Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “green leaf”



See also:

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or "sum of parts" should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs

February 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions (It appears in a lot of dictionaries). I did manage to find two quotes, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Found 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory) A self-important or obnoxious pseudointellectual."

I've tried to find attestation on Google groups (UseNet portion), but it is hard to exclude all the hits for the Fedora software. I don't know what positive collocations would generate hits for the sense above. (OTOH, neckbeard looks attestable in more-or-less the sense in the entry.) DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the one quote I added to the entry, all I can find is on non-durably archived sources such as this - although, given that the comment was written in March 2016, it has clearly lasted quite a while. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
RFV-failed. At the time of its removal, the definition had been reworded to the following, with the following citation and etymology:
  • {{lb|en|Internet slang|pejorative}} A self-important or obnoxious poseur. (Compare neckbeard.)
  • Internet slang sense: from the stereotype that such people wear this kind of hat.
  • 1998 August 29, Burk A. Zoid, “What kind of creatures and locations should be in RE3 ?”, in alt.games.resident-evil, Usenet:
    And zombies with hockey masks, chainsaws, butcher knives, and fedoras that call you on the phone with pop quizes about horror movies.
- -sche (discuss) 07:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)



1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.
2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.
4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.

Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit


To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, rec lists only recing and reced as forms. I suppose one would need citations where the work used both rec and recced/reccing to show that the latter could be forms of the former. I can find examples of recc (uninflected) online (search for e.g. "recc the series", suggesting that it does exist, even if the durable hits of it are all of inflected forms. (As an aside, "micced" seems to be attested but I haven't found it used in the same books as either mic or *micc to tell which it's a form of.) - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I finally managed to find three citations of the infinitive recc on Usenet. I also added and cited a noun recc. I made both into altforms of rec. This is cited. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I've managed to find two citations which I think are uses: Citations:CMNF. There are a few other mention-y hits on Usenet, and one that might also be a use of CMNF which I put at CFNM (because it also uses that term). - -sche (discuss) 08:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

May 2019Edit


A remarkably specific word from @Sigehelmus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see these two links: [1] [2] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [3] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [4] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)



RFV of the "hide"- and "conceal"-related senses. I don't like to RFV things without making a more rigorous search than I had time to make in this case (sorry), but I did make a cursory search which turned up nothing, and Century calls hele "a Middle English form". For hele, the EDD suggests the usexes "it heles in well", "it heles in badly" (about corn/seeds that can be covered over well in a furrow, or can't), but these don't turn up any hits. "Holen" (listed as a past tense form) seems to only exist as a dialectal, eye dialectal or pronunciation-respelled form of "holdin'". The EDD might have enough citations to attest at least one sense at the spelling heal. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A look at the Middle English Dictionary shows that helen₂ (to hide; conceal) was used right up to the end of the Middle English period, and it also shows some citations at and beyond 1500: 1500, Theyre gownys be sett with plytys fele, To schortt yt ys theyre kneys to hele.; 1500, Clothes of sylke ye shalle haue..Fayre townes and castelles to hell In your hede.; 1525, Þe yonger kynge henry..the lyddernysse that he hadde I-thoght to hys fadyr nold no lenger hellen. (though this looks much older, it is clearly given as 1525). Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
From what I've read, hele definitely survives into ModE, though outside of dialects, a few archaising uses, and the Masonic oath to hele, conceal, and never reveal, it is only current in the form heel (to cover plants) (usually as "heel in"); where it survives, the past forms are uniformly weak. However, it's well and alive in Scots. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Aha, with that tip, I located a few more citations of hele ("keep secret"), two of which I added to the entry. They're clearly invoking the language of the Masons, but they use different verb tenses and seem to have quite different objects, so they're not exact quotes and seem more like situations where someone coins or popularizes a phrase and others use it in reference to them but "independently" in the sense of CFI—though I admit it's a grey area and if someone could find a third non-Masonic cite or track down Spenser's, that'd be ideal. I removed the strong past forms. I also managed to cite "heal" in reference to three different secret societies (of horsemen, of witches, and of masons), though again I couldn't find the strong past forms. And I've found enough citations of plants/roots being heled/heeled in to have senses for that at hele and heel. Hooray. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


The current quote is from a television show, so I am not sure whether the spelling of the word can be attested -- is a published script available? There is a lot of noise to sift through for this one, and I imagine that if it is used it is far more often spoken, so good luck. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Wouldn't the pronunciation mean the plural is spelt capaces instead of capacs? Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The word spec as informal short for specification is pronounced /spɛk/, not /spɛs/, and its plural is specs.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is one occurrence in a book: [5]. I think, though, that in this case it is an abbreviation, usually written as capac. and easily attested in that form, but here with the final full stop omitted; if the author had been asked to reading this text aloud, they would probably have pronounced it as /kəˈpæsɪti/.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit


Not durably archived? Equinox 15:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books or Scholar; poking around another archive of academic papers all I saw were scannos of "-ter (FDOM)". There are two hits in one newspaper that Issuu has digitized, which are this article and a later reader response which quotes its title (so, not independent):
  • 2018 July 11, Alex Zaragoza, "No Time for TERFdom", in the San Diego CityBeat, page 8:
    [But] do one better than Chiamamanda Ngozi Adichie—whose speech was sampled for that song and who was called out for TERFdom and transphobia—and move that logic beyond the sexes.
Is there any easy place to search print copies of British papers? - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
...which I see has already been added, along with a questionably-durable Mary Sue article. Looks like this probably isn't includable now, but might be in several years. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The Mary Sue article is cited in Snopes, which is durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


If TERFdom is deleted, presumably terfdom should also go. I mean, I don't see either capitalization... - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page, but everything else I find looks more like a mention than a use. Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Those are citations of "inter-censually". DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not "intercensually", because they treat "censually" as a word. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not in the opinion of one censor of citations. DCDuring (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there are great advantages for Wiktionary from considering hyphens to be word separators in English. The proliferation of entries for hyphenated terms could be systematically brought to an end with no reduction of meaningful semantic content.
In the case of inter-sensually it is interesting to note that there are no Google Books hits for intercensually (There are two at Scholar.) DCDuring (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see inter-censually as evidence for censually. The construction might be inter-censual + -ly for one thing. Equinox 20:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Then we only have one cite. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we consider the language of Edmund Spenser (early) Modern English, then this is one use: [6].  --Lambiam 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Tagged by Special:Contributions/2600:1000:b100:697a:65a3:cbbb:f084:1882 but not listed. — surjection?〉 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


Given citation is the only one on GB2600:1000:B119:704C:AB:BBA5:283D:7AA9 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Noun, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions. this looks like a use to me, this is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page - one very solid, the other a bit mention-y. Everything else I found was clearly just mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit


Looking on Google Books, I see a few mentions, and two possible uses in the plural. Old Man Consequences (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find looks like mentions to me. I added what I could find. Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
What is a "capnotic spell"? It's not clear that it has anything to do with the current entry. DTLHS (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I could see how it might refer to some kind of reaction to second-hand smoke (combustion byproducts of clock parts?), but I would also note that the 1957 quote is obviously a noun, not an adjective. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There are no other results for "capnotic" in that book, but it could be obscured. DTLHS (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake for "cyanotic": from page 36 DTLHS (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a fictional Journal of Capnotic and Catoptric Studies (aka the Journal of Smoke and Mirrors)[7].
Otherwise Google Scholar doesn't have anything but a mention in a paper of interpreting words from a context: "She was a capnotic. She simply did not want to smoke." What does the word "acapnotic" mean? DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
RFV-failed. French capnoïde defined itself as this; I updated it. English capnoid may or may not be attestable (Citations:capnoid); I haven't created it. - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find LOTS of mentions, but so far, only one use, which is on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit


Rfv-sense "Alternative form of antisocial". Originally added by Special:Contributions/ as two distinct meanings: "Not interested in meeting other people, a person averse to sociality", "Unfriendly toward others". — surjection?〉 06:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I found one cite, but that is all. Kiwima (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

/* moved from below */ verified on collins dictionary —This comment was unsigned.

There is already an RfV above. We need attestation of use, not mentions in a dictionary, though the dictionary mention would suggest that we can expect to find such attestation. DCDuring (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Name entries by IP editorEdit

(Note to admins: Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese after the issue is resolved)

I cannot find a better place to put this, but I doubt the existence of basically all names (mostly surnames) added by Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/, both for English and Non-English (Portuguese, French, German, Italian, etc.), since it seems that many of the names are those of fictional characters (or of Japanese emperors, etc.) and their use in the languages they are claimed to be used in is doubtful. There are simply too many to list on here. — surjection?〉 09:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If a large proportion of the names turns out to be unverifiable, I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of just deleting all of those entries, even if that may seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is also worth noting that this is possibly the same editor that was adding nonsense Egyptian entries earlier. — surjection?〉 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr What is your opinion on entries such as Fubuki, Masahito,Yoshihito, etc? These seem to be romanizations, rather than actual borrowings into English, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. On the other hand, there are entries such as Shinzo, Nijo, Ichijo, Shinjo that have lost the "ō". Are these considered actual borrowings? KevinUp (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. Unless we've got verifiable examples of English speakers are using these names for their own children, I'm more of the opinion that these are romanizations -- and the dropping of the macron is not evidence of borrowing, in my view, so much as evidence of English writers and readers not understanding diacritics, or simply not bothering with them. We see the same thing with other languages, like Hawaiian humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa appearing in English contexts as humuhumunukunukuapuaa, losing both the macron and the ʻokina.
Otherwise, we may as well just romanize every name everywhere that isn't already spelled in Latin letters and dump all of that into Wiktionary as "English". Which seems to be what this anon is doing for Japanese names. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I've cleaned up and removed English, Cebuano, Spanish, Tagalog, Portuguese, etc from the following entries:
@Eirikr These entries also need to be deleted:
I found similar entries created by Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ in 2016 so I will clean those up later. KevinUp (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Surjection: you're right that the names in the boxes are lists of personal names of emperors, but also first names of Madoka characters (I don't remember a real person named Kyūbei as in the familiar in Madoka), the dropped-macron names as mentioned before, and possibly IJN battleship names (edited 吹雪 long time ago).
Isn't the romanization of 久兵衛 written as Kyūbee or Kyūbē? I would like an analysis regarding the sound shift from べいゑ → べえ... ~ POKéTalker) 10:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Kyūbee appears to be legit. I'm glad you've restored the romanization entry. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: After analyzing entries created by various IPs, I've identified the following 540 entries with Japanese romanizations assigned as English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Tagalog lemmas. If any of these lemmas are indeed used for names of native speakers, then citations or statistical evidence will be needed. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Also, these entries need to be deleted due to incorrect romanization (using "o" instead of "ō", etc):

Cleanup is in progress. Please archive this discussion to Category talk:English surnames from Japanese once the issue is resolved. KevinUp (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added RFV tags to all entries on the "small list". Note to anyone adding cites that we specifically need examples of these being used in English texts and not as romanizations (or botched romanizations) of names. — surjection?〉 07:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Sense 2: “(rhetoric) the seeking of forgiveness for such [i.e. frank] speech”. Some dictionaries (e.g. Collins) have this as a second sense, but where does this come from? In the uses of the term I could find, it simply means “frank speech”, as in “speaking truth to power”, without having to say you’re sorry.  --Lambiam 10:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Isn't it where you say sorry immediately before being bold or frank in speaking to a superior? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    That is common cultural practice when criticizing someone, also in public speech, but is it a separate sense? We also do not define lecture as “1. A spoken lesson or exposition, usually delivered to a group. 2. Clearing one's throat before commencing such lesson or exposition.”  --Lambiam 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
According to Silva Rhetoricae:
"Either to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking. Sometimes considered a vice."
The names of rhetorical figures often cover distinguishable phenomena, so I'd hope that many of them would have multiple definitions here. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Why, yes, that is what Collins and Oxford say too, and what we find in A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms. But these are all mentions. The issue here is whether the term is actually used in this sense. Something like, “‘Forgive me for spealing so bluntly, sir, and with all due respect, ...’. After this parrhesia he paused, wiping the sweat off his brow, and then resumed, ‘with all due respect, sir, you are a veritable douche bag.’”  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the one paper, there is this. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit

tredecillionth, quindecillionth, quattuordecillionthEdit

DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I came here to say "don't bring obvious rubbish like quattuordecillionth to the RFV, just delete it" but then I found that it is in some (Google-scanned) books. Wow! But yes these do seem like "list words" like the phobias. Equinox 07:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added what I could find to the respective citations pages, omitting all instances that are just in lists of large or small powers. The result is one cite each for tredecillionth and quindecillionth, and two for quattuordecillionth. Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added three citations to the citations page. Cited? - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Another issue is that this should theoretically be septemvigintillion, since septem is Latin for 7 and septen is a typo. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
And to that end, I added one cite to Citations:septemvigintillion. Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I added two more citations to the n spelling. If they all attest the same sense, that sense is cited now. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I added two more, making one sense of this cited. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


As above. — surjection?〉 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I've added two more citations to Citations:novemvigintillion. (One of them helpfully uses a lot of other number words.) The short scale sense is cited; the long scale sense not so much. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


Created by the same editor as the other "large numerals" entries above, who still creates them without any citations. — surjection?〉 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move these to the dictionary-only terms appendix, or even give them an appendix of their own. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And shouldn't this be unotrigintillion, which has one citation? Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
untrigintillion is the form you’d expect, in analogy with undecillion. However, whereas undecillion is from existing Latin ūndecim + -illion, there is no Latin numeral *ūntriginta; the Latin term for XXXI is triginta (et) unus/-a/-um, literally “thirty (and) one”. Pages tretrigintillion, quattuortrigintillion, quintrigintillion, ..., were all deleted in 2006; the latter even again in 2015.  --Lambiam 22:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I've found two citations: Citations:untrigintillion. I like the idea of an appendix for the unattestable ones. (The citations at Citations:sexvigintillion can be used to attest many others.) - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

big moodEdit

"(Internet slang, informal) Something that is deemed relatable. The way she was just lying on her bed is a big mood." The meaning is not clear to me from this. Also "deemed" seems like a weasel word: if it means something relatable then we should just say that; we don't define genius as "a person deemed very clever". Equinox 15:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems to be some sort of Twitter meme. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, definitely a Twitter(/Tumblr?) thing originally but since spread to other boards as well. Google Groups yields a fair amount of attestations of this usage, it's absolutely real (the definition and usexes could use some work, though). I don't think it's much older than 2017. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


"Acronym of Louis XIV, James II, Queen Mary of Modena and the Prince of Wales. (a code-word among Jacobites)". I can see a couple of mentions in GBooks but no real usage. How would it be used anyway? One source seems to say that a person actually limped (walked lamely) to subtly show Jacobite support. That of course doesn't attest the word sense. Equinox 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not cited. You have shown that throwing the word "limp" into conversation was a code-word, along the lines of Freemasons using certain words; but it still appears to mean "limp", like "walk awkwardly". It doesn't have a separate meaning; it is just that speaking of limping (walking awkwardly) is something Jacobites did to secretly identify themselves. Usage note at best. Equinox 22:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Drinking “the health of Limp” can hardly refer to an awkward gait. Here the term explicitly refers to the acronym, but then it becomes of course a mention. But can one really expect persecuted people using a code-word to avoid prosecution to record it durably in a way in which it is recognizable as such?  --Lambiam 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In an anti-Jacobite engraving, entitled “The Triumphs of Providence over Hell, France & Rome, In the Defeating & Discovering of the late Hellish and Barbarous Plott, for Aſſaſſinating his Royall Majesty King William   III”, seen here, the word LIMP appears, as well as in the accompanying text.  --Lambiam 20:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It looks like that gives us two, but we still need a third.
Macaulay refers to a letter of L’Hermitage (to the States General?) of September 5/15 1695, and Narcissus Luttrell‘s Parliamentary Diary, of which I can’t find an accessible online copy.  --Lambiam 13:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I added one cite to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020Edit


I hate to RFV something like this (an obsolete dialectal word), but the only evidence of this I can find is a mention in William H. Marshall (1789 / 1796)'s work on the dialect of Gloucester. It's not in the EDD, the OED, or Century (in the EDD I checked under not just ou but also a, he, and she). (For the record, if the entry can't be verified and is deleted, it was a pronoun meaning "he, she, it" indiscriminately, a falling-together of reduced forms of he or she, like also the better-attested a (pronoun).) I've no idea where our suggested pronunciation came from or whether it's accurate. - -sche (discuss) 07:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation was added in this edit. It may well have been inferred by analogy of you. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


2 BGC results. — surjection?〉 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

mickle-what Edit

- -sche (discuss) 01:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This should be converted to a Middle English entry and likely moved to a different spelling, cf. the entry in the MED. Back when I made this page I hadn’t yet come to know our policy with respect to separating Middle and Modern English and was following something like the OED’s model instead. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As do others here and as did MW 1913 and Century 1911. We ought to do more to maintain a separation between Middle and Modern English, IMO. DCDuring (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English, although someone who is better at Middle English than I am should look over what I did. Kiwima (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

120 resetEdit

When doing a websearch, we're up top, along with other free dictionaries. Doing a book search, there's a lot of things where 119 and 121 appear before and after, or 110 and 130 appear before and after, or the book is named reset and has at least 120 pages. In what I looked through, I didn't see any hits. (I recognize the limitations of the qualifier.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

atseek Edit

To seek for. Beware scannos in GBooks, e.g. "atsought for" turned out to be "attained" with column-break confusion. Equinox 03:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

becringe Edit

Only one of the three cites seems to be durably archived. DCDuring (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And the single sense line contains too many different meanings for clarity. The 1969 and 2009 citations appear to mean "cause to cringe", while the usage in the Earthlink Web site poem, which seems to have been deliberately written in non-standard or faux-archaic English, almost suggests confusion with "impinge". Equinox 13:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

bespawler Edit

DTLHS (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to exist --Yesyesandmaybe (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The creators of the system themselves write this with a capital letter, “Delila”: [8], [9], [10]. These uses are not independent in the sense of CFI, but independent uses were spotted here (pdf) and here. Written in lower case, the term (which should be classified as a proper noun) is found here: [11]. This article (pdf) manages to use both “delila” and “DELILA” as well as “Delila” – but the latter spelling may be due to the term being sentence-initial. To complicate the issue, “delila” appears to be also in use as the name of a gene found in specimens of the plant Antirrhinum majus ([12]).  --Lambiam 00:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I have moved it to Delila. As a rather niche software product this feels too brand-y for inclusion to me. Equinox 13:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

aduant garde Edit

Might be citeable, but the only cite in the entry is Middle English, and the hits on the first page of Google Books are copies of the same work, mentions, or a different language (French). - -sche (discuss) 03:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

All I can find is Middle English, and with that the definition needs to be restricted to the vanguard sense of avant-garde. Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English Kiwima (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Used in Modern English? I only spotted it in Spenser (and Chaucer). - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI I'm going through y- terms in Category:English obsolete terms, tentatively moving attested ones to join their sisters in Category:English obsolete verb forms since I see that category exists, and converting ones with no Modern English hits directly to Middle English. I'm going to try to only clog RFV up with the ones that have some, but insufficiently many, Modern hits. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
All I could find, other than Chaucer and Spenser, was this, and I am not at all sure what it is. Kiwima (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The title of the article is "A Middle English Tale of Troy". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Chuck Entz. How did you manage to find the title? Kiwima (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I scrolled back a few pages looking for any mention of which work was being discussed, and found a page with the title at the top. There's also a table of contents. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Strange. I got a view that did not allow scrolling. 03:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English Kiwima (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

ybe Edit


- -sche (discuss) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

yblessed Edit

I found one citation, from John Foxe, but I'm not sure there are enough others. (It's possible that someone could find "modernizations" of Piers Ploughman and Chaucer that use this and claim them as modern examples, but it's not clear that should "count".) - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

myroblysia Edit

DTLHS (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Another supposed good olde Englishe worde that actually seems like a vanishingly rare nonce or mistake. I don't understand the use in the 1907 citation (a poem), and the 2007 one seems like an NNES solecism (a judge "unwields" a task?). Neither of them is at all convincing as evidence for the claimed definition. Equinox 15:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have put the verbal uses I could find on the citations page. The 1907 citation I believe to be an adjective. All the verbal uses I found (except the 2014, which I take to be a nonce that supports the supplied definition) seem to be a sort of combination of wielding and unveiling. Kiwima (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The 1907 is a misquote of this (line 66). The 2014 is indeed a nonce, but it seems to refer to making the commentary unwieldy to the point of uselessness. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Kiwima, having looked at 1907 again I agree it's an adjective, and must mean unwieldy (perhaps cut short for poetic meter, like e'en). The sense of "unwieldy" is echoed by the adjective cumbrous that follows it. I see it's a scanno for unwieldy, thus removed. Equinox 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virusEdit

Hot words should still be used by someone. DTLHS (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added what I could find. Most of them seem a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)



  • diminutive of the conjunction "center-right" in reference to a person with center-right beliefs
  • sometimes used in politics as a diminutive of "centrist"

surjection?〉 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


For sense "Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus", can it be verified if MERS is ever used without qualification to refer to the virus and not just the illness? The CDC says not.[13] -Mike (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a somewhat unfortunate and ignorant use and we should note in a usage note that this may be frowned upon, but it can be attested: “Mers is a virus that is transmitted from animals to humans”; “MERS is a coronavirus for which there is no cure”; “Because MERS is a virus, antibiotics are ineffective”.  --Lambiam 12:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit


Rfv-sense adjective: "Describes a shot with exact, precise pace to leave the balls in the perfect position. Usually just touching a cushion or very close to another ball". I'd like some evidence it's indeed an adjective. Canonicalization (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few relevant Google results for e.g. "dead-weight shot" or "dead weight shot", in which I would consider "dead[-]weight" to be adjectival; "deadweight" seems to be a rarer spelling variant in this sense. I think, personally, that there is no problem with "dead[-]weight shot" per se, but probably there is uncertainty about how to spell it. Mihia (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


One person's misspelling, and then a bunch of quotes referring to that one time he misspelled it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    This is a RFV, so "delete" would not usually belong here. What is sought are attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST, and given the nomination, the emphasis would be that they should not be mentions and they should be independent. (somdomite*50), sodomite at Google Ngram Viewer is interesting, showing that the mentions referring back to Wilde are numerous indeed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    Oops, must have misread the page heading. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a situation like Cablinasian or Talk:cannista, where a word was coined by and is usually invoked in the context of or in reference to a specific person, but multiple people who are independent of each other (when it comes to choosing to use it) do use it. For example, contrary to the entry's assertion that the plural is not attested, here's a book that uses (not just mentions) it in a section title, even inflecting it for number (then immediately refers to Wilde and even has a photo of the calling card):
  • 1999, Andrew Prescott, Elizabeth M. Hallam, and the British Library, The British Inheritance: A Treasury of Historic Documents, page 12:
    Somdomites and Revolutionaries
    Oscar Wilde, the brilliant controversialist and playwright, []
And here's one where the plural is used (not quoted like several other words in the sentence) in a sentence about what Queensberry must've thought about multiple people:
  • 1998, The New Criterion, volume 16, issues 5-10, page 47:
    Queensberry honestly thought his son and his chum were "posing" as Somdomites—"playing silly buggers" just to wind him up. Many Britons of Wilde's background are what one might call socially homosexual: []
And here's an iffier use of the plural, in italics (but contrasted with "gentlemen" in quotation marks), which could be argued to be a mention on that account:
  • 1990, Richard Dellamora, Masculine Desire: The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism, page 195:
    [] by touching a nerve of homophobia within London's literary clubmen. During the decade, the clubs provided a semipublic space in which "gentlemen" might be discriminated from Somdomites, to use the Marquess of Queen sherry's spelling.
Here's a use next to "inverts", in a work that's referencing Wilde:
  • 2013, Doug Kirshen, Six Weeks—The New Man and the London Theatre Season of 1895: Henry James, Henry Irving, Oscar Wilde (thesis at Brandeis University):
    He evolved to connect the antifeminist ridicule of the New Woman to the growing backlash against male homosexuals, the Somdomites and inverts.
But here's a work that uses it in the plural in reference to two American gay men, not Wilde (though clearly, from the phrasing, alluding to the calling card):
  • 2004, Michigan Law Review, volume 102, issues 7-8, page 1476:
    A. Posing as Somdomites: John Lawrence and Tyron Garner
    Little is known publicly about the men whose arrest led to the most important gay civil rights decision in American history. According to the Houston attorney who handled their case at the trial court level, Mitchell Katine, "They're not out to be any more famous than they accidentally came to be."
All of these use the capitalized form, so a move seems to be necessary, but I would argue Prescott, New Criterion, and Michigan Law Review seem to attest the use of the word.
- -sche (discuss) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I also found one occurrence of the singular string, but not with a relevant meaning, in a work in which The Ardent Somdomite (and [the] Somdomite for short) is the name of some kind of ship/vessel, carrying cargo, which wrecked: I can't actually see the snippet in question to tell if it's italicized and referring to the ship, but I assume from the rest of the book that it is:
  • 2009, Gary Indiana, The Shanghai Gesture: A Novel, page 29:
    "Then you swallow whole this convenient twaddle about the Somdomite spreading narcolepsy through the countryside." "There's really nothing convenient about narcolepsy," I yawned. "That's where you're mistaken," Smith leered sardonically.
- -sche (discuss) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


First of all, the sense is all wrong. It should be something along the lines of "The study of Google or of the ideology of the company", but if we put that aside, I'm still having a hard time finding durably archived quotes. One cite in "A Dictionary of Social Media" (2016), but not much else as far as I can tell. Maybe it should be capitalised, i.e. Googlology? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Other than the "Dictionary of Social Media", which is a mention rather than a use, all I could find was this, and other references to that exhibition, which also doesn't count. Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Googlology, the latest degree option at Anytown University. Tharthan (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

in all conscience Edit

Rfv-sense "certainly". certainly in what sense? Canonicalization (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be just me, but I don't get this. I don't get why or in what sense it means "certainly". Does everyone else understand it? Mihia (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
In the quotes given, it seems more like "admittedly", probably short for "in all conscience, [I/one] must admit". In the first quote the author had just spent several pages ridiculing the arguments of "the last mentioned author", so when he says "If they do not see in what posture they are; let them look into the last mentioned Author, where they will find enough in all conscience to open the Eyes of any People in the World". The implication is that the arguments are so blatantly bad that anyone must, in all conscience, admit that the author is correct in condemning them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
To me, those quotes, or some of them at any rate, seem to be using it in the sense "to be fair" or "in all fairness", which seems more or less the same as present sense 2. Mihia (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mihia: I don't understand it either. Please don't close this RFV prematurely. Canonicalization (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Relatedly, Google NGrams shows that since 1965 in good conscience has been roughly twice as common as in all conscience. Before 1940 in all conscience was roughly five time more common than in good conscience. Given the number of reprint and later editions of works originally from earlier periods, the modern numbers probably understate the amount by which 'goo' exceeds 'all'. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • RFV-reopened. I also don't see how the cites for the first definition support "certainly" as definition. They certainly don't seem to do so unambiguously. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. I have changed the definition to "admittedly" Kiwima (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that there are two clearly distinguishable senses here. However, if others are happy with the entry as it presently stands then fine. Mihia (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we can find uses that fit one or the other of the senses, but not both. There are, I think, many for which either definition could fit. At least some of our citations seem to fit one or the other definition much better than the other. I get a headache trying to determine the fit of each citation. What does OED say? DCDuring (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't tell what meaning many of those citations are trying to impart. FWIW, Cambridge defines this phrase as "without feeling guilty" and MacMillan as "used for talking about what you believe to be fair or right". Century defines it as "most certainly; in all reason and fairness" and relatedly defines "in conscience" as "(a) in justice; in history, in truth; in reason; (b) most certainly; assuredly." Harold Charles Gardiner's 1972 In All Conscience: Reflections on Books and Culture, page 8, says "The dictionary says of the phrase 'in all conscience': 1. 'in reason or fairness'; 2. 'certainly.' I use the phrase as the title in the first sense: I trust that my comment will be found to be fair and honest." Our first definition is inadequately terse but I don't know how to revise it; perhaps Century and our original definition were better; I don't know. Century's citation is is Swift's "half a dozen fools are, in all conscience, as many as you should require", which frankly works with the second half of our def 2 just as well as (if not better than) with our former or current def 1. Perhaps there is only one sense, or perhaps the two senses are not cleanly distinguished. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just looking at Google NGram and at Century about these.
  1. In conscience has been more common than in all conscience, greatly so before 1940. In conscience has been about as common as in good conscience since 1970.
  2. I think the historical (pre-1850?) meaning of all of these is close to NISoP: something like "with a clear conscience", but also "compelled by conscience", so perhaps "in accordance with conscience". I think conscience was the same as good conscience, ie, unmarked, in, say, the 19th century. I feel the need to confirm that speakers in 1750-1850, when in conscience was much more frequently used than now, meant what we mean by the expression and, indeed, meant what we mean by conscience.
  3. In conscience was often used as an ordinary prepositional phrase, but has evolved to be a sentence adverb.
  4. Already by the time of Century 1911 usage had apparently become more idiomatic, but also somewhat polysemic.
These are only tentative conclusions, hypotheses, except for 1. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that some uses of these words seem to mean something SOP or close to SOP. I think the Swift citation from Century and the Markham citations come closest to meaning sense 1 / something distinct from sense 2, yet even there, sense 2 would work, as it already itself combines two conceptually distinguishable clauses, "without feeling guilty", "by all that is right and fair", so I'm sympathetic to Mihia's argument that it's not clear there are two distinct senses. (I am tempted to go a step beyond my earlier comment that in some of the other citations it's hard to tell what sense is meant, and say that in some of them it seems almost vacuous.)
The Pocket OED defines it as "by any reasonable standard" and then has a duplicate(?) entry directly below that defining it as "in all fairness, reasonably"; the first of those seems like a great definition for all the citations currently under sense 1 ... but also all the citations under sense 2. Say, what if we made that a top-level sense, perhaps with another clause added so as to cover all the uses, and then we made the existing senses subsenses? Then uses which could be either subsense could be assigned to the top-level sense. The Concise OED defines it as "in fairness". - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
"By any reasonable standard" is a good definition IMO. If we can use this without copyright concerns, I would support making something like "By any reasonable standard; according to what is right and fair" the top (or only) definition. Mihia (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I've somewhat boldly combined the senses, and also worked "conscionable" into the def, which helps take care of the "without feeling guilty" overtones this sometimes, but not contrastively/distinctly AFAICT, has. (I also notice there's almost an arc to the sense imparted by the citations: early uses being rather literal/SOP-ish, starting to seem a bit more idiomatic, then going back towards being literal references to conscience. I suspect the reality is that literal uses were always present, even in the "middle period".) See what you all think of how the entry is now. Our previous definientia(!) were distinct, but I don't think the various uses of the phrase itself actually separate in that way—which may be why so many dictionaries have only one sense, sometimes with two definiential clauses. (Of course, clearer contrary evidence could support the idea of one sense with subsenses.) - -sche (discuss)
Thanks, in my opinion the entry now reflects the usual modern sense, at least, more clearly than the previous "certainly" and "admittedly" wording. Mihia (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Historically, at least in a legal context (though it is difficult to separate legal from religious context during the religious struggles in the UK), in conscience was often contrasted with in law.
One dictionary says that in all conscience is simply a stronger form of in conscience. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Molucca palmEdit


  1. A labiate herb from Asia Moluccella laevis) with an unusual cup-shaped calyx.

This seems to be an error for "Molucca balm", which is attested (the plant is related to lemon balm). I added the sense which is in old dictionaries (a species of Asian palm tree), so I'm not rfving the whole entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think @Chuck Entz is probably right here, and it does not seem to be a common error. I could only find [one citation]. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like that to me too. DCDuring (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


(Old BrunoMed prefix entry I just partly cleaned up; see RFC.) I debated between RFVing and RFDing this. I can't find any evidence that it's a prefix, e.g. none of "Yamato(phobia|phobic|phobe|philia|phile|philic|centrism|centrist)" exist. There is one Google Books result for "Yamatocentric" but it's actually "Yamato-centric" and seems to be Yamato + -centric rather than this prefix (though some would argue that's an RFD question). - -sche (discuss) 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


Old BrunoMed entry, see also the one above. I couldn't find any hits for the search terms I tried, "Islando(phobia|phobic|phobe|philia|philic|phile|centrism|centrist|centric)" and "Islando-(Norwegian|Norse|British)", apart from one citation of Citations:Islandophile which refers to a (fictional?) place of Islandia, not Iceland. - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


A lesbian. Term proposed on a Web site that never caught on; I see no uses in Google Books. Equinox 14:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of mentions (here and here), but no actual uses, except ones that are not durably archived, such as this and this. Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All I found are the same two cites of Norvegophile you found, and one of "Norvego-Swedish" (a la "Sino-Japanese" etc). If we take "three different words using the prefix" to be the metric of attesting it, we still need one more. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I would require three different words that would actually be includable on their own. DTLHS (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
If it becomes relevant (if someone can find a third word), some previous discussion of criteria, including the idea that three nonce words could be enough, is at Talk:arno-. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
It is apparently relevant, since I just added Norvego-American. Kiwima (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a proper vote on this. DTLHS (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps. On one hand, I can see rationales for wanting three attestable words (in edge cases, a compound apparently using a prefix might be a typo or the sense might be unclear, and how much use is an entry if < 3 entries would "use"/link to it?), but on the other hand, we only require three citations of a preposition or adverb, so it makes sense to me (at least) that we'd only require three and not nine citations of a prefix... - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue with prefixes is that they be productive in Modern English - it seems to me that nonces that use a prefix are evidence for that, so I would call this cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
(FWIW, I agree.) - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I've added a citation of Norvego-Yugoslavian(!), and two of Norvego-Icelandic by the same author. (For attesting the Latin prefix, there is also google books:"norvego-Danus". In French, the prefix norvégo- seems to exist, given "norvégo-américain(s)", "norvégo-suédois(e)", "norvégo-islandais(e)" and "norvégo-danois(e)".) - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

take outEdit

"To immobilize with force." What does that mean: e.g. pin somebody by the arms? (It's not the separate kill/destroy sense.) Equinox 19:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it might have been intended to mean something like "incapacitate" or "subdue" or "render hors de combat" (e.g. injured, restrained, disarmed, or unconscious). Basically the "kill" meaning (sense 4) but sub-lethal. Pseudomonas (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


"An accidental text error caused by the incorrect copying and pasting copying and pasting of material on a computer." So basically a copy-paste typo. Couldn't find in GBooks. Equinox 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

One can attest it with the mailing list archives of free-and-open-source projects (which are durable, because the existence of such software is not negotiable – as the source codes of certain kernels and their main distributions and browsers etc. are kept for centuries in the future to gaze at, so are the mailing lists; they have until now just rarely been used on Wiktionary for no reason other than little tech affinity). Examples (too late for me to format now): 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7. Spelling varies between copy-pasto, copy+pasto, copy/pasto, copy&pasto – I am for taking the first and hard-redirecting the others, we don’t have copy & paste and copy + paste though we have copy and paste either. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Anything durably archived? I don't buy the "software is durably archived because something something negotiable since (i) that doesn't even make sense to me and (ii) even if it made sense it isn't Wiktionary policy. We can of course create a Citations page in the interim. Equinox 15:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox I mean if these software projects (Linux, GNU, Debian) do not exist anymore it is the end of the world as we know it anyway; and their disappearance is even more out of question than Wikimedia not existing anymore. Thus they are durable. It is Wiktionary policy already, without being explicitly mentioned (because it would not be easy to define: Of course not every code project hosted in public can be held durable safely but for some it must be so because the internet depends on them). Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
When I was 17 I made some video games for Windows. Suppose that my game has a special word in it, and today I put it on GitHub. Does it become CFI-attestable? Probably not because nobody is using, downloading, or quoting it. But how can we tell it apart from the cool popular projects like Firefox etc.? Presumably only because that speech and writing can be found elsewhere. I don't think GitHub means a damn thing. Equinox 02:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

jazz Edit

Rfv-sense for the Noun "Semen" and the verb "to ejaculate" Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

cited. I found more, but really, how much of this pornographic stuff do we want to clutter our entries up with? Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Use as preposition barely continues past Middle English to my knowledge; no reason to have a Modern English entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone else will have to try and dig out uses, but if it has three past the standard 1500 CE line between Middle English and English, then that's enough reason to have a Modern English entry.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe there's three post-1500 attestations, hence why I made the RFV. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that, though. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the quotations the Middle English Dictionary has and then tried to find similar collocations in modern English, to almost no avail. I tried "mid God", "(is|are|was|were|be|have|has|had) mid (him|us)", "God (is|was) mid", "deal mid" (which turns up a scanno of "deal wid", variant of "deal with"), "mid child", "mid this word", "well mid God", "mid flesh and", "accord(s|ed) mid", "well mid all", "mid eyes", "mid English", "speak mid", and "fill(ed) mid (a|the)", but all I found were reprints of Middle or Old English texts - apart from two citations which, although seemingly the right sense, represent dialectal speech and may have a different etymology (one looks like it represents a German accent and so was probably influenced by German mit, the intended dialect/accent of the other is unclear). - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I've cited the German-derived preposition, which I've added to the end of the entry like this. I moved most of the etymological content for the "native English" preposition to the Middle English section. I kept a reference to the native preposition (and its surviving derivatives, hopefully solving the question of where to mention them) in the etymology section of the German-derived preposition. IMO the first etymology section (the "native" preposition meaning "with") can be removed unless it can be cited (but, as the OED says, it seems to have died out before 1400). - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone bolder than me might even claim the use of mid instead of mit in the "German-accented English" examples was "possibly influenced by" the old [Middle] English preposition (e.g. perhaps to make the representations of accented speech more intelligible by using a "native" word), but given that the native word was long dead by that time and the same texts also interchange initial ps and bs where standard German does no such thing, I would not read that into the choice of -d vs -t (I wouldn't even assume the authors were referencing the fact that final -d and -t are homophonous). (AFAICT neither Plautdietsch nor Dutch, which have met, nor Pennsylvania German nor Yiddish, which have mit, are the source of a final -d.) - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

halldorophone Edit

DTLHS (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The cites go:
  1. Alice Eldridge, Chris Kiefer, in Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics and X, capitalized mid-sentence
  2. Alice Eldridge, Chris Kiefer, in Proceedings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression, uncapitalized
  3. Andrew Hugill, in The Digital Musician, in single quotes and capitalized mid-sentence
  4. Halldór Úlfarsson, in Proceedings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression, uncapitalized
  5. Thanos Polymeneas Liontiris, in Proceedings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression, uncapitalized, no article (I'm guessing editing carelessness)
I appreciate the work Kiwima put into citing this, and they're probably over the line, but, for instance, there's no three independent cites (not counting the Proceedings of NIME as independent of each other) that are all either capitalized or uncapitalized. Only the Hugill cite can be found in Google Books, so adding cites is not trivial. It's not a hill I want to die on, but I'm curious how others feel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Huh? The 2017 and the two 2018 quotes (2, 4, and 5) are all lower-cased and independent. You can't consider two papers dependent simply because they were delivered at the same conference. The 2016 (1) is not independent of the 2017, and we could just get rid of it, but I added it to show date range. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd throw out 1 and 3. The community of users of the word is so small that independence could be questioned. Some of the uses seem pro forma, just showing familiarity with the literature. Are such uses independent of the footnoted paper? There is a 2019 pdf that is supposed to for an article in press. It seems more nearly independent of the others. DCDuring (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

bouleversement Edit

Canonicalization (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

cited. While this usually appears in italics, there were sufficient quotes that simply included the word in running text. Kiwima (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

head over heels Edit

Rfv-sense "hopelessly smitten" (thus the equivalent of an adjective). As far as I know, that would be a definition for head over heels in love, not head over heels alone. Both Lexico and Collins claim that head over heels is an alternative form of / synonymous with head over heels in love:

I consider that a parsing mistake in both cases:

  • In "I immediately fell head over heels for Don", the verb is fall for, meaning fall in love with; "head over heels" is used adverbially, and simply describes the manner in which "I" fell for Don.
  • In "I was very attracted to men and fell head over heels many times", fall head over heels is synonymous with fall in love. But in love in fall in love is not an adjective: fall in love is not fall + adjectival in love (enamoured; very fond). Thus the sentence cannot be used to posit the equivalence "head over heels" = "in love".

I'm thus looking for unambiguous cases of adjectival use. Can you say "I am head over heels with someone"? Or maybe "I am head over heels for someone"? Or simply "I am head over heels"?

@Lambiam, Dan Polansky. Canonicalization (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's try google books:"was head over heels with":
  • "Not to mention the young man that I was head over heels with was the jock at the school he attended. He played football and was damned good at it! I had all his certificates on my wall and was proud of it too."
  • "He had already told me that he loved me. I was head over heels with him too."
  • "There was no way Laura was jealous enough to kill Brandi, not when she was head over heels with Drew."
  • "Not that he hated to admit it, but he was head over heels with Gracie all over again. He felt that she was the one."
  • "He wanted to get married and everything. He was head over heels with me."
  • "I was head-over heels with Sarah. We went places, played all games and did all things done by lovers."
  • "Within days, David was head over heels with this gentle, pretty young woman whom he asked for a date."
--Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here are some uses: [14] [15] [16] [17]. I’d define this as short for the complete phrase “head over heels in love”. The gamut of senses “completely, hopelessly, madly, utterly” is found very often, but not exclusively, in application to infatuation.  --Lambiam 14:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I think all those quotes are good. Given the evidence provided here, I was wrong, and shouldn't have removed that sense peremptorily.
I think we should do those three things:
  • add the quotes to the entry (I'll do that later);
  • find some quotes for adverbial head over heels (completely, hopelessly, madly, utterly) that have nothing to do with infatuation;
  • ?create an entry for head over heels in love.
Canonicalization (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the 'jiffy test' for including head over heels in love would or should require that common use of the longer expression predated common use of the shorter one. Eg, rain cats and dogs seems to have been common before other expressions that use cats and dogs, so we include it. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
But I just don't see that as a reason to add it as a separate entry. The phrase head over heels in love may have been given a special meaning, not because in love changed its meaning, but rather because head over heels extended its figurative meaning. As a result we now have head over heels in debt[18], ... in work[19], ... in temperance[20], ... in lust[21], ... in Dove[22] (an advertising pun), &c. So although head over heels in love may have been considered idiomatic at one time, examples can be found to contradict that, and I would suggest it is SOP and should be treated that way now. -Mike (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I found one quote for the adverbial head over heels (completely, hopelessly, madly, utterly) that was not referring to infatuation, but that was it. I think this usage comes from the fact that one "falls" in love, and is a metaphoric use of the tumbling adverbial sense. Kiwima (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Now listed at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#head over heels, so let’s keep further discussion concentrated there.  --Lambiam 08:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a different sense. The sense in RFV here is the adjectival one that does not have "in love" as its part (see the quotations above), whereas the sense in RFD is "RFD-sense: "(with in love) Hopelessly, madly, to distraction", which is a sense that really does not represent "head over heels" but rather "head over heels in love".
As for closing the present RFV, I claim that the challenged sense is cited. The next step is closing it as "RFV passed", which should be done by someone else than me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I got confused. But why is this sense now listed as an adjective? I think we all agree that above board is a prepositional phrase. If I qualify it with an intensifier (like strictly above board, as in As far as I could tell, it was all strictly above board), does it suddenly become an adjective? Is totally in the dark (as in We were left totally in the dark) an adjective? Or hopelessly in love? If not, then why should short for head over heels in love become an adjective just by dint of having been shortened?  --Lambiam 13:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-passed, this is indeed cited AFAICT, as Dan says above. google books:"was head over heels and" proved a particularly useful phrase for finding more examples which seem to be this POS and sense (they have the same form as the existing Coughlin citation); I put several at Citations:head over heels. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Christmas cakeEdit

Rfv-sense for the Japanese slang "a woman over 25 years old". Lots of cites in the entry, but they're all explaining the metaphor (thus discussing literal Christmas cakes) or blatant mentions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It may be a (dated) sense of Japanese クリスマスケーキ (kurisumasukēki), but not of the English term.  --Lambiam 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

opportunity engineeringEdit

A registered trademark that doesn't seem to have much usage in any running text, but lots of scannos. DCDuring (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If the term is used in the sense of the book, it should be capitalized (“Opportunity Engineering®”), and if that is the only use this lower-case version should be deleted. If it can be attested in lower case with a different sense, this sense should still be deleted from the lower-case page.  --Lambiam 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


"Shakespearean nonce word". From the days when any misprint from a "well-known work" was deemed inclusion-worthy. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

orgul, orgelEdit

Supposedly a native-Old-English-derived word meaning "pride". I found one citation which is probably of that sense, which I put at Citations:orgul. However, beyond just attestation, the etymology also needs referencing; the MED derives the Middle English word from Old French (although the old Century agrees with deriving orgul from "A[nglo-]S[axon]"). Joseph T. Shipley's Dictionary of Early English (1955, Rowman & Littlefield, →ISBN), page 472, in defining orgulous (which does seem to have survived), says it's "from orgueil, orguil, orgul, pride. Orgueil is direct from the French (12th century), presumably from an Old High German form urguol, renowned. Orgueil has not been used since the 16th century, save as a fresh borrowing from the French." I just created orgueil with some citations and an etymology section that derives it from (Old) French. If orgul is also attested, we'll need to determine if we're dealing with two words or one, and where to lemmatize it, and what etymology it has... - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is Old English orgol (pride, arrogance), which claims this as a descendant. The -ul ending looks more like Middle English. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to add the other sense of orgel to this RFV; supposedly it's a Dutch-derived word used in Japan to mean a music box, but I can find few English citations of orgel with any meaning at all: Citations:orgel. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


Two senses. Can't see anything in Google Books (watch out for the obvious scannos: "[a conviction] for whoring" etc.). The given citations appear to be both from the same book (though listed as 2011 and 2012?!), and are faux-archaic fantasy speech that may have been invented for the occasion. Equinox 20:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was invented for the book, since I found it in a number of old dictionaries - unfortunately all I found was mentions, no uses. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


Really only seeing one use in BGC, in reference to Roman Jakobson, and some are defining it as a belief rather than an ability. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Even if someone uses it in writing, it's a phonotactic train wreck- I doubt most English speakers would be able to say it out loud without training and/or careful practice. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I have added the one cite to the citations page. Other than that, as @Metaknowledge points out, it is only mentions rather than uses. It was apparently coined in 1896 in something called Mr. Myer's Glossary. Kiwima (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

bantersaurus rexEdit

Looks like a nonce —This comment was unsigned.

I commented at Talk:bantersaurus rex. Equinox 18:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
cited, albeit with different casing. Perhaps it should be moved to Bantersaurus Rex Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have managed to cite the lowercase version, although uppercase seems far more common, so I have made this the alternative form. Kiwima (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Impressive; good work. (I'll see if I can cite the other one of these Equinox mentions on talk, Archbishop of Banterbury.) - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


Noun: "That which is higher, contrasted with the lower. As the restless sleeper here, I'll take the lower berth. You take the upper." I think that's an adjective there (like "you have brown shoes; I have black"). Equinox 18:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In a context where someone has a pair of black shoes as well as brown shoes, they can say, "I wear the browns" ([23], [24], [25]). You can do this in many contexts with many adjectives, most commonly in the plural.  --Lambiam 21:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
At first I was totally inclined to agree, but for grins I did a search and found this [[26]]...not sure what to make of it yet Leasnam (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Found this as well, which seems eerily similar to the usex given for the sense 1. It even looks like it might be a clipping of upper berth/upper berths => upper/uppers [[27]] Leasnam (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
cited. I added a selection of meanings, including those higher in the social hierarchy and upper teeth, as well as the bunks or berths already mentioned. I could probably supply three cites for each meaning, except perhaps the ropes on the sailboat. Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps what we should be looking for is citations where "upper" is used without explicitly giving a noun that is modified by this as an adjective. In that case, I can cite upper berths or bunks, upper teeth, and social elites. We could break these off into three separate definitions, and remove the more vague "that which is higher". Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't many (even most) English adjectives be used this way? I found that flimsy, apico-domal, complete, quiet, unique are used this way. Some adjectives aren't attestable being used this way, but it often seems for reasons of phonology, eg. differents. DCDuring (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been many years, but I vaguely remember upper as a partial denture (or was it orthodontia?) for the upper jaw, as in "I just got fitted for a new upper". Whatever the details, it's definitely a noun- if we can verify it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The present usage example for the generic definition, "As the restless sleeper here, I'll take the lower berth. You take the upper", is quite weak IMO, since, as DCDuring says, pretty much any adjective can be used in this pattern with the definite article and an implied noun omitted. I would lay out the relevant definitions along the broad lines of "That which is higher, or above something else, especially ..." and then list the common special cases, such as the part of the shoe. Mihia (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Conjunction meaning "because". Not in the EDD or Century (which sometimes help find citations of things), and google books:"thy he" is only finding me scannos across line breaks and other chaff. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It was usually used following for as in for thy. May be Middle English Leasnam (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that hint, @Leasnam. This is now cited. Kiwima (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If this is only found as "for-thy"/"for thy", which looks like a mere alternative form of forthy, then I think this would need to be reduced to something like {{only used in|for thy}} (with that entry defined as an alt form or synonym of forthy). - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure we can conclude that it is only found in that formation - the reason all our quotes use "for thy" is because I used that string to search on, thereby weeding out many false positives. Kiwima (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Still, the etymology section identifies thy as a short form of for-thy or forthy. The citations show an alternative form of for-thy, not a shortened form of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, both the etymology and the citations suggest this only exists as for( )thy. The Middle English Dictionary also does not appear to have this except as forthy (I looked to see if they would have pointers to any other collocations). I found one source suggesting "withe thi"/"with thy" might exist, but I can find no evidence of it except with the other ("thine") since of "thy". - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've redefined this as proposed above (as it seems to only exist as a constituent of forthy, possibly even in Middle English, since the MED only has for-thi. Someone check that the part of speech is right, though; thy says conjunction while forthy lists itself as both an adverb and a conjunction. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Trumpster fireEdit

This is a POV mess, but I'm not sure whether it's made it into enough durably archived sources, so maybe it can be deleted without fixing. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

cited. Seeing as it has made it into a number of durably archived newpapers and magazines (and, in fact, spans enough time to be more than a hotword), I have tried to clean up the definition - although I would be happy for someone else to take another crack at it. It is a bit slippery, as the term seems to be used for Trump's modus operandi, for his presidency, and for the man himself. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

claret Edit

Rfv-sense: (colloquial, sports) Blood. DTLHS (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

cited. However, it does not seem limited to sports, as I also found it used in television reviews and video game reviews. Kiwima (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "pertaining to octopods". (I would expect octopodal to have this meaning, and it does, so I've added it there.) It would also be good to clarify which sense of octopod is meant, as that entry has three senses, "1. Any animal with eight feet or foot-like parts.", "2. Any cephalopod mollusks of the order Octopoda.", "3. A railway locomotive with eight wheels." I doubt a reference to sense 2 of octopod could be distinguished from a reference to an octopus. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I found one citation where a spider is called octopoid, and the surrounding text suggests it is a tarantula-inspired, "normally" (non-tentacle-y AFAICT) eight-legged spider. With some other octopod words, I had luck finding citations referencing larva, or horses like Sleipnir, or collocating with the phrases "eight (legged|footed|legs|feet)", or "eight (armed|arms)", or by searching with other number-prefixed words of the same type (e.g. octopodal + hexapodal), but not here. (google books:octopoid "eight arms" turns up references to cephalopods which are octopid in having eight arms; I suppose those could be a reference to Octopoda or to octopuses.) - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Someone interested in taxonomy (Chuck Entz? DCDuring?) could take a look at google books:"octopoid" cephalopod (and related searches, e.g. google books:"octopoid" squid) and see if they feel the various scientific texts (not the fics) there are better interpreted as meaning "octopus-like" or "octopodes/Octopoda-like". - -sche (discuss) 09:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

clown carEdit

Rfv-sense: (manufacturing) A bait-and-switch car.

Hunh? DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

After fairly extensive searching, I added a number of missing definitions, and even found one quote that could support this strange definition. However, I think the quote I found is actually using it to mean "very small car" (one of the definitions I added.) Perhaps the person who added this definition had read the book I got the quote from...Kiwima (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the manufacturing tag, perhaps prematurely, but bait and switch in predominantly retail in a human commercial context. In such retail context, it seems NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(from manoeuvre + ability) The ability to perform a strategic plan or manoeuvre." as distinct from the preceding sense. I am not sure that this could, conceptually speaking, exist distinctly. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the distinction here is between things that one can manoeuvre (like the manoeuvrability of a ship) vs. the ability of the one doing the monoeuvring, or whether it is between physical manoeuvring and strategic manoeuvring, so I picked three quotes that talk of the manoeuvrability of someone who is manoeuvring strategically. Unless I am totally confused, this is cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thinking more about this, I realize that references to the manoeuvrability of a ship/bus/etc can attribute it to the ship's ability to manoeuvre or to the pilot's ability and hence to the ship's ability/capacity to be manoeuvred. So although I initially thought the "comparison with those who are better off and have greater 'manoeuvrability'" seemed to be using the word in the same way as the first sense's usex, "articulated buses were invented to improve the manoeuvrability of long buses" — the people can maneuver (through society / life / socioeconomic classes), the buses can maneuver (through the streets) — and I'm not sure we want to separate that (do we in other -abilities?), I also found and added a choppy citation which seems to refer to a pilot's "manoeuvrability" meaning "ability to manoeuvre" (although portions of the page/text seem to be cut off) and realized I'm on the fence. I await others' perspectives, both on which sense each citation is using and whether they are more sensibly kept separate or combined. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the process whereby "verb-able/ability" can mean "able/ability to do verb" is not a regular or common one in English. In fact, the only other example I can come up with at the moment is "variable/ability", though I guess there are probably others. Is it valid to say e.g. "My manoeuvrability is limited" to mean "my ability to manoeuvre is limited"? I would say so, in which case I suppose it is a distinct sense from "ability to be manoeuvred", though I'm not sure whether we should have separate numbered definitions or just the one: "ability to manoeuvre or be manoeuvred". I'm wondering whether the "strategic vs. physical" thing is a red herring wrt the distinction in question. Mihia (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
There are some instances of "X-ability" in which X is not a verb, such as roadability and knowledgeability. (There is also an obsolete verb to knowledge, but it had a different meaning than the noun and was not the contributing stem.) Indeed, "VERB-ability" generally has a passive meaning: "ability or liability to be VERB-ed". But already in Latin, sometimes the meaning was active. Examples include amicability, peccability and sociability. One coined in English is clubbability; although club can be a noun, I think this derives from the verb to club.  --Lambiam 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So do you think it is plausible that there is a sense of "manoeuvrability" in which the "manoeuvre" part does not stem from the verb? Mihia (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. I don't think I was familiar with this usage, but I'm persuaded that it makes sense to have a separate sense, and the "pilot's manoeuvrability", "Lusaka's manoeuvrability" and "fancied his manoeuvrability" citations seem to attest it sufficiently. (The "women [...have] greater 'manoeuvrability'" citation probably does as well, as it seems synonymous with mobility = "the ability to move".) And there are other citations at google books:"his manoeuvrability", google books:"my manoeuvrability". Btw, another example of "X-ability" meaning "ability to X" is movability. Words relating to motion seem like a good place to look for more. - -sche (discuss) 07:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


This term doesn't seem to be attested beyond the 1200's; looking on Google Books only yields what seems to be dialectal versions of child. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can also find a few uses of this to mean "shield" ("God shild it!"), but not the challenged sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably needs to be moved to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Compare the RFV of shild, above. This too does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably needs to be moved to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


The definition: "Any of several orchids, of the genera Canarium (syn. Lipara) and Neottia (syn. Listera, that have a pair of basal leaves" seems to have multiple issues:

  1. genus Canarium does not seem to be a genus of orchids and not even a close relative
  2. Lipara appears to be a genus of flies
  3. according to several Onelook dictionaries "twayblade" may refer to orchids of the genera Liparis and Listera
  4. according to Wikipedia, Listera is now considered to belong to another genus Neottia
  5. according to Wikipedia, Liparis are known by the common names "widelip orchid" and "sphinx orchid" but "twayblade" is not mentioned.

Do we have any botanists in our editor base who could help? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The correct genera are Liparis and Neottia. "Twayblade" is a common name that only applies to certain species of Liparis, so it's only mentioned on the pages for those species (for example Liparis loeselii, the bog twayblade). I have no idea where Canarium figures in all of this, since it goes back to Linnaeus and beyond as the name for several economically important East Asian trees.
By the way: this would have been better at the Tea room, since the existence of the term isn't in question- just the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I take that back: Lipara nigra is a synonym for Canarium nigrum, which in turn is a synonym for Canarium pimelum. It's still massively wrong, but at least it makes sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no recollection of why Canarium is in this entry, though my change inserting it is only a few months old. Chuck's findings point to a possible source of the error.
I have added about ten species that have twayblade as part of their name. They are all currently in genera Liparis and Neottia. It seems that only members of these genera that can be found in North America have vernacular names with twayblade. Names containing twayblade are not necessarily the most common vernacular names for some of these, especially in genus Liparis, the North American members of which are mostly called widelip orchids or wide-lip orchids. DCDuring (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we need to find citations once Canarium is removed from the definition? It would not be too hard to do so. DCDuring (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed Canarium from the definition, added a usage note and removed RFV. The definition and usage note look like this now:


twayblade (plural twayblades)

  1. Any of several orchids, of the genera Neottia (syn. Listera) and Liparis, that have a pair of basal leaves.

Usage notesEdit

--Hekaheka (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


"(slang) A nickname between lovers. Pootie, are you coming to bed?" Might require a capital P, for one thing? BTW, compare Pookie. Equinox 15:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Like a weeaboo. Equinox 19:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “(derogatory, offensive, slang) Any woman.” -- 22:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recently added by the same user who also added "A male, as opposed to a female." as a sense to nigga. That may either provide a possible collocation to search with, or a second entry to RFV... - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's in line with bitch... I would have thought that calling a woman a "whore" in a derogatory, offensive way would just be using the prostitute sense, even if it isn't literally true — a bit like how "those morons in government!" isn't really suggesting that they have subpar intellect (only that they make bad decisions). Equinox 08:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm at least familiar with "bitches be tripping"/"bitches be like ___"/etc where that word seems to be used pretty broadly, perhaps to encompass women in general; I can't call to mind examples of such a use of "whores", although it might exist. You raise a good question, at what point does "broader" application of something as an insult become a new sense? (Getting off topic,) calling every uncool thing "gay" has its own sense, whereas calling a mannish straight girl a "dyke" does not seem like a different sense, but just asserting, even if knowingly inaccurately, that she is a mannish lesbian. But should "lesbian" mention that bullies could shout "lesbian!!" at any girl who looked or dressed mannish? In that case, the "relevant" sense of "lesbian" (≈"gay woman") is not restricted to mannish women. I guess finding citations is the first step. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


Sense 4: intransitive: "To appear in a dictionary". Presumably usage would look like: "apple dictionaries under the letter A". I did find a sentence in GBooks saying that "...headingless writer could equally be dictionaried under autobiography..." but that is transitive, and thus covered by the other sense "to add to a dictionary" — though I've seen people make the mistake where they would create a sense like this (challenged) one to try to cover such a passive-mood citation. Equinox 08:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I did manage to find one cite (by Ezra Pound, no less):
  • 1938, Ezra Pound, Culture, page 323:
    Metadidomi dictionaried also as the “giving a share”.
And I found one cite that is ambiguous (is it active or passive?}, but I have not yet found a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


"(intransitive) To be utterly cut off by family or friends, as if dead. The day our sister eloped, she died to our mother." No hits in GBooks for "she died to our mother" or even anything relevant for "she died to me". I've heard of someone being dead to somebody, but not "dying to somebody". Is it real? Equinox 08:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like it should exist, but it's hard to find. All the hits I see at google books:"died to our" seem to be the "become indifferent; cease to be subject" sense or chance co-occurrences of the words, ditto "she died to her", "I died to my", and "died to (his|her|my) (father|mother)", of which the only hit that might be this sense is Bloom. Strickland seems(?) to also use the sense we want, whereas this grammatically similar Lipner cite seems to use the literal sense, just in a counterfactual(?). The sense doesn't seem to be in the old OED. Smith and Cherryh and maybe Winer seem like they may be the right sense, though. What do you think? - -sche (discuss) 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The usual expression is "to be dead to someone". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@-sche Thanks for looking. I don't really see why it "should" exist: you can be invisible to someone without having "disappeared to them". So, the challenged definition is: "To be utterly cut off by family or friends, as if dead." My feelings about your links (in order of appearance):
  • 2009 Bloom: "Esther ... has 'died' to her mother, in order to live again" (note scare quotes!): this seems to be a psychoanalytical statement: someone has done something akin to death in order to overcome some trauma etc. Not relevant to the challenged sense.
  • 1854 Strickland: "When Edward died all men died to me." Presumably this means "he was the only man I could care about" so again not relevant to the challenged sense.
  • 2009 Lipner: "you hadn't died to me. In my mind only you remained my wife, no one else could take your place." Presumably someone did die but remained "alive" in their partner's mind, preventing future relationships: again not relevant to challenged sense.
  • 2011, Winer: "He's died to me so many times since the last time I heard from him [...] and I've died to myself so many times because of it." Not very clear but "died to myself" suggests the friends/family sense doesn't apply...?
  • 2015, Cherryh: "There was a point I let you die to me, son of mine. I told myself you were dead, so I could think about your father." THIS ONE ALONE SEEMS RELEVANT.
  • 2018 Smith: "I know you're dying [...] You've been dying to me, a little bit, day by day, as long as I can remember. And when I started doing some digging and discovered that Niklas existed, well, you died more that day." Apparently someone is becoming detached or disliked; again not relevant.

Equinox 15:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I think our definition at die is simply insufficient, and should parallel or incorporate more of the wording from the coordinate sense of dead (which is defined as "so hated that they are absolutely ignored", without explicitly limitation to or mention of being ignored specifically by family/friends). I'm going to revise the sense, at which point it seems to me that the 2018 Smith citation probably applies — I mean, suppose it continued its statements of "you've been drying to me, a little bit, day by day [...] you died more that day" by additionally saying "you became dead to me": that would be the "so hated that they are absolutely ignored" sense of dead, wouldn't it? so I think the sense of die (which is clearly intended to be coordinate) is meant, too. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I tried searching for "died to"+"dead to", but most of what I found is a religious sense of dead that we were missing, parallel to the "become indifferent to (sin, etc)" sense of die. I did find one citation (2003 Carman) talking about one person dying to and being dead to another person, but it might just be a counterfactual (as it also involves telling people the person is dead when you know they're not). - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I think family/friends is possibly a common context but probably an unhelpful red herring. Good luck! Equinox 17:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I found one clear cite of this (2017 Hoornstra), a mother yelling at her son that when he ran away, he died to her and became dead to her. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Aha, using the string "died to (me|him|her|etc) (the|that) day" [that someone did something], I managed to find several more citations. It could be argued that many or all are just metaphorical (compare saying something "died that day as far as [X] was concerned"), but the same can be said of the corresponding sense of dead and of many other senses of die and dead, so I don't see that as necessarily grounds for removal. It could also be argued that all the citations I added have the form "die to [someone]", but I think it still breaks down as [die] [to someone] rather than [die to], just like "it seemed to me" is "[it seemed] [to me]" not "it [seemed to] [me]". The definition may also need further revision. But I think the sheer existence of a verb die with a meaning roughly coordinate to be dead to is cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

lusûs naturæEdit

A horrid creation of the author of many such, with one cite that I can't confirm. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I found and added one other citation (which I was able to see has this on the page; I was not able to confirm that Dickens does). But the inclusion of so much etymological information seems excessive/unusual for an inflected form, especially when the singular entry already covers the plural's etymology. And the singular lemma should itself be moved from lusus naturæ to lusus naturae (Ngrams). - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the lemma (of the singular) to the ligatureless form, at least. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely this is an alternative, archaic spelling of (the plural) lusus naturae, rather than a plural of lusus naturæ. Madame Blavatsky died in 1891, so her quotation of 2018 must have been channelled through occult forces.  --Lambiam 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point. (Please revise the presentation as to "form of" as you see fit.) And older editions of her work don't have the û, though that doesn't prevent this edition from being used as a citation of a work that does have û (it exists in the world as a work someone might "run across", in the words of CFI). - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Another point: I doubt that the specific form “lusûs naturae”, which is given as an alternative plural at lusus naturae, was ever used in actuality.  --Lambiam 17:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If you find this entry in its challenged form objectionable, you might wish to review other contributions by the same person, distinguished by extreme pedantry. DCDuring (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a list of English entries using âêîôûāēīōūæœ (characters I've seen used in archaic Latinate entry titles) which aren't marked as archaic or obsolete. Many are valid, e.g. placenames, some are things that need to be marked as archaic (with content moved to another spelling), but many are other plurals, like Aramæans. Probably we should come up with a general policy on whether to present these as plurals of the ligature-using singulars or as archaic forms of the non-ligature plurals (or singulars). - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

dick printEdit

Looks a little urban dictionary to me. - TheDaveRoss 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, too. However, it was easily cited Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

dick pointerEdit

I am skeptical. - TheDaveRoss 13:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I could find mentions in plenty of dictionaries of slang (it is apparently local to Queensland, Australia), but no uses. If this does pass, I suspect it is plural only. Kiwima (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


Lots of these created by one person who created nothing else, we should verify. - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

cited, but only in the plural - I think we should move it to a plural noun, unless someone can find a use in the singular. Kiwima (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


surjection?〉 09:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added "eye dialect of thursty" to the preexisting, rfd'ed "(slang, sexuality) In need of sexual congress".--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Since "thirsty" itself also has the meaning "horny", the {{eye dialect of}} sense is the only one needed. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
But if an alternative form is only used for a subset of the senses? DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


@DCDuring as creator. Is this term specific (meaning that there aren't a host of other common Spanish names which are also used to refer to Spanish speakers generally)? Also, is it slang? If so, is it regional? I have never heard this term, and it sure seems like slang, but right now it is treated equally with something like Latino. Other dictionaries don't seem to have this sense. - TheDaveRoss 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I got this from Online Etymology Dictionary. The current article:
Dago (n.)
1823, from Spanish Diego "James" (see James). Said to have been originally American English slang for "one born of Spanish parents," especially in New Orleans; it was also used of Spanish or Portuguese sailors on English or American ships. By 1900 it had broadened to include non-sailors and shifted to mean chiefly "Italian." James the Greater is the patron saint of Spain, and Diego as generic for "a Spaniard" is attested in English from 1610s.
It's not in DARE, so it may not be US.
I'll see what I can find in Google Books fiction. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
So this is like dago and should be labeled as slang, ethnic slur and offensive? - TheDaveRoss 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)