). Is this an exceptional noun that isn't supported by the template, or a mistake by User:IMIPER? Should we just delete the junky tables entirely? @Chuck Entz as you've dealt somewhat with this user. Benwing2 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language , page 184, reads
May is virtually excluded instead of can in water can still get in, partly by the likelihood of it being interpreted epistemically rather than dynamically.
I don’t know the answer to the question, but to me the two versions are semantically distinct. “Water can still get in“ is the positive assertion that not all passage ways have been successfully closed off; the speaker asserts that at least one access route is still open. “Water may still get in“ expresses strong doubt: perhaps all passage ways have been closed off, but how effectively? Are all seals tight? Will they hold under pressure? It does not imply that water can actually get in, but rather the absence of the confidence needed for asserting that water can no longer get in. --Lambiam20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't understand what the original quoted statement means, but if it is implying that "Water may still get in" is not correct in any context, then it is wrong. If the statement is limited to certain contexts then it could be OK. Mihia (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the distinction is more between whether there's some reason that the possibility is excluded (for can) or whether it might plausibly happen (for may). "Water can still get in" means that there's nothing to stop the water from getting in, but "water may still get in" means that the water getting in is an event that might occur. It's a subtle distinction that tends to blur in actual use, so it's a bit hard to explain clearly. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your logic? A sense line can have more than one potential meaning. It's not as if every word on the line has to be synonymous with each other. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a grammatical than a lexical issue here. It's sense 5 of number, with "...of verbs" implied by the preceding clause. It's pretty common for words expressing a mass quantity to be used this way. One can say "A number of people are upset", even though "number" is singular, because the plurality is implied. It's much like "a lot...are", which is never used with the singular. Similarly, one says "There are a ton of people who live in China", not *"There are a ton of people that lives in China" (it's the people, not the ton, that lives), or "There are a slew of possible examples". It's perhaps a logical, rather than a grammatical, agreement. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a well-known pondian difference in number agreement for nouns referring to groups, though I'm not sure if this kind of expression is affected. @Backinstadiums: the agreement here isn't with the parenthetical clause, but with an unexpressed subject that's only semantically linked to that clause. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Century Dictionary says that this is actually Lactuca virosa (bitter lettuce/wild lettuce), not Lactuca sativa (common lettuce). Tharthan (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lactucarium was made from the milky sap, which you won't find in garden lettuce except when it's bolting. I've seen references to this in books on edible wild plants in the US, where neither L. sativa nor L. virosa are all that common (in California, I've only seen L. serriola, with L. canadensis and L. biennis being fairly common as well in the rest of North America). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
???? You're not getting mixed up and thinking it means "as known as" by any chance? The complement of "as" is whatever follows "AKA". Mihia (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of off#Preposition is an inline comment (visible only to editors) that reads "Most uses thought of as prepositions are actually adverbial. True prepositional uses are mostly idiomatic. See the talk page." In my view this comment is unhelpful and I propose to delete it. However, since it has been present in this article since at least 2006, and has presumably been seen by numerous editors in that time who have not objected to it, at least not enough to remove it, I thought I should ask for comments first. Mihia (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CGEL (2002) calls an "adverb" like off an intransitive preposition. I'd be inclined to delete the comment. The Usage note under off#Adverb is suspect as are some of the usage examples if one takes the broad definition of what a phrasal verb is. DCDuring (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the usage note under off#Adverb correctly reflects the traditional view. I think that reclassifying such adverbs as intransitive prepositions would entail a big change to many articles, and would need broad consensus. Mihia (talk)
Does anyone know enough about Yoruba to verify asé? It was added by an IP (its only edit) in 2015 with a dubious meaning, a tag attention|yo, whatever that's supposed to do, and a head parameter sort=Yoruba, which is causing it to mysteriously sort under Y ... and typing that, I've just had a blinding realization why it's sorting under Y. Okay, so the rest of it stands. Is this a real Yoruba word, or malarkey?
The emoticons owo and uwu are under Translingual. In April this year a user (whose only edits these are) added English pronunciations and rhymes. I presume policy says we shouldn't have pronunciations of Translingual, but like LOL they are pronounceable, but unlike LOL they are not justifiable as related to English words. Should the pronunciations just be deleted? (uwu in particular has had massive edit wars over something no longer visible.) - Hiztegilari (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The principled stand, honored mostly in the breech, of some here is that we should have L2 sections for every language in which such terms are pronounced. DCDuring (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, since surely the pronunciations will in general be different for different languages, even in cases where they are trying to approximate to the same thing. (PS, I think you mean "breach"!) Mihia (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, “Abbreviation” is explicitly disallowed as Part-of-speech heading, while “Contraction” is allowed. However, an issue is that there are two distinguishable senses of the term contraction. One refers to a process in which phonemes are elided in the pronunciation of a phrase; this may or may not be reflected in the orthography if the spoken text is written down. For example, in the pronunciation of castle, the /t/ is elided, while the ⟨t⟩ remains written. In forecastle, on the other hand, the multiple elision is usually shown in writing, as in fo’c’s’le. When such a contraction turns a multi-word phrase into a spaceless string, as in wouldnothave > wouldn't've, it is not possible to assign one of the conventional grammatical parts of speech to it; hence the escape of using “Contraction”.
The other sense is a process in which the written representation of a word is shortened by eliding graphemes; this is often not reflected in how the written text is pronounced. It is a form of abbreviation, but the term is usually reserved for abbreviations in which (some of) the elided parts are not word-final. An example is the use of trmnate for terminate. One could consider this a form of shorthand.
The Braille contractions are contractions in the latter, orthographic sense. Using the heading “Contraction”, which serves to categorize phonetic contractions, would thus be misleading. --Lambiam11:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Octahedron80 Note that they are *compounds*. For สิทธิ we should have just the 2-syllable pronunciation indicated as correct. The monosyllabic pronunciation of the morpheme in compounds should be relegated to a usage note; possibly it even belongs instead in an entry for -สิทธิ! RichardW57 (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NVM. I put usage note instead. Also, we don't make Thai entry for prefix/suffix (with dash), just join in the same lemma, because most of Thai words can act as prefix/suffix as well. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to the entry, but I think proverb is the wrong PoS. It doesn't exemplify a truth; it's just a remark, like thanks or I'm sorry. Should be phrase or interjection perhaps? Equinox◑14:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
woop seems to be generally a misspelling of whoop (?), and I feel the same way about this entry, but this is the primary entry, and big whoop just an alternative form. Should we at least swap them around? Equinox◑16:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if I had the statistics I would have just done it myself, but I thought the community might know something I don't (especially since this strikes me as a North American phrase). You can say "where's the beef?" about anything, in the absence of figures from either side. Equinox◑18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What the community thinks it knows that isn't based on facts, when there are facts obtainable, is highly suspect. OneLook show that several dictionaries have entries for big whoop, none for big woop; NGrams don't exist for big woop but are plentiful for [[big whoop. That took less than 15 minutes. DCDuring (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone come across this? In "Underground Overground", by Andrew Martin, there is a reference to Julian Barnes's novel "Metroland": "On page 35 the adolescent schoolboy narrator, Christopher, meets an 'elegiac old fugger' on an Underground train at Baker Street. The fugger is a student of Metropolitan history, and he lists the most northerly stations. [...] The fugger then explains why the Met operated in such latitudes. [...] The fugger's account is more or less correct, and this was all the grandiose vision of Sir Edward Watkin, who had promised the Met shareholders that their 'great terminus' (Baker Street) would be connected with many 'important towns'." It may be a one-off word, but I'm not sure. DonnanZ (talk)
The novel systematically uses “fug” for the verb fuck: “[she] doesn’t let him fug her anymore.“ (Vintage edition 1992, p. 12). In six out of the eight uses of the term “fugger”, referring to a variety of men, the term used is more specifically “old fugger”, as in “a rickety old fugger” and “an elegiac old fugger”. The exceptions are “Cool fugger“ and “Poor fuggers”. Substituting “bloke” works, but the contexts suggest this designates more specifically a bourgeois-type of bloke. --Lambiam11:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked back and found an edit by an editor now gone and unavailable for comment. I can only think there was some confused association with "lay off". I can't find any such usage matching "lay off" with "layed up" so I really think this is spurious.
Anthropography : Anthropology = Ethnography : Ethnology.[1] Whereas an ethnographic study usually focuses on a specific group of people, anthropography tends to be concerned with groups of people in general. However, there is no sharp distinction in the use of the term as opposed to “ethnography” and “anthropology”. As to the form of the word, it literally means the description in writing (-graphy) of humans (anthropo-), just like geography is the description of the Earth (geo-). --Lambiam11:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^ Jean‐Paul Dumont (1986 December) “Prologue to Ethnography or Prolegomena to Anthropography”, in Ethos, volume 14, number 4, →DOI, pages 344-367.
Do you have examples of the use of “bars”, other than in the idiom “behind bars“, in which the term is not simply the plural of the noun "bar"? --Lambiam12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone could help here (the terms has too many meanings) but "prison bars" combination seems well verifiable (not prison pubs). The main reason for my request is foreign language terms like Russian решётка(rešótka), or German Gitter use bars as a translation but there is no matching English definition. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the furniture problem. Sometimes there is a mismatch between singular and plural forms and that causes difficulty with translation. "Bars" is really just the plural of bar though. DTLHS (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In phrases such as "behind bars" and "prison bars", the word "bars" has acquired a somewhat figurative meaning. This particular figurative meaning exists only in the plural, as far as I can tell. I think it should probably be mentioned somewhere. I'd suggest a sense at "bar" with label "in plural, figurative". Mihia (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would you call this thing on the window image (the whole thing) - bars? grid? grating? something else? (horizontal, vertical or crossed, it doesn't matter). There's a word for it in many languages bars? grid? grating? something else? --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would say they are bars; in this case I count seven bars. Pressed for a singular term for the assemblage, I might venture grille or grating. Not grid; that would require an additional series of similar crossbars, forming a trellis of squares. --Lambiam23:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Even your answer suggests that "bars" (pluralia tantum?) would work as a term (even if it's plural of "bar"). At least, it may work as a translation target, if it's not idiomatic enough. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)00:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a literal interpretation of the metal objects, your picture shows the normal plural of "bars". It is nothing different. In a figurative interpretation, in an appropriate context, it might have the figurative meaning that I mentioned. Mihia (talk)
I don't entirely agree with the present definition "(figuratively) Prison; imprisonment". I would say that the figurative meaning is more "means of imprisonment", rather than imprisonment itself. Mihia (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "bars" are not the prison itself, nor the abstract concept of imprisonment, as the definition presently says. You can see that the present definition isn't right if you look at e.g. "behind bars", which is given as an example usage. It doesn't imply "behind prison" or "behind imprisonment", it means "behind something that is preventing you from escaping", whether these are literally bars or are something else such as a wall or a steel door. The bars are, figuratively, the means of keeping you inside. Mihia (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've RfDed the new definition. The definition is not substitutable even in the usage example. Moreover, I don't think bars has an accepted figurative meaning except in behind bars. DCDuring (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In Boxcar Willie's version of "You Are My Sunshine" (the version I grew up on – don't ask), he sings: "The other night, dear, as I lay sleeping / I dreamt I held you in my arms / But when I woke, dear, I was mistaken / I was peeping through the bars." One understands that he is in prison, though how much this supports the proposed definition I leave to others to determine. Ƿidsiþ14:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These have all been labelled as derogatory, but aren't they more controversial than that? My impression is that most of these terms are, at least quite frequently, offensive. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situation is a bit as with nigger. I have heard black people use the term in a somewhat derogatory way, but I don't think that rises to being offensive, rather than perhaps insulting. DCDuring (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion about this, and I eventually settled on wording by -sche that I applied to all the entries. I'm not sure what the distinction you're making between derogatory and offensive is, but I think that "sometimes derogatory" is about right, and the definition adequately fleshes out the distinction between in-group and out-group use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds23:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Eliot Morison in "One Boy's Boston" chapter 9, page 56 of the 1983 reprint, "...As we drive up Beacon Street..., mostly to slip in visiting cards, but at three or four houses to consume a buffuous tea..."
What is a 'buffuous tea'? It is a Google nope -- not a single instance! I cannot imagine that Morison made up a word in this context. Is it a spelling error? I cannot find a closely related word to have been misspelled. Any ideas? Has no one else noticed this in such a popular book?>— This unsigned comment was added by SteveattheCapitol (talk • contribs) at 12:36, 2019 October 29.
Do you have any more information on this book? When was it originally written? Are there any original manuscripts available? DTLHS (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the author known for inventing words? I speculate that the word is from buff, "Of the color of buff leather, a brownish yellow", with the suffix -uous. DTLHS (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His books are non-fiction, and nothing I see suggest that he was in the business of making up words. Perhaps the term was current as a slang word among young Boston boys by the end of the 19th century but did not spread much beyond that. The origin may always remain unclear, like that of scrumptious; my guess is that it meant something similar. --Lambiam00:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not in OED. "Buff" (the brownish colour) was my first thought too. (A Google Books search only finds scannos for bustuous, an obsolete word for violent, strong, large, etc., which is the usual s=ſ issue.) Equinox◑14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the book in archive.org, wondering if the word might be a reference to some other slang or character name mentioned early on – though I can't see anything. My tentative hypothesis: it could be a misreading of the ME word bustuous (mentioned by Equinox), which appears in several early glossaries with the potentially confusing long-S, buſtuous. One meaning was "unpretentious, simple"; another was "big", both of which fit. I don't entirely believe it, though. Local slang would be a better theory, if not for the fact that you'd expect it to be mentioned somewhere else. Ƿidsiþ14:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right-hand (in relation to the side of a horse or a vehicle).
Is this sense, in fact, always the side furthest from the kerb, so whether it is right- or left-hand depends on which side of the road one drives or rides on, or is there also a global or international "right-hand" meaning? Mihia (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The kerb side is the near side, see near#Noun (which maybe should be adjectival), and nearside and offside. Whether off and near are purely British in this sense I have no idea. Oxford says virtually the same without specifying left or right. DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that M-W dictionary (American) does give an absolute sense "right", with no reference to which side of the road one drives on. Could I please ask any Americans reading this (or anyone from a country that drives on the right): In your country, on which side is the "front off wheel" of a car located? Is it on the right side, or is it on the left side, furthest from the kerb? Or does this usage not exist at all? Mihia (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, what was said above applies to my experience in Canada as well. I would describe my side mirrors in one of three ways: right/left mirror, driverside/passengerside mirror or driver's/passenger mirror. The doors would be driver's door and passenger door. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The verb suss out is in use in the US, but is not common. I think it has gained some currency in some circles from its occasional use on British police procedurals. DCDuring (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They can be either, just like so. Adjective: “She is very social; her brother [is] less so.” Adverb: “He cleans very thoroughly; his sister [does] less so.” It can be argued that we have a pair of (somewhat opaque) SOPs here. --Lambiam11:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions are certainly somewhat user-unfriendly. Also, I question whether "Modifies another adjective (to which the 'so' is a direct anaphoric reference)" is correct. Surely it is the word "less" or "more" that (indirectly) "modifies another adjective", not the whole phrase "less/more so"? Mihia (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I think it is the other way around, less and more modifying so, which, in its various uses can refer (anaphorically) to a paragraph, sentence or clause; a verb ("I asked him to clean. He did so."); an adjective; an adverb; or, I think, a gesture.
When you say "I don't think so", are you referring to my question whether "Modifies another adjective (to which the 'so' is a direct anaphoric reference)" is correct, or to my suggestion that surely it is the word "less" or "more" that (indirectly) "modifies another adjective", not the whole phrase "less/more so"? Mihia (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think so" could mean that you don't think the current wording is correct, or that you don't think my suggested alternative is correct. I don't know which you mean. Mihia (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were asking questions in both cases ("I question" and "Surely […]?"). I interpreted the questions as not being actual question, but your taking a (tentative?) position. I further interpreted "Surely […]?}} as offered in support of "I question whether "Modifies another adjective (to which the 'so' is a direct anaphoric reference)" is correct."
You seem to be approaching this as some kind of contest of words, but I honestly do not understand whether your original reply was agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. "I don't think so" seems to refer to disagreeing with my suggested interpretation, but then you go on to say what appears to amount to the same thing. Mihia (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, less so and more so can modify the semantics of any of a fairly extensive set of anaphorical grammatical constructions as I stated above.
I do not see how they meet the normal tests of adjectivity.
They are not used attributively
They cannot be modified by very or too
They cannot be used in a predicate with a copula, except anaphorically, in which case they must be modifying what they refer to anaphorically. They do not ever refer to nouns. The modifiers for all the other grammatical structure they can be referring to are all adverbial.
It is, as always, instructive to look at some actual, not made-up, usage:
2009, David P. Barash, Judith Eve Lipton, How Women Got Their Curves and Other Just-So Stories, page 165:
... faced with the curious problem that extended life span for men becomes a paradox, too, perhaps even more so than the existence of menopause in women!
2012, Jess C Scott, Matt Posner, Teen Guide: A Little Bit More...:
If such a close connection can exist between two boys or two men, then even more so, it can exist between two girls or women, or between a girl and her mother.
2013, David Del Monté, Coconuts Kill More People Than Sharks, page 132:
His antics were the subject of amusement, even more so because he was totally unaware of what a figure of fun he was.
2015, Glenn Kenny, editor, A Galaxy Not So Far Away:
because it is the failure of these Machineries to deliver on their empty promises, more so than said promises themselves, that our culture is really all about.
I found more of these examples than of ones that fit our excessively restrictive definition. I don't see how these could possibly be construed as adjectives. In most of these cases, I would simply define more so as "more". DCDuring (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, "more[ ]so" is used differently in North American English than in my (British) English. I can say, "He was like me, only more so", or "American journalists are partisan; English ones even more so"; but I can't say something like, "This game is a shooter moreso than an RPG", versions of which I hear quite frequently in US contexts. Not sure if it's colloquial or pretty standard. Ƿidsiþ14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but I (a US native) would not say or write any of the sentences above using more so. Perhaps once more US speakers and authors are leading the way in language innovation (which might be taken in the 18/19th century sense of "an unwonted or experimental variation"). DCDuring (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done as best I could. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
