Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/May

discussion rooms: Tea room • Etym. scr. • Info desk • Beer parlour • Grease pit ← April 2021 · May 2021 · June 2021 → · (current)

---

say a few words

Worthy of an entry ? Leasnam (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think a few words is the minimal unit here. e.g. "I would like to begin with a few words about Bob", or "We'll be back after a few words from our sponsor". Memorably lampshaded by Dumbledore in the first Harry Potter book: "I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" Colin M (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "word" the minimal unit? You can ask for a quick word, or a "word or two", etc. (although have a word suggests private admonishment). Equinox ◑ 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But there does seem to be something fixed about the phrase "a few words", in that the idiom falls apart if you try to substitute "a few" for a synonym like "several", or "a handful of" or similar. Colin M (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Audio of German "Fucking"

@Jberkel, -sche, Mahagaja, Matthias Buchmeier, Florian Blaschke Is the audio file at Fucking intended for the lower-case expletive fucking instead? (There is no mention in the entry of the rename to Fugging either.) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely the English word, not the Austrian placename. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jeuwre The audio file should be renamed to De-fucking.ogg, otherwise it'll get re-added by the bot. – Jberkel 13:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me ... we need to create (or do we have?) a blacklist which bots are required to check, kind of like the AWB approved-user list. We list all the bad audio recordings we find that Commons won't delete, and let bot owners know to not add files that are on the list. We could host it locally (easier to monitor) or over on Commons (more centralized, but then subject to the whims of Commons users who don't necessary edit here). - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: I've begun a whitelist for Derbeth at User:Metaknowledge/audiowhitelist. Because bad audio gets added all the time, a whitelist is much more workable than a blacklist. As for files Commons won't delete, the solution is to brigade them and make sure they do get deleted (or renamed in a way that bots won't import it). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Could Vealhurl (WF) be added to the whitelist as well? He has contributed a great number of reliable audio files with that account. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

All recorded with a microphone from the pound shop, though. – Jberkel 16:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps in fact bought with euros. But it is fitting that an audio lexicographer at the people's dictionary should use the tools of the people. ;) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a few audio files here too, which I recorded on my smartphone. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I feel like we could still use a file blacklist even if we have a contributor whitelist, because one of the sources of audio files we've had to remove is that someone who usually uploads good audio uploads what they think is good audio for a word, but is actually bad, like with the audio file at enig that had a stray initial noise and breathing such that it was intelligible to native speakers whose brains already knew how to pronounce and thus recognized the word, but sounded like "penis" to anyone just learning the language / word. (In that case, someone years later overwrote the file with a better recording.) - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

丑 (a class of roles in Chinese theatre)

Please help me find the base text for the quotation by "徐謂" currently in the etymology section. BTW the author should've been 徐渭. The book was a lost work partially reconstructed from quotations and excerpts (with all of the textual complications). To "normalize" the quote I need the text at least in the reconstructed form (e.g. a scan of the page). Thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

aubade, 晨曲

I'm only passingly familiar with the sense of aubade in poetry. Could someone help me understand whether the Chinese word 晨曲 can be used as a translation of aubade in the context of both poetry and music. Also, any Chinese words more specific to the poetry context? Thank you!

Also, perhaps 晨曲 is worth an entry. --Frigoris (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

cicisbeo

One sense is "a man who pays open addresses to a married woman; a married woman's lover". Another sense, which has been removed and re-added a few times, is "(historical, 18th-century Italy) a knightly servant of a high-born lady". Is this actually a distinct sense (why would a knight work as a servant?) or just a euphemism for the other (lover) sense? Equinox ◑ 12:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: The sense was removed; see User talk:Mnemosientje § cicisbeo. J3133 (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. Yeah, I think it's just a sort of badly-worded euphemism of the other sense. In English at least, I only see one sense, and I've been reading about the context a lot recently. No other English dictionary I can see gives more than one sense here, either. The OED has "The name formerly given in Italy to the recognized gallant or cavalier servente of a married woman"; Collins has "the escort or lover of a married woman, esp in 18th-century Italy"; Webster has "LOVER, GALLANT", AHD has "The male lover or companion of a married woman, especially in 18th-century Europe", etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

headstroke

I started a definition for headstroke, a feature in various Asian-language scripts, but felt out of my depth into the meaning of such a thing. OK, it's written above the letters, but what's the purpose? Yellow is the colour (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• PS I want to add the Urbandictionary meaning "when a girl is giving a guy head he "strokes" her head as a reward like he would a dog and a signal that he enjoys her work" for the lulz. Perhaps I will one day... Yellow is the colour (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

squeamish

I wonder if the first sense could be improved. "Easily bothered or upset" could include non-squeamish traits like a hot temper. Equinox ◑ 10:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

“Easily shocked, sickened or frightened”?  --Lambiam 13:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: I think that would be better. Equinox ◑ 17:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 So changed. Do we still need the second formulation for sense 1 (“tending to be nauseated or nervous”), or is that subsumed by the newly reformulated first part?  --Lambiam 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

up: AAVE? "up in here"

Complaining to somebody about a tech protocol, I said: "We need some ISO standardisation up in here." I think I was mimicking some kind of AAVE style. Something "up in here", or "all up in your face". What does up mean in these utterances? The only possibly applicable sense seems to be "(intensifier) Used as an aspect marker to indicate a completed action or state; thoroughly, completely", but I'm not sure that it's actually intensifying. Equinox ◑ 13:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely something interesting going on there. I think it always combines with prepositions of location/movement, not limited to in. e.g. "get up out of my face", or "get up off me". Colin M (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

редкий - an utterly different meaning is missing

As you can read on the respective Russian page, the word редкий has a[n uncited] meaning of "outstanding, incredible, out of the ordinary (coupled with a value judgement)":
6. выдающийся, из ряда вон выходящий (в сочетании с оценочным эпитетом) ◆ Этот ваш Пётр — редкий плут.--Adûnâi (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is only a small step from rare to exceptional. When translating редкий дар (redkij dar), “rare talent” and “exceptional talent” appear synonymous to me. Would it work to simply add  “, exceptional, extraordinary”  to the definition of sense 1?  --Lambiam 13:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

kill

We should probably have a meaning of ‘to bankrupt; to put at risk of bankruptcy or financial harm’ and ‘to annoy or inconvenience, especially by slacking or underperforming’. We could perhaps just create a separate entry for ‘you’re killing me’ instead of the second of these definitions though and perhaps include a second sense of ‘strike a hard bargain’. Any thoughts on that? Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the second sense distinct from our existing sense "To cause great pain, discomfort or distress to" (as in "these tight shoes are killing me")? They at least seem closely related. Either way, I wouldn't put it under you're killing me, since you is open to substitution. e.g. "he's killing me", "the prof is killing me". By the way, here's a very lyrically relevant pop song by Robyn. Colin M (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You’re probably right that it’s not that dissimilar and not always used with the pronoun ‘you’, apparently the phrase was popularised by the 1993 film The Sandlot using the phrase “You’re killing me, Smalls” according to the admittedly unreliable Urban Dictionary. I was watching the series ‘The Innocents’ on Netflix yesterday and in one scene, the buyer/seller, while haggling, says “You’re killing me!”, referring to the seller/buyer proposing too high/low a price for the bartered goods. We have ‘to bankrupt’ but maybe to put at risk of bankruptcy or financial distress is a distinct enough meaning to be included either separately or under one of the other senses? Great find on the song!Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

sco-ur

The page for scour has: “Hyphenation: sco‧ur”. Is that correct? If I encountered this in the wild, I'd assume it was hyp-henation software running amok.  --Lambiam 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely wrong. I've fixed it. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

so

I agree with the comments on the talk page that we should mention the Irish habit of putting ‘so’ at the end of their sentences, though a definition seems elusive if not impossible. Certain people have a habit of using certain words at the beginning or end of their sentences when they don’t have any real meaning or serve any function, like ‘right’ and ‘then’ and the Irish do this with ‘sure’ and ‘altogether’ too. I can well imagine one of them saying ‘Sure, we had a grand time, altogether!’. My theory is that ‘so’ in this context came about as a result of the stereotypically Irish phrase ‘so it is’ being shortened. Seems highly plausible to me Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pronounced completely unemphatically and without preceding pause, which (IMO) makes so it is a less plausible origin. Compare or so, pronounced similarly unemphatically.  --Lambiam 12:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

alternate forms of Welsh deall

I made an account just to bring this up so my apologies if I'm doing something wrong, but in the entry for the Welsh word deall (“understand”) it says that the North Wales alternative is dyall and the South Wales alternative is dallt. Coming from North Wales myself I have never used anything other than dallt, as have most people I know. I've also looked it up and only found reference to dallt being a Northern word. Of course it could be used in the South as well, and I wouldn't know. But it certainly isn't exclusive to the South. Does anybody else have any comment on the alternative versions being this way round? Looking back through edits it seems as though at one point the forms were swapped. AmberHuws (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Llusiduonbach, you're the one who labeled those two forms as North Wales and South Wales; would you like to chime in here? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@AmberHuws @Mahagaja Apologies - I mixed up my labels when editing. I've corrected the entry now. Diolch i chi! Llusiduonbach (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

filibuster

Is there any evidence of an extended, more general sense derived from the well-known specific U.S. political sense?

Something like "to give a long, irrelevant speech in a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings"? Tharthan (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly there is. I’ve never heard it in relation to non-political proceedings but it is used outside of the U.S sometimes. The British MP Sir Christopher Chope is often described as ‘filibustering’ bills like the ones against upskirting and FGM. He’s probably the most odious MP of all but there’s an awful lot of close competition of courseOverlordnat1 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve just added a U.K. example of filibustering to the articleOverlordnat1 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/l-(t/d)jam

It seems the STEDT citing Mastinoff et al. uses the form *yam instead of *jam. Should we move? Source: https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/etymon/132 --Frigoris (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

bij in Albanian

Do we have a source for bij meaning "to sprout, to grow out" in Albanian? I tried to source it online, but online dictionaries either redirect me to bijë, or tell me it's the plural of bir, or have nothing, and a Quoran told me bij = bie which means "to fall" and a couple other meanings, so… what is going on here? MGorrone (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

成語, proscribed by whom?

The entry reads:

(proscribed) any idiomatic expression or set phrase

Is this sense really "proscribed"? By whom/which community? There's ample usage in the literature.

For example, the two essays in Wang (1923), i.e. the 《觀堂集林》 by Wang Guowei titled 《與友人論詩書中成語書》 (Letter discussing idiomatic expressions in the Shi and Shu with a friend).

古人頗用成語，其成語之意義，與其中單語分別之意義又不同。 [MSC, trad.]
古人颇用成语，其成语之意义，与其中单语分别之意义又不同。 [MSC, simp.]

From: (Wang 1923)

Gǔrén pō yòng chéngyǔ, qí chéngyǔ zhī yìyì, yǔ qízhōng dānyǔ fēnbié zhī yìyì yòu bùtóng. [Pinyin]

The ancients were versed in idioms (or "set phrases") whose meaning are distinct from those of the individual components.

Examples given there include

• 不淑, 不弔 (which can be traced to the same early orthography) - literally, "not good"; idiomatically, "unfortunate; calamity-striken"
• 陟降 - literally, "to ascend and descend; to go up and down"; idiomatically, "to come and go > to go"; which gave rise to 陟恪, 登假 (dēnggé), 登遐 etc., "to pass away"
• etc.

Obviously the usage of 成語 doesn't match the first sense ("chengyu") but matches the second (proscribed) one perfectly.

Other similar usages: from the book 《尚書覈詁》 by 楊筠如, gbhits: https://books.google.com/books?id=pRwoAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%E6%88%90%E8%AA%9E

• 荒寧，古成語
• 庸釋，古成語，謂舍棄之意。
• 會紹，當是成語。 (OCR scanno *繪紹 in the ghit)
• 追孝，古成語。

Cf. definition from the MoE Mandarin dictionary: https://www.moedict.tw/%E6%88%90%E8%AA%9E

一種語言中簡短有力的固定詞組，可作為句子的成分。形式不一，以四言為主。一般而言都有出處來源，與引申的比喻義，而非單純使用字面上意思。如「矛盾」、「綿裡針」、「勢如破竹」、「篳路藍縷」等。

The key in this definition is 簡短有力 (short and expressive), 固定詞組 (set phrase), and 而非單純使用字面上意思 (not used for the literal meaning). This looks like a dictionary definition of idiom.

Proposed solution: change the label "proscribed" to "uncommon"; unless we can find the actual proscription for this sense. --Frigoris (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. this is based on my personal lack of experience of being proscribed by anybody except Wiktionary about such usage. --Frigoris (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for picking up on this @Frigoris. I think I might have been the one who added that proscription note many years ago when I was less experienced as an editor. It is probably inaccurate, unless we can indeed find proscriptions in the literature. That being said, AFAIK 成語 does not denote an idiom as is understood in English — i.e. an idiomatic expression of any kind and any language. Rather, it is limited to chengyu originating in Classical Chinese. For example, a native Chinese speaker would not describe 喪文化 as a 成語, even though it can be described as one in English, as it means more than the sum of its parts. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Most entries that say "proscribed" raise the question of who thinks those usages should be proscribed. The term is out of place in linguistics, as it comes from an outdated overly prescriptivist view of languages. However, the presumed meaning of the proscription is that chengyu usually refers to a certain type of four-character idiom that usually has a little story behind it (diangu). However, the phrase itself means "formed or set language", where cheng is interpreted to mean formed. 81.135.13.194 18:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

straight fiction, straight play

I've often seen the term straight fiction (or straight novel) used to refer to the complement of genre fiction (sci-fi, mystery, etc.). People also use the term straight play to denote a 'regular' play (as opposed to a musical). Are these idioms worthy of entries, or is there a common sense of straight at play here? We have a couple somewhat related senses at straight:

• 7. Serious rather than comedic. (as in "he played both straight and comedic roles")
• 13. Conventional, mainstream, socially acceptable. (as in "He always had a straight job")

I suppose we could add a sense like "Not belonging to any specialized genre". But I don't think that would be enough for a reader to deduce the meaning of straight play, since the term does not exclude comedic plays, or tragedies, or any other genre except the musical.

It seems like there's a macro-sense at play of unmarked or "normal", which in turn encompasses the other specialized meanings including "serious rather than comedic", "heterosexual", "not plus size", etc.

Anyways, I'm leaning toward creating standalone entries for straight fiction, straight novel, and straight play, since it seems like these are fixed phrases without close correlates. Colin M (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if there is such a sense in the adjective, the compound would be idiomatic, innit, and corresponding terms are not decomposable alike so an entry is demanded by WT:THUB considerations, otherwise depicting foreign usage at the adjective would be complicated – it is better to translate the whole collocation. Fay Freak (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Compounds can go forever: you could have a "straight mystery play" etc. An entry for every combination is suicide. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just created straight play. Jberkel 10:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Geochronology

The category Category:en:Geological periods contains not only periods (which is an exact term in geology), but also eras, eons, epochs and ages. Russian Wiktionary has separat categories for three of these term (epochs, eras, periods). To avoid such confusion, Swedish Wiktionary instead called it category:Geochronology. --LA2 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@LA2: "Geochronology" is not a great term, as it refers to an actual field that is not particularly interested in these time bins. The Russian solution is intriguing, but of course there would be very few entries in the category for eons. I would suggest Category:Geologic time to be better than any of those alternatives. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia's categories, you will find that w:Category:Geochronology is the top category for this whole area of knowledge. The Swedish Wiktionary category is interwiki linked to that cluster of Wikipedia categories. Works fine. --LA2 (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

dread

In the Etymology section for "dread", there is the following template: "reconstrued as a- +‎ dread" ... which is referring to the word "adread". That template belongs in the "adread" page, not the "dread" page, right? (Actually, that template is already in the "adread" page.)

I couldn't find an explicit rule, but much of Wiktionary seems to be built on the assumption that a template appearing in a page should refer to the title word for that page. For example, the presence of that template in the "dread" page means that "dread" appears in the category "English words prefixed with a-". Jonathanbratt (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. When @Roger.M.Williams added the {{af}} and {{prefix}} templates, they should have added |nocat=1 to keep from them from categorizing the page as if it were the Old English ondrǣdan and English adread respectively. The etymology still has problems with muddling together Old English and West Germanic, but I'll let someone else deal with that. Chuck Entz (talk)

While that fixed the specific issue of "dread" appearing in the wrong category, I was also hoping to get clarification on the practice of putting etymological templates on pages that are not the word the template is directly referring to. This seems to be undesirable, and extremely rare in any case (this is the only example I know of). Wouldn't it be better to just remove the template from the "dread" page? Jonathanbratt (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Menlo, Menlough

Menlo has Menlough as an "alternative form", but all five senses are place names. Places don't usually have two different spellings, do they? Are we saying that all five can be spelled both ways? If not, which? Equinox ◑ 22:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia it seems that only the places in Ireland go by other spellings than ‘Menlo’, both of them in County Galway and apparently the Menlough near Athenry is always spelt ‘Menlough’ and the former village, now a suburb of the city of Galway, is always called ‘Menlo’ anyway, ‘Menlough’ being a historical spelling.Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

p'in-yin

What policy actually governs words that are usually seen italicized in an English language text? According to this draft proposal: [1] "Some foreign words are partly or wholly naturalized in the English language. These should be considered simply as English terms, with their own English entries according to the criteria for inclusion, even though they may resemble or match a romanized version." I don't know if 'p'in-yin' counts as a foreign term (because it's italicized, hence it's merely code switching) or what you all would think about this new entry I've created. Thanks for any guidance. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Puebloan mask

1. (Puebloan, anthropology) A ceremonial object used in Puebloan kachina cults that resembles a Euro-American mask. (The term is objected to as an appropriate translation by Puebloan peoples as it emphasizes imitation but ignores power and representational intent.)

So ... it's a mask, or at least, the sort of thing that would be taken to be a mask by someone who didn't know who'd made it and could only examine the artifact itself, but the people themselves object to it being called a mask? OK, but ... I don't think we usually handle that by having a definition like this, do we? A quick google suggests that the Puebloan things in question are also called "face masks" (and "helmet masks", etc) and I don't think we should add this sense to face mask, too, should we? My inclination is to just remove the sense as redundant to the main sense, inasmuch as we seem to consider the masks various other ethnic groups make for ceremonial use (which have varying degrees of wearability or non-wearability) to be covered by the main sense. But this sense has been here for over a decade! Am I missing something? - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@-sche: I vote for removal. Honestly, I'm not even sure this merits a RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest there are two issues here:

Does the usage easily pass CFI in terms of frequency of use (clearly it passes for timescale if the def has been there for 10 yrs!). If there are no more than (say) 10 independent uses clearly within that definition, then the lazy but adequate way forward may be drop the def.

Otherwise we must include it. We are a dictionary of usage, not a prescriptive dictionary. However, if a usage is offensive to some, then we should add a usage note to explain that, as in cunt, nigger, half-caste, anarchist, redneck etc. But when we do so, if we recognise it as offensive, we add a gloss and/or a usage note, as in the above examples.

So the question then is, what should we do when we don't realise a def is offensive, but people go to the bother of telling us they are offended. Anarchist is an example of one which was dealt with that way around 13 years ago IIRC, after someone had got themselves a Wiki username, and wrote in, to Tearoom IIRC, to ask for the def of anarchy to be corrected, because, as an anarchist, he was offended. (And, of course, the fact he dealt with it that way was a demonstration of why the common usage of anarchy was offensive to him -- "true" anarchists believe in making decisions by committee, rather than being "anarchic" as we normally use the phrase.) I felt that was a reasonable statement, so added a usage note to anarchy to say that. In fact, that was soon reverted, but someone else then added a similar note to anarchist which is still there now. (Clue: one of our most senior editors said to me once re reverted edits, "I just leave them for a month, then revert the reversions -- they never notice". Perhaps he added it! I had forgotten and moved on.)

My view (and I may be in a minority) is that, while some people will be offended by us merely adding a common use, it is important that we note any offensive usage. Just as we do for grammatically or semantically non-standard usage, we should gloss/note any causing offence. Most schools and parents/guardians let young children use Wikt, and find words which some would say they should not be exposed to. If we tag the words appropriately, then hopefully#Usage_notes most people will accept our argument that children will hear these words anyway, and it is good that we explain that it's unacceptable for them to use them themselves. It's also important for people learning English later in life. I knew a woman who was very politely spoken, except she kept saying "Bugger off". People had let her do so for years without her knowing it was offensive, until I politely told her!

So what is the level of offence we should accept before tagging? Personally, I would base it on comments by three unconnected people, but that doesn't necessarily mean three non-editors. If one person complains, we can ask the question here, since with our amazing breadth of experience, any significant offence is likely to be known by some of us, or indeed we can research online. Having made my general point, sorry, but I don't know the answer for this particular word in terms of offence.

However, I do think it worthy of a usage note in view of interesting usage -- it seems to be a case of cultural expropriation! The 1st world (presumably) has used the description of a 1st world item to apply to a superficially-similar 3rd (or at leat ancient) world artefact, possibly without knowing (and certainly without explaining) the deeper cultural meanings the artefact had. And this is doubly interesting since the "masks" we use for carnival, etc, are probably based on those unmentioned meanings. It could well be that the defs can be improved, as well as annotated, if we can find usage for this "missing link". --Enginear 00:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

hemicycle

This article [2] contains the phrase "in the middle of the hemicycle of the European parliament in Strasbourg" (my bolding). We do not currently have a definition which supports that usage. It appears to mean half-cycle, presumably relating to the "travelling circus" moving 12 times a year from Strasbourg to Brussels and back, similar to semester without implying the period of the cycle as semester does. The two halves are not by any means equal but, as someone had to point out to me on wikt a few years back, halves do not have to be equal either! Nonetheless, I don't feel competent to add that def based on a single use. Please would someone with a more extensive knowledge of that usage add it. Thanks --Enginear 22:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we already have the appropriate definition; you just misinterpreted the article. The European parliament is in fact arranged in a partial circle (more than half of a circle, but that's another issue altogether). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So he's speaking from the middle of a semi-circle (wherever that may be)? Why would that be worth a mention in The Guardian? Still, if no one else comes forward to say they've heard it, then if my guess was right, it may be a nonce usage anyway, and I haven't time to check for other uses right now, so I'll leave it be.

"More than half of a circle, but that's another issue" -- Nah, another editor convinced me a few years back that half is frequently used to refer to almost anything more than 0 but less than 1 (I exaggerate only slightly). For over 50 yrs, I'd been convinced that it was exactly 0.5, but I was completely wrong -- there are many examples, all of which now slip my mind...probably because I've never changed my idiolect to reflect my new knowledge. Of course, he didn't say anything about the usage of hemi! --Enginear 00:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not a nonce usage. The parliament seating is a hemicycle, and he was speaking in the middle of it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

penis puerilis

Is this a rare term? Its synonym membrum puerile is labelled as rare, somewhat euphemistic, and seeing that I thought this entry might need some label… Penis puerilis is almost exclusively attested in dictionaries, so could it be a scientific term? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

These dictionary entries are definitions of terms from a variety of Indian languages, such as Hindi नूनी (nūnī) and फुन्नो (phunno), Bengali নুনু (nunu), and Telugu బెల్లము (bellamu). I do not know the background of this subcontinental fascination with puerile penes, but the use of Latin is surely due to lexicographers’ prudery syndrome, and not to a predilection for scientific terms.  --Lambiam 10:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if those terms really denote specifically a child's penis, or if they're just childish words for "penis", like wiener. I definitely agree the use of Latin is due to lexicographical taboo avoidance; I've seen bilingual dictionaries gloss other languages' words for "fuck" as futuere, for example. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: So should I label penis puerilis as lexicographical jargon?— because these are limited in usage to dictionaries. And regarding ‘subcontinental fascination with puerile penes’, I would say these are rather terms used by adults affectionately to refer to a penis puerilis. Worth noting are this and this (which are Oriya words) that also notably do not use the euphemistic terminology. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 20:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what a good label is, but “jargon” is IMO not the right term, nor is this specific to lexicographers. The same use of Latin to avoid taboo words is seen in medical, anthropological and sexological publications.  --Lambiam 22:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam: rare ? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It may be so rare that it does not qualify for inclusion; the only legitimate use I spotted ("use" as opposed to "mention") was the statement by Raúl Escari that Raúl Damonte Taborda, author of the book Ayer fue San Perón qualified the General's allegedly nilly willy in the foreword as penis puerilis ([3], not visible in snippet view). I don't know whether the euphemism originated with Taborda and is merely echoed by Escari in indirect speech, or that the application of the euphemism is of Escari's doing.  --Lambiam 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

arrack

This is currently just an alt form of arak, but describes a different liquor from South Asia that's also spelled arak? It's confusing enough that I'm asking for help defining and separating these senses rather than copying from Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that the term arak is used in Southeast Asia to refer to any alcoholic liquor, and was borrowed used the English spelling arrack for such liquors as were imported from Southeast Asia, in a variety of styles. Which description where is different from which other description where?  --Lambiam 19:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

desquamation

Upon looking at fr:desquamation it seems we might be missing a sense relating to bark of a tree...or at least that sense exists in French. Also the French term has a sense stating it's short for desquamation de gaine which fr.wikt translates to English as oxide spallation or oxide surface peeling. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 21:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Inasmuch as desquamation de gaine is not a dictionary-only term (allegedly related to nuclear-fission engineering, in which, I think, oxide spallation is not an issue, so this appears to be based on a misunderstanding; spallation in the sense of nuclear physics is also spallation in French), I think it is pure SOP. For any French compound X de Y, in a context in which the Y of which something is the X can be inferred, one can leave out the qualifier de Y. So a chef d’équipe (“foreman”, “team leader”) may be referred to as just “le chef ” (“the boss”). For the rest, it can basically be used in any context of an outer layer or crust peeling or flaking off, from moulting locusts to chipping varnish to the bark of a tree; I think it is all the same sense.  --Lambiam 17:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

devon

In addition to sharing a sense with the English term it seems, according to fr.wikt, that in French this also means some kind of fishing lure or something of the like...@Mahagaja would you or someone you know know how to best define this? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A (leurre) devon has blades that make it turn when drawn through the water, or when used in a fast-moving stream. I think an English term for this device is “spinner (lure)”.  --Lambiam 18:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

French dey

Another little oddity I've discovered on the French page of WT:RE. Am I right in saying that the French is the same as the Etym. 2 sense of our English entry? Either way, if anyone has sufficient knowledge to add a French section I'd be grateful. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 19:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The French Wiktionary agrees with your supposition, also giving the dey of Algiers as an example. More importantly, the authoritative Académie française also agrees.^[4] An appropriate entry is easily fashioned by applying obvious modifications to that of French bey.  --Lambiam 09:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at French Wiktionary I’ve noticed that the French WT has the Sranantongo form of ‘day’ spelt ‘dey’ and the English WT has the spelling dei. I’ve no idea which is right though, maybe both are?Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of Speech of Khmer សេរី (seerəy)

I don't have a criterion that I am capable of applying for telling Khmer adjectives and verbs apart under any system, but @Aeusoes1 changed the third meaning of the lemma as an alleged adjective from "to do something without permission" to "done without permission", on the basis that the word was an adjective, not a verb. I have reverted that change on the bases that:

• The word describes the doer rather than the action, and
• the original wording suggests that the meaning can be punctual rather than stative.

If I am right on both counts, should the part of speech be changed for this meaning? --RichardW57 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that the word has been listed as an adjective because it derives from a Pali adjective and seems to retain the core meaning of "not acknowledging any constraint on behaviour". --RichardW57 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I, too, have no way to distinguish Khmer verbs from adjectives. I changed the way the definitions were phrased because the definitions were those of verbs and the word is being categorized as an adjective. If the meaning really is "to do something without permission" then it would be best to categorize the word in question as a verb in addition to or instead of an adjective. Aeusoes1 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@RichardW57, Aeusoes1: I would leave the adjective definition along the lines "to be disobedient; to do something without permission" as in Headley97. Khmer adjectives act very much like stative verbs, it's mostly the meaning, which determines, which PoS they belong to. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, Khmer native speaker User:Sitaron can explain better that I here: User_talk:Sitaron#Khmer_adjectives. It's also an answer to User:Aeusoes1's question in User_talk:Aeusoes1#"rm_"to_be"_from_adjective". I have reverted all removals of "to be" from adjective entries for now. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not proficient in Khmer, but I know linguistics and none of what user:Sitaron says makes sense.

1. It doesn't matter if most adjectives in Khmer are listed at Wiktionary with "to be". If it's incorrect, it should be fixed.
2. While I could not find a "Headley 1997" I found the two-volume Cambodian-English Dictionary by Robert K Headley, who does not list all adjectives with "to be". If the intention was to cite Headley et al 1997, I have yet to see it but I am skeptical.
3. If Khmer adjectives were "in fact" verbs, then it would be the only language known to humanity to have no adjectives and we would thus list them purely as verbs.

While it seems to me that what is going on in actuality is simply a zero copula language, the closest claim to what Sitaron talks about comes from Modern Spoken Cambodian (Huffman, Promchan & Lambert, 1970), which states (page 56) that there are "adjectival verbs" that "function as noun modifiers (English adjectives), as verb modifiers (English adverbs), and as main verbs (in which case they are equivalent to English be + adjective)." They also argue that these are "marked as verbs (rather than simply adjectives) by the fact that they may be preceded by the negative mɨn..." It's quite clear from this passage that these "adjectival verbs" are a distinct class and not characteristic of all adjectives. It's also clear that these "adjectival verbs" are a category of verb, rather than adjective.

Do what you will with this knowledge. Aeusoes1 (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

kit (tub/pail)

The first two senses given for the noun kit are:

1. A circular wooden vessel, made of hooped staves.
2. A kind of basket made especially from straw of rushes, especially for holding fish; by extension, the contents of such a basket or similar container, used as a measure of weight.

A quotation following sense 2 shows that “especially from straw of rushes” is not that important, since it mentions “aluminium kits”. I have reason to think that these two senses are essentially the same sense for a type of object that could have various embodiments and purposes. See my contribution of 07:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC) in the thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Translations to German, to be archived in a week or so at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021 May 10#Translations to German. Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives this definition: “A kind of fish-tub, and a milk-pail.”^[5]  --Lambiam 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

wear it on one's sleeve

@StuckInLagToad recently created wear it on one's sleeve with the definition “To openly present or convey one's beliefs or ideals”, and a usage note stating “"It" is commonly replaced with a belief, as that is what they are conveying.” I was wondering about the following:

• Is the term ever used with any word other than “one’s heart” in place of “it”? The entry wear one's heart on one's sleeve already exists.
• If it is used with other words, should the entry be moved to wear something on one's sleeve?

The entry has been nominated for WOTD, though it won’t be featured anytime soon. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not just something, but more specifically one’s something. In to wear one’s X on one’s sleeve, popular substitutes for X are emotions and feelings (somewhat synonymous with heart), but also education, patriotism, and religion – the latter also formulated more explicitly: Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism. It can be an elaborate noun phrase: interest in the blues and the electric guitar, joy of being with people and his interest in them, ambivalence and lack of passion for financial services. But I think these are all snowcloned from wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve. Where it is substituted for X, its referent is something identified as being the wearer’s, as in Big Jim had a huge heart, and he wore it on his sleeve.  --Lambiam 08:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just deleted this, since it's redundant to wear something on one's sleeve. Wiktionary uses "one", "someone" and "something" as placeholders, not "it". Equinox ◑ 18:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: I just saw. I didn't know we had wear something on one's sleeve. Based on @Lambiam's comment, though, should that be moved to wear one's something on one's sleeve? (Not particularly elegant, though.) — SGconlaw (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: I think we have to parse this rather carefully, and in a sort of Chomskyan manner. If we allow "wear X on one's sleeve", then "one's X" is a type of "X". Therefore "wear X" incorporates "wear one's X" inherently. I mean, let's not dig holes we don't need to fall into. Equinox ◑ 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox: OK, makes sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

extreme prejudice

The current definition of extreme prejudice is:

1. Seemingly senseless or irrational hostility.

I don’t think this is right. In the idiomatic sense, it is used for prejudicial killings that are unlawful but nevertheless completely rational from the point of view of a belligerent party focussed on eliminating hostile combatants. Can anyone suggest a better def, one that also makes sense when an operative is instructed to use extreme prejudice? Also, I have a strong suspicion that the idiomatic sense derives from the earlier use of terminate with extreme prejudice.  --Lambiam 07:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it has an idiomatic meaning apart from in the term terminate with extreme prejudice. In other contexts, it's just extreme + prejudice. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The entry extreme prejudice has a quotation using liquidate with extreme prejudice, which in the context does not mean that the liquidation order was issued with a directive to accompany the operation with intense preconceived feelings or opinions. Here, in the phrase use “Extreme Prejudice”, the term is explained as “a military term for ensuring that the person concerned is eliminated permanently”. While not explained, use extreme prejudice here, here and here also has the idiomatic meaning of killing.  --Lambiam 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lambiam It seems like a better definition for extreme prejudice would be "lethal force". Nosferattus (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a very usable suggestion.  --Lambiam 09:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

French diamantaire

fr.wikt also has an adjective sense for this word. Would diamondlike be an appropriate definition, or is the meaning somewhat different? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 10:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We only list an apparently literal sense for diamondlike. I think the French term is mainly used in the figurative sense of brilliant, as in British English before just fucking everything became fucking brilliant: having an enviable brilliance, mostly not said of people but of what they produce, like someone’s style of writing (écriture diamantaire, or écriture d’une pureté diamantaire). The adjective also has a literal sense, "of, or related to, a diamond or diamonds”. Diamond clarity, such as VS2 or SI1, can be referred to as qualité diamantaire.  --Lambiam 11:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

French digitation

Looking for some help to define yet another term that we are missing a French section for. Am I right in saying sense 2 at fr:digitation is the same as sense 2 in our English entry? They seem to be a little different but they are both labelled with "zoology". User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The sense given in the French Wiktionary (“mark or print in the shape of fingers”) does not sound like zoological terminology. A brief search shows uses in biological morphology, as in English, for an outgrowth of some structure that has a (vaguely) finger-like shape. There also appears to be a geomorphological use, something like “peak”.  --Lambiam 20:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

heal-all

We are missing the sense "panacea", which is noted here, and often pops up by dint of the fact that "heal-all" is a very basic formation that anyone could independently form.

I believe that we ought to include it, though we ought to label it as uncommon. Tharthan (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

computer lab

Should we have an entry for this? A computer lab is not really a laboratory in the ordinary meaning. It is a space that provides access to computers. 172.58.171.59 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to add a generalized sense for lab / laboratory; compare also terms like fab lab, language lab and living lab, and names such as Google Labs, the Google X Lab, the MIT Media Lab, the Stanford AI Lab, the Stanford Learning Lab, the Virtual Human Interaction Lab and the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, which in context can be referred to as “the lab”.  --Lambiam 11:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

alledged

Is this really a word? It is not in Merriam-Webster: [6]. Would be nice with a reference. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

[7], [8], [9].  --Lambiam 11:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"ventresca" needs correction...

for ventresca, see: Tuna#Ventresca tuna and ventre (Italian). .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which correction you think should be applied where?  --Lambiam 12:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

talks about talks

Worth an entry? PUC – 10:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Some may consider it SOP but it may be worth an entry. That phrase immediately brings to mind ‘bag of bags’ which we don’t have an entry for eitherOverlordnat1 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mars Rover or Mars rover?

The entry Mars Rover is capitalized as though it were a proper noun, but in real-world usage it appears to be treated as a compound of the proper noun Mars and ordinary noun rover. The Wikipedia page is titled Mars rover. As a generic term referring to any such vehicle, e.g. Perseverance or Zhurong, lower-case rover seems more appropriate. I propose creating Mars rover as the main entry and retaining Mars Rover as an alternative form. Although there may also be a case for moving Mars Rover to Mars rover. Thoughts gratefully received. Voltaigne (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a common noun. I imagine we may in the future also have Iapetus and Enceladus rovers (such missions have been proposed), and it seems this is just a sum of parts (rover, sense 4: “A vehicle for exploring extraterrestrial bodies.”). So there you have it: a case for deleting the entry altogether.  --Lambiam 12:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your input @Lambian. Voltaigne (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sent to RfD, as already more or less announced above.  --Lambiam 21:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

transaudient

Is there a more common word for this? Allowing sound to pass through it. I was dismay'd to find unsoundproof didn't exist Indian subcontinent (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Collins English Dictionary has hear-through, which describes headphones that allow ambient sound to pass through. This is a nice counterpart to see-through. I don't know whether there are attested examples of this adjective being applied to other solid bodies, such as walls. Voltaigne (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I can find a few citations of that, going back several decades (Citations:hear-through), including one which describes a monitor(?), possibly using a different sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Pigeon

Surely noun sense 4 for pigeon has the same derivation as noun sense 2 for pidgin so should have a separate etymology to the bird sense and should be labelled as archaic too (the only time I ever hear it is when I watch Brief Encounter, where Trevor Howard delivers the rather odd line “pneumoniosis is my pigeon/pidgin” (of course either spelling could be used here as it occurs in speech, not writing)Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ve now amended itOverlordnat1 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported_titles/Greater_than

Hard to see why a lot of the Internet symbol uses are given as English, while others (e.g. e-mail indentation and quoting) are Translingual. Don't these 4chan and forum users also write in non-English languages? Equinox ◑ 18:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to remember that long before 4chan hitting “reply” (or just “R”) in a newsgroup automatically included the text of the message replied to, literally, except that each original line was prefixed by “> ”. If you wanted to react to only specific parts of the message, you edited the rest out. This was very common, and not done “especially to emphasize what was said and make fun of the person”.  --Lambiam 12:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if modern usage might be at least partly based on caricature of the old format, or at least deliberate use of an archaic style to evoke associations of "how those old folks used to say things". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think they still use the old e-mail/news quoting and indentation format with the symbol. The modern uses are simply an extension of quoting where the quoted text is mocked rather than merely replied to. Another common habit is quoting text and replying with the one word "this!" to indicate agreement. Equinox ◑ 14:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that quoted text can be being mocked or agreed with ("this!") or disagreed with or just discussed (if John uses a phrase and you quote just that phrase and say "let's unpack this..." and talk about the assumptions that went into his choice of phrase), makes me doubt that "quoting, but to mock" should be a separate sense from "quoting". I mean, the "ubuntu is better than debian" usex could be done with quotation marks instead, and it seems like we don't treat "quoting a phrase to mock it" as distinct from "quoting" at " " (though we do cover scare quotes). So I would drop/merge that sense. No? My suspicion is that Equinox is right that the other senses are Translingual, but I'm having a hard time finding examples, even when I try search engines like SymbolHound that allow searching for punctuation. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the dogs > cats example is present in both sections is also redundant. - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"My Y"

What is meant by Y here:

2021 May 17, Jane E. Brody, “A Birthday Milestone: Turning 80!”, in The New York Times‎^[10], →ISSN:

When a 50ish woman at my Y learned that I was about to turn 80, she exclaimed, […]

We have YMCA/YWCA but that's a youth organisation? – Jberkel 15:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think most YMCAs in America are open to people of all ages. Without further context, I would certainly understand Y in that sentence to refer to the YMCA where the speaker goes swimming or engages in other exercise. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps the entry at Y needs an additional noun POS for "YMCA (branch)". It's given as proper noun (“the Y”). – Jberkel 16:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I say a sense is also missing for YMCA, which can refer not only to a specific international youth organization or a local branch, but also to any location maintained by a branch of this organization, offering such facilities as a fitness room, a swimming pool, and sports courts. In the latter senses it is a count noun (“There are thousands of YMCAs in the US”). If we read about couples that met “at the Y(MCA)”,^[11] their meeting will have taken place at one of these service locations.  --Lambiam 13:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Y could also refer to those facilities maintained by YMHA/YWHA. I don't know whether there are (or were) other Young Men's/Women's [your religion here] Associations. DCDuring (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There are Young Men's Buddhist Associations in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, but I don't know whether they have sports facilities that get referred to as "the Y". —Mahāgaja · talk 09:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

defendere

The two sections of the latin definition both point to the same root word ( defendo ) and should be merged, right? 2A01:C22:A470:800:D9B:F3DC:5C6E:8E40 13:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, because the first section is for dēfendēre with a long penultimate vowel and the second section is for dēfendere with a short penultimate vowel. But the entry didn't actually reflect that until I fixed it just now. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the entry did reflect the difference until an anon broke it last week. At any rate, it's fixed now. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks :) Good job I checked! 2A01:C22:A470:800:19D9:FA45:39C7:FFF0 16:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of cèilidh

The entry gives /'kʰʲe:.li:/, yet Wikipedia would seem to indicate that è is /ɛ:/ and é is /e:/, so cèidligh would be /'kʰʲɛ:.li:/. Which is correct? I seem to remember reading somewhere that Scottish Gaelic orthography at some point completely replaced acute accents with grave accents, is there any truth to this? MGorrone (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

/ˈkʲʰeː.li/ is right. The word was formerly spelled céilidh, and yes, Gaelic no longer uses the acute accent, so ⟨è⟩ and ⟨ò⟩ are now ambiguous between /eː/ and /ɛː/ and between /oː/ and ~ /ɔː/ respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. I guess it's time for Wikipedia to revise that page :). MGorrone (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

steel oneself

Is this correct? Couldn't we define this at steel with a {{lb|reflexive}} label? Imetsia (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's just sense 2 of steel#Verb. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It could be made a redirect to the specific sense. DCDuring (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

female hysteria

Is it typical that the page female hysteria fails to mention the uterine etymology unlike hysteria? Henstepl (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Henstepl: Yes. Since the head includes a link to the to female and hysteria it is expected that if readers are interested in the origin of hysteria that they will click on the link. When it is expected that a good number of readers will confused about why a word is part of a compound, as is the case for Dutch treat, a short description of the etymology is sometimes given. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: That's an excellent example and I'm glad you brought it up. But I feel there's a distinction here: "Dutch treat" leaves me wondering, why Dutch? But it's commonplace for people to even know "hysterectomy" without making a "hysteria" connection, and are just as likely to stop clicking further as if it were "female craziness". If they think they've reached an end point, they're going to miss out. Henstepl (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Since hysteria now has a common meaning divorced from the uterine sense, I think it's worth expanding on the etymology in the female hysteria entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

尼

尼#Etymology_4; RFV for modern pronunciations:

Are the Mandarin/Cantonese pronunciations given there accurate? Since the reading doesn't seem productive any longer except in certain technical glossaries such as 阻尼 (zǔní, “damping, as in physics”), which seems to always follow the ní reading in Mandarin, which reading(s) should be used there in the Pronunciation section?

• Example: 阻尼器 from a news anchor in Taiwan (Youtube).

--Frigoris (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of Italian afferrare

I believe that the etymology for Italian afferrare is not the Latin word ‘ferrum’, iron, as currently shown.

Rather, I think this word comes from the Latin word ‘adfero’/‘affero’. I think a few minutes of research might support this fairly well.

I am not, however, confident in the coding and not familiar with the etiquette, so I come here to say this.

Billwhite123 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that what the etymology section already reflects. It currently states that the word is inherited from Vulgar Latin "adferrāre," which is itself derived from the Latin word "ferrum." And this is also backed up by Italian dictionaries, who give (small variations on) the same etymology. Imetsia (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin *adferrō (“grasp”), spelled with ⟨rr⟩, is not related to Classical Latin afferō (“bring forth”), spelled with a single ⟨r⟩. According to Treccani, the adjective afferente is inherited from the present participle afferens of the latter Latin verb,^[12] and the Italian verb afferire is a bureaucratic back-formation from the adjective.^[13]

Treccani derives it from ferro, as meaning literally “to clasp an iron”, where the “iron” (ferro) is a sailor’s term for “anchor”.^[14] BTW, we have a space set aside for cogitation on etymological aspects of the Wiktionary entries, the Etymology scriptorium.  --Lambiam 12:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Did somebody say *fą̄han?? ApisAzuli (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ἕτοιμος

My Greek book says that it is 3-termination, but Wiktionary says that it is a 2-termination Dngweh2s (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

{{R:LSJ}} says it's both. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Swedish word båda

"Usage notes" says "The noun to which båda belongs will always be in definite form (plural): båda filmerna."

I'm still a learner but I think this is not true. You can say things like "båda sidor" or "båda mina föräldrar", right?

Can someone more versed confirm and make the appropriate modification?

--Betty (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Betty: You are quite right that the noun to which båda belongs will not always be in the definite form. The authoritative grammar is Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. It covers the word båda under section "Pronomen § 129" on Volume 2, page 377-8, which says:

§129. Attributiv funktion. I attributiv funktion står båda, bägge normalt i en definit nominalfras. I sin egentliga totalitetsbetydelse placeras pronomenet först i nominalfrasen, framför eventuellt definit attribut. Som totalitetspronomen är då båda, bägge betonade.

båda böckerna

båda de andra nya böckerna

båda de här böckerna

båda de två böckerna

båda min brors böcker

Båda, bägge kan också placeras efter possessivattribut med bibehållen betoning och totalitetsbetydelse (liksom fallet är vid andra totalitetspronomen)

min brors båda böcker

But note, however, that it is the possessive (min brors ...) that in this case causes it to be indefinite. Compare the following examples: de två böckerna ("the two books"), de här två böckerna ("these two books"), dessa två böcker ("these two books"), mina två böcker ("my two books"). The first two of these examples have the noun in the definite form, the last two in the indefinite. Gabbe (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gabbe: Many thanks. Maybe you could edit the page of båda and make the wording more precise? (Because I don't think I'm qualified to edit.) Also, you can say "båda sidor" although there is no possessive here, right? Maybe it is an exception. --Betty (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That particular example (båda sidor) is covered in a footnote on the page I cited above. It says

I vissa halvt lexikaliserade förbindelser av båda eller bägge + substantiv kan nominalfrasen ha indefinit form: {båda/bägge} sidor, {båda/bägge} håll m.fl. Med samma innebörd kan då alternativt ordet ömse användas vid en del substantiv.

In other words, there is an exception for that particular phrase (and a few others like it). A more grammatically stringent variant of the phrase på båda sidor would be på båda sidorna. In terms of altering the "usage notes" to be more in line with what I've said above, I think that would be too complicated. The "usage notes" section is meant for brief remarks, not a long and winding detour into the intricacies of grammar. So I'll just remove it outright instead. Gabbe (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

English demonstrably

An old issue this is, but I would like to know which definition looks better, this or the altered one? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 23:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The older one is demonstrably better in at least one respect: the altered one is ungrammatical. But neither one is convincing. “Hillary Clinton won the 2016 elections by a landslide” is demonstrably false. Is this claim false “in such a manner as to be capable of being proved”? No, it is false in such a manner as to be capable of being disproved. But the statement that the claim is false is demonstrable. So demonstrably is not an adverb of manner, but a modal adverb. I’d use an {{ngd}}: Used as a modal adverb to assert that that the indicated statement is demonstrable.  --Lambiam 12:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest "In a demonstrable manner; obviously, undeniably." — SGconlaw (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have to resort to a non-gloss definition. Other dictionaries don't. Definitions exist that are substitutable. And there are synonyms. DCDuring (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Words for curry (dish) in languages of India

I noticed we're missing most of these, even though the dish originates from the region. Is anyone knowledgeable? —Rua (mew) 19:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Although we do not list the sense, there is evidence^[15] that Hindi करी (karī) (Urdu کری) is also used with this sense.  --Lambiam 11:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently kadhi / कढ़ी (kaṛhī) is the same thing. We haven’t defined curry well, but according to Wikipedia “Kadhi is a popular gram flour curry” so at least it is a special case of curry, perhaps the original. Which may be all the reason why we have the Gujarati term for both. Fay Freak (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

entry for Russian word "применим" is incomplete

The Russian word применим is listed only in the sense of first-person plural future indicative perfective of {l|ru|примени́ть}. However, it can also be the short form of the adjective {l|ru|применимый}. I'm not sure how to make this change, given my imperfect knowledge of both Russian and Wiktionary. — This unsigned comment was added by AlanUS (talk • contribs) at 18:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

By looking how it is done with other short forms, e.g. по́лон (pólon). Fay Freak (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

etc. symbol

Hi. I came across a symbol in an old book. Is it just a normal ampersand in a fancy font, or a whole other symbol? Upforhim (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ampersand? --Akletos (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Upforhim: Yes, it's an ampersand. According to w:Ampersand#History it's specifically an italic ampersand. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

anti-Semitism#Usage notes: "a Semitic race" — Race? What?

Discussion moved from Talk:anti-Semitism#Race? What?.

I mean Semite is a linguistic group, it doesn't rely on race. Who still refers to race? — This unsigned comment was added by 138.88.18.245 (talk).

Zoologists and mycologists still do, though the term is increasingly unfashionable, even when referring to, say, birds or mildews. DCDuring (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I generally consider it ill-advised to use race without due qualification, but the relevant text is "apparently considering them to constitute a Semitic race" so that clearly describes some people's supposed beliefs without implying that these beliefs are true. To answer your question, millions of Americans still seem to believe that race is a biological reality and similar views are not unheard of among European speakers of English either. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

gum up the works

An IP created this, and defined it as a synonym of throw a spanner in the works. Is this right? 212.224.226.12 23:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In my view there may be a distinction in that 'gum up the works' may be slightly more common in a literal-like sense of reference to an actual machine being subverted (not necessarily with gum) than 'throw a spanner/wrench in the works', which is seems on balance usually more metaphorical; this is seemingly illustrated by the examples provided here: [16] [17] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Throwing a spanner is disrupting something, while "gumming" suggests halting progress. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Equinox, I'd first learned the expression throw a wrench in the gears, and later learned that Am. E. wrench == UK E. spanner. My understanding of both throw a wrench in the gears and throw a spanner in the works is as a metaphor for causing a process to stop -- either a complete halt, or as a delay before resuming later. So as I learned the expressions, this seems to broadly align with the sense expressed by gum up the works. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

English equivalent of Japanese 伏線回収, related to foreshadowing:

"X is a foreshadow (伏線), which is later reintroduced into affairs, revealing Y (回収)". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Arguably, the Japanese expression is two terms. Why not use two terms in English, then? Especially if a single one isn't available. How about just "foreshadowing and the reveal"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eirikr: "Reveal" doesn't feel satisfying or right. フラグ回収 is essentially similar, and "reveal" is even less satisfying (if フラグ is translated literally, at least: "flag and reveal?"). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: As I've understood the Japanese phrasing, 回収 (kaishū) is understandable literally as "recalling" or "recovering" the loose plot or character thread introduced by the earlier foreshadowing, but translating that directly into English produces nothing terribly meaningful. I'm accustomed to hearing the term "reveal" used as a noun in showbiz-y kinds of contexts, hence my word choice. Curious what other ideas there are for this.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

neder (Swedish)

Isn't the first vowel long in this word? Glades12 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is a perfect rhyme with leder (as in, "Herren leder mig"). Mårtensås (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)