Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/March

< Wiktionary:Tea room

Homophony edit

Are Johnson and Jonson homophones? If so, then Johnsonian and Jonsonian also have to homophones, right? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French dévisser edit

Dévisser, defined as "to unscrew, undo", needs a new sense. Le Monde writes of the ruble plunging in value: "Le rouble dévisse, une filiale européenne d’une banque russe a fait faillite. ... Le rouble, qui était déjà en recul de 60 % depuis 2014, dévisse : dans la matinée, il avait perdu plus de 20 % face au dollar." An older headline says "Wall Street dévisse devant la menace d’une invasion imminente de l’Ukraine", which would appear in English financial reporting as "Wall Street retreats..." TLFi has a sense "s'en aller, partir", marked as "arg. et pop". Would it be correct to add a new definition "go away; retreat"? And since it is used in a serious newspaper, without a slang or informal label? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be something like "come unglued" or "fall apart", or perhaps the sense marked "Alpinisme" at TLFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in the figurative sense with the meaning “to decrease drastically”. --2A01:E0A:B69:5160:25EF:8C55:DABB:7E56 09:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More idiomatic: “drop sharply”[1][2] or “plummet”.[3][4] This is sense 4 at the French Wiktionary, a figurative use of the mountaineering sense.  --Lambiam 11:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I expanded the definition. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish embarazado edit

The word embarazado (embarazada) has under usage notes the statement that it is a false friend and does not mean "embarrased". However this does seem to be wrong as far as I know, at least I found in a book the sentence "Él apartó la vista, embarazado." And there it clearly means something very similar to embarrased (and not pregnant). RAE also has a entry supporting that. MrBeef12 (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

morning grouch edit

Does this deserve an entry? Feels like a fixed expression to me, particularly because time of the day + grouch cannot be combined at will. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, yes. Describes this only the person (viz. Morgenmuffel) or is this some you come have? ApisAzuli (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks tranparently SoP to me. DCDuring (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: if it was transparent I wouldn't have to ask what it means. And indeed, "A grouch is an early morning complaint." (The Rifle Telegram, Volume 10, Number 43, December 12, 1913; via elephind.com). ApisAzuli (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All 10 links that you refer to [5] are by an obscure Colorado coffee company back in 1913 called Morey’s, they only say that a grouch is a morning complaint because they’re advertising coffee to wake you up in the morning, in reality it’s simply a complaint. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally expect grouch to refer to a person ("a grouchy person"), so I was slightly surprised that, according to our entry, it could also mean "a complaint". Morning shouldn't require lookup. So, the NP could mean either morning complaint or morning complainer. There are a limited number of ways of combining an attributive noun with an other noun, so the interpretation can't be hard. In fact morning is commonly used attributively, usually with an interpretation such as "in the morning", "for mornings", or "on mornings". Final resolution depends on context. I don't know why we would have to have an entry for every collocation in which a less common meaning of a word is used. A dictionary provides means to interpret speech, not a definitive interpretation for every possible collocation in every possible context. DCDuring (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the links that have the collocation 'morning grouch', I see that grouch could also be defined as "grouchiness", which would probably prove to be uncountable. DCDuring (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

鉤十字 edit

I've stumbled across this entry 鉤十字. In the entry it's being claimed that it's being used to describe the counter-clockwise swastika.

However other sources claim it's used more for the clockwise swastika with reference to Wikipedia pages that have no citations either.

http://www.edrdg.org/jmdictdb/cgi-bin/entr.py?svc=jmdict&sid=&e=2145767

I agree that it sounds like a direct translation of the German word, but it would be great if a (near) native speaker can confirm that it's actually used this way or not. I'd assume for the normal counter-clockwise swastika usually a "manji" would be used, so I heavily doubt that the entry is correct.

This link also implies that it refers to the clockwise swastika: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%89%A4%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97-459688 — This unsigned comment was added by Littlefighter19 (talk • contribs).

Special:MobileDiff/65967037 edit

Do these words really rhyme with -aɪf, besides -aɪv? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. There's word-final-consonant devoicing that's found in several languages and dialects in a certain area in central and eastern Europe- which may explain why they might think they do. Only non-native speakers with very strong accents and the people who imitate them to make fun of those accents ever pronounce English like that. I reverted all of those edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to surround edit

I don't understand the first definition. "to encircle something or simultaneously extend in all directions"? PUC – 19:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it should be "extend from it". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that encircle seems to imply an active agent, whereas extend seems to just evoke an area or something on such an area. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The synonyms don't look like good synonyms to me. Some of the definitions seem to include different contexts, without making it clear. MWOnline has six definitions to our three. We (and MWOnline) omit the early meaning, closely related to the etymology: "to inundate". DCDuring (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German -nahme / Nahme edit

German compound verbs with "nehmen" usually form their verbal nouns in "Nahme", which however doesn't exist as a simplex. I want to create an entry because we have to link to it in surface analyses (as under Inbetriebnahme). Should the lemma be "Nahme" or "-nahme"? And if the latter, should it be called a noun or a suffix? 178.4.151.86 20:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why, it is attested. But recent formations are not compounds with it nor understood as suffixed, so I think you should create neither—except of course the attested simplex; I mean words like Inbetriebnahme derive from neither. It is a diffix, and if you search our discussions about how we implement transfixes then you find out that we aren’t currently doing anything with those as this is technically difficult. Fay Freak (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it attested in that spelling and with that gender as a use (rather than a mention) other than in one occurrence in the Corpus Constitutionis Brandenburgensis Culmbac? Please note that German Name, like English name, derives from Proto-Indo-European *h₁nómn̥, whereas the suffix -nahme corresponds to the verb nehmen, from the unrelated root *nem-.  --Lambiam 11:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it must be possible to create such an entry even if it is not attested. But okay, thanks for the hint that it actually does exist as a simplex. I've created it under "Nahme" and added three quotes. 178.4.151.86 13:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a simplex, it's a preterite verb stem, ich nahm-. ApisAzuli (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more explicit why you think it is OK to override our criteria for inclusion?  --Lambiam 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre comments. Nobody has overwritten and nobody would have by disregarding the exact spelling. Can’t have terms at random places depending on the spelling, but rather at the spellings expected according to recent rules, as also hints Wiktionary:About German#Spelling. (And yes, we do have words only attested from audio.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When and where did I say I found it "OK to override inclusion criteria"? I said that if these criteria made it impossible to create entries of this kind, then I found them too narrow. (They're not Revelation, are they?) But fortunately it was possible in this case to circumvent all problems by creating the entry for the attested simplex. 178.4.151.86 12:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a simplex, and even if it were it wouldn't achieve the paradoxical goal, that is explaining inherited compounds as synchronic constructions from a word that is so rare that it will probably not pass RfV. The first two quotes are inadmissable in my humble opinion. The third one is difficult to judge, at any rate not enough evidence by itself. ApisAzuli (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're being rather silly. 178.4.151.86 11:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to change like seasons edit

Worthy of an entry? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even seem like normal English. Does that absence of a determinative make it seem idiomatic? I don't think most similes are dictionary-worthy, possibly not even collocation-inclusion-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

retarded edit

Hello all- I have recently worked on the retarded page usage note, but I wanted to get some more looks from the good editors at the state of that usage note. I'm sure it could be improved. Feel free to revert or remove what I added. The original wording seemed too strong for me; I may have overcorrected. It is a potentially volatile topic to discuss, so I plan not to participate any further and leave it to your wisdom, but I wanted to see that we did that usage note justice. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how the editors here (Americans in the main?) are more interested in waging the culture war than in the language itself... We are getting to the point where it would make sense to close down all US universities. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:9CD9:99FB:17E9:6952 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative The sentence about it being a “common schoolhouse jibe in the recent past”, feels too much like an overcorrection and that it absolves the offensive usage, and so, I would just remove that sentence entirely. There are many offensive words that have been used in schoolhouse jibes like f*g, but that does not mean that it should be added to every word that’s offensive. AG202 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the "Z" used in Russian social media, or is it too insignificant? edit

Recently, in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, supporters of Putin put up "Z" in their online accounts in honour of Russian tanks using the Latin letter "Z" 9for "zapad" or "westward") for going to Ukraine.

Can we include its usage in Z, or is it too insignificant? I am sorry if this causes any trouble, and I'm not sure if it has any worth here.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically two separate questions we could split this into:
  • Is it the kind of lexical item that would be worthy of an entry here?
  • Does it meet attestation criteria currently?
In regards to the first point, I might compare it to symbols like ✝, ✡, 卐, ☭, etc. which we do have entries for despite not being words per se. They are all characters used to represent ideologies. Those examples are definitely used translingually, while I don't know whether the "Z" symbol would count as translingual. It at least seems like it could be used in any language, but I don't know about its attested usage. Maybe people have used it as a word too, like "Z supporters", "the Z agenda", or whatever, in which case you might want to add it as a proper noun, noun, etc. as appropriate.
Regarding the second point, I'm pretty confident that it would not yet have appeared in many printed books. But it has appeared in newspapers and the like, including in print editions I am sure. And it has definitely been used online, which we now allow as valid attestation in certain (TBD) cases. So it would pass, but only as a {{hot word}}. 70.172.194.25 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody even knows the meaning of those symbols yet. The meaning "west" is only one theory, the other is a type of vehicles or group of vehicles types. Also, there are both 'Z' and '[Z]' . I have read at least three versions so far. The symbols are Z, [Z], /, O, V, X, A.
Yes, unfortunately, its 'Z' that has become a symbol for pro-war Russian zealots and brainwashed vatniki. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think no for the reason at Talk:8:46. It is a symbol that happens to be approximated well in unicode rather than a word carrying meaning. If next month we have people writing "Israel Z-ed some Palestinians" or "An anti-Z protest turned violent" then we can talk about a hot word sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think people treat the symbol as being identical to the Latin alphabet letter, not as something similar to it. For example, news anchors would pronounce it as "zee" or "zed" or (in Russian) "зет". 70.172.194.25 00:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. attestation I feel reminded of WF adding onomatopoeia sourced from a cartoon, if anyone had pictures. The description in palers is obviously no independend work. ApisAzuli (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What language would it be? There seems to be no letter in Cyrillic that looks like Z. So would it be English? Translingual? Equinox ◑ 02:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent for Russian terms with Latin characters, e.g. d-кварк and витамин B2. It could be Translingual or English, though, depending on how it's actually attested. 70.172.194.25 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's appearing as alternate spelling in caps in the middle of words. ApisAzuli (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Translingual Z, because it seems like Putin supporters in various countries and languages are using it. Of course, it may not be used in enough of the right places to meet CFI. (Btw, there is also a short thread about this on Talk:Z.) - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or the Z of World War Z.  --Lambiam 08:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility is a reference to Japan's codename for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take it your two comments are about the origin / why Z was used? My comment, responding to Equinox's, is only about what language it is (Translingual, as opposed to English). - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of it being used, not to speak of it appearing durably, are rigged by state interventions though. Despite the “true” (arread to be logistical) meaning being obscure, it is now convincingly argued that using this sign in Germany is a criminal offence. Yet these very arguments, the mentions are of course good evidence of a word. If a court bans a rapper to use certain words, as has happened in the UK, this makes the need for inclusion in the dictionary as manifest as can be. In fact, why wouldn’t the very act of arguing against a word or forbidding it not count as a use? It is droll—prescription to use a word, appearing as an attempt to introduce usage, does not make a dictionary entry valid, while prescription not to use a word, is generally valid. Fay Freak (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per cent edit

Both this page and the percent page state that per cent is a dated form. The label has it as Commonwealth English, but the ngram for the British English corpus shows that per cent is still the dominant form in the context in which it is labelled. (Although the trend is towards percent.) SpinningSpark 14:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it’s not dated in general but there does seem to be a dated sense, namely using ‘per cent’ or ‘per cents’ to refer to the noun sense of ‘percents’ (ie. ratios or proportions) and even some instances on GoogleBooks of things like ‘three per cents’ to mean ‘bonds with an annual return of three percent interest’. Perhaps this is what the qualifier was getting at (or maybe this fact could be included in a separate usage note)? Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve now added the financial definition. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona edit

This has probably been discussed to death before but I noticed that all of Toki Pona's terms are in their own seperate area/appendix. Opinions on just making it a full fledged language on here? Since Esperanto and Ido are both also con-langs and yet have their place with the 'big-boys'. Again I'm still new here so if there is some precedent as to why it isnt included please just clue me in :) FishandChipper (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the policy. It doesn't have any specific criteria for admitting new conlangs to mainspace, it merely explicitly lists the few conlangs that are already allowed there. It would probably require a vote / community consensus to change. Here is a relevant discussion.
Note that, although not an official policy-based metric for judging conlangs (since we have none), there seem to be only two published books in, rather than about, Toki Pona: [6], [7], and they are both by the same author. Most other content in the language is just on blogs or fora or PDFs, etc. and does not meet our standards for durability. I was surprised by the lack of printed material in the language since it is so well-known. 70.172.194.25 23:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok fair enough, I guess even though it is becoming more well known i doubt anyone looking up words in Toki Pona wouldn't already know what Toki Pona is. Also I'm pretty sure someone translated Moby Dick into Toki Pona once but thats besides the point. Hopefully some day in the future Toki Pona will have its day in the sun too. Until then, pona! FishandChipper (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Moby Dick translation actually exist? I'd be curious to see it. All I found was a comment by someone stating that they could translate it into Toki Pona. Anyway, there are plenty of works in the language, almost all of which only exist as digital files. But the same could be said for a lot of conlangs. 70.172.194.25 08:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you found that comment under a video made by the most superficial commentator on con-langues since the idiotic B. Gilson? FishandChipper (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be supportive of including Toki Pona. It's apparently the most widespread conlang in contemporary online use behind Esperanto. Of course trends in conlangs come and go, but it can always be dumped back in the Appendix if it falls into obscurity. The lexicon is (famously) very small and the effort of maintaining it in mainspace would be low. This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pam edit

Should we have a definition in Pam that says cooking spray? Pam is commonly used as a generic term for cooking spray. It is commonly used even when the cooking spray is a different brand. "Spray the pan with Pam" is commonly said in cooking instructions. There are plenty of Google Books hits for "spray the pan with Pam" they mean cooking spray of any brand, not specifically Pam cooking spray.2600:1700:E660:9D60:AC96:9740:7191:4107 23:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find enough sources that unambiguously use Pam to mean cooking spray generically then please do. I’ve just tried to find the evidence myself but there’s nothing unambiguous that I can see (they could just be referring to the actual brand). Calling cooking spray ‘Pam’ would seem to be a purely American phenomenon - I don’t use cooking spray personally but some internet sleuthing reveals that the overwhelmingly prevalent brand in the U.K is called ‘Frylight’ (made by Saputo Dairy UK). On a related note, perhaps lard oil, lard compound and compound lard deserve entries? The terms seem to be too technical to be SOP. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use here, in lower case and as a mass noun, seems generic.  --Lambiam 11:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Good find! Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

marinate edit

Marinate is also a term used in the Among Us game when you stick with a crewmate role as an impostor role so they think you are safe. The term has been used by many people for about 1 and a half years. Should this be added as another definition? If so, I don't really know how to do so, so someone else may need to add it. — This unsigned comment was added by DemonStalker (talk • contribs) at 18:54, 9 March 2022.

Depends on whether it's sufficiently attested by our standards. I added one academic article that used the term to Citations:marinate; three quotations are required, ideally from books, periodicals, and similar sources. There are plenty of online articles and comments that use the term ([8], [9], [10]), but our current policy/practice is unclear on whether such sources are good enough to support the inclusion of a word. Just a few months ago that would have been a definite no, but now the situation is a bit muddled since we can choose to allow web sources to back up the existence of a word on a case-by-case basis, but there are no precedents or guidelines for what online sources are valid (compare sniddy, dorcassing).
(By the way, to any observers: this isn't covered by WT:FICTION since it refers to an out-of-universe strategy used by players and is not an element of a fictional universe.) 70.172.194.25 19:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Одесса edit

I was looking at this placename to check the palatalisation of the d - some speakers have a hard d - and noticed the etymology. The Odessos Greek colony it is named after was not in Asia Minor, but in Varna, Bulgaria. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:9CD9:99FB:17E9:6952 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a pitched battle edit

  • pitched : "fought from predetermined positions at a specified time and place")
  • pitched battle : "involving sustained, full-scale fighting between opposing forces in close combat"

First of all, the definition(s) should probably be in only one place (if the sense exists outside the phrase pitched battle then it belongs at pitched and the first sense of pitched battle should start with {{&lit}}; if the sense does not exist outside that phrase, it shouldn't be at pitched). Second, the discrepancy between the two lists of characteristics should be resolved, although probably by labelling one {{lb|en|historical}} or combining them into one definition that explains the historical evolution, rather than by just removing one... the definition at pitched seems more accurate to a medieval battle, scheduled for a particular place and time, whereas I can find references to two modern military forces accidentally running into each other in the jungle etc and descending into a pitched battle in the sense defined at that entry. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit inconsistent, I can’t find much evidence of the term being used to mean a skirmish but perhaps it’s possible that there’s a verb sense for pitch missing that corresponds with the noun sense of pitch that we currently have under Etymology 2 sense 5, in other words ‘the distance between evenly spaced objects’? If there’s a verb sense meaning ‘to evenly space apart’ then that could explain the way that pitched battle refers to a set battle where opposing troops fight each other. The following link [11] claims that pitched tents, as well as troops pitched against each other, were originally evenly spaced apart - only for the meaning to change so that people ‘pitch’ tents even when they assemble them in a less organised and even fashion, though I’m not sure I believe their theory. Either way, we could do with a definition of ‘pitch’ relating to troops being ‘pitched’ against each other in battle and then pitched battle would arguably be SOP (though I’d vote to keep it, as it would be using a fossilised sense of ‘pitch’ not used much in other expressions). Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't imagined it'd be a sense of pitch#Verb. I think (whether there's a verb or not) it's a sense of pitched#Adjective, since there can be a google books:"pitched fight", google books:"pitched skirmish", etc, a google books:"very pitched battle", and it's gradable, [nowhere is the] google books:battle "more pitched than", "this evolutionary arms race is even more pitched than that", etc. So, thinking about this some more, I guess we should add {{&lit}} to the start of definition 1 of pitched battle, though in cases like this where there's only one or two literal senses, I've become inclined to let the definition stay, after a comma or colon after the {{&lit}}, so that we're conveying both that the meaning is still decently widely used in modern language outside this one phrase, but also what the meaning is (for people who want tot keep the entry where it is). (Although... some of the "more pitched than" cites seem to be using definition 2, i.e. that definition is also found as pitched outside the phrase pitched battle, so maybe the whole entry is SOP.) But that still requires deciding how to word the definition to reflect the evolution of senses currently spread over the two entries. - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s interesting to see that there seems to have been a recent semantic shift from pitched meaning something like ‘positioned/organised’ to ‘heated’, judging by some of the GoogleBooks hits you’ve mentioned (perhaps this usage is influenced by the fact that tensions between the warring sides reach a fever pitch?). I can find 8 instances where the word pitched is used in the same sense that it is in pitched battle where the word battle doesn’t appear in the KJV [12] - I’d say that most of those instances sound rather archaic to me but pitched still survives with this meaning in the phrase pitched against each other (and the earliest example I can find in GoogleBooks is from an English book written in 1807 [13], so it clearly didn’t originate as a baseball metaphor). It looks like the word was (is?) also used to mean ‘sold from a market pitch (noun sense 8) [14]Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about but notice that field seems synonymous in senses that I am not familiar with. ApisAzuli (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, batalha campal is given as translation. ApisAzuli (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the Portuguese translation would literally mean ‘battle on a field’. While it’s undoubtedly true that this is equivalent in meaning to ‘pitched battle’, it may be a coincidence that ‘pitch’ can mean ‘field’ when referring to sports - it is also possible that troops are figuratively ‘pitched’ (as in ‘thrown’) against each other by their commanders. My mention of tents being pitched referred to a dubious suggested etymology that appeared in a book in GoogleBooks. It does seem that there’s an archaic sense of ‘pitch’ meaning ‘field’ even when not talking about sports though - see the following instance of an Irish book from 1845 referring to the ‘pitch of battle’ rather than the ‘field of battle’ [15]. Regardless of the etymology of pitched battle we need a sense of the pitch#verb which relates to troops being pitched against each other though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The -ed could as well be a backformation after the verb, from something else. Given German verabreden etc. (ab-), and supposedly the same root in fall, the closest comparison I can come up with is in fight, Gefecht etc., which is usually thought to be uncertain of origin. The plosive would repreyent an archaism that's difficult to explain. Note that I have heared date as euphemism for a violent challenge, or duel, which has otherwise only the romantic sense in German. I'd argue that Pacht (from pax) might belong here as well ... if I understand correctly, I suppose. ApisAzuli (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what the relationship of pitch to any of the words you’ve mentioned is, if any, but I’ve just created new senses of pitch#Verb and pitch#Noun. The phrase pitched battle almost certainly derives from one of these senses rather than any of the pitched#Adjective senses (as the idea that if a battle or skirmish is more intense it’s more pitched only came about later). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Common / proper nouns in Japanese edit

I see in the archives some discussion of common nouns versus proper nouns in English (e.g. Shrovetide, various slang terms), but didn't see discussion of other languages. Sorry if I missed it.

Removing the 'Noun' heading from entries such as Japanese マゼラン (Proper noun: Magellan; noun: (s.t.) Magellanic) seems to me unhelpful, in that it removes potentially important information. A マゼランガン, for instance, is not a wild goose with the surname Magellan.

What do others think? Cnilep (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish bowl, Eirikr, Suzukaze-c, Bendono, Poketalker, Justinrleung, TAKASUGI Shinji

By way of comparison, I note that the entry at English Magellan has no ===Noun=== section, and only ===Proper noun===, despite similar use in English as in Magellanic Cloud or Magellan goose. Should we not follow suit in the entry at Japanese マゼラン? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand what's being asked. If "Magellan" on its own means "Magellanic Cloud" or "Magellan goose" ("I saw a Magellan in the sky"), either in English or Japanese, that would be a common noun, yes. But if "Magellan" is not used on its own in relation to geese, the mere fact that it occurs in the collocation "Magellan goose" or マゼランガン doesn't make it a common noun, no. A "Magellan goose" is not a goose which itself bears the surname Magellan, but it's a goose named after Magellan, a collocation formed using the proper noun Magellan. - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry; let me try to make the question more explicit. In cases where a proper noun is sometimes used as a common noun, (1a) should there be separate 'Noun' and 'Proper noun' headings, glosses, etc. in the entry for that word? (1b) And if the answer is not obvious, what factors should the decision be based on? Then, in cases where language B borrows such as word (a proper noun that is sometimes used as a common noun) from language A, (2b) should there be multiple headings in the entry for that word in language B, and (2b) where the answer is not obvious, should the decision be based on factors specific to language B (grammar, usage, meaning within language B), or some combination of language B and language A?

Meandering personal opinions from Cnilep

I can imagine arguments both for and against my question 2a (should there be multiple headings). On one hand, the fact that a form is used both for specific, proper-noun referents (i.e. マゼラン “English surname Magellan; esp. Portuguese explorer Fernão de Magalhães”) and as part of compound nouns only indirectly related to a person of that surname (e.g. マゼランガン “Magellan goose (Chloephaga picta), a bird species native to South America – a continent once explored by Magalhães”) is potentially useful information for understanding usage of マゼラン in Japanese. On the other hand, though, most people will probably be able to figure out that connection with a bit of effort, so maybe the value added is small. Personally, I would opt for giving more information by including Proper noun and Noun headings, but as I said, I can imagine and appreciate why someone might opt for the opposite.

I also find myself thinking about personal names such as Hoover (hoover my flat “use a vacuum cleaner”) or Ford that are sometimes used as genericized trademarks (I think? e.g. ‘Tío, si eres un Ford Focos de mierda.’ “‘Old man, you're a damn Ford Focus.’” [I don't really know what that means, but someone wrote it on Facebook.]), and are certainly used as names for actual products (e.g. un Ford Taurus modelo 2002 “A 2002 Ford Taurus”), but such thoughts don't bring me closer to any obvious conclusion.

Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being used as a common noun? I saw it as attributive use of the surname. Something similar would be animals called 日本○○. —Fish bowl (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Fish bowl says, the question is: is it (not a longer string containing it, but it itself) used as a common noun? If someone says, "I saw three mallards and two Magellans", where "Magellan" means "upland goose (Chloephaga picta)", that's a common noun. If "マゼラン" (on its own, not followed by ガン or other word for bird) means "Magellan goose", then "マゼラン" is a common noun, but if you always have to say "マゼランガン", then no, what content even go in a common noun entry マゼラン? Just the list of longer compounds it occurs in? I'm inclined to agree with Fish bowl that those can just go under the relevant proper noun sense. The part of speech of a compound doesn't apply backwards to its constituent parts; the existence of the noun "white-throated kingfisher" does not make "white-throated" a noun. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are good and convincing arguments. I am still a bit bothered by cases where マゼラン relates to Magellanic rather than Magellan. I don't think one can say either *Magellan cloud in English or *マゼラン的雲 in Japanese. These are minor niggles, though, and perhaps better thought of as part of the derivational process rather than elements of the component lexemes. Thanks, everyone! Cnilep (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Belated commentary...)
I think the マゼラン (Mazeran) → Magellanic discrepancy could be accounted for as a translation difference, and a difference in how the respective languages deal with compounds. The English will often turn an attributive noun into an attributive adjective instead, as we see with the addition of the -ic here. Japanese is often happy just stacking the nouns instead. Compare also canine distemper, using the explicitly adjective form canine instead of noun dog, versus 犬ジステンパー (inu jisutenpā), using the regular noun 犬 (inu) in a stack. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mojave desert edit

I love this topic, if there is anything else posted about the mojave desert can you send me a notification!? — This unsigned comment was added by Andyr41863 (talk • contribs) at 16:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Andyr41863: No. This is a dictionary, not a place to discuss anything but dictionary business. As a dictionary, we don't deal with "topics", anyway- just language. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pistanthrophobia and Proditiophobia edit

So these two words are both phobias, and though they sound similar they mean two different things.

Proditiophobia: Part of speech: Noun.

Definition: The fear of getting betrayed by someone you love.

Etymology: Word comes from the prefix proditio- and Proditiophobia in Latin means "betrayal" or "treason". -phobia comes from the Greek work Phobos, which means fear.

Pistanthrophobia: Noun.

The fear of trusting people, maybe due to past experiences or past relationships going wrong.

Etymology: -phobia comes from Phobos in Greek, meaning "fear". Idk about pistanthro. Noel The T (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pistanthro seems to come from Πιστεύω + ἄνθρωπος. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See πιστεύω (pisteúō). Or perhaps, rather, πίστ-(ις) (píst-(is)).  --Lambiam 20:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So: I created pistanthrophobia (it's silly but seems attestable). Someone else has created proditiophobia. Cite it if you can. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ edit

Questions: should we add an entry for this? Should we add a Hebrew entry for מח־שמו, which is currently only Yiddish? And my immediate interest: what's the feminine form, "may her name and memory be obliterated"? - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to be changed to שְׁמָהּ for feminine, but I'm not an expert on Hebrew. There should also be a page for the verb נִמְחָה. 70.172.194.25 01:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And the word for memory changes (because of the different possessive) too, I think. But does the verb change? Who speaks Hebrew and is still active here who might know (and perhaps be able to create an entry for the verb), maybe @The cool numel, CrescentStorm? - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ימח שמה וזכרה :) The cool numel (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fork#Verb edit

1. To divide into two or more branches or copies.

A road, a tree, or a stream forks.
1.1 (transitive, intransitive, computing) To spawn a new child process by duplicating the existing process.
1.2 (transitive, intransitive, software engineering) To split a (software) project into several projects.
1.3 (transitive, software engineering) To create a copy of a distributed version control repository.

Each of the three subsenses could be rewritten, with no loss of meaning, as:

New 2 To divide into two or more copies

2.1a/1.1a {of a computing process) To divide into two or more branches or copies
2.2a/1.2a (of a software project) To divide into two or more branches or copies
2.3a/1.3a (of a distributed version control repository) To divide into two or more branches or copies

In other words, the subsenses don't add any essential semantics, though they do introduce specific applications of the general concept. Why not add subsenses for some other collocates, like "path/route/causeway", "blockchain", (non-computer) "project", "column", "tanks", "evolution", "(sewer/distribution) system"?

This seems like yet another instance of lavishing one's attention on an application realm with which one is familiar and losing perspective on what makes a good definition, useful for all users. DCDuring (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting a process is forking it, but copying a file isn't forking it. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
branch has a specific meaning in the realm of revision-control software (which isn't intended here) so your proposed change is misleading at best. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not proposing actually replacing the three specialized definitions with the alternative definitions, but rather to show that there was nothing being added by having them. I can see that a blockchain, repository, (computing) process, or piece of software forks in the sense of "copy", whereas a path (etc.), a column (of tanks, vehicles, etc), a physical system, a tree or root system, or many other entities "branch". That makes it seem appropriate to split def. 1 into two and tentatively place the subsenses, entirely under the "copy" sense. I have done so above. That raises the question of how copying can be said to "divide" the original. From what I have seen, a fork is distinct from the original, in no way diminishes the original, and may be in some sense inferior to or weaker than the original. Dividing implies that the post-fork/divide entities are weaker, smaller than the original, at least temporarily. Is there a better word than divide?DCDuring (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen enough community drama around forks eventually ending a project that the last time this topic was discussed I had considered to fork in a sense of to knife somebody, or other instrument of death (cf. sense 13 of fork, i.e. "gallows"). Conversely,enough beginning VCS users have forked themselves in the foot so its not as if VCS provides much more control than the essential file system, which does usually allow time stamps and may be distributed across raids, networks, and off-site back-ups, the book-keeping done in pen if need be. It's just the high arrogant gits who'd say that's no version control ... this is version control. Now you tell me, a machete isn't really called a knive, is it – even if you could construe a definition to include it, the current definition does not.
The further considerations do not seem particularly useful, because you seem to have fallen for the etymological fallacy. ApisAzuli (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the definition-s of knife would seem to include the machete. It is saying a lot none the less that there are three very similar definitions, of which one type is defined by length in contradistinction to the sword – or equivalently for that matter the scope of a bunch of forks' environment. ApisAzuli (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

costus oil, costus root edit

Are these terms entry-worthy or just SoPs? They appear in Merriam-Webster. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See costus and “costus*”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Other dictionaries have those terms, though it's costusroot and not costus root. DCDuring (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew root r-v-h or r-v-v edit

There seems to be some confusion about which root applies to the word רַב (ráv, “rabbi”), and also to the words meaning "many", etc. For example, we give the rabbi sense as belonging to ר־ב־ה (r-v-h), but he.wiktionary gives ר־ב־ב (r-v-v).

Someone who knows Hebrew could take a look at the following and make sure everything is okay:

70.172.194.25 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

שׁ־ו־ם (sh-v-m) vs שׁ־ם (sh-m) might be another similar case. See Talk:שם#Root. 70.172.194.25 00:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another one: ע־ר־ר ('-r-r) vs ע־ו־ר ('-v-r). At first I thought both of the roots here (the "clock" part and the "awaken" part) were wrong. The clock part still seems wrong, following he.wiktionary, pealim.com, and our own entry for the word. But pealim.com does have both roots for "awaken": [16], [17]. Note that all the other terms we have that pealim lists under ע־ר־ר we put under ע־ו־ר anyway, like עֵר, and he.wiktionary does too, so I think it would be more consistent to use that. 70.172.194.25 05:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ע-ר-ר is a very rare root with an unrelated meaning. the root of ער is ע-ו-ר. The cool numel (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, these two roots exist at the same time, ר-ב-ה giving להתרבות, תרבות, הרבה and more and ר-ב-ב giving רב as in rabbi, the prefix רב-, in the plural רבים and רבתי. The cool numel (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Star, morning star edit

According to our entries, Morning Star means "Jesus Christ", while morning star means "Lucifer, Satan, the devil". Is this really true? If so, it would make an awesome capitonym. This, that and the other (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having investigated this I'm not convinced we need the entry Morning Star at all, even as an alt form. I'll send it to RFD. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that any sense(s) which exist, exist in both capitalizations. (The polysemy seems to be the result of competing (mis)interpretations of at least one ambiguous Bible verse.) Probably the capitalization is standard/norm and thus keepable when using it as a proper noun/proper name, though, like with God or Death. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fashion edit

Can be used as an adjective as well, right? "Very fashion" = very fashionable. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard it myself. Where seen? Equinox ◑ 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard it among non-native speakers quite a lot. But I think native speakers also use it sometimes. For example, here's two instances I found on Google Books: "Obviously, I had been working in an environment with Martin that was very fashion but at the same time so outside of the fashion realm..." "While reading the article I found myself nodding my head in that's so fashion at almost every paragraph. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animacy of Russian горгулья or гаргулья (gargoyle) edit

Moved from Talk:горгулья

This feels like one of those words where it might depend on the speaker, but can anyone shed some explicit light on why the animacy is different between https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F and here?

This page sources the Russian page, which was updated with animacy via https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Wesha's bot https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:WeshaBot, then updated with inanimacy by https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Al_Silonov.

Original update: https://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F&diff=1016182&oldid=924331 Change: https://ru.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F&diff=12099488&oldid=11853743

I don't understand Russian well enough to offer proper insight on this, personally. I've been doing an NLP research project relying on Russian for a first pass of human perception of animacy, and ran into this b/c Google Translate treats горгулья as an animate noun, which contradicts what's currently on the Russian Wiktionary page.


74.3.183.242 19:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the original poster of that message; I just forgot to sign in). That first user there should be https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Wesha Dem1995 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dem1995: In my opinion, горгу́лья (gorgúlʹja) or гаргу́лья (gargúlʹja) should be animate or should have dual animacy (both animate and inanimate). I can't find the term in dictionaries to check. Calling editors of ru:горгулья and ru:гаргулья @Al Silonov, Cinemantique, do you have a source? Also @Benwing2, Tetromino. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, PUC, Brutal Russian): + @Al Silonov, Dem1995: No takers on the subject? Here are quotes from Google books demonstrating that it can, at least be animate (only plural accusative is different between animate and inanimate)
"горгулья":
  1. Эльфийские лучники со всех сторон обсыпали горгулий стрелами, хотя многие из них встречали свою смерть в когтистых лапах ужасных существ.
  2. Два часа нести горгулий по лишенному маны пространству.
"гаргулья":
  1. Прикрывая Шигарева, они покрошили тех гаргулий, которые рвались к нему... ...
  2. Мы просто давно гаргулий не видели, – отмахнулась Мистия.
If dictionaries don't tell the accurate animacy for this term, we can go by evidence. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think animacy depends on context. Горгулья is inanimate as a medieval architectural feature, but animate as a monster in modern fantasy novels (as in all above quotations). Dictionaries probably include only the first (traditional) usage. Tetromino (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which see edit

Should we have an entry for this? It's not normal English grammar as far as I can tell. It's probably a set phrase that originates as a calque of Latin quod vide. 70.172.194.25 20:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing can occur with other verbs, e.g. "Divide the amount by the principal, and the quotient will be the amount of £1; which find under the given rate..." But, as you say, it's quite unusual. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calque of quod vide (q.v.). DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mandate edit

A discussion (so to speak) about "mandate" from acouple of years ago ended (after 4 years of silence) wuth the comment "not so bad". This is easy enough to say when you already know what a word means... but seems to me that this ought to get fixed.

The second definition is "to make mandatory"; the first definition (in Wiktionary) is "to authorize". Other sources I've checked also have "require" or "make mandatory" as the second definition. For the first definition, it seems to often be something to do with the assignment of territory.

Even the example offered for the "authorize" definition in one source, "mandating co-ed dorms" sure seems like to require to me. To my ear,the most common usage is "require", our definition doesn't reflect that. As for "authorize", that doesn't strike me as right. "Mandate" as meaning "assignment of territory" certainly should be inclufrf , it's just not number 1. Fabrickator (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are missing Roman and civil law senses and the League of Nations (historical) use for the noun. Apparently the verb senses are derived from some of the noun senses. All we need are a few citations for each definition of the noun and the verb. DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The political use of mandate (noun and verb) involves order, authorization, or demand, depending on point of view. Normally a politician or party seeks an order from the courts, or some authority to do what that politician or party wants to do. Thus, it is effectively an authorization. When the electorate or legislature votes the substance of the vote could be considered a demand by electorate etc that the executive authority do something about a situation, the something not being necessarily very specific. DCDuring (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also my definitions of German mandatieren (which correspond to as many senses of the noun Mandat). If I tinker with the English entry based on my education in civil and Roman law Equinox will get mad because it is hard to make distinctions (comprehensible to those without previous knowledge) that are not there in the usual English, Common-Law-based, categories of thinking and conversing. (Hence I made sure the definitions are connected back to German terms so the senses even have a reliable identity, but you can’t do that in the definitions for English). Fay Freak (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could take the definitions from Century 1911 and modify them. Also I've added the League of Nations senses. DCDuring (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venus edit

The conversation about Morning Star/morning star got me thinking about a vague recollection I had that Venus was used by alchemists and chemists of old to refer to one of the elements. Judging by the results for spirit of Venus, vitriol of Venus and crystals of Venus on GoogleBooks it appears it actually meant Copper, surprisingly, not Phosphorus. I may well add that to our Venus entry myself but I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I am would shine some further light on this meaning. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the page for ♀ it too says that it represents Copper so I see no reason why not to include it. FishandChipper (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve convinced me. I even considered adding a definition along the lines of ‘word signifying that a chemical compound is thought to contain copper, though sometimes used erroneously by early chemists and alchemists to refer to compounds that don’t contain copper’ but that seemed too long-winded. I’ve now added the copper definition to the Venus entry and added three very detailed quotations to explain the situation. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the horizontal stroke was pressumably added to make a christian cross, and that the symbol read as a wau(?) for Venus, in shape similar to qof, would make qof for "copper" probably coincidental. ApisAzuli (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chequer, checker edit

Both pages state that chequer is an alt form of checker "in certain senses only". Do we, uh, feel like telling readers which senses those are, or...? - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it expecteted that you read both entries which will allow distinguishing senses that are not synonymous, unless the entries go out of sync, which can happen anyway?!? In that sense, it reads almost like a note to the editor. ApisAzuli (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category for bodies of water edit

I propose the creation of Category:Waterbodies CAT:Bodies of water that should be used to categorize names (in various tongues) for ‘sea’, ‘river’, ‘lake’, ‘bay’, ‘stream’, ‘pond’, etc. At present we have Category:Water, but it’s not a category meant specifically for waterbodies, as it contains subcategories like CAT:Fog, CAT:Hydrology, CAT:Ice, CAT:Rain, and suchlike stuff related to H2O as well. For comparison, we have Category:Landforms; and rather surprisingly, words like sea currently belong to CAT:en:Landforms for want of a more proper category. (@Chuck Entz, Fay Freak, -sche, Sgconlaw) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They belong to CAT:en:Landforms because they delimit landforms, and also there are associated underwater structures: Really waterbodies are landforms with water on them. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge has water on most of it and is continued without break over water. Yet I agree with the proposed category. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fay Freak: Should the proposed category be made a subcategory of CAT:Water, or CAT:Landforms, or (if possible) both? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, though it should probably be "Bodies of water" (the more usual name). It's striking what hyperspecific areas our categories cover and what big concepts are still missing. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect waterbody is more natural in India. Fay Freak (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @-sche that "Bodies of water" seems more common. (See also "w:Body of water".) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is waterbody a rare term? On the other hand, CAT:Bodies of water would be a somewhat clumsy name for a category, methinks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’waterbody’ is about three times rarer than ‘body of water’ according to n-grams [18]. Indeed, ‘waterbody’ basically didn’t exist as a word until about 1880 and still sounds clumsier than ‘body of water’ now, imho. It would be good to create this category though, whatever name we give it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lexico is in the minority. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do we intend to include in the category? Are we aiming at popular or technical external users? Or just active contributors?
body of water appears in non-technical usage, including laws and works of popular science. It doesn't seem to include subsurface water or swamps and wetlands.
waterbody appears in technical works, including regulations. It also seems to include wetlands and subsurface bodies of water (eg, aquifers), as well as certain man-built bodies such as canals.
I don't know whether reservoirs, settling ponds, water tanks (???), etc. are included among the referents of waterbody. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, I was wondering about the need for a -nym glossary the other day, where the appropriate terminus technicus to use shall be found. It'd be good enough, because every waterbody word will appear in a name, virtually guaranteed. hydronym may be too broad for the illustrated problem, although nomen est omen. I concure thus with the speaker before me, it's an open category. That means the implied target of a list with nearly synonymous words will have to sell it short. ApisAzuli (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovophobia / Ovaphobia edit

So I found this new phobia while talking to my friends about phobias, and one of them found one about eggs. Ovophobia. (Also spelled as ovaphobia).

Here's the definition (if it were created, but citations? idk.):

Ovophobia

Part of speech: Noun

Definition: The fear of eggs.

Etymology: Idk what ovo is (when I tried the Greek word for eggs, it came up as a different result.) Phobia comes from the Greek word "Phobos", which means "fear".

Here's Ovaphobia:

Ovaphobia

Part of speech: Noun

Definition: Alternate spelling of Ovophobia. — This unsigned comment was added by Noel The T (talk • contribs) at 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Noel The T: That would be derived from Latin ovum, which goes against the standard practice of using Ancient Greek in phobia names. The etymologically correct word would be oophobia, from Ancient Greek ᾠόν (ōión).
That said, mediocre writing about the names for phobias is an industry all its own, and the perpetrators generally don't know or care whether anyone would actually use the terms in real life. Usually one of them makes up a term so they can write about it, and then all the other phobia writers repeat it as if it was a standard term that any expert would know.
Most of them know nothing about etymology or the rules for coining technical terms. For instance, paraskavedekatriaphobia (“fear of Friday the thirteenth”) is composed of two modern- not Ancient- Greek words. Ancient Greece didn't have Fridays in the modern sense: πᾰρᾰσκευή (paraskeuḗ, literally “preparation”) referred to the day before the Jewish sabbath- but strictly in Jewish religious contexts.
As a result, deletion of entries for unattested phobia names has also become something of an industry here on Wiktionary. See Appendix:English unattested phobias, and WT:CFI for the rules that determine what entries are allowed. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a made-up name for a phobia that is etymologically inexplicable is coulrophobia. Read the Usage notes for that entry.  --Lambiam 09:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Another one: aphenphosmphobia. PUC – 16:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shukusho edit

Meaning the chaff from winnowing maize (Shona language, Manicaland) Used as a surname or family name with origin from Ziduche Clan — This unsigned comment was added by Funkydee73 (talk • contribs).

sweets edit

The plural noun senses look pretty vague or poorly defined. A regional or archaic tag may be required for some senses. And which kind of drugs are sweets? VealSociedad (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book by T. C. Boyle, Sweet like candy, about somebody's Heroin abuse life story, which I was to read in English class. So I guess that for one would qualify, although if I remember correctly it does not use the word. I don't imagine the word is particular to any substance, though it might be in origin, rather an allusion to craving.
For reference just how ambiguous the slang is, I've heard ballern meaning to shoot up (in Shore, Stein, Papier, refering to Cocaine; makes some limited sense given the meaning "to shoot" of ball games, guns, also of driving) and snorting (frequently in slang in my experience, which also makes sense as cocaine is sometimes injected, more often snorted) and possibly smoking (heared once, first time I heared the word, could have been covered up in place of snorting), and I'm almost certain that böllern might be said of drinking (cp. boire perhaps; not sure if Brösel, Werner, coined Bölkstoff for beer upon this). It's especially ambiguous when novice users who smoke Schore have no clue that it is a form of heroin, and when they will use nearly anything to get a fix, eg. morphine.
I do wonder if Schore is related to score which Boyle uses throughout, i.e. to buy (to get a fix by extension, I imagine; FYI, I'm using fix a lot because fixen, Fixer was the most common euphemism in the 90s).
In particular, the habit of drug dealers hiding the illegal substance in the mouth to swallow it if searched in public spaces, and the crystaline form could inform the euphemism, and they would have an incentive to use attractive code. ApisAzuli (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confusing Boyle for Grün ist die Hoffnung (originally Budding prospects, about a Marijuana growing campaign) and Tortilla Courtain (which was read in school). Google finds Luke Davies, {{w:Candy: A Novel of Love and Addiction}}, but I'm pretty sure that the narrator was female and does not "[introduce] his beloved blonde girlfriend, Candy, to the drug". I' m utterly confused now, should have checked before posting. The rest of what I said still counts. ApisAzuli (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve found the following slang dictionary which claims that sweets are amphetamines (and candy is cocaine or heroin) candy ‘Caine is also here [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dangerous_Society/o1lHAAAAMAAJ?kptab=editions&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR8uuUrs_2AhXUEcAKHUpOD484FBCYFnoECAgQBw, nose candy appears countless times for cocaine. I also found the following mention of a pill (ecstasy?) being described as candy [19] and see the following which says that pills means amphetamines, candy means cocaine, sugar means heroin and candy man means drug dealer [20]. Also this book claims that cocaine can be simply called candy not just nose candy[21]. Here is candy man meaning drug dealer[22].
Other than that the only hits seem to be referring to ‘drug-laced sweets/candies’ and sweets which actually do contain pharmaceutical ingredients, sometimes described as candy medication. The Marquis de Sade and Cardinal Richelieu (hence ‘pastilles de Richelieu) are described as taking bonbons laced with the aphrodisiac Spanish fly and, in the case of de Sade, possibly drugging women with them. A search through GoogleBooks for like sweets and like candy yields many hits for things like popping pills like candy but I’m not sure to what extent such metaphorical uses should count towards attestation. Dr B Happy Candy pills is also a false positive as it describes a type of candy popular in America many decades ago but no longer sold commercially which was designed to look like pills but had no psychedelic/pharmaceutical/illegal contents - amazingly two boxes are currently being sold on eBay with an asking price of $60! Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot work: George R. R. Martin edit

Bot work, please: "George RR Martin" should be corrected to "George R. R. Martin" wherever it occurs: [23]. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffDoozan. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 10:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done JeffDoozan (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bradymorphic, tachymorphic edit

"Having a slow/quick body": what does this mean exactly? I think @SemperBlotto might have made a guess here, by simply looking at the etymological components. The words seem quite rare and may have specialised application. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the definitions (based on [24] and Google Books). Hvergi (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Straits" edit

Concerning the geographical term 'strait' used in various contexts, we see the Straits of Magellan, the Taiwan Straits, the Bering Straits ([25]), the Straits of Malacca ([26]), Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Gibraltar, Sunda Straits, Straits of Juan de Fuca etc. But yet in all these cases, there is seemingly only one (singular) strait. You may say "oh, well, English speaking authors (including luminaries Charles Darwin and James Fenimore Cooper- see Straits of Magellan) are just so profoundly ignorant of geography that they just don't know any better." Yes, I will agree with that in terms of the 2022 cite I added at Taiwan Straits. But my friends, I just wonder, just wonder if the 1669 cite seen at Straits of Magellan shows some kind of paradigm, parallel, pattern, pedigree and/or precedent, not of simple ignorance, but some kind of alternative intent or customary habit behind the plural here. Is 'straits' in pre-modern English something like 'pants' today? What explains this phenomenon? See also Talk:Straits of Magellan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

This is correct English usage. It has nothing to do with "Charles Darwin not knowing any better". The plural Straits with singular meaning has been standard in English since the 1400s. People who use "Strait" in the singular are the ones who don't know any better. You could ask why this has come to be. Maybe because a narrow stretch of water has many pinchpoints? Note you said "this phenomena" and not "this phenomenon". Do you know no better? 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:733E:646C:63DA:CF9D 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insight! Based on your comment and what I've learned so far, I have added a usage note to the strait page. Can't wait to learn more on this. I am goofy, clumsy and often make errors; I apologize in advance for any mistakes I will make. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
Part of that entry refers to "the Strait of Gibraltar", and then in the bit you added "the Straits of Gibraltar". The Strait of Gibraltar is just wrong. As the OED points out, there are geographical locations where Straits is the normal term (the Taiwan Straits) and others were Strait is the normal term (the Davis Strait). So you need to keep an eye on what the accepted usage is for each one. As the Wiktionary entry says, the Menai Strait is between Wales and Anglesey. I've never heard that referred to in the plural. 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:AC1C:41E6:EC27:D054 04:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio at heroism edit

The audio clip at heroism doesn't match the IPA with regard to the vowel in the stressed syllable. I suppose both pronunciations can be shown, but I think the pronunciation with /ˈhɛɹəʊɪzəm/ seems to be the more common (?) Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to the word at Youglish[27] most people say it as /ˈhɛɹəʊɪzəm/ in all countries but some Americans say it as /ˈhiɹoʊɪzəm/. Oddly there are several sound clips of Barack Obama saying ˈhɛɹəʊɪzəm/ but one of him clearly saying /ˈhiɹoʊɪzəm/! There’s also an embedded YT video of an author called Peter Wells, with a hard-to-place accent, reading from his book (called ‘Notes from the West Pole’) to be found at Youglish, where he says /ˈhiɹoʊɪzəm/ - I don’t think this is the same Peter Wells who has a Wikipedia article about him, who’s a Kiwi, it seems to be a different Peter Wells who was born in London during the blitz and probably moved to America and developed a hybrid accent, judging not just by how he sounds but by the fact he writes about a place in California (Mendocino) in his book. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a grammatical erratum edit

Hello, Mister/Madame, good day. In the entry for the word 'agglutinate' in English as adjective, the latter half of its 2nd sense, which ostensively is linguistic, is grammatically incorrect so that it per se is 'nonsensical'. Please correct it. Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by A Mediocre Lifetime Student (talk • contribs).

Are you referring to “Consisting of root words combined but not materially altered as to form or meaning”? I cannot find fault with this. (An entirely separate issue is whether this is the appropriate term of art. Wikipedia uses the term agglutinative. This needs some further investigation.)  --Lambiam 13:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very attorney general or force majeure like combination for sure. ApisAzuli (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is somewhat subject to multiple readings. My first reading was sensible, but I can see an alternative reading or at least a confusing reading. DCDuring (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are missing noun senses. Agglutinates is readily attestable. One sense has to do with (lunar?) geology. Another is biological (hematological?). They may best be presented as subsenses of some less specific sense of potentially wider application. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Noun section.  --Lambiam 14:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

akxa edit

I propose the addition of the Osage word akxa.

These are the several definitions for this Osage grammatical marker, found in Carolyn Quintero's Osage Dictionary:

1. The third person continuative aspect postverbal marker for a stationary sitting/standing subject that is present with the speaker or is abstract.

- It is noted in this definition that akxa as used here is sometimes heard as akxai as a compound of akxa and ðe, the declarative marker that was once reserved for female speech. Also, it appears that this word regularly takes stress on the second syllable

Example: íxope akxai; 'he's telling a lie'

GLOSS: tell.untruth 3S.CONT.STAS

++++

2. Post-noun marker for subjects that are stationary sitting/standing or abstract whilst present with the speaker. May also have a generic meaning for subjects in general though this is rarer.

Example: sitǫ́į mą́ąɣe akxa wálį hpíiži aape; 'the weather was very bad yesterday'

GLOSS: yesterday weather SUBJ.STAS very be.bad EVID.REP

(Note from the dictionary: 'stationary' in Osage grammar refers only to the horizontal plane of movement)

--2600:6C40:15F0:10:4F7:7BD1:5698:D61F 20:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have any editors with enough knowledge of Osage/Siouan grammar to do this justice (might be wrong). However, you seem to know quite a bit and you can create it yourself. If you would like assistance in formatting a new entry, see WT:EL and feel free to ask if you have any questions. 70.172.194.25 20:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a frain about whether getting an example sentence from translation dictionaries is considered infringement under the rules. 2600:6C40:15F0:10:4F7:7BD1:5698:D61F 23:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lawyer, but I think it's probably okay if it's a one-off instance and you give credit (e.g., in the form of a citation). After all, we include quotations from books that are still under copyright, and a usage example is not much different. If you could make up your own example, that would be fine too, but it has some potential to introduce errors if you're not well-versed in the language. 70.172.194.25 00:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that, how do you cite? My source is a bilingual dictionary 2600:6C40:15F0:10:4F7:7BD1:5698:D61F 03:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add a general reference for a whole entry, you could do something like this:
===Further reading===
* John Doe (1980). ''Dictionary of Osage''. Tulsa: Publisher Co. {{ISBN|9876543210}}.
If you want to be fancier, you can use {{cite-book}} which will format the citation automatically:
===Further reading===
* {{cite-book|author=John Doe|isbn=9876543210|location=Tulsa|page=100|publisher=Publisher Co.|title=Dictionary of Osage|year=1980}}
To add an inline citation for a specific claim, which will make a little numbered [1] link to a footnote, you insert <ref>John Doe (1980), etc.; or {{cite-book}}</ref> right after the claim you want to reference. And then at the bottom you add ===References===, followed by newline, followed by <references/>.
If you plan on sticking around and contributing several entries in this language, we can make a specialized template for the source so you don't have to type out the full reference on every page. 70.172.194.25 03:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll need a template for my particular source (not using said source for akxa but am for later articles as I know the grammar well enough to form a simple sentence). But I would like some help with starting a Template:osa-continuative particles so that viewers can access the 18 other such particles in the future when the corpus expands on this site. 2600:6C40:15F0:10:4F7:7BD1:5698:D61F 04:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to ask if you desire guidance for making the template. Would you like it to just list the 18 particles, sort of along the lines of {{list:days of the week/en}}? Or is some other format like a table preferable? 70.172.194.25 21:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much better to see a table of the 21 continuative particles (I miscounted them at first as 19). It would be good to sort by function as the Arabic pronoun table is done. --35.144.62.0 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I learned a little Lakota in an American Indian Languages class 35 years ago, but that doesn't give me the slightest clue about this. I don't know if @-sche has worked with Osage, but they've worked with enough different languages, albeit mostly in the north and east of North America, to have the best shot at having something useful to say about this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. It looks like OP has a pretty good resource for defining this; I don't know that I have time right now to dig into this in any greater detail than OP has. Only suggestion would be that akxai, to the extent it has a distinct etymology (being a compound), probably needs its own entry, to which the íxope akxai usex would belong (unless it is really felt to be more like a mere "inflected form" of akxa, like we'd typically put citations of edited at edit), so for the akxa entry we should probably aim to find a usex/citation of sense 1 that uses akxa specifically like the usex for sense 2 does. - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that, but it does look to me like akxai is an inflected form of akxa based on the description the source gives for the entries. --35.144.62.0 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cognates with (like friends with?) edit

Hundreds of our etymologies have expressions of the form "'X' is cognates with 'Y'", parallel to the usage of friends in "Mary is friends with Ivan".

This is not part of my idiolect. Accordingly, I searched for "cognates with" at G-Books and, among lots of usage not relevant to this construction, I did not find instances of such usage. I have changed a few instances of the occurrence but decided to solicit other opinions or evidence. DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds wrong to me, too. I'd say ask someone with AWB to clean it up, perhaps me if I feel energetic later (may need to be AWB and not a bot because some instances of "cognates with" are valid, like "the Vietic cognates with monophthongal front vowel"). - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for site:en.wiktionary.org "is cognates with" was unsuccessful, but there are many cases of “Cognates with ...” (aaveq, adey, aduy, aep, agostu, ...), alternatively suggesting some editors may have interpreted the term cognate as a verb.  --Lambiam 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Along similar lines (but somewhat off-track) is 'is cognate with' where 'cognate' is an adjective. I use this and prefer it somewhat to 'is cognate to', but both are correct. I've never heard or seen 'is cognates with' - that just sounds wrong. Leasnam (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After correcting 40 or so of these, my best interpretation is that cognate is intended to be a verb. No OneLook dictionary has cognate as a verb. Some uses in our etymologies of cognates with are of the plural noun. I found only six uses in English etymologies. More than 300 uses remain. DCDuring (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who did at some point use cognates with (erroniously) I never intended it as a verb, it was indeed parallel to friends with. Can't speak for others, and I've not been very consistent in my etymologies back then. Thadh (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Jehan (which cognates in English to John)" here supports the idea that some people think cognate is a verb, like "relate", I guess. (Perhaps it is a verb, but probably not one common enough to use it in place of the noun or adjective.) - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is friends with the only example of its kind: a plural referring to a two-way reciprocal relationship? I think not, but are there many?
! buddies, pals, colleagues, partners, teammates
? compatriots, in-laws (See Citations:in-laws)
* siblings, twins, brothers, sisters, spouses
Any others? It might be worth noting in our entries. DCDuring (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is special is that the subject can be singular in the relevant cases: I/he/she was friends/pals/buddies/partners/teammates/colleagues with him/her/them DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hemorrhage, haemorrhage edit

Currently, the entries suggest that Americans use hemorrhage for the medical condition but haemorrhage for the figurative sense of a rapid loss. Is that really true? Equinox ◑ 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt it. I suspect someone was a little lazy in only adding the "British spelling label" to the first of the available senses (perhaps understandably thinking it'd be redundant / excessive verbiage to add it to all the senses), and in not merging the entries. - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan edit

Twice in the first half a minute, this reporter pronounces Afghanistan with more stress on the final syllable than I'm used to hearing. Is this a common enough pronunciation to add to the entry? (Maybe it's a personal idiosyncrasy; he also seems to stress some other things oddly, like "Soviet Union" as if he's distinguishing it from some other union.) - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering whether performers such as weather reporters, news readers etc. are encouraged to use unconventional stress patterns and pronunciation to capture audience attention. If so, it would become hard to justify enshrining such in our pronunciation sections. DCDuring (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That news reporter stresses WAY too many WORDS for my LIKING! And there were times he didn't stress important words, like ukraine. Weird... CrocodileAberdeen (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both afGHANistan and afghanisTAN are heard in England... as well as a tendency to call the country "Afghan". I find soldiers who've been to Afghanistan tend to say, "when I was in Afghan..." 2A00:23C8:A7A3:4801:402A:5F59:C36D:E41B 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English-speaking news reporters so often put wrong stresses on Ukrainian, Russian place names and they start copying from each other. I don't know why, for example, they feel the need to stress the second syllable on my poor native city of Kharkiv but I don't want this to become a new norm. It must also be hard to pronounce Mariupol to English speakers with a stressed -OO- without a /j/. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my karma ran over your dogma edit

Previous definition did not make sense and does not agree with uses on Google Books. Can anyone work out what it means, if anything? Equinox ◑ 04:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never encountered it, though I suspect it's a pun with car. Regardless, if it is from Indian English as the allusion to karmic teaching would suggest, I should wonder if run over might have a different meaning other than manslaughter, eg. overtake, to surpass (I reason in reference to überholen, überholt). We do have "To exceed the allotted time" (s.v. run over 1.), which kind of works in a sense of outdate, if you will, which needs split into a transitive and intransitive sense (This outdates everything that has come before it.), which in turn can work analoguous to outdo. Should I think this over or am I overthinking this? By tbe way, @Fay Freak, is Ger. "überlesen" even a real word? ApisAzuli (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to believe it's from Indian English. Westerners talk about karma all the time, informally. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"All the time" is gross exaggeration in diachrony. Reddit users tend to forget there's a world outside the bubble, so much is true. ApisAzuli (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pun may be so irresistible that its users are not overly concerned with what it means. Have you found attesting uses (rather than mentions, which abound)? Uses as part of a joke do not count. I have a suspicion it won’t survive rfv.  --Lambiam 16:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

depression edit

We have two senses for the state of mind:

Can these be merged? Equinox ◑ 15:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depression has definitions that are meaningful financially (eg, payment for treatment) and legally (mitigation of guilt). It is also in everyday use distinct from the more formal and fraught definitions. Psychology dictionaries themselves differentiate between transitory states of depression and those meriting a diagnosis. I am reminded of the need to differentiate everyday use of a term like iron and the physical-chemical use, related though they are. A technical definition would use the hypernym mood disorder. DCDuring (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this, I think the intended distinction is that sense 1 is the condition (usually uncountable?), and 2 is a flare-up of it (countable). You can have depression (sense 1) if you generally suffer from depressions (sense 2), even if you're not currently suffering from a depression (sense 2) right now (e.g. you're experiencing a manic episode instead). This could be made clearer with usexes and countability labels. Btw, there also seems to be (and people sometimes complain about) a general use of "depression" and "depressed" for any profound sadness whether it meets the psychological diagnostic criteria or not, but I suspect the general use may actually predate the diagnostic criteria, and it might merit a separate sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added labels and cites of the use of the countable sense, and tweaked the defs a bit, trying to better clarify the distinction. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iolaus edit

The Latin IPA pronunciation given for Iolaus, [i̯ɔˈɫ̪äːʊs̠], is incorrect. The i is vocalic, not consonantal. There is no reason why the [l] should be a dark one [ɫ̪]. It is difficult to correct, however, because of the automatic template, which doesn't seem to work cerrectly. The English pronunciation should also be given, something like "eye-oh-lay-us". Kanjuzi (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve turned the ⟨i⟩ into a vowel. I don’t know about the colour of the /l/ in Classical pronunciation, but if it is wrong here, it must be wrong everywhere (like Galatea: [ɡäɫ̪äˈt̪eːä]).  --Lambiam 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ᚷᚫᚷᚩᚷᚫ edit

"Password" and "magical formula" are given as unitalicized glosses, as if an Old English speaker would've said the equivalent of "you need to know the right gægogæ to cast the spell, "foobar" is not the right gægogæ". Is this so, or was the intent for these to be italicized non-gloss definitions, not saying that gægogæ means "magical formula" but saying that it is a formula? (Compare the RFV of Talk:dildo, which is not a word meaning "burden", it is a burden#Etymology_2.) - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Definition edit

The Latin entry at crīdō seems to be missing a definition. Can someone with Latin expertise please provide one ? Leasnam (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find this in any Latin dictionary.  --Lambiam 12:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm, might it being Mediaeval Latin or possibly Vulgar Latin have anything to do with this ? Leasnam (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is listed in du Cange,[28] glossed as “Clamare, vociferari”, or, in French, crier.  --Lambiam 11:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

blow - missing sense ? edit

When we say things like: "Oh, I just had my interview." "How did it go ?" "Oh, I think I blew it." - to mean that you failed or ruined your chances, is that sense currently being shown at blow ? I see that sense 14 comes close, but it is the same ? Leasnam (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See blow it (it's a separate dictionary entry). Tetromino (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should have it at blow#Verb too, possible leading to the deletion of blow it. There are at least two related senses:
  1. in "The Nets blew a 20-point lead.", meaning something like "wasted an advantage" or "lost despite an advantage"
  2. in "I blew the interview", meaning what Leasnam suggested above.
There is nothing special about it as an object of the verb blow in these senses. It is just normal deixis. DCDuring (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first sense above is covered by "To recklessly squander." The second sense should probably immediately follow the "squander" sense. DCDuring (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think DCDuring is right the sense we have at blow it also exists without it. I mean, you can tell someone "don't blow it" (the supposedly idiomatic sense of "blow it") before an interview, but when you ask "how'd it go?" afterwards and they say "I blew it", it's clearer that the it is just an object, and can be replaced with other objects: "I blew it like I blew the last interview"; "I had two interviews today and I blew both of them". It's kinda similar to blow senses 14 and 15 ("to cause the sudden destruction of", "to suddenly fail destructively") but it's probably distinct. I agree that the "blow the interview" and "blow a lead" senses should be grouped, and I would also group them near senses 14 and 15. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all ! I've added it as sense 19, immediately below the "squander" meaning. Should blow it be changed to a redirect, or should it be deleted completely (?) Leasnam (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect may serve to discourage subsequent addition of a full entry. DCDuring (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Leasnam (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to redirect directly to a sense? There are 29 of them on that page. – Jberkel 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AFICR, using {{sense-id}}. DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it done, but I can't seem to find an example of one. The last time I saw it used was when I created an entry, but I can't remember what the headword was...I want to say it was for trade darts (“to mutually insult”), but that doesn't bring up anything. I probably have that wrong... Leasnam (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

چھہ edit

I put the tea room template here for convenience, but this is actually about edits to Module:number list/data/ur:

This Urdu entry showed up in CAT:E with a module error due to its not matching anything in the number list data module. That was because @نعم البدل removed a number of alternative forms with the comment "removing Persian". They did remove Persian terms, but they also replaced "چھہ" with "چھ". While I know next to nothing about Urdu, I would note that there is an Urdu entry at چھہ, but only a Kashmiri entry at "چھ". For the moment, I have restored "چھہ" to the module in order to fix the module error. Another concern: Urdu is basically Hindustani with a very heavy overlay of Persian, so I can see how there might be an alternative series of borrowed numerals used in certain limited contexts. Japanese has something like this, with both Chinese-based and native Japanese forms. At any rate, I get very nervous when I see someone who's only been around for a month and a half removing large chunks of data.

Of course, theoretical possibilities and reality are two very different things, so I'm bringing it up here for people who actually know the language to set things straight. Also pinging @Ash wki and @User1267183728390127891247, who worked on the module before the changes, and (Notifying Taimoorahmed11, RonnieSingh, AryamanA, Kutchkutch, Svartava2): our Urdu workgroup. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz, Hi. Thank you for pinging me. Admittedly, I should have dealt with the module error and چھہ page before exiting Wiktionary. To clarify a few things:
1. چھہ (chh) is just an alternative form of چھ (ch), as would چھے (che) be as well; Rekhta. The main lemma, at least the common spelling I've seen, is چھ (ch).
2. I removed the Persian numerals because I don't believe them to be notable enough to be entered into the database. Only the first 3 Persian/Arabic numerals are used in Urdu (and that too uncommonly) and only in certain contexts, regardless I didn't remove them, but I did for the rest, because they are way too uncommon to be mentioned, though I would appreciate any comments on this. نعم البدل (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Notifying AryamanA, ImprovetheArabicUnicode, Kutchkutch, Notevenkidding, RonnieSingh, Svartava, نعم البدل): : Hi. I am paying attention now to Module:number list/data/ur but some numerals, especially complex forms presented in the table, are not in the dictionaries and now we have a little downside of enabling the automated transliteration for Urdu:
Terms lacking or having incomplete vocalisations will transliterate incorrectly. Some terms require manual transliteration. You can see now even some cases in earlier responses above.
  1. دُوَم (duvam, “the second”) (correct) vs دوم (dom) (incorrect)
  2. چِھہ (che) (correct) vs چِھہ (chi) (incorrect).
Calling to native speakers and advanced learners to pay a bit more attention to false positives and provide either vocalisations or transliterations.
Also @Chuck Entz, @Sameerhameedy, @Benwing2 Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: Thanks for pointing out that there are erroneous transliterations. Although many of them can be corrected with more vocalisation diacritics, some numerals may require the attention of User:نعم البدل. It is unfortunate that there are some forms that either do not exist in dictionaries or are hard to find in dictionaries. Perhaps this is due to their predictability, repetitiveness and large quantity. Kutchkutch (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kutchkutch, @نعم البدل:
Module:number list/data/ur contains many forms, which will be hard to find in dictionaries, so better dictionaries, native speakers or thorough research will be required.
For cases where you suspect the transliteration is correct or you have any doubts, you can use always suppress transliterations with |tr=-, as in دوم. It's applicable anywhere. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atitarev: Although there are a few patterns, each cardinal number from one to a hundred is irregular, which is why each one has to be mentioned separately to have an adequate list of numbers. Since there are so many forms, it will be lot of work to have comprehensive entries for each one of them with references, etymologies, etc. Needless to say, a lot of the information is almost the same as Hindi other than the script.
Cross-linguistically within Indo-Aryan compare:
MOD:number list/data/as
MOD:number list/data/bn
MOD:number list/data/ne
MOD:number list/data/sa
and the incomplete data modules:
MOD:number list/data/gu
MOD:number list/data/inc-pra
MOD:number list/data/mai
MOD:number list/data/mr
MOD:number list/data/or
MOD:number list/data/pa
MOD:number list/data/pnb
MOD:number list/data/rhg
MOD:number list/data/skr
MOD:number list/data/syl
Kutchkutch (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kutchkutch: It's some effort, no doubt. That's why it's sometimes easier to shorten and provide what is easily available, can be verified and won't cause mistransliterations or misreadings. Blocking transliterations entirely (as I suggested above) is also an option, at least for confusing/unknown or difficult form.
Compare with Thai Module:number list/data/th, which only has only numerals 0 to 20 displayed in {{th-cardinals}}
I can see the page is now in a better shape. And I can see you have created {{ur-cardinals}} Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, @نعم البدل (ni'm albadal), @Kutchkutch
I found چھہ transliterated as "chē" in "Urdu: An Essential Grammar - Page 242: "chē"+"چھہ"&pg=PA242&printsec=frontcover Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fiets alternate etymology edit

Regarding the Dutch etymology for fiets, there's an interesting theory that it came from the German homophone Vize: http://www.tntl.nl/index.php/tntl/article/viewFile/234/242

See also: http://www.tntl.nl/index.php/tntl/article/viewFile/234/242

English summary and discussion of the article: https://www.24oranges.nl/2012/02/23/etymology-of-dutch-word-for-bicycle-cracked-after-140-years/comment-page-1/ — This unsigned comment was added by 64.137.145.24 (talk) at 17:29, 30 March 2022.

A noun sense of Vize (“Stellvertreter”) that isn't clipped from the attribute[29] would be new to me (i.e. Vize-Präsident "vice president"). That would be similar to Pferd. In Norse ‹r› can go through regressive assimilation to alveolar, eg. þorn /θɔtn/, or vice-versa, Danish fjer (“fjǫðr”).
For a counter point consider AAVE whip (including motorbikes), obsolete meaning "coachman", and similarly German peitschen (with "to drive fast" as one possible interpretation, IMO), so Peitsche (“whip”) can be found in use as semantic loan after the AAVE usage ("vehicle"). The etymologies for whip#translations are alas all over the place and rather unreliable, and missing in almost all but one meaning. For Dutch fiets to be related there should be regular sound correspondance with a reasonable vector and evidence of metonymy much earlier than AAVE. At best, the supposedly underlying meaning "to beat" might obtain.
kick#Translations delivers. Inasmuch as fiets sounds like a cognate of feet, Du. voets etc. (cf. PGem *fōts), we have related *fetaną (“to fall”) and *fetą ("step, stride; pace, gait", PIE *ped- (“to walk, stumble, fall”)), the latter reflected in Middle Danish "fieth, fiæth" (older "fiat") and Old English "fæthengest" (*hangist (“stallion”)) which I imagine to be similar in spirit to racehorse. Drahtesel (“bicycle”) should suffice for reference, cp. treadle, maybe -sel, not to mention द्राति (drāti, “to run, make haste”), stride, draught and incidently драть (dratʹ, “to whip”), drive. Cf. trahō etc. refered to "*tregʰ-". ApisAzuli (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, waterfiets ("pedal boat", cf. pedalo, vandcykel, Tretboot) makes this bias very probable. A similar correspondance can be seen in drahtig (“agile”) and feat (“Dexterous in movements ... he was the fairest, and the featest' swaine of all the rest.”). ApisAzuli (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's begging the question, is fiets remarkably older than waterfiets, if that would imply literally "water bike", which is just a little odd. ApisAzuli (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compare also 仏 (futsu, “buddha”), fitz (“son”) and maybe fitspo, since many people feel inspired to exercise on a bike.  --Lambiam 17:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Tea_room/2022/March&oldid=78160370"