Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{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 any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

Scope: This page is for requests for deletion of pages, entries and senses in the main namespace for a reason other than that the term cannot be attested. One of the reasons for posting an entry or a sense here is that it is a sum of parts, such as "green leaf". It is occasionally used for undeletion requests, requests to restore entries that may have been wrongly deleted.

Out of scope: This page is not for requests for deletion in other namespaces such as "Category:" or "Template:", for which see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others. It is also not for requests for attestation. Blatantly obvious candidates for deletion should only be tagged with {{delete|Reason for deletion}} and not listed.

Adding a request: To add a request for deletion, place the template {{rfd}} or {{rfd-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. The section title should be exactly the wikified entry title such as "[[green leaf]]". The deletion of just part of a page may also be proposed here. If an entire section is being proposed for deletion, the tag {{rfd}} should be placed at the top; if only a sense is, the tag {{rfd-sense}} should be used, or the more precise {{rfd-redundant}} if it applies. In any of these cases, any editor, including non-admins, may act on the discussion.

Closing a request: A request can be closed when a decision to delete, keep, or transwiki has been reached, or after the request has expired. Closing a request normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it was deleted), or de-tagging it (if it was kept). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFD deleted or RFD kept, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFD deleted" or "RFD kept".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should 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|rfd}} + {{archive-bottom}}. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:nice weather for ducks, Talk:lackadasical. Note that talk pages containing such discussions are preserved even if the associated article is deleted.

Time and expiration: Entries and senses should not normally be deleted in less than seven days after nomination. When there is no consensus after some time, the template {{look}} should be added to the bottom of the discussion. If there is no consensus for more than a month, the entry should be kept as a 'no consensus'. In practice, however, some discussions drag on for a long time.

Tagged RFDs

March 2018Edit




(Norwegian) Inflections of suffixes aren't usual in my experience, but I am not sure what the policy is in other languages. I doubt that this is of any use, users are more likely to look for inflections of complete words using the suffix. . DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[]

Well, including the forms at the suffix lemma page is definitely useful. However, this doesn't look like a proper suffix to me, e.g. islending isn't is + -lending ("inhabitant of ice"?) but Island + -ing with a vowel change in land. Same for utlending (< utland), sørlending (< Sørland(et)). Same thing happens in Danish, but spelled -lænding.__Gamren (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete; per Equinox, inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix. And per Gamren, it's even worse: -lending should be deleted too. --Per utramque cavernam 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[]
While I agree that both should probably be deleted (though without outright supporting it), I contest your statement that “inflected forms are made by inflecting the full word, not by inflecting the suffix”: in Germanic, especially Nordic, languages, nominal suffixes usually form the basis of the inflections of the words they derive, determining properties such as gender and countability. The same can be observed in much of the rest of Indo-European.  — J​as​p​e​t 20:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[]
There may be two schools of thought with -lending, “-lending” in The Nynorsk Dictionary., and for example “islending” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., where it asserts it is Island + -ing. Thus I am not proposing the deletion of -lending. DonnanZ (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[]
In Russian, which is heavily inflected, we also inflect suffixes where appropriate. For example, -ский (-skij). —Stephen (Talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Keep: First, please ping the creator of entries that are nominated for deletion (anyone!).
Now, for the deletion request itself: suppose you look up a word in Wiktionary and have no luck. You may still be able to recognize that -lendingar is a suffix, and that way deduce the meaning of the word correctly by looking up the first part of the word and the suffix separately. While -lending might show up as a search suggestion when you enter -lendingar (currently it does not, in fact), by going to the page -lendingar you will be able to exclude the possibility that other suffixes have this inflected form.
In short, keeping entries for inflected forms of suffixes like -lendingar aids user navigation, just like keeping entries of other inflected forms does. --Njardarlogar (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]

April 2018Edit

Yaghnobi entries of User:RajkiandrisEdit

In my opinion these need to be all deleted as they were taken without credit to the author from: https://yaghnobi.wordpress.com/online-yaghnobi-lexicon/, unless someone wants to contact them and ask for retrospective permission. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]

I spent a few minutes looking at the entries they made and comparing it to the source, for anyone interested. I'm inclined to say that they're innocent, or they at least didn't rip all of them. As for what to do, I think a more experienced editor should weigh in.
асп vs. "N. English: horse. Tojiki: асп. From: Tajik."
хоҳак vs. "V. English: want. Tojiki: хостан."
панир not in source
нун vs. "N. English: bread. Tojiki: нон. Etym: Tajik?."
хварак vs. "V. English: eat. Tojiki: хурдан. See: жавак."
тиреза vs. "N. English: window. Tojiki: тиреза. From: Tajik."
пун vs. "Adj. English: full. Tojiki: пур. Etym: Yaghnobi, from Tojiki?."
панч vs. [pantʃ] Quant. English: five. Tojiki: панҷ. Hom: панч2. / N. English: key. Tojiki: калид. Syn: калит; Hom: панч1.
зивок vs. "N. English: language. Tojiki: забон."
Gormflaith (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
The editor in question added a lot of bad entries and was quite uncareful; we know for a fact that some are copied from that site. We also don't have anyone equipped to assess whether they're correct. Unless such a person appears, I think we may have to delete them to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
I think they should all be deleted as well, but also because Yaghnobi should be written using more accurate Latin characters. Using Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda claiming that Yaghnobi as closely related to Tajik, which is unquestionably not at the case. --Victar (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
After looking a bit more, I agree with you guys... I shouldn't have been so quick to judge (in favor). Side note: some of the etymologies had straight up zero links 😕 – Gormflaith (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Nationalist propaganda? Everything printed in Yaghnobi is in Cyrillic. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Thanks User:Gormflaith for looking at the entries in more detail. If this is agreed upon then, then they ought to be deleted sooner rather than later, as once the data is re-used by Wikidata under a different licence I think it will be impossible to delete, won't it? @Metaknowledge Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[]

If it's decided to delete all of this user's Yaghnobi entries, note that some Yaghnobi entries were not written by this user, so look at the edit history before deleting. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[]

@Metaknowledge Could you take care of this please? It's months later and nothing has been done. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[]

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: I really don't have the time nor the energy nor the interest to do this all myself. I told User:Victar (and this applies to you too): if you go through and mark them all with, say, {{delete|Mass deletion of entries per RFD}}, I will finish the job and delete them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[]
There has got to be a bot option for that. @DTLHS? --Victar (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
I don't know how easy it would be to program a bot to do that, and DTLHS may not have time to write one, but if we all look over a few entries a day we can get this knocked out in a month or so. I've started going through the entries in Category:Yagnobi lemmas, removing the ones I can't find evidence for in books (I am using Google Books to check for English or Russian books that contain the word and its gloss in those languages). - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
I would have to look at the page histories of all Yagnobi entries to see that Rajkiandris actually touched the page, unless you have a list already. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
To echo what I wrote before, all the Yaghnobi entries should be deleted. Using cyrillic is nationalist propaganda taken from the site Rajkiandris sourced. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
I've found references attesting Yagnobi words in Cyrillic script from at least as early as the 1970s; based on that and Guldrelokk's statement above, your claim seems overbroad. I don't have a problem with romanizing those sources/entries if it is felt that the Latin script is preferable, though. I can go ahead and move/recreate the entries I've found attested in Latin script straight to Latin script entries. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
@-sche: Mirzozoda from the Tajik Academy of Sciences is the spearhead behind spelling Yaghnobi using Cyrillic, an otherwise unwritten language. The modified Tajik Cyrillic alphabet he uses was invented by him, but it is completely inept at properly representing Yaghnobi phonology. He also asserts that Yaghnobi and Tajik are closely related, which is demonstrably false, harkening back to my nationalist political propaganda comment. --Victar (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]
I've gone through the ёs, аs, бs, вs, дs, еs, жs, гs, иs, яs, ғs, ӣs and ԝs and removed the ones I couldn't find other references for (which was most of them, about 50 entries so far). - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[]

-ающий, -яющий, -ающийсяEdit

These are not suffixes: the preceding а is a part of the verbal stem. It can be a suffix on it’s own or another а-final suffix like -ывать (-yvatʹ), but in any case it will be present throughout the inflection. The participle suffix is just -ущий (-uščij), -ющий (-juščij). Guldrelokk (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Move to -ущий, -ющий.
Speaking of metanalysis, I've always wondered whether our analysis of nouns ending in -ание was right. Don't these always come from a-stem verbs? If yes, I think we should consider parsing описа́ние as описа́ть + -ние, the same way we parse Latin words ending in -atio as "a-stem verb + -tio"; see interpretatio for example. I only know of two cases of a genuine -atio suffix: gradatio and *coratio; are there similar counterexamples in Russian?
@Benwing2, Wikitiki89, Atitarev, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[]
IMO, they are suffixes, e.g. ука́зывающий (ukázyvajuščij) = ука́зыв (ukázyv) + -ающий (-ajuščij). The stem is -казыв- (-kazyv-), not -казыва- (-kazyva-). And there are several forms of present participle active forming suffixes.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@Atitarev: Why do you think the stem is not указыва- (ukazyva-)? It is present in all forms of the verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
For verbs yes, better examples are: де́лающий (délajuščij) = "дел-" + "-ающий", призыва́ющий (prizyvájuščij) = "призыв-" + "-ающий". "-а(ть)" is part of the first class of verbs. -Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
The stem of делать (delatʹ) is дела-, the stem of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыва-: that’s why it is present throughout the inflection. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
I think the problem we're having is that native speakers tend to naturally think of the а being part of the ending and not the stem, when historically it's part of the stem. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[]
I don't think it's a problem unless/until it's being misapplied in word-formation (or, in this case, conjugation). Are there people who misconjugate non-a-stem verbs?
Or are you suggesting we should apply the POLA? --Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[]
This logic would require doubling all suffixes: for example, the agent noun of призывать (prizyvatʹ) is призыватель (prizyvatelʹ), which has a suffix -тель (-telʹ) with the same а in front of it. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[]
May I suggest moving it to -щий? The correct decomposition of such a participle is, for example указ-ыв-аю-щий. The stem is указ-, followed by a imperfective modifier -ыв-, followed by the infinitive suffix -ать, which is conjugated to 3rd person plural -ают and trimmed to -аю, followed by the participle ending -щий. Otherwise, all of the following would have to be created: -ащий, -ящий, -ущий, -ющий. These are not different forms of the same suffix, but different conjugation classes of the base verb. Nonetheless, I do agree that initial а/я is not part of the suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[]


Same goes for the passive participle. уваж-ать, уваж-а-ю, уваж-а-емый. Guldrelokk (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[]

@Guldrelokk Let's think this through before just deleting these suffixes. My motivation for -аемый is that for many verbs, the passive participle suffix clearly replaces the infinitive suffix, e.g. терп-е́ть -> терп-и́мый, ма́зать -> ма́ж-емый, hence the same could be said here, e.g. уваж-а́ть -> уваж-а́емый. This is the same reason I prefer to treat -ание (-anije) as a suffix, parallel to -ение (-enije), rather than having two suffixes -ние (-nije) and -ение (-enije) that behave in non-parallel ways. Since I've been the main person working on adding etymologies, you'll find lots of words with etymologies that reference -ание (-anije) , and so it's not so simple to just delete that suffix. -аемый doesn't have so many words referring to it but we should maintain consistency of analysis. Benwing2 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Keep, as per the topic above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@Benwing2: But compare терпим and уважаем. Verbs that drop the stem-final а, like писать (pisatʹ), пишем (pišem), do not have this participle at all, so there is simply no way to treat а as part of the suffix: it would be plainly wrong. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]

мажемый (mažemyj) does not exist, for example, if only as an extreme occasionalism. It is not grammatical. Guldrelokk (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]

To the active participle: note how писать (pisatʹ), пишу (pišu) has пишущий (pišuščij). So to summarise: -ющий (-juščij) only occurs after а when the stem invariably has it. Whenever it is possible to ‘replace’ the vowel, it does that. Thus, in уважа-ющий -ющий is clearly suffixed to the stem уважа-, which has no allomorphs altogether: if it could drop its а like писать (pisatʹ), it would be уважущий (uvažuščij). On the other hand, -емый (-emyj) only occurs after those stems in а which have no allomorphs altogether: for other verbs of the first conjugation the corresponding participle does not exist. So again, уважаемый is clearly уважа-емый, because if уважать (uvažatʹ) could lose its final а, it wouldn’t have a passive participle.

I think that -ание (-anije) is a way harder and a very different question. I’ll need to think a lot about it. But the participle suffixes I requested for deletion are unjustifiable: removing them will not change anything globally. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]

Move to -емый (-emyj); I favour correct segmentation over artificial consistency. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[]
As per my reasoning in the section above, I suggest Move to -мый (-myj). The е/и is governed by the 2nd person plural conjugation of the verb (-ем/-им). It is not part of the participle suffix. Quaijammer (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. Consistent with what I learned when I learned this language's grammar. - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]

May 2018Edit


See also Talk:porta-.

Pace the Italian wiktionary, this is not a prefix but a verbal compounding form. Although I find it unnecessary (we could put the list of compounds at portare), I'm ok with keeping the entry itself since it exists in other dictionaries; see Treccani for example.

Note however that Treccani does not describe porta- as a prefix, as opposed to pre-. Saying it's a prefix makes as much sense as saying cutthroat is cut- + throat, or killjoy is kill- + joy, or spitfire is spit- + fire.

Category:Italian words prefixed with porta- needs to be deleted. --Per utramque cavernam 08:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[]

I   Support deletion, though I’m fine with keeping it different from a prefix, too. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete. HeliosX (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[]
Keep per my comments here and here. @GianWiki, Ultimateria? Imetsia (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
I'd say delete it. — GianWiki (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Weak keep of the entry itself, but I still believe the derived terms should be considered compounds. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]

July 2018Edit

dar pitacoEdit

SOP. dar + pitaco —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2602:252:d2b:3aa0:85a2:1a9e:d7f7:47bc (talk) at 12:23, 8 July 2018‎.

Keep. There is no need to delete it. It's a valid expression, and it's even indexed in some online dictionaries. CaiusSPQR (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[]
It may be a valid expression, but it looks like a sum of parts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Inclined to Keep, unless pitaco is used with other verbs (mandar, deixar etc) – Jberkel 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
That’s a good point. The semantically similar term palpite does not have such limitations on what collocations can be made with it. I am inclined to keep it too, though since pitaco is a somewhat complicated term to translate, I’d rather see the main entry hold the definitional content and the collocation point readers to it. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[]

August 2018Edit

anh haiEdit

Tagged by 2405:4800:52a7:99c:4104:f793:b3d:b0c0 but not listed. Comment: "SOP; compare bác hai, chị hai, cậu hai, etc." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[]

I find that "anh hai" is used outside of the family context as well; I am yet to find analogous ways of using the other "family relation + hai" expressions. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[]

October 2018Edit



This together with inodiatus and perodiatus are taken by L&S from Forcellini (edit: on another look odiatus doesn't occur even there; the other two words do). However, in Forcellini itself it says "word to be removed from the Dictionary, occurs only in Not. Tir. p. 77." This is what it's referring to: as far as I can tell, it's a manuscript/codex of Tironian Notes shorthand, and is indeed the only place I've found those words in. I don't know if misreading or scribal mistake is more likely. The words themselves reflect presumable proto-Romance forms (e.g. odiato) based on the verb odiare which doesn't exist in Latin. Those forms cannot derive from odīre - the perfect participle from that would have been *ōdītus or *ōssus. Unless someone can provide dictionary entries for those words from Medieval Latin dictionaries or cite examples from medieval texts, I think it's fair to conclude that the editors of Forcellini have mistakenly included them (forgot to remove them), whence they've found their way into L&S, but are not actual Latin words. Perhaps they have a place in the newly-emerging proto-Romance section.

--Brutal Russian (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[]

I just tried searching odiatorum and easily found a result; I haven't found anything legitimate for an inflected form of inodiatus, however. I'm not sure whether we should reject something only found in the Tironian Notes in any case, and perhaps they would be better to keep with an appropriate label. Also, for the future, this is the wrong place to post this; WT:RFVN is the forum where you should post entries that you doubt the existence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[]
I've found exactly 2 attestations of odiatorum in google: one is this 1591 edition which is corrected to exosorum in later editions; the other I haven't found corrections of. archive.org has been somewhat more productive, showing for instance a quote from what I gather to be a book by a 19th century Italian historian Pietro Martini - which I haven't been able to find - quoting an unidentified parchment. Another is this from ~1700. The word odiatus, as I've made clear in an edit, is absent from the edition of Tironian Notes I've linked to (presumably corrected to odietas as a marginal gloss of odiosus), the word inodiatus has 4 alternative readings, perodiatus one. Ernout, Meillet has this to say, marking odiatus with an asterisk. The words are not in De Vaan. This dictionary follows Forcellini with the same single (and apparently false) reference, and so do some other minor dictionaries.
Here's another article conjecturing that the form odiare must have existed based on that same codex as well as the Romance forms - however, as we've seen, the form isn't truly attested even there, and Romance points to proto-Romance, not to Latin. "Neue Formenlehre..." gives what seems to be a comprehensive list of all attested forms in pre-Medieval Latin, neither odiare nor odiatus are among them - the -ia- forms are presumably subjunctives, whose very existence by itself precludes a verb odiare from appearing. That said, inodiare at least does seem to have inscriptional evidence and is listed. Looking for perodiare will be a bit too much for me right now.
I think this should be enough evidence from me. However, I'd also like to raise a methodological question: if a word that is expressly ungrammatical in Classical terms, is attested during or after the Medieval Period a couple of times with dubious manuscript authority, and corresponds to or is indistinguishable from a proto-Romance form, can be included on wiktionary as a properly Latin entry, then I have to wonder - firstly, what's the point of having the Vulgar Latin category (whose name I take a big issue with and whose link doesn't appear to be working, but never mind)? And secondly - does this mean that I can add a Latin word (naturally marking it as "contemporary Latin" or the like) found in the personalised dictionary, or simply in the writings or speech, of some modern Latin-speaking circle or internet venue? How about a random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating around the net? Is being found on the Latin wikipedia a solid enough ground for inclusion? Certainly it would be more useful for a modern Latinist. Do medieval Latinised Germanisms and Gallicisms such that abound in all those early medieval laws quality as Medieval Latin? What about their corruptions that are firmly-attested by several manuscripts? Last, but by no means least — does Nutella Nutellae and other macaronic Latin qualify? I know this might seem like it's going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I suspect the answers to this latter part might instead be at the very core of our apparent disagreement over the inclusion of the words in question. By the way, I'm henceforth including the alternative conjugation of odio into this discussion. Also, should we continue this here, at RFVN or at some other place? Sorry, I'm very poorly familiar with community pages. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Brutal Russian (talkcontribs).
Attestations from Vicipaedia or the like do not suffice. The question for mediaeval and modern Latin has been whether a single durably archived use or mention suffices (as it does for classical words), or whether three independent ones should be required. I support the latter position, and we have applied it with some success: it avoids words that just one person coined for, say, Harrius Potter, but still allows in words that seem like "bad" Latin but occur in multiple manuscripts and might reasonably be something that someone would come across and want to know the meaning of (like sewera). My viewpoint therefore leads me to be very inclusive of anything that may be classical (if there are several proposed readings, we can include them all with explanatory labels), and exclusive of things written after the Late Latin period unless they meet our more stringent requirements. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[]
  • Regarding "WT:RFVN is the forum": If OP's opinion is that words only attested through Tironian notes should be deleted, it would be an RFD or BP and not an RFV matter.
  • Regarding "random PDF file with computer vocabulary floating": That's probably not durably archived (WT:CFI). And even if it were, there would be the mentioning stuff (such as "should maintain a list of materials").
  • Regarding CFI, types of sources (Tironian notes, manuscripts, editions) and types of Latin: 1. Tironian notes, manuscripts and older editions (if they aren't clear misprints or misspellings) should be okay for attestation. There can be labels and usage notes to note such things. 2. Even Contemporary Latin obiously is an LDL too like so many others languages and no constructed language as for example Esperanto. And why shouldn't Latin Harry Potter attest Latin words, when other Harry Potter versions can attest words for other LDLs (e.g. Scots, Cymric or West Frisian)?
- 21:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[]
It’s a good question what we do with well-attested manuscript corruptions that have creeped into literature. fariō (salmon trout) (whencever people are so sure about the meaning of this hapax) has even been borrowed into English though in Meillet’s and Ernout’s words “sans doute graphie fautive de sariō” (from long ſ to f as it seems). Imho using {{n-g}} and saying what kind of corruption (with what likelihood, if applicable) a thing is is a good idea (even in Medieval Latin “odiatus” is a soloecism). There are lots of examples for ancient languages, considering Semitic languages too, where occurences of “holy” scriptures are corrupt but only later found to be so etc. Because why shouldn’t we if we include misspellings? Traditional dictionaries write things like “so in the Ms. XYZ” (funny if juxtaposed with the three-quotes criterion, and tricky with the templates). Or we need a layout similar to {{no entry}} for corruptelae. You need to let your creativity work. Fay Freak (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[]
Interesting, I've checked the Latin misspellings category and only one item in there can be said to be a misspelling, the hypercorrection pariens for pariēs (the status of nasalisation/nasal in this environment and its timeline seem to be unclear). Other items that aren't abbreviations reflect genuine alternative morphophonetic forms, even if -acius for -aceus is likely to be at least in part a result of phonetic developments. What criterion defines those alternative forms as misspelings? In some non-literary corpora, the rate of omission of the final -M can be well over 50% (data from Adams 2013) - this hardly qualifies for a misspelling any more, but the language of those inscriptions is undeniably Latin. Late inscriptions and early Medieval texts still identified as Latin (even if with reservations) consistently fail to distinguish between the Accusative and the Ablative; Medieval Latin always spells -e- for -ae- in the 1st declension. Why do we not supply these and other things as alternative Late/Medieval forms? Certainly it looks like that's what has been dome in the case of the alternative conjugation of odio, only there a whole paradigm has been made up, apparently on the barely-extant evidence of just the participle - one can walk away from wiktionary falsely convinced that all of those forms are good Latin. Even if we were to confirm that paradigm with more than the current 3 New Latin attestations (+1 emended one) of the participle, I think it's beyond doubt that the form is an erroneous back-conversion from a Romance language for the properly Latin invīsus — and it's in this connection that I've asked about macaronic language, because the only difference here is intention. Would 3 attestations of a macaronic word give it a pass?
It looks like the misspellings category is currently being used as the generic dump for any non-standard form that's either attested or doesn't foreshadow Romance forms, and thus cannot be filed under the reconstructed namespace. This doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me, but filing them under for instance "Medieval Latin" doesn't seem a much better option - indeed, hence my objection to the inclusion of odiatus etc under such a label. I think we need to somehow draw a clear distinction between forms current and accepted in some period and unambiguous corrigenda, non-literary (inscriptional etc), or as of yet unsettled or competing usage (modern Latin vocabulary). For entries currently residing under misspellings I would suggest "Non-literary form", an equivalent of "Dialectal form" in other languages, with a way to specify place and period. For solecisms like odiatus, including those found in dictionaries on shaky or wrong evidence, as well as corruptions, I agree with the above proposal — there has to be a way to clearly indicate the non-acceptance of the former and the corrupted nature of the latter. And I don't think we can have an "alternative" conjugation like that without every form's page indicating its essentially fictional nature — unlike the 1st conjugation there are 2 pre-Medieval attested forms of the 3d conjugation odere - yet those aren't sufficient grounds to make up a whole new conjugation for the verb either. If anything, the reconstructed space seems like just the place for those. As for odiatus, its most solid attestation is a species of midge called Culicoides odiatus — perhaps that's what the page should be provisionally reprofiled to. ♥Brutal Russian (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[]

November 2018Edit


And all the codes of {{ccTLD}}. How is this lexical? --Per utramque cavernam 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[]

It's an abbreviation with a well-established meaning though. Keep Purplebackpack89 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete. These are not used with meaning in running text, only in URLs. URLs are outside the scope of a dictionary. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[]
Keep all We are not a normal dictionary, and these might be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[]
We're not a normal dictionary, but we're still supposed to be a dictionary. Per utramque cavernam 23:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete. These have no semantics, they are computer codes for DNS server software. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[]
They do have semantics, as noted below. This one is a domain name suffix meaning 'associated with France'. Now, the names may be applied sloppily - google.fr may mean 'Google for French' rather than 'Google for France', and youtu.be has nothing to do with Belgium. And they do occur in speech; I've compared prices on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk in a conversation. We could argue that it's a suffix rather than an abbreviation. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Lots of domain names in .fr aren’t associated with France at all. They are sold freely, I could set up a website about Japan in Czech there if I would like. There is really nothing behind the .fr other than being a top-level DNS domain. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Setting up such a domain would be perverse. What would be the motivation? The interpretation of the name would be that there was some connection with France. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Delete; these are not lexicographic lemmata. Why not move that material to an appendix or to a sister Wikimedia project? —Born2bgratis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[]
Keep all. I'd expect some folks to come to Wiktionary to look these up. It is advantageous to Wiktionary to be a go-to resource for all kinds of semantic lookup. These clearly mean something, ie, a given country, in the context in which they are used. There is even a grammar in which these are used. Why should users have to learn the arcane rules by which we exclude such things? I'd be inclined to revisit some of our decisions to exclude, say, airport codes, telephone codes for countries and regions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Why stop at the top-level domains? amazon.com clearly means something, namely the company Amazon Inc., with which its subdomains are associated – in fact, much more consistently than those of .fr. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
There are rules restricting company names on Wiktionary. But if we allowed amazon.fr, then its etymology would have to reference the TLD. There would also be an SOP issue. -- (late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
Strong delete, with POSSIBLE exceptions for the very commonly spoken ones like .com and .net: as a guy who has spent his entire life in an IT career. These are definitely erroneous: the dot is a separator. In a string like bob.users.example.com, the units are bob, users, example and com (which express a hierarchy) and the dots only serve to separate. In everyday slang people use words like dotcom but it is ignorant and foolish to include the dot as part of every TLD in general. It's like having a phone number "0123-456-789" and telling someone that your number is "-456-789" and including that separating hyphen, when you omit the local prefix. Equinox 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
To clarify: we could perhaps keep entries like fr, de, jp, but definitely not .fr, .de, .jp: that whole approach is so many shades of wrong. Equinox 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
I believe that in normal parlance, where TLD is an unfamiliar TLA, the '.' is part of the expression, just as with file extensions (.doc etc.). I can certainly imagine, "He used a .fr domain for his Czech website about Japan!" How would you account for the '.' in a grammatical analysis? --(late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[]
I don't think ".fr" is analysable at all within the grammar of natural language. It's simply spelling out the suffix of the domain literally. It can be argued that the speaker has parsed the URL wrong, but that's a matter of the person's understanding of URLs, not their understanding of English certainly. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[]
Comment: What about the phrase, "you're the bomb.com!"? Please note that "bomb.com" does not yet have an entry here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[]
@Johnny Shiz Does .com actually have any meaning there? I interpret the sentence as meaning exactly the same as you're the bomb!. The .com part doesn't seem to contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence, and one of the requirements of WT:CFI is that terms convey meaning. —Rua (mew) 22:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[]
This reasoning is thoroughly, impressively flawed and reads like a willing misinterpretation of CFI. Why do we record kitty-cat when neither part adds any meaning to the other; why do we record pathway when it means the same thing as path; why do we record ninnyhammer when the "-hammer" adds no apparent meaning to the term ninny? bomb dot com, or bomb.com or however it should be spelled, is undeniably a "thing". That's not to say it should have any bearing on the status of .com on its own -- just that to deny it for this swiss-cheese reasoning is patently wrong. M. I. Wright (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[]
@Rua Yes; I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Well, the POS should probably be a symbol. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Delete all words that just have senses meaning the TLD itself. .com and .org probably have actual linguistic, figurative meanings (it's my guess), but .az, for example, probably doesn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[]
Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Delete all. Non-linguistic content. Fay Freak (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Was going to vote keep, but then noticed that {{ccTLD}} is out of sync (last update 5 years ago), so it's useless and potentially misleading. Delete. – Jberkel 16:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Weak keep, given that we have so many other "country code top-level domains." Imetsia (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[]
RFD-deleted, or rather, in the process of being deleted. Though some other admin might want to take up the gauntlet on that. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[]

February 2019Edit

Incorrect uncontracted forms of Ancient Greek verbsEdit

I think the following uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοεργέω (agathoergéō) created by RexPrincipum, are incorrect. This is the fault of Module:grc-conj, which currently gives some uncontracted forms if you set the dialect to Koine rather than Attic. But Koine contracts in the same way as Attic, thus ἀγαθοεργοῦμεν (agathoergoûmen) not *ἀγαθοεργέομεν (*agathoergéomen), ἀγαθοεργῶσι (agathoergôsi) not *ἀγαθοεργέωσι (*agathoergéōsi).


There might be other cases to deal with, so I named this thread generally. — Eru·tuon 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[]

Added uncontracted forms of ἀγαθοποιέω (agathopoiéō). To do: uncontracted forms of ἀγαλλιάω (agalliáō), ἀγανακτέω (aganaktéō), ἀγαπάω (agapáō) maybe, ἀγείρω (ageírō). — Eru·tuon 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[]

Hi, I've seen your comment, but the thing is that, as a rule, these verbs also contract in koine, they still appear in their uncontracted forms throughout the corpus of text, although rarely. But do correct me if I am incorrect, I am not the most experienced. RexPrincipum (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[]

@RexPrincipum: I'm haven't heard of uncontracted forms ever being used in Koine (except in short verbs like πλέω), but if you can find any evidence of them, I'd be glad to see it. — Eru·tuon 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[]
@Erutuon: Eh, It's just something I remember my greek teacher saying, I may be wrong. RexPrincipum (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[]
The dual was completely extinct by the time of Koine, wasn't it? If so, then setting the conjugation template to |dial=koi should suppress the dual column, and all the entries for dual forms of Koine-only verbs should be deleted too. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[]

March 2019Edit


SOP --Miwako Sato (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[]

April 2019Edit


A mere graphic device. Any word can be written with as many vowels as necessary to represent a drawn-out pronunciation. Guldrelokk (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[]

We also list elongated forms if they can be attested, such as, for instance, nooo.  --Lambiam 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Why in the world? Can’t any number of o’s be attested three times? Google Books shows hundred of results for nooooooo, noooooooo, nooooooooo, noooooooooo, noooooooooo and so on. I don’t think anyone needs this garbage, may be it is worth changing? Guldrelokk (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[]
We specifically have a rule, approved by vote, that there can be a maximum of three repetitions of an element. So no, noo and nooo can exist, but not noooo and longer. —Rua (mew) 18:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Writing is a mere graphical device. Generally for Wiktionary, text is conceptually encoded as plain text, split into words and each word with a spelling difference gets its own page. This can be very important for the student, who might well be confused by не-ет or looove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[]
He should open some reference on the orthography then. Any letter can be written any number of times in prose, arbitrarily including a few ‘elongated forms’ does not help anyone. I still don’t believe this is dictionary material, but whatever. Guldrelokk (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[]
I agree.
Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables. See Talk:seeexy, where I and other people suggest that all of those be disallowed. ChignonПучок 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[]
The entry не-ет (ne-jet) is rubbish and should be deleted. (The transliteration "ne-jet" doesn't represent how it's pronounced.)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Since when has a personal opinion of "rubbish" been a reason to delete? Don't we follow WT:CFI and things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
That's not true, at least in English. The complex rules on when consonants are duplicated in English are only resolvable by a dictionary lookup, and I don't think consonants are ever duplicated in English for emphasis. Maybe we can resolve when vowels can be extended, but I'm not sure it's clear to me when vowels can be extended, since digraph vowels are common in English orthography. In any case, we have had a vote on this matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
You don’t need to do it for emphasis. You can do it for countless reasons in prose. You can do it to represent stuttering: b-but, b-b-but etc., or whatever else you want. A dictionary will never be able to help you with that. Guldrelokk (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
It's not whatever you want; in your example, "b-b-but" separates things out with hyphens and leaves the whole word at the end.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables deals with English and reduplications of vowels ("pleeeeeease", not "ple-e-e-e-e-e-ase", not exactly the same we have here with the use of hyphens, which is occasionally used to show the long pronunciations in Russian. I don't know if the vote is applicable to this case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
No offense to Benwing, who has done exceptional work with Russian otherwise, but this is rubbish; delete. ChignonПучок 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
Yes, no offence to Benwing2, I didn't even look at who created the entry but there was a ruwikt entry, so, it was sort of expected. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[]
@Atitarev I created this because it was listed in the 20,000-word Russian word list by frequency. I have no objection to deleting it if others think it doesn't belong. Benwing2 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[]

grattis i efterskottEdit

SOP, "grattis i efterskott". — surjection?⟩ 16:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[]

With the lack of an entry for i efterskott or indeed efterskott I suggest holding fire on this. DonnanZ (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[]
There should be an entry for i efterskott ("in arrears"?), the Swedish Wiktionary doesn't have one even though it tends to be colloquial. -- 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[]
efterskott = efter (after) + skott (shot), similar to Nachhinein = nach (after) + hinein (into, in), cp. im Nachhinein? Hence: grattis i efterskott ('congratulations afterwards', 'congratulations after it happened'))? Looks like SOP, but lacks efterskott and/or i efterskott which is needed before deletion. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

May 2019Edit

publika ĝardenoEdit

SOP. 2600:1000:B111:FB4A:B04B:1245:328E:5BE4 10:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[]

A public garden is not necessarily a park, and a park is not necessarily a public garden.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Just “park” is not a good definition. A better definition is “urban park” (which is always public), also called “public garden(s)” – I think the plural form is more common in English usage.  --Lambiam 11:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Urban parks aren't always public; there's at least one near me limited to the local homeowners. I'm not familiar with the phrase "public gardens" and using the phrase "garden" to refer to a place with mowed grass and tennis and basketball courts strikes me as wrong. A local park has gardens, where people can grow vegetables. Some of this might be my idiolect or American English, but if this is deleted as SOP, I'd like to see clarification on ĝardeno.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[]
As seen here in British use, this “Public Gardens” (note that this is grammatically treated as a singular) is really a park (where one would not be allowed to grow veggies), complete with children’s play area and bowling green. In US use, “public garden” appears to mean what I’d call a botanical garden, at least according to the American Public Gardens Association. I think that a park in an urban environment with access restricted to residents, such as Gramercy Park in NY, would be called a (private) neighborhood park; most definitions of “urban park” define it as a public space, like here: “Urban parks are accessible to the public.”  --Lambiam 09:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[]
When I said "A local park has gardens", I think it sounded more general than I was saying; one of my local parks has a small gated area where people can grow vegetables. (Accessible by request and assignment of space only.) Unless public gardens are more limited in Britain than parks are in the US, I'd almost expect somewhere to have tried something similar, but it's not a common thing here.
It's possible this would be clear with more definition of ĝardeno, but this looks like a calique of public garden, which is opaque to me as an American and seems to be not entirely SOP with respect to British English.
Delete. The distinctions here seem speculative. Fay Freak (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Note sense 1.1 of garden: “(in the plural) [An outdoor area containing one or more types of plants grown for ornamental purposes] to which the public have access.” (The plural form “have” reveals this was written by a Briton.) I don’t see which elements in the above are considered speculative, considering that everything is sourced. While it is obvious that a publika ĝardeno is public, it is less obvious that in this collocation ĝardeno is not a vegetable garden open to public use, but a park intended for recreational use by the public.  --Lambiam 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[]

Delete because SOP, the discussion above about British vs. US translations is irrelevant. In Esperanto, ĝardeno is a garden, by default one where you might walk but not plant your own flowers or vegetables unless maybe you were the owner. Publika makes it "public", i.e., anyone may walk there but not on the flowerbeds if there are any and still (the way I understand it) not plant one's own vegetables if one is neither the garden's owner nor its gardener. This particular Esperanto noun phrase means nothing else than the sum of its parts. If there are swings or maybe dogs' toilets in that particular garden, they may be used according to how they are meant to be used; but the phrase publika ĝardeno doesn't say whether there will or won't be the one or the other. — Tonymec (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[]

energia eolicaEdit

energia nucleareEdit

energia rinnovabileEdit

energia solareEdit

All are SOP: the meaning in English is in each case the literal translation.  --Lambiam 11:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[]

Can't the same be said for English and other languages? Canonicalization (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Not for English – for example, “solar energy” could also have meant the energy produced by the fusion process in the Sun’s core, about 384.6 YW, and not the tiny fraction that reaches Earth in the form of sunlight; also, the meaning of the English terms is not a translation – but, indeed, in most cases for many other languages. But not always; for example, Dutch duurzame energie, the equivalent of English renewable energy, literally means “durable energy”. Because of such exceptions, I think the English terms are defensible as translation hubs.  --Lambiam 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Couldn't your case for "solar energy" be applied to "energia solare"? Ultimateria (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[]
Anyone can readily see that “energia solare” means “solar energy” in English; we do not need the entry for that. If someone doesn’t know what solar energy is, they may have to look it up. The notion that “energia solare” needs an entry just like “solar energy” because it could also have meant something else, should naturally lead to the conclusion that its definition needs to be rewritten:
energia solare f (plural energie solari)
1. energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation emitted from the Sun; especially that part of this energy that is converted into usable thermal or electrical energy by humans.
 --Lambiam 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I see what you mean. I hate to be the one to trot out the slippery slope, but there are several thousand multiword entries in Romance languages that could be deleted by the same logic. Perhaps we need to add more concrete rules for non-English terms to the Idiomacity section of CFI, disallowing "literal translations" of English, after first deciding what that means. Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[]
I think it's a grey zone. I've been creating some similar entries in French, but that's one of those cases where I'm not sure I should. Canonicalization (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 21:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I'd say delete as well. But I do agree it's a grey zone and that there may thousands more similar entries waiting to be deleted. So maybe we should take the discussion to a more public place like the Beer parlour or hold a vote or some such. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete. (Btw @Lambiam, duurzame energie is better translated sustainable energy, renewable energy is hernieuwbare energie.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep as set phrases. In addition, I think the English equivalents stand on their own merits and not merely because they're translation hubs. And lastly, the slippery slope argument is persuasive. Imetsia (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Strong keep all per Imetsia. AG202 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Supposedly Albanian, but Index:Albanian implies, and the Wikipedia article on the language says it only uses Roman letters. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[]

During the Ottoman empire several scripts were used to write in Arbërisht: latin, greek, arabic, etc. Arbërisht (αρbε̰ρίσ̈τ) is still written in the greek Alphabet, but only by an minority group living in Greeve (called 'Arvanites' in Greek). Arbëreshë living in Italy use the latin Alphabet, same goes for modern Albanian. Arbërisht is Old Albanian. Also "Arbërisht" (the native term) is called "Arvanitika" in greek tongue. Arvanitika is an endagered language. I don't quite get why my entry should be deleted. Here's the Αρβανιτικα' / Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ - Alphabet (greek and latin script) + Standatd Albanian Orthography.

  • latin/greek/standardAlb. | IPA
  • A a / Α α / A a |[a~ɑ]
  • B b / Ƃ ƅ / B b | [b]
  • C c / ΤΣ τσ / C c | [ts]
  • Ç ç / ΤΣ̈ τσ̈ / Ç ç | [ʧ]
  • D d / D d / D d | [d]
  • Dh dh / Δ δ / Dh dh | [ð]
  • E e / Ε ε / E e | [e ~ ɛ]
  • Ë ë / Ε̱ ε̱ / Ë ë | [ə~ʊ̣]
  • F f / Φ φ / F f | [f]
  • G g / Γ γ / G g | [g]
  • Gj gj / Γj γj / (g) | [gʲ]
  • --- / --- / Gj gj | [ɟ]
  • H h / Χ χ / --- | [x]
  • --- / --- / H h | [h]
  • Hj hj / Χ̇ χ̇ / --- | [xʲ]
  • I i / Ι ι / I i | [i]
  • J j / J j / J j | [j]
  • K k / Κ κ / K k | [k]
  • L l / Λ λ / L l | [l]
  • LJ lj / Λ̇ λ̇ / L l | [ʎ]
  • Ll ll / ΛΛ λλ / --- | [ɣ]
  • --- / --- / Ll ll | [ɫ]
  • M m / Μ μ / M m | [m]
  • N n / Ν ν / N n | [n]
  • Nj nj / Ν̇ ν̇ / Nj nj | [ɲ]
  • O o / Ο ο / O o | [ɔ]
  • P p / Π π / P p | [p]
  • Q q / Κ̇ κ̇ / (kj) | [kj]
  • --- / --- / Q q | [c]
  • R r / Ρ ρ / R r | [ɾ]
  • Rr rr / Ρ̇ ρ̇ / Rr rr | [r(ˑ)]
  • S s / Σ σ / S s | [s]
  • Sh sh / Σ̈ σ̈ / Sh sh | [ʃ]
  • T t / Τ τ / T t | [t]
  • Th th / Θ θ / Th th | [θ]
  • U u / Ȣ ȣ / U u | [u]
  • V v / Β β / V v | [v]
  • X x / DΣ dσ / X x | [dz]
  • Xh xh / DΣ̈ dσ̈ / Xh xh | [ʤ]
  • Y y / Υ υ / Y y | [y]
  • Z z / Ζ ζ / Z z | [z]
  • Zh zh / Ż ζ̇ / Zh zh | [ʒ]

  • Macrolanguage: Albanian (sqi), code sets: 639-2/T, 639-3
    • Identifier | Reference n. | Code Sets
    • aat | Arvanitika Albanian| 639-3

IMIPER (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[]

In the entry αρbε̰ρ and the text above (Αρbε̰ρισ̈τ) I see a tilde below the ε, but in the table above the diacritic is a macron below. Is there a (formal or de facto) authority for the orthography of Arbërisht written in the Greek alphabet? In this gif from a defunct web site I also see a ligature Ȣ ȣ not represented in the above table.  --Lambiam 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[]
ȣ is there under U.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[]

June 2019Edit


As a sort of testcase, because it was restored by @Robbie SWE, here is an entry for an ISO language code. Note: if we want to have these, we also need to check if they're attestable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[]

WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "Accepted" → "Codes" → "ISO codes such as [...]". "ISO 639-1 code" is an ISO code, so it's accepted as Translingual. Hence: move to WT:RFVN? --20:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).

SOS AlarmEdit

"a Swedish state owned non-profit organization handling emergency calls". Isn't this encyclopedic? — surjection?⟩ 10:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[]

I created the article solely because it can be used synonymously with the words 112, 90000, and nittiotusen. It wasn't meant to be more encyclopedic than a dictionary entry.--Christoffre (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[]
Synonym links can also be made to point to Wikipedia entries, although if it serves lexical purpose as a term for the number, it might be worth keeping (but the definition needs to reflect that). — surjection?⟩ 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[]
There was no Wikipedia entry at the time of writing (but there is one now). Can you give an idea on how to improve the definition to reflect a more lexical purpose, or point towards any certain help article?--Christoffre (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[]
The way I would personally do it is to either only have a definition that goes something like "synonym of 112 (the emergency number)" and point out that it is actually the name of a company in the Etymology section (along the lines of "From SOS Alarm, the name of the publicly owned company that operates the number.") Naturally, some editors may think otherwise, but as far as I know, there isn't a consistent guideline for this (the closest thing is the CFI policy on company names). — surjection?⟩ 09:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[]
When used as a synonym of “112” (or "nödnummer”) in a collocation like “ringa SOS Alarm”, is it still a proper noun, or should it then be classified as a common noun? (Compare the classification of Xerox as (just) “Noun”.  --Lambiam 18:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[]

Banca d'ItaliaEdit

Do we want this? Would we want Bank of Italy? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[]

If it's the central bank it's like the Bank of England. DonnanZ (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[]
It is just the same as the Bank of England (though some functions have been removed after the lira died). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[]
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Weak keep, given that we have Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and so on. Imetsia (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[]

July 2019Edit


Tagalog, IP suggests that this isn't a word but a common joke. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[]

If it is used as such, also as a joke, it is entryworthy – but we should then note it is meant to be humorous. Move to RfV?  --Lambiam 10:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[]

It's not a joke. I learned it in school over there. It's not commonly used ("upuan" is more common) but it is used as a real word. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 387mqr (talkcontribs) at 19:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC).[]

Keep, maybe move to WT:RFVN or label it. --幽霊四 (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep, it is a recently coined word used mostly as a joke and a criticism to the excessive purism of the now-debunk Surian ng Wikang Pambansa. We can label it as such and inform readers about its past and its usage.Stricnina (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[]


Term added by Mare-Silverus (talkcontribs), who either is, or is somehow related to, our long-term UK anon who adds lots of problematic Japanese terms.

I think this is SOP, as simply (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor), but I'd like to get input from others. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Perhaps we should create 具足 before deleting this. Also, is the usual English term not chain mail?  --Lambiam 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Japanese 具足 created. This is an old term cited first all the way back to 722, but despite its age and Chinese-derived reading, I can't find evidence of a borrowing from Middle Chinese. My resources for Chinese are limited, so I'd appreciate it if any more-Chinese-savvy editors could have a look at the etymology.
Re: English chain mail, @Lambiam, were you commenting on the use of alt spelling chainmail at the 鎖具足#Japanese entry? If instead you were suggesting non-SOP-ness on the basis of the English term mail not corresponding exactly to 具足 (gusoku, armor), I would counter by suggesting that someone fluent in English would understand that mail in the context of the armaments of centuries past is broadly equivalent to armor on the one hand, and on the other, that someone fluent in Japanese and familiar with the same contexts would choose the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) instead, as indeed we see at the JA WP article ja:w:鎖帷子. In terms of raw Google hits (granted, only a very rough measure, but still), google:"鎖帷子" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) gets us 4.8M hits, while google:"鎖具足" "は" gets only 4.3K. At best, this would be an uncommon synonym, but I argue that it's not an integral enough term to even warrant an entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Eiríkr— I was commenting on the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”. In English, just “chain” does not have the sense of “chain mail”; for someone not familiar with the meaning (and possibly also not with medieval armour), trying to figure it out from the literal translation 鎖+具足 = “chain”+“armour” might not work too well. I do not know if 鎖 by itself can have the sense of “mail”, or that this requires the combination 鎖具足. If the former, that sense should be added. If the latter, I am not convinced we have an SOP here.  --Lambiam 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lambiam, I'm curious about your reasoning. You state, "the senses listed for (kusari), which do not include any of the synonyms “mail”, “chain mail” or ”chainmail”" -- no, they do not. For that matter, neither does English chain?
Japanese (kusari) generally just means chain. Indeed, so far as I know, any "armor" sense for English chain on its own only comes about from use of this term as a shortening of chain mail, so I'm a bit confused why you think Japanese (kusari) needs to have some kind of "armor" sense for Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) to not be an SOP? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Eiríkr— My reasoning is very simplistic. If I see that the meaning of compound noun X+Y, where X modifies Y, is rendered in English as A+B, then I expect that one of the meanings of X is A and one of the meanings of Y is B. So when there is a claim that this is a sum of parts (which I can see is the case for A+B), then I expect that an astute language learner can understand from the context which combination of meanings applies. Application of this simplistic formula in the hope of getting from 鎖+具足 to “chainmail”+“armour” requires 鎖 → “chainmail” and 具足 → “armour”. Chainmail armour, to me, is armour fashioned of chainmail. The notion of “mail” as a quasi-fabric used to fashion armour is absent from either of the components 鎖 and 具足, but paramount in their compound 鎖具足. So, apparently, 鎖具足 ≠ 鎖+具足.  --Lambiam 10:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lambiam: Ah, I see now where we have our disjuncture. I perceive English mail in this context as synonymous with armor (technically, a hyponym). Thus, English chain mail = chain + mail = chain + armor, which I view as analogous to (kusari, chain) + 具足 (gusoku, armor). The usage of English mail in armor contexts is very limited, with (I think) only three such collocations allowed: chain mail, plate mail, scale mail. The more common senses of English mail could also arguably make the armor-related collocations more distinct lexically: we're not talking about sending these things via post, for instance. The usage of Japanese 具足 (gusoku) is not limited in this way, and I think this makes the collocation of kusari ("chain") + gusoku ("armor") less of an integral lexical item, and more of an SOP.
I'd also like to draw your attention back to the fact that English chain mail is not glossed as Japanese 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) in any reference I've encountered -- the term 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is used instead. In fact, there is no page at ja:w:鎖具足 (Kusari gusoku), and the article at ja:w:鎖帷子 (Kusari katabira) contains zero instances of the term 具足 (gusoku). In addition, the JA WP article links through to the EN WP article at w:Chain_mail and vice versa. See also bilingual entries for "chain mail" at Eijiro and Weblio, glossing this in Japanese as 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira). See also the lack of any entries for 鎖具足 (kusari gusoku) at Eijiro, Weblio, and monolingual dictionary and encyclopedia aggregator Kotobank. For that matter, Weblio's page amusingly suggests that kusari gusoku might equate instead to "chain furniture".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
How chain mail is glossed in Japanese texts is (IMO) not relevant to the present issue. (This might have some limited relevance if the issue is whether the term can be verified.) I am not a native English speaker; I have always understood mail to refer primarily to the material, like one can say that early armour was “made from mail ”.[1] Note that, whereas armour has a countable sense, chain mail is uncountable. A medieval knight may have been “wearing an armour”,[2] but not *“a chain mail”. In French, the term maille from which the English term is derived, is just a single link; you can combine a lot to make a cotte de mailles. Two centuries ago the term chain armour would have been readily understood,[3], but today this is less obviously so.[4] On Wikipedia, the article Kusari (Japanese mail armour) states: “Kusari gusoku (chain armour)(鎖具足) is the Japanese term for mail armour. Kusari is a type of armour used by the samurai class and their retainers in feudal Japan. When the word kusari is used in conjunction with an armoured item it usually means that the kusari makes up the majority of the armour defence.” This is supported by a citation to a book entitled A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor: In All Countries and in All Times that mentions kusari gama, kusari gote, kusari kabuto, kusari katabira, kusari-kiahan, kusari sode, kusari tachi, kusari toji, kusari wakabiki, kusari-zukin. It seems reasonable (to me) to include a definition of the kind “(of armour) chain mail”.  --Lambiam 21:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lambiam: The English Wikipedia's articles related to Japan are, far too often, a cesspit of pop-culture misunderstandings and imaginings about Japan. I generally avoid wading in on Wikipedia, as I simply don't have the time to simultaneously manage the morons while also assiduously citing every minor detail.
That particular article is one such example: the very first sentence in that article is plainly, patently wrong. What's more, the referenced work never uses the combined term kusari gusoku. Monolingual sources never mention armor or arms in definitions of the term (kusari, chain), and given my own subjective understanding of the term and its uses, I'm not sure it makes sense to add any such sense to our entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
But what about the terms kusari gama, ..., kusari-zukin listed in the cited glossary. Are these not romanizations of attestable Japanese terms of art, such as 鎖帷子?  --Lambiam 21:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lambiam: Sure. Here's a brief breakdown to provide a bit more detail and context.
  • 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) is literally (kusari, chain) + 帷子 (katabira, single-layer kimono, literally kata "single, one part of a pair", in reference to the usual double layering of a kimono + hira "flat thing" = "layer"). Strictly speaking, 鎖帷子 (kusari katabira) refers to a single layer of chain mail used as a shirt-like or robe-like garment covering the upper body. This is arguably the single most common application of the material called chain mail in English, which I suspect is why bilingual sources tend to relate these two terms. The material itself, as a sheet of linked metal loops, is often referred to using the English-derived term チェーンメール (chēn mēru). Some dictionary entries will clarify that the item of armor is kusari katabira, and the material is chēn mēru, as indeed we see in the two sense lines at the Eijiro entry for "chain mail".
  • 鎖鎌 (kusari-gama) is literally (kusari, chain) + (kama, sickle, scythe). This is a weapon consisting of a short-bladed sickle with a long chain extending from the base of the handle. See the image at ja:w:鎖鎌, and more content in English at w:Kusarigama.
  • 頭巾 (kusari zukin) is literally (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, literally head + cloth). See also the images at google:"鎖頭巾". Lemmings-wise, monolingual JA sources do not treat this as a single term.
Looking further at the other kusari items in that index view:
  • Kusari Gote: 鎖篭手 (kusari-gote, literally chain + gauntlet)
  • Kusari Kiahan: not a Japanese term, presumably a mistake for kusari kyahan鎖脚絆 (kusari kyahan, literally chain + leggings, gaiters), referring to something like chain-mail greaves, only presumably also covering the back of the lower leg, not just the shin.
  • Kusari Sode (kusari sode, literally chain + sleeve). Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
  • Kusari Toji: I'm really not sure what this is supposed to refer to. The toji element is presumably 綴じ (toji, binding, fastening)? If so, this doesn't seem to be any specific item of armor.
  • Kusari Wakibiki: 脇引き (kusari wakibiki, literally chain + armpit-pulling), from the way the material is pulled or drawn across the gap between the other parts of the armor: a piece of gousset. Lemmings-wise, monolingual Japanese sources do not treat this as a single lexical term.
I note a few other items listed in that index view, things like Krug, Kurdaitcha, and Kurtani, that cannot be Japanese terms. Given the instance of Kusari Kiahan, I am left uncertain if these are misspellings, or simply non-Japanese terms.
Anyway, HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The book is supposed to be a glossary for all countries, so it should not be a surprise to find Romanizations of Japanese terms in an alphabetical list in the company of non-Japanese terms.


Case in point. Imagine someone with a beginner’s level of Japanese who comes across the term 「鎖頭巾」 in a context where the meaning is not at all clear (such as an ad offering an antique 鎖頭巾 for sale). Since she cannot find the term in Wiktionary, she assumes it is a sum of parts, and looks up its components: 鎖 = “chain”; 頭巾 = “wimple, hood, gorget”. In her understanding of the term “chain”, it is a linear sequence of links. Neither ”chain wimple” nor “chain hood” make any sense to her, but after looking up the unfamiliar term “gorget” and seeing the image, she guesses that “chain gorget” could be a gorget worn on a chain, just like a “chain watch” is a watch on a chain. Is there a plausible way she could have discovered that in this combination 「鎖」implied an item made from mail?  --Lambiam 22:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[]

@Lambiam: (after edit conflict)
... Where do you get the wimple or gorget senses for 頭巾 (zukin)? Those aren't in our entries. I can kinda see where wimple might come from, as the core meaning of the JA term is literally "head + cloth", and that's at least the right ballpark. But gorget is just wrong as a translation for 頭巾. The expected Japanese term is 喉当て (nodo-ate, literally throat + putting, applying, placing-against).
If you got kusari zukin and its mistranslation of "gorget" from the linked glossary by George Cameron Stone, I'm mystified -- I can't find any instances of zukin at all in that book, kusari or otherwise.
For the expected senses of (kusari, chain) + 頭巾 (zukin, hood, head covering), I wouldn't expect as much potential for confusion as you suggest. For example, google:"chain hood" comes right up with pictures of the expected hood made of chain. Similarly, google:"chain shirt" and google:"chain gloves" come right up with relevant armor-related images, and even the more unusual google:"chain sleeves" and google:"chain leggings" find armor-related hits within the first page.  :)
Some collocation-specific senses must be understood from context, even though the collocations themselves might not be lexical. Consider white crane. This could be a large white bird that inhabits wetlands, or it might be a white piece of construction equipment used to lift things. The term crane here is polysemic, but that doesn't necessitate that collocations using different senses of crane are necessarily lexical items unto themselves. So it is with (kusari) -- though arguably even to a lesser extent than crane, since the armor and non-armor senses for (kusari) are still about "loops of metal chained together". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, re: the erroneous gorget sense at ずきん, that is a mistake apparently entered when that page was created, which has not been replicated at the lemma entry at 頭巾#Japanese. I'm about to correct the ずきん entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]
If chain hood can legitimately mean “hood fashioned of mail” (as an instance of, more generally, chain NP meaning “NP fashioned of mail”, then a sense is missing at English chain.  --Lambiam 09:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[]


This seems to be a phonetic transcription rather than a practical spelling. The correct entry is at haꞌ. --Lvovmauro (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[]

I don’t know anything about Jakaltek, but in the orthography presented in the Wikipedia article Jakaltek language I only see the grapheme h as the second letter in digraph combinations (ch, xh, nh), which precludes occurrence in word-initial position.  --Lambiam 18:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[]
Many languages that got their orthography from Spanish (as did just about everything in the Americas south of the US) treat syllable-initial "h" before vowels as a silent placeholder. Since it has no sound of its own, this tends to be overlooked in phonological descriptions. 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The cited source uses a different orthography from Wikipedia. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[]

September 2019Edit

dar horaEdit

Spanish: SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[]

Seems idiomatic to me, but perhaps the definition is off. Not knowing Spanish, I might interpret a request like ¿Podrías darme hora? as “Could you tell me the time?”, in other words, “Can you tell me what time it is?” Is the sense of hora in dar hora “an hour” (60 minutes of your precious time) or “the time” (the time of the appointment)? In the latter case, the meaning is (presumably) “to communicate the time of an upcoming appointment”, which is not the sense conveyed by the current definition. In that case the term is indeed SOPpy; however, ¿Podrías darme hora, por favor? may be phrasebook stuff, or else there should be a usex at the entry dar (or both).  --Lambiam 04:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[]
The phrase for asking the time would be ¿Podrías darme la hora, por favor? --Vealhurl (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[]
Good to know, but we should not presuppose that the user of Wiktionary knows that. So what does ¿Podrías darme hora? mean? “Could you give me an appointment?”? Since “appointment” is not (listed as) a sense of hora, that would be idiomatic (unless that sense is unduly missing).  --Lambiam 11:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[]

October 2019Edit

sin atisbo de dudaEdit

Probably SOP --Vealhurl (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[]

ahora que hay modoEdit

Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[]

November 2019Edit

zoals gewoonlijkEdit

Dutch, zoals (as) + gewoonlijk (usually). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[]

The usual English expression is as usual, short for as is usual, so the word usual is an adjective. The similar expressions as always and as before use adverbs. I think the word gewoonlijk is also an adverb, so the word-by-word translation (as usually) is somewhat unidiomatic. So this is not an open-and-shut SOP case.  --Lambiam 15:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[]
  • Is gewoonlijk (also?) an adjective like gewöhnlich? nl.wt has it as adjective and with inflection and as adverb. If so, it could (also?) give: zoals gewoonlijk (as usual). --幽霊四 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
    @幽霊四 It is both, but I think it is more commonly used as an adverb and deadjectival words suffixed with -lijk are usually primarily adverbs. The inflected adjective gewoonlijke is for instance rather easy to attest. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

December 2019Edit

Old English pseudo-prefixesEdit

See WT:Beer parlour#Old-English-pseudo-prefixes. I went through all the Old English prefixes and identified those that I think aren't true prefixes, i.e. they're just the first part of a compound word. I identified two categories: (1) those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes, (2) those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure. They are:

(1) Those I'm pretty sure aren't true prefixes:

Prefix Corresponding free lemma Prefix category
ang- (narrow, tight, vexed) ange (narrow, tight) Category:Old English words prefixed with ang-
Angel- (English) Angel (Anglen (district in Schleswig))
Bryt- (British) Bryt (Briton) Category:Old English words prefixed with Bryt-
car- (sorrow, sadness) caru (care, sorrow)
carl- (male) carl (man)
eald- (old) eald (old)
ealdor- (origin) ealdor (elder, parent; life, eternity)
feoh- (cattle) feoh (cattle)
feor- (far) feor (far)
feorran- (from afar) feorran (from afar)
folc- (people) folc (people)
ful- (full) ful (full), full Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-, Category:Old English words prefixed with full-
fyrn- (ancient, former) fyrn (former, formerly)
fæderen- (paternal) fæderen (paternal)
fǣr- (sudden; hostile) fǣr (sudden danger, peril)
gador- (united) gador (together, united)
galdor- (magic) galdor (magic song, enchantment)
ġearu- (ready) ġearu (ready)
ġeō- (former) ġeō (formerly)
ġiestran- (yester-) ġiestran (yesterday)
hēafod- (head, main) hēafod (head) Category:Old English words prefixed with heafod-
hēah- (high, main) hēah (high) Category:Old English words prefixed with heah-
healf- (half) healf (half) Category:Old English words prefixed with healf-
hund- (hundred) hund (hundred) Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
hund- (dog, hound) hund (dog, hound) Category:Old English words prefixed with hund-
īdel- (empty, vain) īdel (empty, vain)
lād- (leading) lād (course, journey; leading, carrying)
lah- (law), lag- lagu (law)
lang- (long) lang (long)
lēas- (false) lēas (false)
lēod- (people, nation) lēod (people, nation)
lēof- (dear) lēof (dear)
līġ- (fire) līġ (fire)
lyft- (air) lyft (air)
lȳt- (small, little) lȳt (little, few) Category:Old English words prefixed with lyt-
lȳtel- (small, little) lȳtel (small, little)
lǣċe- (doctor) lǣċe (doctor)
læt- (slow) læt (slow)
mēdren- (maternal) mēdren (maternal)
mere- (sea) mere (sea) Category:Old English words prefixed with mere-
met- (measurement) met (measurement)
mete- (food) mete (food)
middel- (middle) middel (middle)
mōnaþ- (month) mōnaþ (month)
morþ- (death) morþ (death)
mǣġ- (kin) mǣġ (kinsman)
mæġen- (strong) mæġen- (strong)
mæġþ- (kin) mæġþ (family, clan, tribe)
mǣl- (time) mǣl (time)
nēah- (near) nēah (near)
nīw- (new), nīƿ- nīwe (new)
oft- (often) oft (often)
riht- (right) riht (right)
rīm- (number) rīm (number)
rūm- (wide, spacious) rūm (wide, spacious)
sīd- (wide, spacious) sīd (wide, spacious)
simbel- (always) simbel (always)
singal- (continual, perpetual) singal (continual, perpetual)
stæl- (theft) stalu (theft)
wēa- (evil, woe), ƿēa- wēa (misfortune, evil, woe)
wēas- (chance), ƿēas- wēas (by chance)
wēden- (insanity), ƿēden- wēde (raging, mad)
wer- (man), ƿer- wer (man)
wīd- (widely), ƿīd- wīd (wide)
wīf- (woman), ƿīf- wīf (woman)
wīġ- (holy), ƿīġ- wīġ (idol, image)
will- (desire), ƿill- willa (desire)
yfel- (evil) yfel (evil) Category:Old English words prefixed with yfel-
þeġn- (service) þeġn (servant)
þēod- (public) þēod (people, nation) Category:Old English words prefixed with þeod-
þweorh- (cross, opposite), þƿeorh- þweorh (cross, tranverse; adverse)

(2) Those I think aren't true prefixes but I'm not totally sure:

Prefix Corresponding free lemma Prefix category
aġēn- (again) (wrongly found at aġēn, without hyphen) āġēn (towards, against; again) Category:Old English words prefixed with agen-
āweġ- (away), āƿeġ- āweġ (away)
betwēon- (between), betƿēon- betwēonan (between)
betwux- (between), betƿux- betwux (between)
dūne- (down) dūne (down, downwards)
eal- (all), eall- eal (all), eall Category:Old English words prefixed with eal-
efen- (equal, even) efen (equal, even) Category:Old English words prefixed with efen-
eft- (again, back) eft (again, anew; back) Category:Old English words prefixed with eft-
fēa- (little; poor, lacking) fēa (few) Category:Old English words prefixed with fea-
fela- (many, multi-) fela (many) Category:Old English words prefixed with fela-
foran- (front) foran (opposite, in front)
hinder- (behind) hinder (after, behind)
maniġ- (many) maniġ (many)
miċel- (large, great) miċel (large, great)
middan- (middle) midd (middle) Category:Old English words prefixed with middan-
niþer- (below) niþer (below)
onġēan- (towards, against) onġēan (towards, against; again) Category:Old English words prefixed with ongean-
onweġ- (away), onƿeġ- onweġ (away) Category:Old English words prefixed with onweg-
samod- (together) samod (together)
sel- (rare), seld- seldan (rare)
self- (self) self (self) Category:Old English words prefixed with self-
sundor- (apart) sundor (apart)
ūtan- (on the outside) ūtan (on the outside)
wan- (lacking), ƿan- wana (lack) Category:Old English words prefixed with wan-
wel- (good, well, very), ƿel- wel (well)
ǣr- (before) ǣr (before) Category:Old English words prefixed with ær-
þri- (three) þrī (three)
þrim- (three) þrīm (dative of þrī (three))

(Notifying Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine): Please let me know what you think, esp. of the 2nd category. Few of these prefixes, esp. in the first group, have corresponding categories like Category:Old English words prefixed with ful-; for those that do and we agree to delete, I will empty the categories before deleting the prefix. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[]

I think "ful(l)-" exists as an uncommon verbal prefix (that is, it can behave like a prefix by being unstressed when attached to a verb). In present-day English "fulfill", at least, the main stress is on the second syllable, and this may also be the case for "fullfyllan" (I haven't found a reference yet for this specific word). Another "ful(l)-" prefixed verb is fuldōn. Some of the sources I've looked at distinguish between a few different types of elements that can be prefixed to verbs; e.g. Minkova 2008 says that niþer- is a "particle" (p. 24).--Urszag (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[]
When the meaning of a combination H + T is a specialization of the meaning of T, in which H serves as an attribute defining the specialization according to the meaning of free-standing H, then this is almost certainly an ordinary compound. This is most obvious when H is a noun. Lacking a generally agreed-on definition of when a morpheme is bound, we cannot hope to have a watertight criterion for separating the wheat from the chaff, so we need to proceed with some boldness. Not deleting will mean we harbour very many false prefixes. Deleting will mean we perhaps lose a few – probably not a big deal since the analysis of HT = H + T is not wrong. So I advocate to Delete all except those H- for which an argument can be made – like for ful- above – that some term HT is not an ordinary compound. (Since twi- is very likely a true prefix, it would not be surprising if an argument can be made that þri- is actually also a prefix inherited from Proto-Germanic *þri-.)  --Lambiam 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[]
OK, I struck out ful(l)-, þri- and þrim-. Benwing2 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[]
I have emptied the categories for the first group; there were only a few entries to change. If no one objects, I'll delete the first group of prefixes in a few days. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[]
We have all- and even- and self- as prefixes in modern English, and some languages either predecessorial or related to Old English, which might suggest that eal-, eall- and efen- and self-, at least, might be real prefixes. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[]
@Benwing2, can you please close this RFD as you see fit? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[]
I struck eal(l)-, efen-, and self- out of the list (as kept) per my rationale above. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[]

January 2020Edit




As far as I may be concerned about transliterating the w:Clear script, these orthographies are all false and, due to this, the entries shouldn't be kept. HeliosX (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[]


Taking into account the transliteration from the Clear script, it has occurred to me that the orthography wouldn't be wrong here. HeliosX (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[]

@HeliosX: What is going on here? I don't understand you at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[]

February 2020Edit


Oppose deletion. I created the *jilъ entry so that it would serve as a landing-point for the Proto-Slavic Wikipedia article which links to it in the noun tables. Additionally, if it were deleted, then the accentual information from the Verweij 1994, listing the noun as an Accent Paradigm-a noun, would be obscured. Finally, Vasmer lists the Russian descendant ил as being derived from an originally u-stem noun; so, it would be doing a disservice to readers to hide what very well may be the more accurate entry. BirdValiant (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]

  • Delete: Creating entries for alternative reconstructions is pointless. --{{victar|talk}} 02:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Keep like any other alternative form that can be demonstrated to have existed synchronically. —Rua (mew) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose deletion. @Rua and @Victar, Why delete it?[1] :v —— Gnosandes (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Does Proto-Slavic actually distinguish word-initial ji and , or are these simply notational variants of the same thing? If the two are truly phonemically distinct (i.e. if *jilъ and *jьlъ could have had different meanings and form a minimal pair), then I would not be opposed to keeping the entry separate. But if these are notational variants of the same sequence of phonemes, then I'd say this should be a hard redirect to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/jьlъ. Since our Recsontruction pages are language-specific, we need have none of the qualms about hard redirects that we have in mainspace. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[]


  1. ^ Dybo, V. A. (2000), “*i̋lъ (u-stem)”, in Морфологизованные парадигматические акцентные системы, page 42

gracias un montónEdit

Spanish: Looks SOP to me --AcpoKrane (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[]
There's also thanks a lot (thanks + a lot); treat both equally. --Bakunla (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[]


This seems to be SoP: 乜嘢 (what) + 嘢 (thing) = "what thing". It's analogous to 什麼東西 in Mandarin, which is clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep, I think it is a term meaning just "what" in Guangzhou dialect which has identical meaning to 乜嘢/乜 in some other Cantonese dialects. Sun8908 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sun8908: Do you have an example of its use in Guangzhou dialect? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[]

March 2020Edit


Sum of parts. 不敢 ("to not dare") + 出聲 ("to make a sound"). Not in any idiom dictionaries. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[]

@Tooironic: it's in Guoyu Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Keep. It's idiomatic in that it is defined as "to be cautious, uptight or scared", which cannot be deduced with the parts. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[]
It only means "not dare make a sound". 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]


This verb does not have an imperative form because it is always used in the negative. — 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[]

There are two distinct Arabic verbs زَالَ(zāla). Does this apply to both?  --Lambiam 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[]
No, only the second one; the first has instead the form زُولِي(zūlī) owing to the different present vowel. Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Really always? In all times?
Fine in that case, but we cannot manually exclude forms from the conjugation tables, so bots recreate them (or if @Benwing2 runs his again, after all the additions in the last five years). Fay Freak (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[]
@Fay Freak I can add support to allow particular forms to be excluded. Benwing2 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[]


Sending this back to RFD. It can't be used on its own, and in fact it can only be used in Panthera onca. We have deleted these before; see Talk:mume. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[]

I don’t see the benefit of deletion, neither for the collective of editors nor for the users. Panthera onca is not some obscure species that you only find mentioned in specialized scientific literature, and we can provide an etymology for the epithet to the curious user.  --Lambiam 12:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[]
All of which can be covered at the Panthera onca page. This is basically a cranberry morpheme that has no meaning outside of this one binomen. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[]
It is covered at Panthera onca, but that is of no avail to a user who looks up “onca” (unless they are savvy and persistent enough to click What, lynx here?). I still don’t see the benefit of deletion.  --Lambiam 13:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Only used in Panthera onca ({{only in|mul|Panthera onca}})? Then people can find the species (and etymology etc.) if they just search for the epithet. --Bakunla (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[]


Previously a fictional Latin noun; now a somewhat useless Translingual adjective. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[]


If there are no non-North Germanic cognates, this should be moved to an Old Norse entry. @Knyȝt --{{victar|talk}} 23:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[]

Why? @victarKnyȝt 09:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]
@Knyȝt: Because it can be formed by dalr +‎ , making it's existence in PG questionable with no other cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 17:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]
@victar: That would render a **dald, which cannot be the ancestor of the descendants listed. The PG -i- is needed for the umlaut. — Knyȝt 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]
@Knyȝt: Fair point, so an unattested ON *del, from *daljō + , which actually fits better semantically. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]


Could just as easily be a PWG *ga- +‎ *wihti (weight) +‎ *-ī construction, no? @Holodwig21, Rua --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]

I don't know if such formation were productive in PWG but I'm incline to vote delete as I think this formation may be likely PWG. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Kroonen reconstructs it for PG, though. —Rua (mew) 09:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]
Kroonen reconstructs a lot of stuff that probably didn't exist in PG, like Latin borrowings into PWG, not to even mention PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]

nakaistar ako sa MelbourneEdit

Seems unlikely to be needed. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[]

It's an example city at a phrasebook translation hub. I'd probably vote to delete all the translations there in favor of linking to the individual words. Ultimateria (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[]
That defeats the point of having a phrasebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[]
I would keep the translation tables at the English entries. There are zero Google results for "nakaistar ako sa Melbourne", so as SemperBlotto points out, this page is not useful. The translation is though. Ultimateria (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete. Yes, translations should be ideally broken up into components but it's very time-consuming. I did break up some. Also ideally, transliterations for languages such as Thai and Khmer are either regenerated using languages specific templates or those templates are applied for translation purposes. E.g. ខ្ញុំរស់នៅក្នុងទីក្រុង  ―  khñom rŭəh nɨw knong tii krong  ―  I live in the city of ... generates transliteration automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[]

April 2020Edit


Neither in common understanding nor etymologically analyzed so. See -lei, of which this is a duplicate created by a Briton of moderate German proficiency. -lei is a noun, by spelling a suffix and only for the reasons that follow a derivational suffix. Identically functioning synonyms are -gestalt (diesergestalt, welchergestalt etc., which one does and would not create as one knows well the noun Gestalt, but even less so one would create -ergestalt), -hand (solcherhand, mancherhand … from Hand), -art (mancherart, welcherart … from Art), -schlacht (allerschlacht; retained from Middle High German -slaht, -slahte, obsolete as the noun is not used in New High German, only Geschlecht). The part in between is the inflectional ending -er of adjectives in the feminine genitive singular (no entry for it here; it is to be seen as interfix -er- with a different etymology when recognizing the succeeding part as suffix, the interfix is else mostly from neuter plural noun inflection endings).

The syntactic category of what results is originally attributive noun phrase, which can also come in front of a noun in German as is well known; also adverbial noun phrase. With the living nouns such formations can also come after the noun and thus disprove that they are adjectives since attributive adjectives in German need to precede the noun; such formations would just not be spelled in one word. Männer solcher Art ←→ solcherart Männer, and no reason why not: solcher Art Männer. The same is not bearable for -lei which does not have a corresponding independently of this construction used noun, one will hardly say: Männer solcher Lei (except perhaps in very early New High German), and only therefore and because they most frequently precede nouns while attributive noun phrases more often succeed nouns, in German, formations with all the said morphemes are considered adjectives.

But the recognition of the noun as a morpheme is yet well alive, as some nouns in such suffixes are independently alive and the feminine genitive singular adjective ending is still used. So -erlei is a dispreferrable analysis (an understanding not employed by the language community) and therefore -erlei added to -lei after the former had been created is not an “alternative form” but no real form altogether. And of course and at least Category:German words suffixed with -erlei should be emptied and its content pages put to Category:German words suffixed with -lei. Fay Freak (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Recategorize and (when Category:German words suffixed with -erlei is empty) Delete (and also the empty cat). May I suggest adding an etymology section to -lei that also explains how this is got to be suffixed to genitive forms of adjectives so that -erlei is a recurring ending?  --Lambiam 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[]
"Neither in common understanding [...] analyzed so" isn't correct. -erlei is present in several modern grammars (including Duden and PONS, see the entry for a bit more). So at the very least, -erlei should exist and point to -lei. --2003:DE:373F:4031:3515:67E:BD2C:B01B 19:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[]


SoP: 帶 (have; contain) + 色兒 (lust; pornography; pornographic content). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[]


See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages/Retired_language_articles/Sunda–Sulawesi_languages. This one was based on original research and has no verifiable sources. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]


It’s not a word but a sentence. See Wiktionary:Tea room#草に草生やすな. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[]

We also include phrases, which can be full sentences (e.g. you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t ). The Tea room argument is that it is not idiomatic. But how would one know that it specifically criticizes mixed use as seen in 草wwwwwwwww?  --Lambiam 06:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete, for both wt:ATTEST and wt:SOP. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[]
Comment: These examples tend to support a case for ATTEST (except that they are mention, rather than use, of the phrase). But at the same time might weaken a case for SOP, as it seems like other references to "grass" or "growing" can be substituted (but but, I am now doubting that that conclusion can be drawn, at least from the evidence below).
  • [5] (わたし)質問(しつもん)しているのは「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」です。 「(くさ)()やすな」というのは()っています。
    Watashi ga shitsumon shite-iru no wa “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” desu. “kusa ni hayasuna” to iu no wa shitte-imasu.
    My question is about ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’. I understand ‘kusa ni hayasuna’.
  • [6] 2018年頃(2018 ねんごろ)からは頻度(ひんど)(すく)ないものの「(くさ)草生(くさは)やすな」(くさにくさはやすな)というフレーズも()られるようになりました。
    2018 nen goro kara wa hindo wa sukunai mono no “kusa ni kusa hayasuna” (kusa ni kusa hayasuna) to iu furēzu mo mirareru yō ni narimashita.
    From about 2018 the phrase ‘kusa ni kusa hayasuna’ also began to appear occasionally.
  • [7] たま~に(くさ)草生(くさは)やしてるやつをいいねで注意(ちゅうい)しに()きます
    tama~ni kusa ni kusa hayashiteru yatsu o ii ne de chūi shi ni ikimasu
    So~metimes I warn ‘kusa ni kusa hayashi’ peeps with a ‘like’
I can't decide whether this suggests keeping or deleting the entry. Cnilep (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[]

C. PadillaEdit

Cebuano. One particular street. Ugh --Vitoscots (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[]

  • "For quotations using this term, see Citations:C. Padilla." The page doesn't exists.
  • Reference (for the etymology) with title "Mother of PB Member Dies of Pneumonia in Hospital" is English.
Does it exist in Cebuano? If it fails WT:RFVN, delete. If it exists, what's the difference between a country, city, town name and a road, street name? It's all placenames. Even the Romans had them: Latin via Appia = German Via Appia, Appische Straße / appische Straße. --幽霊四 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]
The difference is a practical one: there are far too many roads and streets with the same names to include on a single page in many cases. For instance, almost every US town of any size (there are thousands) has a Main Street, and pretty much every city has a First Street. Most local street names are only of interest to people in a very small area, but almost all of them meet attestation requirements due to local newspapers and government records. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]

reine des abeillesEdit

As a native speaker, I see this lemma has a sum of parts. A proof is the TLFi does know this word. Yet if we look at reine, we can read: "2.a Animal, végétal, chose qui domine, l'emporte sur les autres au sein d'un groupe, dans un lieu donné, par ses qualités propres. [Chez les insectes sociaux (fourmis, termites, guêpes et surtout abeilles)] Femelle féconde unique d'une colonie, d'une ruche. Reine d'abeilles, des abeilles; reine termite. Les fourmis sont en grand émoi: L'âme du nid, la reine est morte (Rollinat, Névroses, 1883, p. 234). J'ai plus d'une fois, comme tout amateur d'abeilles, fait venir d'Italie des reines fécondées (Maeterl., Vie abeilles, 1901, p. 61)." This mean that we can "reine des fourmis", "reine des termites", etc. In the example given by TLFi, the text only use "reine" (bold is mine). Pamputt (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure if this should be deleted, but I did add the relevant sense to reine. Ultimateria (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[]
The definition is queen bee; queen bee at OneLook Dictionary Search. French abeille means "bee". How would I know this is the way of putting it in French? In Czech, we say včelí královna rather than *královna včel. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[]


Khmer for Tokyo. SOP, "Tokyo" + "city". Ultimateria (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Although, admittedly, city names are accompanied by the word for city, e.g. ទីក្រុងឡុងដ៍  ―  tii krong long  ―  London; the city of London. ឡុងដ៍ (long, London) is not used on it's own. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[]


SoP: "to be able to hear". It is included in 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典, but it is pretty clearly SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

May 2020Edit

Restore onomatopoeïa, poëticus and poëticaEdit

--Apunite (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[]


Rfd-sense: “2.1 (derogatory) a subjective opinion perceived as unfounded or invalid”. Redundant to sense 2 “an opinion, a view” -- 13:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[]

أراك لاحقاEdit



Since all of the descendants from this have been moved over to *gallǭ, I think this can be deleted. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]

No. *gallô is the ancestor of the OE form, and *gallǭ the rest. --{{victar|talk}} 02:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]
Well, at this discussion @Leasnam: had said: "I've moved *gallō to *gallǭ, since the West Germanic descendants are weak. I've also added the descendants of *gallô to *gallǭ. I think we can delete *gallô."
But it looks like English gall and its ancestors were deleted about a week ago from *gallǭ. DJ K-Çel (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]
It all depends on whether we want to keep the *gallô page solely for the lone Old English galla. Or we could consider the OE term a gender change from Proto-West Germanic *gallā f from Proto-Germanic *gallǭ and place it there. Leasnam (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[]

O1, O−1, O-1Edit

Relationship status in Hong Kong Cantonese. If they are allowed to be kept, every OX (where X is an integer) entry can be created. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[]

@RcAlex36: Where would you suggest such things to be documented? At O? Not every OX can be created because not all of them would be attestable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Justinrleung: In the Cantonese section of O? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Keep, I doubt there can be enough of these to be disruptive.__Gamren (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[]

June 2020Edit



Note: this was originally listed first, but I moved it down here and struck it, as the original RFD is no longer applicable (the meaning in question was deleted). — surjection??⟩ 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[]






Pokemon, same as Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Jigglypuff (Talk:Jigglypuff) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]

@Quadmix77Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[]
ブースター and ガラガラ should be kept. These are also used as noun, adnoun, or adverb. ケーシィ, イーブイ, グレイシア, and シャワーズ have no sense in Japanese lemma. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete pokemon sense. —Naggy Nagumo (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[]


Suzukaze-c (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[]

ニンフィア, リーフィア, サンダースEdit

@PaperSplashSuzukaze-c (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Fair enough. I just wanted to complete the set while they were still up. PaperSplash (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[]

サンダー#Proper nounEdit

Suzukaze-c (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[]

フリーザー#Proper nounEdit

ファイヤー#Proper nounEdit




These should also go then. PaperSplash (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[]

חנות משכונותEdit

Apparently incorrect. --Huckerby980 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[]

  • Keep. It's used in the press occasionally, although בית עבוט is more common. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[]


SOP for Italian "to the attack." If it's yelled out, or if it has an exclamation point at the end, it could become a command to "attack!" But this itself is not a lexical feature, so the term shouldn't be included as an entry. Imetsia (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, SOP. Ultimateria (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Shouldn’t we have phrasebook entries for war commandos like this? Fay Freak (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Abstain: I agree with Fay Freak. PUC – 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[]

aapiji goEdit

This entry violates the criteria for inclusion. It is not idiomatic phrase, but just a sum-of-parts. aapiji already means very, and go is simply an emphatic marker. It could possibly be saved as an alernative form of aapiji. SteveGat (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[]


I believe this is best analyzed as [[VERB-死]-人], and 人 "someone" can be replaced freely with "I", "you", etc. The usage examples should be moved to . —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: if we do keep this, I think it should be merge with the Gan sense under pronunciation 2. While it's analyzable as above, it seems to be fossilized as a kind of intensifier (at least in certain varieties). It's in some dictionaries, such as 南昌方言詞典 and 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典. I'm leaning on the keep side, but I'm not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]
Actually, after some thought, the two meanings seem to be different depending on the verb/adjective. 南昌方言詞典 defines it as "用在動詞或形容詞後,表示令人非常(高興、生氣、難受等)" and lists 熱~, 笑~, 氣~, 煩~, 急~ and 冷~ as examples. To me, these belong to the definition that is being rfd-ed. @Mar vin kaiser who added the Gan sense recently. 臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典 defines it as "置於動詞之後,用來表示「非常……」、「很……」的意思" and lists 驚死人 and 貴死人 as examples. 驚死人 could be interpreted as the rfd-ed definition, but 貴死人 is harder to interpret as such. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[]

July 2020Edit

لا أحدEdit

SOP. Sense 4 of لَا() “there is not” + أَحَد(ʾaḥad, one, anybody) in the determinate state (+ relative sentence following, as such in Arabic by default does not have a relative pronoun). Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep. Literally the same as no one, for which we also have an entry, and the gloss definition links to the English which would also have to be SOP. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@פֿינצטערניש: Judging language by another language is a common fallacy. This is different. أَحَد(ʾaḥad) is not the word for the numeral “one” – unlike in Hebrew; it is وَاحِد(wāḥid) – but is the word for anybody. And لَا() does not have the sense of a determiner as in English no first etymology. Things can also come in between, for example: لَا يَخْفَى عَلَى أَحَد (lā yaḵfā ʿalā ʾaḥad, it is not hidden to any one, i.e. nobody can fail to see) (this time لَا() sense 2). One wouldn’t look this Arabic formation up specifically, because it is SOP. It is not “literally the same as no one” but rather something like “there is no man who”, and you would not create there is no man who. I likewise have difficulties seeing the Turkish hiç kimse given in the translation table of no one as not SOP, if that helps you to see that common translations of no one can be SOP. @Lambiam. Fay Freak (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
I don’t know about the Arabic, but Turkish hiç kimse is somewhat similar to French personne (ne). By itself kimse just means “someone” or “anyone” – an unspecified person. When translating a negative sentence like kimse yok to English, one idiomatic approach is to move the negation to the pronoun, as in “there is nobody” – although you can also say “there isn’t anybody there” (and colloquially, “there ain’t nobody there”). And hiç is normally used to strengthen an already existing negation. Standalone use implies a negation, as can occur when a verb is omitted and left implicit in answer to a question (like “kaç kişi geldi?“ = ”how many people came?” — “hiç kimse [gelmedi]” = “no one [came]”), but if a verb is present, it is obligatorily negated. This also applies to the collocations hiç kimse and hiç bir şey and the univerbations hiçbir and hiçbiri.  --Lambiam 15:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
That's a good point. I forgot that about وَاحِد vs. أَحَد; my Arabic is still improving. I retract my wish to keep the entry, except to voice my more general belief that anything that glosses to a valid English entry should be kept - which does not appear to be policy, unfortunately. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[]
Delete. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]


# [[internal]] [[execution]]; [[during]] execution; [[runtime]]

Sum of parts, 実行 + . —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[]

Agreed. Senses aren't quite right either. Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[]



Sum of parts, 苦無 "kunai" / 手裏剣 "shuriken" + "technique". —Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[]

  • Agreed for 苦無術. google books:"苦無術" "は" finds precious few hits, and most appear to be in Chinese-language texts at that. Delete.
  • Less certain for 手裏剣術. I note the existence of entries at Kotobank, though notably those are only encyclopedia entries. No dictionary to hand includes this as a term. I'm also uncertain how much to view (jutsu) as a standalone noun, or as a suffixing element. If the latter, presumably this suffix would form a new word, as opposed to two discrete nouns that happen to be next to each other.
In addition, google books:"手裏剣術" "は" finds ample hits of this in running Japanese text. I think I'm still undecided on this one, possibly leaning towards weak keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[]


1) 睬 is not chhap, which should be 插. 2) It seems to be SoP, just a negation of chhap. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]

That doesn't seem a be a usual reading, but it seems to be the most common way to write it down as in [8] and [9]. The dog2 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@The dog2: The Singlish dictionary doesn't seem to have the right etymon - it has (ch’hew) ch’haé from Medhurst's dictionary, which must be a different word. The Hi-native link doesn't exactly tell us that it's written as such, just that it "translate[s] to 睬". I guess it could be RFVed, but I also think it's SoP, which is a bigger reason for deletion. It being borrowed into Singlish doesn't necessarily make it non-SoP. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[]


SoP. RcAlex36 (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[]

hmmm https://www.xyzdict.com/chinese-english/%E6%9A%82%E9%81%BF Troll Control (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Comment. Not in any of the major Chinese dictionaries, but seems to act as a verb inasmuch as we categorize them on Wiktionary. 拉薩市的居民紛紛走到室外暫避。官員們表示,超過13,000人不得不從火山周邊撤離,暫避在附近的難民營。正在開會的國會議員感到建築物搖晃,走到停車場暫避,15分鐘後返回會議廳。---> Tooironic (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Leaning towards a delete, but not sure. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeh₂ǵos, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazъEdit

“Transformed” Pokorny stuff, ominously sourced by the Leiden school.

  • The beech isn’t in the range (!) of the Proto-Indo-European homeland.
  • The Slavic page is properly *bъzъ. The Serbo-Croatian descendant does not count for *bazъ because Proto-Slavic generally gives a in Serbo-Croatian, the Russian and Ukrainian given are obscure dialectal forms, as well as the Bulgarian, which are unstressed while Bulgarian has suffered vowel reduction and Bulgarian а (a) and ъ (ǎ) are very close; ominously one gives an Old Church Slavonic only for *bъzъ. The current Slovak form which I added, apart from being anomalous as a feminine, can also be from ъ, this can be seen *dъždžь → dážď and the variation for *čexъlъ. Against the evidence from all Slavic languages one cannot posit such a byform, more easily *bazъ is an etymologist’s fabrication to shoehorn all into an Indo-European-etymology. Which does not work anyhow because the Slavic words mean elder, not beech. These plants are not confusable.
    • The page is in ESSJa, ’tis true, but apart from the entry’s age as I have noticed often, they do not take a stand for every entry in their Proto-Slavic dictionary, which is but hypothetical. They apparently create some index files, here motivated by Pokorny, and look what they can find to support the form, then they publish all anyway if the result is negative. See the RFD already filed for the adjective *bazovъ in WT:RFDO, Useigor did not understand this and created bare objectionable entries this way.
  • Proto-Germanic *bōks means “book” but there is yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing or anyone else as opposed to birchbark writing. And how can *bōkō (beech), different paradigms, be from the same Proto-Indo-European form? There is something unaccounted. The existence of that word also conflicts with *bʰeh₂ǵʰús (arm) giving *bōguz, as the consonant outcome differs and because “the slot is filled” i.e. the alleged word for a tree is too similar to a word for the arm for both having existed.
  • Albanian bung is very tentative and random as always.
  • Armenian բոխի (boxi) has been thrown out of the equation meticulously after the creation of the PIE, much reasoned at its entry.
  • Where is the Gaulish word attested? Probably fishy if it is claimed to be only Gaulish but not retained in other Celtic languages. What do the other Celtic languages have? With such things I am accustomed to have the suspicion that it is somehow conjectured from unfathomable placenames.
  • The Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός (phāgós), like even mālum (apple); as Italy was Greek-settled and the beech is found in Italy only at some places and not right at Rome, only somewhat outwards. Whereas the beech is very frequent in the Proto-Hellenic area. In Latin likely a foreign word. I say this also from general impressions about substratum origins of Latin plant names, after having dealt with many Latin plant names and their origins.
  • This is well a loanword after Proto-Indo-European when Germans, Italians/Romans and Greeks took new settlements judging by analogy. Remarkably the Slavic words *bukъ and *buky are Germanic borrowings for some reason, apparently because the Slavs settled right at the Northeast of the distribution of the beech, of course also Hungarian bükk (beech) is loaned. So if not even the Slavs before expansion (3rd century CE) had a word for the beech, the Proto-Indo-Europeans hadn’t either; if the Slavs borrowed this word, the Germans and Greeks and Romans did it likewise earlier. The correct etymologies for the German and Greek words are “borrowed from an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@Fay Freak: agreed. This has always been a dubious reconstruction, made worse by shoehorning more descendants to it, and further comical by reconstructing it with *-eh₂-. Also see {{R:ine:HCHIEL|86}} --{{victar|talk}} 18:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[]
I have read it. So I have found it is actually a debunked canard since half a century ago, called beech argument. It might have went past the Soviet theorists. In Krogmann, Willy (1954), “Das Buchenargument”, in Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen (in German), volume 72 1./2, DOI:10.2307/40847908, page 13 it is expounded how the Gaulish name is derived by reconstruction, from placenames. It is to be added that the literature finds it problematic that the Greek word means an oak and not a beech. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[]
I disagree. Where else would "book" come from —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC).[]
It says where it possibly comes from. Often explained as in Germanic from the word for beech, which last is a word borrowed from somewhere. I do not need to have an explanation for or know everything to disprove an etymology. Your argument is none. Otherwise aliens built the pyramids because “how else”. Fay Freak (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]

latet anguis in herbaEdit

Is it lexicalised in Latin (if yes, should it possibly be moved to anguis in herba?), or was it only created because it's the origin of the English idiom? @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak. PUC – 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]

The phrase can be found in Latin texts, mostly literally as in Virgil, but sometimes with the verb in conjugated form.[10][11][12] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.[13]  --Lambiam 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[]
@PUC, Lambiam:It seems like the idiomatic part is the noun phrase, while the verb can be omitted without loss of meaning, which seems to be the ultimate criterion for determining an idiom. It's obviously an allegory originally, and a good allegory is always ripe for becoming proverbial; nevertheless, I think this only happened after Erasmus, as it isn't found among his proverbial mountains of proverbs. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[]

nakatira ako sa MelbourneEdit

Per Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#nakaistar_ako_sa_Melbourne above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[]

August 2020Edit

bailar con los cinco latinosEdit

Just 5 google hits out there, all of which are either mentions or dictionaries (one from "Wiktionary" or something like that - doesn't look like it can be trusted). Please delete any incoming links from bailar and latino. --Kriss Barnes (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[]

, , Edit

Entered without any definition, just a description of what the glyph looks like, visually. In the wording of CFI, terms have to "convey meaning".__Gamren (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[]

“Incomplete infinity” is a concept that is discussed in the literature.[14][15][16] I have no evidence,though, that the symbol is, or has been, in actual use with that meaning.  --Lambiam 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Do we not have entries for all Unicode characters? Just wondering. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't think so. @Erutuon? PUC – 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]
No; as of the July 20th dump, we have mainspace pages for for 42,300 code points (out of 143,859 according to Wikipedia). — Eru·tuon 04:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[]


Unneeded, νεκρός (nekrós) is perfectly sufficient. PUC – 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

-lending (Norwegian Bokmål)Edit

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

@Gamren: The reasoning for deletion seems incomplete to me. On the one hand, there is the question about whether -lending technically is a suffix. On the other, the vowel change cannot be presumed to be trivial; it is not like vowels can be changed willy-nilly in Norwegian. The information that -lending rather than -landing is used in demonyms and similar words should be stored somewhere in the dictionary; and given that an official Norwegian dictionary has an entry for -lending, my starting point is that we should have an entry for it here as well. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[]
The given sense (both for Bokmål and Nynorsk) does not cover all uses; see innlending and utlending.  --Lambiam 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I don't think it should be deleted either, the fact that it is in the dictionary is reason enough for me to keep it. Also it's pretty convenient to get all the derivatives containing -lending from this page. The Norwegian Academy Dictionary also states that it is in fact a suffix, as seen on the entry for "flamlending" on naob.no, though they don't actually have a separate entry page for it. I am in the process of sending them a list of words missing from their dictionary, and will include -lending. Supevan (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]

-lending (Norwegian Nynorsk)Edit

As I said on the RFD for -lendingen: This isn't a suffix, it's just the result of applying -ing (second sense) to a word that ends in land, with attendant vowel change. It is silly to analyze islending as is + -lending ("ice + -lander"); it's Island + -ing (Iceland + -er).__Gamren (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[]

@Sgconlaw This isn't a duplicate; there are two entries. Don't delete it.__Gamren (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Sorry, it looked identical so I thought it was a mistake. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[]

ҡыҙыл һарыEdit

Sum of parts. Borovi4ok (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[]

@Borovi4ok Question: does this mean "orange", or "red and yellow"? Because in some languages, including English, such a construction would often mean "having parts colored in red, and other parts in yellow". See the examples below. If it does indeed mean orange, my next question is: can you always juxtapose two colours to denote an intermediate color?__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[]
    • 2010, Pierre Parisien, Blood and the Covenant: The Historical Consequences of the Contract with God, Trafford Publishing (→ISBN), page 223:
      Forty-five years later, an airplane flying the blue-white flag of the new state of Israel, ...
    • 2012, Muhammad Abdul Aziz, Japan’s Colonialism and Indonesia, Springer Science & Business Media (→ISBN), page 218:
      ... singing the national anthem and hoisting the red-white flag [of Japan], ...
    • year unknown, Volodymyr Viatrovych, Yaroslav Faizulin, Victoria Yaremenko, Maxym Mayorov, Vitalii Ohiienko, Anatoliy Khromov, 100 YEARS OF STRUGGLE: THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION 1917-1921, Український інститут національної пам’яті., page 16:
      Instead, all documents approved by the Ukrainian governments in 1918 confirmed the blue-yellow (blue or light blue upper stripe) color order.
    • 2014, Alexander Watson, Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary at War, 1914-1918, Penguin UK (→ISBN)
      The coup launched with these soldiers on the night of 1 November 1918, which took the city centre and led to a yellow-blue flag being flown from the city hall, ...
Hi @Gamren, thanks for cooperation.
This can be used to mean either "orange" (though not the most regular term for that) or "red and yellow". And yes, you can put together (with certain reservations) any two colors to denote an intermediate color or a mixture.Borovi4ok (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[]


As @Dbachmann wrote in the entry in 2017, this was not really a word in Proto-Semitic, but rather a wanderwort that had spread from Arabia by the dawn of the Common Era. No serious modern lexicon of PS includes this word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. How will we avoid the lengthy cognate lists? Fay Freak (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure. I imagine that a Proto-Arabic is the ultimate source of the wanderwort. We could therefore conceivably host everything in a separate list at جَمَل(jamal), although this would require a good explanation to make it clear that we're not talking about attested Arabic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]
But the Old South Arabian cannot be from Proto-Arabic, innit? And the Ethio-Semitic forms will also be earlier borrowings from the times when the Ethio-Semitic speakers settled in Southern Arabia. Similarly Modern South Arabian, a niece-language group of Old South Arabian. Host at Reconstruction:Undetermined 😆? Fay Freak (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[]
@Fay Freak: You make a very good point. There's also Proto-Berber *a-lɣəm, which is thought to be a very old borrowing from a Semitic source that underwent metathesis, and is apparently the source of Hausa raƙumi and various other words. Now, this is a very unorthodox solution, but what if we created a page like Appendix:Semitic wanderwort gamal (or an alternate title; I'm sure there's a better phrasing) to discuss the problem, stick in a couple references, and host the descendant list? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[]
Hmm, is there a reason the list couldn't just be in the etymology section of one of the words (e.g. Proto-Arabic) with an appropriate qualifier, like "the ultimate origin [of this proto-Arabic word] is a Semitic wanderwort which was also the source of [... ... ...]" ? - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[]
Keep: Granted, it may not have existed in PSem., but I think that it better to have a central entry and explain its existence in the reconstruction notes or etymology. Should be moved to PWS though. --{{victar|talk}} 22:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I've moved it to Reconstruction:Proto-West Semitic/gamal-, which at least is better than having it at PSem. @Metaknowledge, Fay Freak --{{victar|talk}} 23:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm still not sure that it can be safely reconstructed to PWestSem, and I don't see any references for that statement (besides the lazy authors who simply consider it to be PS, which we know is untenable). We know it is a wanderwort; I suppose a defensible lie is better than an indefensible one, but I was hoping for a more honest solution. Note to closer: all the incoming links still have yet to be fixed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I'm not saying it's a solution -- I still stand by my original reasoning to keep -- but since this is only found in WSem. it belongs as a PWS entry, regardless. --{{victar|talk}} 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]


I added this (probably based upon inclusion in EDICT), but perhaps it is really sum of parts. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Ya, pretty much any verb + 限り (kagiri, limit, extent) winds up meaning "to the extent that one [VERB]s". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[]
True, but some of these are common enough that are almost idiomatic. This entry is also listed in NHK accent dictionary as well so it's good to keep I guess. Shen233 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[]
I find the inclusion in the NHK accent dictionary to be a bit confusing.
  • (かぎ) (kagiri) as a combining element is accented on the first mora: