The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I homeschool my fifth grader and was in the fifht grade page for spelling. I was horrified to find one of the definitions to the word "load" as "a slang for seamen", as in: "yeah she was suckiong[sic] on me and I blew my load right in her face" This is fifth grade spelling...for a ten year old for God's sake.
- Well, we're not censored. Us removing these definitions wouldn't make them "magically disappear" other. Have you tried searching Google lately? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- "a slang for seamen"...
- The actual problem here is not "censorship", it is referencing. You cannot just let something stand because "you know" as a "native speaker". Of course this is a real, if marginal, entry. It still needs to be referenced (when and where was it first recorded? Which dictionaries carry it and which do not, etc.)
- If it isn't found in any dictionary (which I doubt, but nobody bothered to check), I suppose we can still try to quote its occurrence "in the wild", not sure how Wiktionary handles original research. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I quickly researched this and found attestations from the 1980s, but no dictionary reporting it. So it may be added to the article "since the 1980s" or "before 1987" or similar.
- descriptive reference: Alan Richter, The language of sexuality (1987), p. 120
- actual usage: First Hand, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1987, p. 37.
The current etymology is highly non-trivial. It reflects etymonline.com exactly (without making explicit that it does). And it may well be that it is correct. But as long as no reference is cited, the information as it stands is next to useless. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- I find that 19th-century dictionaries connect load to lade as a matter of course. (also: Lemon (1783)). The rejection of this connection thus becomes even more of a red flag. Clearly it would be a 20th-century suggestion, but by whom and made where? --Dbachmann (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Found a relevant source now . As expected, our current revision is a simplification/misunderstanding of the actual argument. The conundrum appears to be that load "burden" appears first as a substantive, but lade(n) "to load, to burden" exists only as a verb. So how is the semantic shift to be motivated, if the verb to load arises only 200 years later. I think it is because of this problem that Skeat (2013) has the qualifier "most probably" -- i.e., that's still what must have happened, apparently the Middle English alteration lade, lode was treated as an ablaut pattern of some kind(?), as in ... idk, wake, woke? --more [literature] research is needed here. --Dbachmann (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dbachmann Once again, I had to reformat the edits. Don't need to use double spacing, and why do you place them between words? (it should be between sentences, but een so, use single spaces.) And please use generic google.com rather than the .ch domain as this site is visited internationally, just like you visit this from Switzerland — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 12:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dude, it doesn't matter that much. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- thanks suzukaze. Awesomemeeos, dude, most of Wiktionary is UNREFERENCED. This seems to be a little more serious than double spaces. Please go and complain to people who add material without references, not those who go out of their way to do the research. On Wikipedia, what you are doing would be called "copyediting" or "housekeeping", but we mostly leave that to the bots these days anyway. Editors are the people capable of discussing content and adding pertinent referenced material. --Dbachmann (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)