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 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 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.

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

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, 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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

{{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 and Chinese/Japanese/Korean. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English. For CJK-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/CJK.

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 whose existence is in doubt



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. The most common reason 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 words whose existence or attestation is disputed, for which see Wiktionary:Requests for verification. 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 once a month has passed after the nomination was posted, except for snowball cases. If a decision to delete or keep has not been reached due to insufficient discussion, {{look}} can be added and knowledgeable editors pinged. If there is sufficient discussion, but a decision cannot be reached because editors are evenly split between two options, the request can be closed as “no consensus”, in which case the status quo is maintained. Currently, there is no fixed supermajority requirement and consensus for closing any request is judged at the discretion of the closer (usually an administrator or another experienced editor).

  • 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: In some cases, like moves or redirections, 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 is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Tagged RFDs

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

Russian. 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)


Russian. 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


Italian. 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)

August 2018Edit

anh haiEdit

Vietnamese. 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)

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

October 2018Edit



Latin. 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) at 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC).
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)

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)
In ἀγαθοεργέω, non-contracted -οε- in the middle of the word looks wrong in combination with contracted endings. My edition of the New Testament reads ἀγαθουργῶν (2x contracted) in Acta 14.17. Akletos (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
But ἀγαθοεργεῖν (non-contr - contr) in 1 Tim. 6.18. Akletos (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2021 (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)
@Lingo_Bingo_Dingo: We also have as usual. Is the Dutch expression really more soppy than the English one? Fytcha (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say it is. 1: this form strongly suggests an adverbial interpretation, which is a much less unusual and more productive construction that the English as usual is; 2: just about any Dutch adjective can be used as an adverb, so the substitionability is much higher. If this is kept, why not a whole slew of equivalent attested expressions? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete, might as well have zoals altijd, zoals gebruikelijk, zoals soms het geval is, yadda yadda. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:14, 3 August 2022 (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)

March 2020Edit


Translingual. 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)
Soft redirect as suggested above. Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Soft redirect, this should discourage people from adding it again. Thadh (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it can also be found in the synonym Felis onca. --RichardW57 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
That's not separate: the species was first described by Linnaeus under the name Felis onca, then was transfered to the genus Panthera, which automatically changed the name to Panthera onca. It would be like treating the name on someone's birth certificate and their married name as two different occurences of their given name. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (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)

April 2020Edit


German. 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)


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)

Related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Sunda-Sulawesi_languages_and_Category:Borneo-Philippines_languages. –Austronesier (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

reine des abeillesEdit

French. 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)

May 2020Edit


Arabic. 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)


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)

June 2020Edit


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)
  • Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 08:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete This, that and the other (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that as an adverb it's not a lexical feature by itself. (Andarono all'attacco is just "They went to the attack"), but I would keep is as an interjection. It's actually a feature of "a [article] [something]", used generally as an interjection to alert people of something. It's also found in all'arrembaggio yelled by pirates before attacking a ship, al ladro yelled by someone who's getting robbed, al lupo yelled by the boy who cried wolf. All of these could just be interpreted as a request to go "to the ~", and that's much likely the etymology, but it's not perceived anymore like this, as showed by other cases like al fuoco (lit. to the fire) yelled to alert people of a fire, which actually implies the opposite meaning, to run away. Catonif (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2020Edit

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)
Several invalid arguments here.
1) “Transformed” Pokorny stuff, ominously sourced by the Leiden school." -- This is frankly just rude, not reasoned. Kroonen's dictionary is extremely respectable (even if one disagrees with it) and tested by peer-review, unlike this nomination for deletion. The reconstruction is cited by philologists in other "schools" than Leiden. Check out e.g. Ringe (Pennsylvania/Oxford). Wiktionary should be reflecting the general scholarly consensus, not novel, non-peer-reviewed proposals of independent-minded contributors.
2) "beech not in homeland" -- irrelevant, as many words change in meaning over time, and with different environments in different geographical locations
3) "yet no proof the Germanic peoples used beechbark writing". No, but Germanic peoples' first contact with "books" would probably be Roman writing-tablets, which were often made of beech wood. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda_tablets)
4) "Latin word may be an early borrowing from Northwest Greek φᾱγός" -- Even if that is true, that still leaves Germanic (NW Indo-European) and Greek (S Central Indo-European) as cognates, which is generally regarded as sufficient to support the hypothesis that it is ancestral to both of those branches. But what on earth is "an unknown source common to [Greek|Proto-Germanic]" other than the common ancestor of the European side of PIE?
Signed: an anonymous academic peer-reviewer, who is a tenured Professor in a Philology Faculty (no, not Leiden). But the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone. 11:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, the argument that “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" is unreasonable, because homophony and doublets are actually perfectly common phenomena cross-linguistically. 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
You are rude and not reasoned, okay?
Bare editors are stricter about meaning differences than I am, e.g. I presume @Metaknowledge mildly not amused about this lumping beeches and elders and what not. To reconstruct we need to pin down a more or less vague meaning, which these equations do not meet, and formally it is a scarecrow greater than many reconstruction pages we decided to delete, just not on first glance, but after a review of the possibilities (possibilities are hard to assess for the casual observer by magnitude, hence all those antivaxxers; our judgement needs specific training for the assessment of specific possibilities, so even if you are a professor in one area you may stay without insight in a closely related area and ignore its possibilities even though these should influence the decision).
We all have read very odd things that are peer-reviewed, as some academics have built parallel universes to make a living. And the beech argument is one of it, not a respected theory any more (if I understood respect correctly as being more than being constantly repeated out of courtesy and the university habit of citing everything that is available) but a fringe view, certainly not adding, in the traditional meaning of science, to our knowledge, but you are right that the decision about whether to delete the page or not should be taken on the merits of the arguments alone, since you yourself know your colleagues enough to distrust them.
It is symptomatic though that a tenured professor in philology fails to consider the presence of unknown language groups before Indo-European; that’s how one regularly comes up with reconstructions that should never be made: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, if you only know Indo-European, “everything” is from Indo-European. It is partially not your fault, given that the other language groups of Europe are scatteredly or not at all attested, and partially it is your fault in so far as you never deal with language areas where well-documented languages have stood in manifest contact (the usual case with the bulk of scholarship about Greek and Germanic and Germanic languages, you know those who live in a Germanic country and study Germanic do kind of a cheap thing, and if a European classical language is added this only opens the horizon a little).
Different semantic fields of a language have various propensities to contain borrowed terms, plant-names are especially notorious in it. If I was only an Indo-Europeanist I would hardly know but in the Semitic, Turkic, Iranian languages half of them (I exaggerate but little) are certainly loans from each other or other less-known or completely unknown language groups; e.g. another Wiktionary professor saw that خُلَّر(ḵullar) is surely borrowed and likely Hurrian but for the Greek ὄλυρα (ólura) the mainstreamers fail to do anything but speculate Indo-European (native or “pre-Greek”) origins although with the Near East data they should have classified it as wanderwort. However about every second time I open a Greek etymology Beekes claims a Greek word to be pre-Greek: while the intrinsic value of this label is close to zero due to the multifariousness of the frequent Pre-Greek claim, the idea of unknown sources of borrowings has been defended very well and is being concretized while we edit Wiktionary etymologies more and more.
So we pray you, Professor, to register and solve words occasionally, and especially if to disprove people as rude and uneducated as me. The more you learn of this dictionary business the more you realize that there is a thin line between daring comparisons—adding to our knowledge by maverickism—and academic dishonesty. And IPs are evil. After all you already do not rely on the majority of the comparisons on which that PIE “reconstruction” is made, if Germanic and Greek are left: In our experience the farer away a reconstructed historical language the more descendants one needs, and for PIE two are regularly (without very good reasons) not enough, while for Proto-Slavic not rarely one is enough—if a term must have been formed in Proto-Slavic, e.g. *mězgyrь, while for PIE there are too many millennia in between of what could have happened and we do not know that *bʰeh₂ǵos must have been internally derived in PIE (usually between Arabic, Iranian and Turkic and often inside their language groups themselves we know where a term was formed and hence whence borrowed by our understanding the internal morphologies of the languages: all things you do not know for this term).
This is all to say that, in comparison to more certain etymologies, here you know absolutely nothing. But you should somehow be confident about a reconstruction rather than many mismatches and coincidences and alternative scenarios (and I have engaged in shaky reconstructions out of excitement, but this is so shaky that it crumbles apart the more you think about it—if it were better I would come to maintain this PIE term: obviously I come correct in thinking about reconstructions, you will hardly deny this experience in having a consistent and carefully weighed approach about reconstruction entries). Fay Freak (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2021 (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.[2][3][4] These, the oldest ones I found (apart from Virgil), are all from the 16th century. I also found an elliptic use, without the verb.[5]  --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)

August 2020Edit

, , Edit

Translingual. 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.[6][7][8] 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)
Requested by "STIX Project of the STIPUB Consortium", as documented at w:Miscellaneous_Mathematical_Symbols-B#History > 00-002 and 00-094. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


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

Delete, certainly an odd one out in CAT:Ancient Greek prefixes. This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2022 (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)


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)


French suffix, apparent alt form of -trice but unused. Ultimateria (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the syllable onset sr- even possible in French?  --Lambiam 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be possible as an onset cluster if it's preceded by a vowel. We have listing for six French nouns ending in -srice, all actually in -ssrice: successrice, prédécessrice, intercessrice, assessrice, professrice, possessrice. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, I find all of these jarring. I'd consider them nonstandard. PUC – 20:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Notwithstanding their jarringness, can they be attested?  --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Only one (prédécessrice) is actually suffixed. I agree with your point below and suggest sticking with -rice. Whose category, incidentally, has only 3 pages compared to 23 at -trice. Ultimateria (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
If professrice is analyzed as profes + -srice, shouldn't we then not also have -drice (used in ambassadrice) and -trice (used in actrice and inspectrice)?  --Lambiam 14:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There might be a mistake. Modern French doesn't allow such a cluster, in onset or between two syllables (with /s/ as coda and /r/ as onset), so if you're dealing with Middle French you should use "mfr". If they were used in Middle French, the fricative of the aforementioned cluster would have undergone a fortition leading to /tr/ in Modern French. Also the productive feminine agent noun-forming suffixes are -eur (without any distinction with masculine, given that the latter acts as the neuter), -eure (almost never used but recently coined by the Academy, although no institution can ever rule a language) or -euse (the regular feminine form of "-eur"), and the ones which forms standard feminines of the words above are definitely -eur (by far the most used, though indistinguishable from the masculine without context) and -eure (somewhat better according to the said Academy). Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This all seems a little silly. The only attestations i can find for the words that end in ssrice are indications that they are incorrect forms for which correct forms already exist. The etymology proposed for them (based on the existence of a Latin form) looks sketchy, too, because they are almost certainly neologisms based on the existing masculine form. Finally, splitting ss in the middle doesn't make any sense when they always act as a single letter in French, so the suffix, if these terms are attested, would be -rice. (cf. masculine -eur).SteveGat (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I managed to find some attestations for some of the words, but the proposed suffix remains frivolous. French wiktionary doesn't have it, and the words there that end in ssrice are proposed to have the suffix -rice, based the -eur/-rice pair. In any case, this suffix should be deleted. SteveGat (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Btw, Wiktionary distinguishes between [[Category:French words suffixed with -rice]] and [[Category:French words suffixed with -trice]], but Wiktionnaire doesn't: https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Mots_en_fran%C3%A7ais_suffix%C3%A9s_avec_-rice (only a sub-category for -cultrice). Thomas Linard (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020Edit


There is no indication this is Latin, it is only known from one mention in Quintus Curtius Rufus 3, 13, 7 which is “Gangabas Persae vocant humeris onera portantes.” – “The Persians call those who carry burdens on their shoulders gangaba”. Fay Freak (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless the ancient Persians spoke a Latin dialect – but the historical linguistic evidence argues against this – the cited passage is actually a clear indication that this is not Latin.  --Lambiam 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I think current practice is to keep hapaxes mentioned as being from foreign languages in ancient languages, as there is no good alternative way of including them without tons of speculation on the base form and base language. The entry should, however, reflect that it is simply mentioned as a foreign word as opposed to being a word that was actually in use in Latin. If we delete entries like these, we miss out on some of the most interesting mentioned words from antiquity (my personal favorites are μέδος and haliurunna). So yeah, keep, please. I have edited the entry to reflect its foreignness to Latin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: Not sure about such practice, the majority of comprehensive reference works omit them, being thus strict as including what really belongs to a language, like the σαπάνα (sapána) I yesterday found and most of these names in Dioscourides – should we add those thousands of – often insecurely read – names from there? And I account for the space being unlimited here. I’d rather avoid this kind of entries, if feasible, without tons of speculation. @ZxxZxxZ: does it remind you of any word? Maybe we could mention it on some Neo-Persian word as its oldest attestation; also we need translations for porter (I only know حمال(hammâl). These entries stay misleading and have properties of ghost words, if they are titled “Latin” and are in descendant lists as Latin, and even have pronunciation sections like normal Latin word as haliurunna has; maybe haliurunna should actually be presented as Gothic, gangaba as Old Persian, while σαπάνα (sapána) as undetermined? That would be much truer. But in any case we also need to categorize such lacking entries somehow.
I mention that it seems like taxonomists have built moth names on this porter word: Mamerthes gangaba, Elachista gangabella. Fay Freak (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I added all I found, and couldn't found anything related in Middle Persian, though this is probably from some other Middle Iranian language. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The main point is that these words need some place to stay, and especially in antiquity it often is hard to determine what exactly was the donor language. We can't be sure how well the antique authors knew from which language a word really derives. For example, the haliurunna word may not be Gothic proper at all (what if it's Vandalic instead, or some other EGmc language? Antique authors regularly conflated them with Goths), the word medos I mentioned is of uncertain origin, etc.; their forms are determined by how respectively a Latin and Greek writer made sense of these words they heard, they are therefore in terms of form probably not (exactly) as they would have been in their source language. Thus, it is not a bad solution per se imo to just keep such words at the language of the text in which they are attested, while clarifying that they are supposed to represent words from some other language. Perhaps "Undetermined" could be a solution, I have not thought about that much. I mainly just want them to have entries, as they are often (etymologically and otherwise) very interesting words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed the pronunciation from haliurunna btw, you are right that it made little sense — Mnemosientje (t · c)
I've seen a dictionary (w:Dehkhoda Dictionary) that actually includes hapaxes. But also it's a good idea to include such pages in the categoriese of the language of origin: σπάκα is the only directly known Old Median word, mentioned in a Greek text. --Z 12:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Many dictionaries do; L&S for example, which is a Latin dictionary linked on the gangaba entry, includes it, as it does many other hapaxes of non-Latin origin. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that we should use this occasion to remove that antiquated rule that says a hapax is only good if it comes from Festus, Nonius Marcellinus or Saint Isidore. It's obvious, as evidenced by this discussion, that nobody abides by it. Also a general cleanup of the dusty WT:ALA would be good. --Biolongvistul (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete and move all such hapaxes to an appendix. — surjection??⟩ 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Appendixes is where words go to die, it is much preferable to just have them in mainspace where they'll actually be found by people looking for them. Again, it's hardly unheard of for Latin dictionaries to list such Latinised foreign hapaxes among more standard words (with an appropriate disclaimer, ofc), and there is no reason why we shouldn't. They're far too interesting to relegate to an appendix, imo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


Min Nan. Quanzhou dialect not actually used to write (full) POJ. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


Albanian. Tagged but not listed nearly two years ago with the reason "It is misspelled; the correct spelling is dëgjoj". We do have an entry for dëgjoj, but degjôj is labeled {{lb|sq|Gheg}}, and there's a citation for the inflected form degjôn, so I suspect this is a valid spelling for Gheg dialect if not for the standard language. But I know virtually nothing about Albanian, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. Pinging @HeliosX, PlatuerGashaj as the creator and deletion proposer respectively. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In Dhurata Ahmetaj's song, the verb is pronounced like this only the first time during the first minute. You can search the song online if you like to review its pronounciation. It can be noted that the rhyming word "preokupon" is pronounced here with the vowel [e] too but the pronunciation of the second verb can't be altered because of that only. HeliosX (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
So is this spelling attested in writing anywhere? Or is only a presumed spelling of a pronounced form? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It will be highly difficult to establish this spelling in writing because Gheg is nearly always written without any circumflexes and often without the diacritic of the schwa letter. HeliosX (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020Edit


Thai. Tagged but not listed by @Octahedron80 as "SOP". If it's a simile, can we get a literal translation?__Gamren (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


Thai. Tagged by @Octahedron80 with the reasoning "ชยันโต only used as verb in speaking". Created by @Miwaki Sato.__Gamren (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to post here :P --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

M’, M’., M.’Edit

Latin. Minor typographical variations. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to M'..  --Lambiam 14:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  1. I would certainly have thought a redirect was more appropriate than a delete for each.
  2. As to what the typographical symbol is see this cited source:
    One archaeologist asserts that the stroke after the M is a well-known abbreviation for the prænomen Manius; but this is generally M❜ ; a small comma-like figure being introduced after the M.
    The "small comma-like figure" in the source is different from a comma and from an apostrophe, but I'm not sure what it is, how widespread the use of such a distinct symbol was, or whether it would matter to Wiktionary.
Jnestorius (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t know enough about the likelihood of various variants being used as search terms; my main point is that we should not just delete an entry if the term is a plausible search term that is an attested variant of an included term. If it is a “minor typographical variation”, I think a hard redirect is preferable to deletion. It depends on the specifics of each case whether a hard redirect is better than a soft redirect, but it is general practice (called “de facto acceptable” in WT:REDIR) to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe to the same with a straight apostrophe ', so it is fine to have M’ redirect to M' and M.’ to M.', as long as we do not create double soft redirects, which may be a source of irritation. The question what present-day character corresponds to the “small comma-like figure” found in Roman inscriptions appears anachronistic to me. Someone more familiar with this material should look at this, but I think these abbreviations in Roman texts did not use a period, but followed them by an interpunct as a general separator between words. Looking at some of the sources, I am not certain that the usage note at M'. is correct either.  --Lambiam 07:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The "small comma-like figure" was not in the Roman inscriptions; ꟿ was, as supported by the reference "M.' (for Manius) is purely modern". We are talking about 19/20C printed transcriptions. Jnestorius (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The author of “The recent discoveries of Roman remains found in repairing the north wall of the city of Chester” (linked to above) appears to believe that the “small comma-like figure” is found in Roman inscriptions as part of an abbreviation of “Manius”, since he discards the proposed interpretation of “” seen in an inscription as abbreviating “Manius” by stating that this is generally “M”.  --Lambiam 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I get your point. I would be tempted to delete the source as unreliable on that basis, but that would be cherry-picking and/or circular reasoning on my part. I will defer to anyone with actual expertise instead. Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Manius (praenomen), citing various sources, says the name was originally abbreviated with the five-stroke M, and later abbreviated as M + the apostrophe-like thing. Given the source above and other sources I see when I search for things like "Manius, abbreviated" or "abbreviation of Manius" which say M' was the standard abbreviation of Manius (including ones talking about how that was easy to confuse with the abbreviation M. for Marcus), I take this to mean both abbreviations were found in period, whether in inscriptions or elsewhere. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Re “it is general practice [] to redirect terms with a curly apostrophe”: compare I’m (etc.), deleted in 2019: “don't need redirects that only differ by curly quote -- the system does this automatically”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, it doesn’t for me. I see I’m as a red link; when I click on it the system tells me (among other things): “Wiktionary does not yet have an entry for I’m.” —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 11:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC).
That's just what I was going to say. When I click on the red link I’m I am not taken automatically to I'm. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You missed the point. It does not have an entry because it was deleted. J3133 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
But the point is (I think) that it was deleted under a false pretextmise.  --Lambiam 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox care to explain your edit summary quoted above ("the system does this automatically")? Jnestorius (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the only automatic redirect is when using the search box. DTLHS (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't explain stuff I did in 2019. I can't remember what I did last Tuesday, mate. Equinox 09:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Lols --{{victar|talk}} 17:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Soft- or hard-redirect to whatever form(s) we decide to make the lemma (of this version of the abbreviation, as distinct from the five-stroke M version). - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

d'un certain âgeEdit

SOP: "un certain âge" (which can also be used with other prepositions: "à un certain âge", "passé un certain âge"), "un certain temps", "un certain nombre", etc. 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'. In "un certain temps", "un certain nombre" the meaning is much vaguer and does not imply a larger quantity but on the contrary a small one (as per the TLFI: exprime le caractère particulier difficile à préciser ou la faible mais réelle quantité). It is also referenced in the TLFI (at 'âge', not at 'certain'): (Être) d'un certain âge. Ne plus être jeune.
It shouldn't at least be deleted before adding these acceptations of 'older' and 'small and undefined' to the "certain" article. Or maybe create "un certain âge" as a phrase? - Olybrius (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
d'un certain âge certainly has some claim to idiomaticity, but I don't think it deserves an entry. It should be a usage example at certain (which indeed is missing the sense we're talking about).
"certain" doesn't mean "older", it means "quite high/big". That might not be entirely relevant, but "vieux" doesn't collocate with "âge" in French, you can't say "*vieil âge" ("old age" would be "grand âge" or "âge avancé").
No one here suggested that certain by itself means “older“. I dispute that it means “quite high/big”. Used as a determiner, the meaning is basically the same as for English.  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)¨
@Lambiam: All right, "quite high/big" maybe isn't a good gloss either. I believe "(quite) some" is closer to the truth.
Regarding the other part of your message, well, how should I interpret Olybrius' first sentence? ("Certain is quite idiomatic here and is a euphemism for 'older'. It has this meaning only when used before (and not after) 'âge'")
What I meant in my answer is that not only does "certain" not have that meaning by itself (is this grammatical?), it does not have that meaning in combination with "âge" either. "older" is simply not a good gloss.
Anyway, what do you think should be done with this entry? 2A02:2788:A6:935:E553:100B:D4FC:35E4 14:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not think that certain per se carries a connotation of “quite some”. It is the context in which it is used that may imply this – or not, depending on that context. In many cases, “un certain nombre de” is best translated as “a number of”. In “il faut un certain temps à un corps quelconque pour traverser d’un point A à un point B”, it merely means that a body cannot travel instantaneously from A to B; the time needed may, however, depending on the case, be measured in femtoseconds or in eons. However, it cannot be denied that most uses of the expression d’un certain âge serve as a euphemism for “middle-aged or even older” – not just “middle-aged” as the current definition reads. In view of such cases as “atteindre un certain âge“, perhaps the lemma should be un certain âge, with a usex involving d’un certain âge and a label marking it as a euphemism, and then d'un certain âge can redirect there.  --Lambiam 21:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Now I wonder: are you yourself d'un certain âge? 2A02:2788:A6:935:319E:F100:EA75:8B13 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, I don't agree that "certain" imply a small quantity. When, for example, someone says "Ça fait un certain temps que je me pose cette question", they mean that they've been asking themselves that question for quite some time (i.e. for a rather long time). 13:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that the exact same expression exists in English: "of a certain age". (see Lexico, Collins). 14:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I doesn't need the preposition of. For example, “Once you reach a certain age, everything after that is downhill.”[9] Same in French: “Lorsque vous atteignez un certain âge, vous commencez à penser que vous êtes vieux.”[10]  --Lambiam 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete therefore. Fay Freak (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep, seems like this is the original fixed phrase, and the other variants (including of a certain age) are derived from it – Jberkel 11:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete as proponent, or at the very least move to (un) certain âge. @Jberkel, what do you mean by "other variants"? PUC – 12:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I was suggesting that the shorter variants are all later usages, and less specific. But that's speculation. – Jberkel 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hard-redirect to certain âge. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Jberkel. We can have an additional entry for "certain âge", but if it's derivative of a longer phrase, both should be kept. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Arabic possibly incorrectly hamzated formsEdit

(Notifying Atitarev, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, ZxxZxxZ, عربي-٣١, Fay Freak): An IP marked the following forms for speedy deletion:

All of them were created by my bot several years ago, based on Module:ar-verb. When I created that module, I did a careful analysis of hamza spellings based on several sources. I documented my findings in detail in w:Hamza, where they still remain. I don't think I made any mistakes but you never know; this particular area of Arabic spelling is very hairy, and there are disagreements among different authors. The IP apparently thinks spellings like تسوءوا are more correct. If you look at what my module generates, you'll see it generates both spellings, and lists the IP's preferred spelling first. The dual spellings are intentional, since there is author disagreement in this case. Am I right or is the IP right? Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I was taught that following Quranic orthography, it was valid to write the hamza without a seat for e.g. سَاءُوا(sāʾū), but that doesn't even seem to be one of the options presented. That would be to avoid two wāws in a row, but for MSA usage where that rule is not generally applied, the wāw should be used as a seat instead. I don't know of any justification for using a yā', but based on w:Hamza, I would guess that it follows the trend of certain medial hamzas being typeset with yā' as the seat rather than seatless, even if not historically justified. So the IP is seemingly right from a prescriptivist perspective, but given that we're descriptivist, I don't see a problem with keeping anything attested (maybe labelled in some manner). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: The w:Hamza article mentions Barron's grammar books. I've got his 501 Arabic Verbs. The third-person masculine plural past active of جَاءَ(jāʾa) is given only as جَاؤُوا‎(jāʾū) (not جَائُوا(jāʾū)) but the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative is given as يَجِيؤُونَ(yajīʾūna) (not يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna)).
A Student Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic by Eckehard Schulz, however gives يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna).
I couldn't find the verb سَاءَ(sāʾa) but it has أَسَاءَ(ʾasāʾa). Barron: the third-person masculine plural past active is given as أَسَاؤُوا(ʾasāʾū) and the third-person masculine plural non-past active indicative only as يُسِيئُونَ(yusīʾūna). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I've reached out to the IP user but I am not sure they will engage in a discussion. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
As far as I recall I've seen the forms with ء(ʾ) only in older Quranic writing. I've never seen hamzas preceding a short or long u in the form of ئ(ʾ), but ؤ‎, as mentioned by Anatoli. --Z 14:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It is يَجِيئُونَ(yajīʾūna), because i takes precedences before u. As no i vowel environs those third person male past plural forms they cannot be written with ئ(ʾ). If in some Arabic country the opposite is considered permissible, I plead ignorance; search engines even hardly find forms like شائوا‎ and correct to شاؤوا‎ even if in ASCII quotation marks. Forms like شائوا‎ should be removed from the conjugation tables at least owing to undue weight. Following experiences like on Talk:هذا we have to expect that Arabic grammars also contain wrong forms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No kasra or ى around the glottal stop, then it can't be ـئـ. These are basics in Arabic orthography. No damma or و around the glottal stop, then it can't be ؤ. Some words are acceptable to be spelled with either, but in the eighties, one of the Arabic language academies (in Egypt?) favored the ء on the line for some words over ؤ that was commonly used, e.g. دؤوب (traditional style); دءوب (newer style). —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mahmudmasri (talkcontribs) at 20:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)‎.

November 2020Edit


Germanic *aiþaz is often cited at being an early Celtic borrowing. Regardless, given how it's disputed, a PIE entry isn't warranted. @AryamanA --{{victar|talk}} 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete; I remember that one has argued not without reason that this is a Celtic borrowing, and the likelihood of a Germanic-Celtic isogloss in comparison to a borrowing heavily speaks against this reconstruction. Fay Freak (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge to *h₁ey-, which in any case ought to mention at least Celtic *oytos. A loan is a likely possibility, and these details would be better discussed somewhere else such as on the PG and PC pages (and the latter does not even exist yet!). Note though also Greek οἶτος (oîtos) as another suggested cognate. --Tropylium (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two words don't warrant a PIE reconstruction. Highly speculative. Ghirlandajo (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as probably nonexistent in PIE. Even Kroonen said that "it is unlikely that the formation goes back to Proto-Indo-European, only to surface in two neighboring branches at the far end of the IE-speaking area. It is more probable that the word somehow arose in a shared cultural zone with similar legal traditions." I have just merged whatever salvageable from this page to the root page, so now we can delete this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Latin SOPs?Edit

-12:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

tace tuEdit

I dunno, the only other obvious variation on this is tacēte vōs, which can be treated as its plural version. It's not as idiomatic as "fuck you", but maybe like "shut it". Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

vota vita meaEdit

Are we treating mottoes as SOPs? There's a suckton of them in Latin, obviously, and I'm unsure of how to decide which ones to keep. Ditto for the next two below. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

vitam impendere veroEdit

Delete all, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additions: —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 18:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC).

I would suggest this be retained, if only because I had cause to look it up and found it useful. A book on the Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer uses the phrase, citing Juvenal, as an epigraph for the volume. It was translated by T. Bailey Saunders (New York; A.L. Burt Publishers), probably very early 1900s, for those interested in finding it. Seems like it has enough historical value to be worthwhile to keep. Sychonic (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

iuniores ad laboresEdit

laus DeoEdit

This one = thank God, I wouldn't want to cross the dude. Brutal Russian (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

an seinEdit

German. SOP: just an (adjective, predicative only) + copula sein. --2003:DE:371B:BD06:1404:1693:E7A8:CED2 12:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to ansein with a usage note that this spelling has been superseded in the 1996 spelling reform by an sein. (Compare ansein at the German Wiktionary.) -- —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talkcontribs) at 18:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Keep -- The mere fact that it's possible to write it as ansein and then label it as superseded or historic or whatever means we should keep it. There's no need to play games with ourselves. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • In light of IP editor's comments: send to RFV. — Dentonius 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
      • KeepDentonius 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Is ansein really valid, would it pass RFV? All I see in google books is this:
  • Ansein (n.),
  • ansein as OCR-error of an sein (preposition + pronoun),
  • mentionings (e.g. in Duden and a book about the spelling-reform),
  • 1 usage ("eine Lampe, die beim Fernsehen immer ansein mußte").
--2003:DE:371B:BD12:6895:8452:AB79:88C1 20:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep. This one is in Duden with the definition "eingeschaltet sein" (to be on). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Literally "to be" + adjective. Fytcha (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. This is in my German textbook. RealIK17 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
ansein doesn't quite look attestable. I also don't understand the argument that "it's in a learners' textbook so keep"? I'm sure pass me the salt is in some English learners' textbooks too. What's more, the adjective an can be used with other verbs too, like machen. How do we feel about creating an machen, aus sein, aus machen etc.? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Atitarev, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): To have more natives' opinions. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete, SOP. Fay Freak (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Suyá ŋóEdit

The entry ŋó is simply a rendition of Suyá. The spelling ŋó does not follow any established orthographic conventions for the language (it is taken from Guedes 1992, which uses its own ad hoc conventions and is in general not a very reliable source on the language). I was unable to move it because the page ngô already exists. Degoiabeira (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

For a barely attested language like this, I feel like a single attestation in a single source might be enough for us to keep it at least as an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)





So... I ask that these kinds of entries be deleted, because they contain a postposition, which is hard to translate in English as one word. Currently have found four words: ანგელოზი-ვით, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ, აღმოსავლეთ-ის-ა-კენ, მათ-თვის. Now 1st can be translated as "like an angel", second and third "towards east", fourth as "for them; by themselves..." and other nuances the postposition carries. I don't think it's proper to have these forms on Wiktionary, since the pages would pile up and bad translations would arise. Just study grammar... I haven't actually looked whether this qualifies at all by the Wiktionary rules, so I'mma ask y'all. For comparison to other languages, these forms are kinda like if Korean 미국에서 (migug-eseo, from America) entry existed. I'll also ping @Dixtosa, Reordcraeft. Additional questions if we decide to delete them... would there be an easier way to actually find them? -Solarkoid (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Our concepts of SOP and words aren't all that good at dealing with agglutinative languages. A few precedents I can think of are "-que" in Latin and "'s" in English (forms with both of which are deleted as they're clitics that can go on syntactically-unrelated words), prefixed prepositions in Hebrew (prefixed forms excluded by Hebrew community consensus), and case endings in highly inflected languages such as Latin and Finnish. Latin accusative can be used for toward, ablative for away from, and locative for at. I'm not very familiar with Finnish cases, but there are a variety of cases with prepositional meaning. Then there are the long and complex German compounds that native speakers consider SOP, but that the overall community decided to keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ye that's understandable, to be honest. However, additionally the thing is, none of the postpositions listed there: 1) Can mean anything on their own 2) Aren't considered as cases by anyone; none of them were given names. Akaki Shanidze, a well-respected Georgian linguist, considered things like -ში (-ši) cases, since 1) they didn't show the case marker 2) they could be isolated as a case per meaning (like Locative case). Georgian, like any language, deals with postpositions like word-case marker-postposition, where pp can either be a isolated one or suffixed. -ვით (-vit) means "like (close to in shape, size, features...) for example, შესახებ (šesaxeb) means 'about' and is spaced. But like, I don't know what to do with them. I guess since Hebrew excludes the prefixed prepositions and Korean also does that with their "markers", there should be no need for ones in Georgian, since they don't just change meaning for one word or another, they're systematic. I'll look at different responses, see what other people think. Also see if Dixtosa responds, he hasn't been active muchito. Thank you for your answer. -Solarkoid (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Solarkoid: Why do you suggest deletion if the only problem is that the definitions are imprecise? We can treat them just like any other form-of entry. No? Dixtosa (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I partially agree. Forms like ანგელოზი-ვით can be deleted, but there are so many non-lemma forms for other languages, I doubt we should make it our priority at this point. When it comes to words like აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ (eastward, eastwards), I think we can keep them. These words are useful when it comes to navigation, whether on foot or by sailing a boat or flying a plane. All in all, we should look at the usefulness of each entry and not delete them in broad sweep. --Reordcraeft (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly just because it has a one word translation in English using -ward doesn't mean it should be an entry in Georgian. I have more problems than imprecision in definitions. Typically, inflection of would be used for cases or conjugations and others, but not postposition. What inflection are you going to specify აღმოსავლეთისკენ as? LOCATIVE? Locative is a case, so is Ablative and others, so unless proven or discussd to be a case (like in case of -shi, -ze cf. Shanidze), you can't just assign them values like that. As for further problems with აღმოსავლეთ-ის-კენ: It's like so unnecessary. -k'en is a suffix for movement towards something. ANYTHING at that. You can select any noun and damn straight it'll work because it's a postposition. It is suffixed to a noun in genitive case, so, imho, keeping cases is fine and is in good will, while keeping postpositions is just unnecessary UNLESS you have linguistic proof that it can be considered a case. Also for "These words are useful when it comes to navigation" Well they can be built as easily by a person learning even a little bit of grammar as useful it is. Since there is no exact rule on agglutinative languages here, I think it's for community's best interest to deem such entries impractical, because they are so easily guessable from the root word. Unless you prove me that every little bit has to be here in this dictionary, then let's add entries like მიკაქალ, პაკა, ბაი, ოკ, სახში, ტვალეჩი (ngl last one kinda deserves an entry) since they are so widely used. Also მხოლობითი which I've heard far more than მხოლოობითი but is not attested in a dictionary. However: for Mingrelian and Laz these are cases and should be treated as such, but that's for future and they are clearly cases, so I'm not going to bring that here. I feel like I'm in court. Nothing further, Your Honor. Also I'm partially going off from Korean entries here too. @Karaeng Matoaya In your expert opinion, should entries like 엄마처럼/엄마같이 (not saying sole, dictionary words like 쏜살같이) and 왼쪽으로 be created? I'm asking you because it's kind of the same matter here, though y'all view those as particles instead. But I kinda have that problem too with some entries having -ც. -Solarkoid (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think what Solarkoid is trying to say here put very simply is that this is SOP, since these postpositions can be attributed to any noun by exactly the same method. This seems to me to be as SOP as any monoword compound can be, but with an enormous amount of entries to be created. Is there any point of not deleting them (for example Georgian speakers or learners not being able to recognize the suffix being a postposition)? If not, then a strong delete from my part. Thadh (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are good reasons why we should not delete them. Someone may want to look it up, wow. That someone is probably neither a native speaker nor a learner though because it is pretty easy to guess any postpositional form from two basic forms (genitive and plural). But, have you ever looked up a word in a language you knew nothing about?
Now, is there any reason for deletion? Dixtosa (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I think WT's objective should not be to include any variant of any word that anyone could find anywhere. The reason to delete this is so that it doesn't fill up the mainspace with words that can be deducted very simply. This isn't different from any SOP except for the fact it doesn't use a whitespace. Why not add whole sentences in Scriptio continua? Thadh (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Dixtos, Wiktionary has this convenient little feature called "words containing..." under the search if the word you're looking up isn't an entry. We could even do redirects to the main entry where they can open the inflection table and see it for themselves. Like look up the word "დიდედისთვის", which doesn't exist, and it will tell you, that the word "დიდედა" contains the word, so I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter. And if they can't find it that way still, let's just let them add it to entry requests, add main entry and add a redirect even. Redirect has to be discussed still, but we'll see. -Solarkoid (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Given the small number of languages using this script and their being limited to a relatively small area, the risk of overlap with words in other languages seems pretty small, and the likelihood that at least some Georgian editors will be able to spot it seems pretty high. That means you can be much more liberal with redirects than for scripts that are widely used by lots of languages with no connection to each other. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020Edit


Schwebeablaut isn't a root "variant", it's an environmental change. --{{victar|talk}} 00:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Not enough evidence, most likely did not exist; one used *múh₂s instead for all kinds of mice. The nominated word, somewhat varying by form in literature, is also claimed on the basis of some Iranian forms, which however have two much more likely explanations I mentioned at Arabic جُرَذ(juraḏ, rat) (an Iranian stem related to biting and stinging etc. (semantically Russian куса́ть (kusátʹ), if it is not clear from an English horizon) and a Semitic borrowing from a widespread Semitic stem related to gnawing). Looking at the edit history @Victar has removed an alleged Indo-Iranian reconstruction allegedly descending from this Proto-Indo-European, likely without explanation because it is obviously baseless, before someone re-added the Sanskrit words गिरि (giri) and गिरिका (girikā, making hills, a mouse?) again, which apart from a new formation from the word for a hill may also be a borrowing like other words (from which we have Bengali ইঁদুর (ĩdur) etc., “from a lost Vedic substrate language”). Munda forms ɡoɖo ~ guɖu are not farther than the alleged Indo-European cognates. g + either r/l are too common consonants. Then, how has the paradigm given for the Indo-European page any relation to the paradigm of the Sanskrit word or the paradigm of the Latin word glīs, which has the stem glīs- or glīr-. Ancient Greek γαλέη (galéē) means a mustelid, which is an animal not that similar or not all confusable or confoundable. I realize that Latin mūstēla (weasel) contains the word for mouse, but it does so because the weasel eats mice, but the weasel is no mouse by utmost historical phantasy, they had and have to be kept apart. So the glossing of the Indo-European page “mouse, dormouse; weasel” is impossible – no language can use one and the same word for mice and weasels. The Thracian άργιλος (árgilos, mouse) is not similar at all and needs other explanations, which it has, mentioned in the linked article Studies in Thracian vocabulary I–VII. Fay Freak (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Re the claim that a weasel is too different from a mouse, so the two have to be kept apart - the Norwegian word for a weasel is snømus, literally 'snow-mouse'. De Vaan, as cited in the Wiktionary entry, interprets mūstēla as an original diminutive *mūstr-elā 'a small mouse-like animal', not as 'mouse-eater'. Perhaps a taboo replacement (cf. the conflation of worm and snake, arguably an even more important difference)? -- 22:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
You're right that it might be a conflation of substrate words. But suppose it didn't exist in PIE―then why are the supposed cognates so similar? Sheer coincidence doesn't seem to be an option, so they would have come from related substrate/adstrate terms that had diverged semantically in their own distant past. It simply pushes back the question further into an unreconstructible era. Just because two animals don't seem "confusable" doesn't invalidate an etymological connection between words for them. Far stranger shifts have happened in far shorter time than the whole history of Indo-European. Also, the original term might have been an adjective or some other unspecific label that would have been applicable to various animals (cf. *bʰerH- (brown), the supposed root of both bear and beaver; similarly semantically divergent substantizations are par for Indo-European linguistics). So your semantic arguments don't really hold up. If there were no formal problems with the phonetics, the cognate set would hardly be questionable. Likewise, some questionable items being formerly part of an etymology have no bearing on the present state of the etymology, nor do tentative, less-supported connections to other language families like Dravidian or Semitic, unless of course the evidence for those etymologies is stronger (in this case, it clearly isn't). The differing paradigms are an important question, but nothing unresolvable; most can be regarded as different ablaut variants of an i-stem, and the question of the exact form of the original noun (or other nominal) is at that point almost irrelevant to the validity of the etymology. Thus the only really worthwhile criticism here is on the phonetic grounds. ― 01:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
“Clearly” the evidence for Semitic and Munda origin of the Indo-Aryan terms are stronger—what does “supported” even mean? No, but coincidence is a stronger option, due to the ubiquity of the consonants in the game, and on the Arabic page I have offered a better derivation for the Iranian part. Anyway you admit that a noun is formally not reconstructible nor even any root of any defined meaning. The original might have been this, might have been that, or: there were multiple unrelated originals. You have a Greek and a Latin and Sanskrit word of bare different meaning. The Thracian is a meme speculation.
Now I also see the Greek and Latin derived from *gelH-, on Proto-Slavic *golъ, underline how arbitrary the assumptions underlying the Indo-European reconstructions of these words are. Fay Freak (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This reconstruction looks highly dubitable and is not supported by mainstream linguists. Delete. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

vạt áoEdit

Vietnamese. Sum of parts.

người thợEdit

Sum of parts.

Múa Ba LêEdit

Sum of parts and spelled wrong. (Should be lowercase, see ux at ba lê.)

bẫy chuộtEdit

Sum of parts.

All tagged but not yet listed. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "vạt áo" is a SOP. vạt is never used on its own to mean vạt áo, and the former is never used to describe any items of clothing that aren't tops. I think the definitions at vạt will need to be revised. --Корсикэн-Уара (юзэр толк) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
You can say vạt áo dài, which should be parsed as [vạt] [áo dài] (áo dài flap), not [vạt áo] [dài] (long flap). It’s true vạt is probably followed by áo in every single instance of it, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it a unit.
The other entries are 100% SoP though, so delete. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I did some research and easily found tons of attestation of vạt not immediately followed by áo but still meaning flap, making vạt áo SoP. I added some of the quotes that I found to the vạt page, but there’s a gazillion more. Can this be closed then? MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Mxn, PhanAnh123): Open for quite some time now. --Fytcha (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ad locumEdit

Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:373f:4069:b534:361e:8aeb:9907 on 22 December, not listed: “SOP?”. J3133 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I wasn't familiar with this one before, but If I hear convincing arguments to keep, I'll take a closer look. — Dentonius 17:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's standard textual critics' jargon that's found its way into many if not all European languages together with things like q.v. and op. cit.. Google "grotius ad locum" and you'll find plenty of occurrences in early Latin prints. Brutal Russian (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep as Translingual???? This, that and the other (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

January 2021Edit


@Hk5183 Sense "to have sexual intercourse with". It doesn't seem lexicalized to me, and AFAICT it's quite rare, too. Looking cursorily, I found one cite, and there is another on DDO, both of which seem like nonce euphemisms by romantic authors (Femina is a women's magazine). ODS lists a large number of minor semantic variations, but not this one.__Gamren (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally have never encountered this meaning in reading (only in DDO), so I cannot attest to it's usage. I agree that it is not at the core of the word's meaning, so delete it if you think best. Thanks! Hk5183 (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The English verb unite is also used as a euphemism for the sexual act: [11], [12] – not a reason to add this as a new sense.  --Lambiam 13:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


No descendants listed. Page creator is no longer active at Wiktionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The reference gives three reflexes of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *wakaR for "SHWNG", which is another name for Halmahera-Cenderawasih: Babuza , Windesi "war" (Wikipedia treats Windesi as a dialect of the w:Wamesa language with the language code wad, while we treat wad as the language code for Wandamen, which Wikipedia says is the name of another dialect of Wamesa) and Ansus woa. Of course, we don't have entries for any of those and Blust is known to have regularized orthographies elsewhere in the same work to make comparison easier, so I wouldn't use it as a source for the terms themselves.
I would note that the Proto-South Halmahera-West New Guinea index lists wakaR, and a suffixed form *wakaR-i (with four more reflexes). Of course, it has similar indexes for proto-languages that probably don't exist, such as Proto-Western Malayo-Polynesian, so it would be nice to have some source to back this up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021Edit

နမောတဿ ဘဂဝတော အရဟတော သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿEdit

1. This was created as "Mon-Pali"; Ungoliant changed the header to Mon, but did so in error: it's Pali. 2. This is a phrase used in a Buddhist context. However, it's not lexical as far as I can tell. @BhagadattaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Create Pali entry, keep and soft-redirect as Burmese script form of said entry. This is a major set phrase in Theravada Buddhism and should be kept just like 南無阿彌陀佛南无阿弥陀佛 (Nāmó Ēmítuófó).--Tibidibi (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Tibidibi: Okay I suppose that can be done. Now every constituent word in that phrase has a Mon entry and they are all given the meaning "Buddhism". Is it correct and if it is not, could you fix that? -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 07:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta, the relevant entries are နမောတဿ which is the Mon writing of Pali namo tassa (homage [be] to him), ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) which is Pali bhagavato (to the fortunate one), အရဟတော which is Pali arahato (to the worthy one), and သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ, which is Pali sammā sambuddhassa (to the Supremely Enlightened One). They should probably all be soft redirects to Pali.--Tibidibi (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tibidibi, Metaknowledge: Thanks for the info. Just to clarify, should the Pali soft redirects be added in addition to the preexisting lemmas or should the Mon entries be converted into Pali soft redirects? Because if we do that, then these entries will lose the pronunciation and etymology etc as they should be at the main entry.
Anyway I think we should keep the phrase entry and keep ဘဂဝတော (bhagavato) and အရဟတော and delete နမောတဿ because namotassa has no meaning or relevance which cannot be gauged from its constituent parts namo (homage) and tassa (to him; dative) and thus does not warrant an entry. Also delete သမ္မာသမ္ဗုဒ္ဓဿ for the same reason. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 09:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta, I think we can keep the audio in the Latin-alphabet Pali entries, just labelled as {{q|Thai Mon pronunciation}}. Pali is read differently by every Theravada culture, and ideally every Pali entry would have a transcription or audio for the traditional reading in every Theravada country. (This can probably be automated, but I know very little about Pali.)
@エリック・キィ, Octahedron80, do you happen to know if any of these Buddhist terms are words in actual Mon, or are they reserved for Mon readings of Pali text?--Tibidibi (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, we do not say lone portion of the verse anywhere; no one says "namotassa" or "bhagavato" etc in conversation except mantra. Each portion should be split into their relevent words. And in the end, they are pure Pali language, not Mon language. --Octahedron80 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with converting this to a Pali entry, the main entry of which should be at namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā sambuddhassa. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tibidibi: You mean for every province, don't you? This sound clip is representative for neither Burma nor Thailand. I suspect you would need an entry for every lowland SE Asian L1, and quite possibly for British and Californian English L1s. And do you really want an entry for every inflected form? A regular masculine noun has 16 forms, and a verb has about 80 masculine participial forms alone! RichardW57 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bhagadatta, Mahagaja: The word boundaries are not as clear-cut as one would like. The majority choice seems to be for "sammā sambuddhassa" to be one word, but its written both ways in Latin script and in Thai script. Now, "namotassa" is a sum of its parts in the same way as "coalmine" is. But, if it is to be translated as "homage to him", it makes sense as a univerbation. Keeping it as a unit is common (but not the majority choice) in Burmese script text on the web, and I notice that my Tai Khuen Pali sample writes it as one word. Determining word boundaries is awkward - sometimes it is clear that spaces are mere aeration! RichardW57 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@RichardW57: Fortunately, redirects are cheap, as is {{alt sp}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tibdibi, Bhagadatta, Mahagaja, Octahedron80 I wonder if this phrase might be 'multilingual'. It's rather like hallelujah and allah akbar. I've just found another example. In the Burmese-authored English language web page [13] which says in a throw away remark that နမော ဗုဒ္ဓါယ သိဒ္ဓံ (namo buddhāya siddhaṃ, Homage to the Buddha; Success!) (or is is it 'homage to the completely enlightened one'?) is Mon. The contexts for it are associated with Burma and Cambodia. I think it's Pali, but I'm not sure it isn't slightly substandard Sanskrit. (The form of 'buddhāya' looks wrong for Pali to me, but perhaps I haven't mastered the rules for the choice of dative singular form.) I have found the phrase in a larger Pali context, and the first two words carved in stone in Sanskrit. RichardW57 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

جعل عالي الشيء سافلهEdit

“SOP, add as an usex to the main verb lemma”. — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 02:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The sense given as idiomatic sense seems rather non-composite to me? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@User:Allahverdi Verdizade It's a Qur'anic idiom, literally meaning "to make the top (or height) of sth its bottom (or low)", hence "to overturn", hence "to raze; to annihilate; to exterminate; to eradicate" as of cities and other localities, peoples and nations, and so on. The problem here is the question of whether every Qur'anic collocation merits a separate entry, considering that such phrases are often quoted in countless discourses and contexts. One could say that these phrases are so popular that they have become somewhat proverbial (perhaps akin to love conquers all), but that may be easily generalized to every widespread sequence of words regardless of composition, be it from holy books, movies and shows, philosphers, or somewhere else. One could think of The Matrix, Stars Wars, Game of Thrones as examples of this: someone who is familiar with these programs may, perhaps subconsciously, "quote" them in their speech, such as red pill or, more markedly, its alteration, black pill.
I personally think that "quoting something", in itself, is too fluid a standard, much more than the existing SoP criteria, even if the quotation arguably borders on "proverbs". Roger.M.Williams (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Roger.M.Williams: The problem is not about quoting; after all, we do have red pill as an entry! What we want to determine is whether someone unfamiliar with the Qur'anic usage could come across this in Arabic and correctly interpret its meaning in a modern context. (I think the answer is probably yes, but I am open to the possibility that it is no — in which case we would want to keep it.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


Appears to actually be attested, though in New Latin, not Vulgar Latin. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed: [14], [15], [16]. Should we interpret the New Latin use as "inherited" from Vulgar Latin? Otherwise, there are basically two homographic lemmas: a non-attested Vulgar Latin one, reconstructed from its descendants, and a re-invented one in New Latin.  --Lambiam 10:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hazarasp, Lambiam The word isn't attested before the 14th century or so (DMLBS). We can't very well say that the Medieval Romance forms derive from New Latin, where the word is in fact reborrowed/calqued from Romance. Therefore these are separate, and the Proto-Romance (Vulgar Latin) entry has to stay. Brutal Russian (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree; I would expect just one entry, which could explain that the word is inferred from Romance terms to have existed in Vulgar Latin but is not attested until later recoined in New Latin. By comparison, AFAIK we don't and shouldn't have separate reconstruction entries for attested terms in other languages (say, English or Ojibwe) where they can be inferred to have existed at some period before their actual attestation; we don't even have separate etymology sections for English words which existed in early modern English (Latvian, etc) and were later independently recoined in modern times. (OTOH, we still have a redundant reconstruction entry on lausa.) What do we do in comparable situations in Chinese or Hebrew? AFAICT we don't have any reconstructed Hebrew or Chinese entries, which suggests we may be handling "late (re)attested" words in those languages in mainspace only, as I would expect. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that this has been moved to Reconstruction:Latin/cosutura (without n) and changed to derive from *cōsō, an unattested variant of cōnsuō. On one hand, this could all be handled in the mainspace by just mentioning the hypothetical n-less forms in etymology sections without spinning off whole entries, and I think such things are handled that way in situations were an n-form is attested earlier than an n-less variant; OTOH, it's now at least less stupid than having both *consutura and consutura... - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


This is not a suffix in Standard Arabic. — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If "Standard Arabic" is defined chiefly in terms of the case system, the conjugations, and the traditional grammars that come with both, one may find very many "dialectal" words that become "standardized" by adding the appropriate case markers when used, and with them whatever productive combination-forms and derivational patterns in the vernaculars, such as this very segment. Since its function is recognizable and it is fairly productive, I do not see why it cannot be classed as a "suffix".
The whole "informal" tag for Arabic entries, which I have been trying to remove gradually, albeit with some resistance from disgruntled IP's, is to me utterly absurd: the employment of the case system itself strips any supposed "informality" from speech, regardless of the lexicon. How could a word like بُوسَة(būsa) be "informal" when declined in the manner characteristic of speeches and books? And, to me, the use of this segment is analogous to it. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Roger.M.Williams, Fay Freak: The term بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) is borrowed from Eastern dialects to MSA. The suffix is nonexistent in Standard Arabic whatsoever, which is the opposite of the prefix كَهْرُو(kahrū) in that it is productive and largely used. The suffix جِيّ(jiyy) can't be considered as such just because it is found in some borrowed words from dialects or other languages. Should we consider تِلِ(tili) (in تِلِفِزْيُون(tilifizyūn), تِلِغْرَاف(tiliḡrāf) and تِلِفُون(tilifūn)) an Arabic prefix because it is found in some borrowed terms, even though it was never treated as such in the borrowing language? — Fenakhay (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The distinction between the dialects and the literary language is very often blurred when vernacularisms are "adjusted" to fit in the conjugation and declension systems. You are speaking of "MSA" and the "dialects" as if they were almost antipodal (perhaps like Chinese and Swedish), but if you scour through modern news articles and opinion pieces, you will probably notice that very many of them are written in some "standardized vernacular", while some have whole paragraphs that are entirely composed in the syntax of the vernacular. The more starkly "dialectal" elements are interrogatives and other like particles, and when those are excised, you end up with a composition that is lexically "dialectal" yet grammatically "standard".
So my question is this: is this segment used in vernacular and/or literary formations on the model of the borrowings? If yes, then I deem it to be productive in some language. The question whether this language is the literary language or a dialect assumes that the two do not spill over each other at all. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I doubt it is under no circumstances. It probably pops up too often in literature, though then not being as unmarked as it is now labelled (probably jocular? one hasn’t labelled it so on the other hand because it would be misleading because in basilects it is normal). Some words containing it are clearly part of the general standard, though one would have to seek examples where it’s not only by surface but the formation has taken place in literary use. بَلْطَجِيّ(balṭajiyy) clearly is manifestly general Arabic but not formed in it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on whether this suffix belongs in standard Arabic, but I do object to the ad-hoc post-Classical label. Most of the terms in Category:Arabic terms derived from Ottoman Turkish would deserve the same label, and adding the label should automatically put it in a category (somewhere under Category:Arabic_terms_by_usage, or Category:Post-classical_Arabic by analogy to Category:Post-classical Old Armenian or Category:New Latin). Would modern senses of words derived from classical roots deserve the same label? That is a lot of change to make. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum: It does categorize if one writes the classical lowercase. Incomplete module data. Fay Freak (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I changed the label to lower case, but the generated category contains only the one term so this is still a one-off solution as currently implemented. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum, Roger.M.Williams: I have fixed the module data aliases, which @Brutal Russian had brucked four months ago. Now you can add the label in arbitrary capitalization and hyphenation as intended. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow, what a clutz! I'm wondering though, why is it that the current alias substitution works even tho it's still different from the "Pre-classical" of the category field. Is it that the first letter only is case-insensitive? Why does categorisation even care what's written in the label if the category is unchanged?? Brutal Russian (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian: I thought you would understand: The dataset is called post-classical. To this argument of labels the aliases have to be mapped; of course everything is case-sensitive. display makes that all appear uniform. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Right, so I should have changed display. Brutal Russian (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you wanted to move it to a dialect entry. Egyptian–Sudanese Arabic would be appropriate. Fay Freak (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fenakhay, sending these to RFD is not an appropriate way to handle an entry that obviously exists. In general, we should avoid bulking up a forum like this this with entries that obviously shouldn't be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 10:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021Edit


This and the two below newly created below are of too poor quality. --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "poor quality"? Is the issue with the entry or the reconstruction itself ? Leasnam (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


Ditto. --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be saved, but moved to *ǵar- —caoimhinoc (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

April 2021Edit


Reconstructed on the basis of some Scottish place names, but there's no reason they have to be specifically Pictish as opposed to some form of Brythonic. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree! I had no idea until now that anyone was trying to include Pictish in Wiktionary: it seems a bit of a crazy endeavour, but certainly doesn't seem appropriate for this word... Alarichall (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There are lots of other terms like this now in Category:Pictish lemmas. The whole thing strikes me as a mess. As intrigued as I am and as much as I'd love to see more on Pictish, we probably should RFV/RFD for most if not all of them. Each one seems to rely on a single author's work, not least due to the fact that there's not complete scholarly consensus about what Pictish even was or where it was spoken. And I agree the Pictish status of the reconstructions is questionable. For comparison, the reconstructed Pre-Greek vocabulary is arguably more cohesive and well-defined, and, like the toponyms in question with respect to Pictish, it is tentatively associated with a language known to have existed: Minoan—as well as also largely limited to a single author, yet we have no entries for it. — 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

chirurgie de réassignation sexuelleEdit

chirurgie de réattribution sexuelleEdit

French SOP. Imetsia (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. PUC – 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The English term sex reassignment surgery isn't SOP, so neither are these. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, the crux here is whether réassignation and réattribution make this SOP; the polysemy of sexuelle is certainly not relevant. That these are SOP is neither clear nor explained. The definitions do not have a clear link to sex or gender, nor do the definitions of reassignment or reattribution make clear what is SOP about the nominated phrases. Here's a thought experiment, could a French speaker from one or two centuries ago infer the meanings of these phrases? I strongly doubt she could. As these terms surely look like calques from English, the odds are also real that they are jiffies in French usage relating to sex. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The answer to the thought experiment is meaningless: we don't write the website for French speakers from 1821. Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The point of the thought experiment is that it is a simple heuristic tool that can help one detect jiffies and that it is one safeguard that prevents one from making the "literally translates the English, must be SOP" fallacy. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as we have sex reassignment surgery, of which this is essentially a word-for-word translation. If we are going to debate this at all, better to debate it in English where we can all weigh in. This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

посланець аллахаEdit

Seems as SOP as Allah's Messenger would be in English. — surjection??⟩ 08:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Which isn't very SOP. Without real-world knowledge of Islam, how is anyone supposed to know who Allah's Messenger is? —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The answer is easy: It’s always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question. Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Lean delete, which religious titles to include and which not can be difficult because there are many metaphors and allusions involved, but this one is rather straightforwardly descriptive. So it is closer to Holy One of God (imo excludible) than to Lamb of God (imo includible). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Is a lean delete more gentle than a fat delete?  --Lambiam 12:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't trust a delete with a lean and hungry look. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking from a background that leaves me rather ignorant of much of Islam, I can only guess at what or who "Allah's Messenger" would refer to -- Might this be an angel? Any of the prophets? A specific prophet? I don't know.
In other words, I agree with Mahāgaja's point, and I cannot agree with Fay Freak's contention, that "[i]t's always the one relevant in the narrative of the religion in question" would mean any English speaker would perforce understand this in a sum-of-parts manner.
As such, keep, and ideally also include Allah's Messenger (if that is indeed an often-used term). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
In fact, Muhammad is the main messenger of all messengers of Islam. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Adamdaniel864 (talkcontribs) at 06:56, 21 April 2021‎ (UTC).

erop lijkenEdit

SOP. This is use of a prepositional dummy object that no doubt looks arcane to non-native speakers but it is barely lexical. I think it is adequately treated by the entries lijken and lijken op (my preference would have been to cover both at lijken, the current situation exaggerates the differences between the two uses). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

ervan uitgaanEdit

Analogously, ervan uitgaan and the misspelling ervanuit gaan are redundant to uitgaan van. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): Any opinions? Open for 269 days. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Proto-West Germanic variantsEdit

Without any {{rfd}}, @Rua deleted the following entries:

The Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law is an areal feature of Proto-West Germanic. Since we don't consider North Sea Germanic its own language, but instead a part of a dialectal continuum, reconstructing such variants should be a valid practice. We actually had this same argument here Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/March#Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/-ōjan, where Rua again deleted the entry without discussion. @Mahagaja, Leasnam, Metaknowledge --{{victar|talk}} 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need separate pages for these if we already have pages for their older forms with n + fricative. There's nothing wrong with saying Old English mūþ is directly from Proto-West Germanic *munþ; alternatively, we could say "from older {{m|und|*mų̄þ}}, from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*munþ}}. At the very most, the red links above could be hard redirects to their n-ful equivalents, but honestly I'm fine with keeping them red links. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
True, there is nothing wrong with Old English mūþ, from Proto-West Germanic *munþ, but neither is there anything wrong with ... from Proto-Germanic *munþaz or conversely, in my opinion, ... from Proto-West Germanic *mų̄þ, *munþ, which I think it's more informative to the user in that it shows that *mų̄þ was a dialectal variant of PWG. --{{victar|talk}} 16:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, but that still doesn't mean *mų̄þ has to have a separate page. We can write from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*mų̄þ, *[[munþ]]}} or from {{inh|ang|gmw-pro|*munþ|alt=*mų̄þ, *munþ}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, could do ... from Proto-West Germanic *mų̄þ, *munþ, but I don't see any valid reason for *mų̄þ not existing, just as Old English *-hæd, *brænnan, and *mixian exist. --{{victar|talk}} 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see the point of those either. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if you don't see the point of any alternate reconstruction entries, we're probably not going to be on the same page about that, lol. I guess the question you need to ask yourself is, "what's the harm"? --{{victar|talk}} 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the harm is having information spread across multiple pages instead of consolidated in one place. The reasons we have for avoiding hard redirects in mainspace and for having separate entries for alternative forms and alternative spellings in mainspace just don't apply to Reconstruction space IMO, largely because each Reconstruction page is langauge-specific, unlike mainspace pages, which are (at least potentially) multilingual. There's just no reason not to treat all allomorphs of a reconstructed form together in one centralized location. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Restore Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/mų̄þ and you'll see there's no duplicate information on it. I would definitely dispute *V̄̃ being an allomorph of *Vn. If that was the case, we would see more random vacillation in PWG's descendants. We also acknowledge *į̄ in common WG. --{{victar|talk}} 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I was using "allomorph" imprecisely to include dialectal variants. And yes there is duplication: Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/mų̄þ told me that *mų̄þ is the North Sea Germanic variant of *munþ, which is exactly the same thing that Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/munþ#Alternative reconstructions already tells me. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It's very simple, these forms are not Proto-West Germanic. The nasal-spirant law is a specific Ingvaeonic change, therefore post-PWG. Projecting it back to PWG is nonsense. What source do you have that this sound law applied in PWG? —Rua (mew) 09:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This is simply a non-sequitur. There are sound changes affecting a part of a language without the language being split (“areal features”), because one isogloss is not enough for a language split and because this is just how innovation works (language changes start somewhere instead of as a law Deo volente). Like why do our Proto-Slavic forms reflect Slavic second palatalization if it isn’t even present in Old Novgorodian? It is not nonsense unless it gainsays aught.
Therewith I do not argue though that the nasal-spirant law was in effect in Proto-West Germanic already, only that I see no sound reasoning here.
However I have an idea that makes me tend to assume it is posterior. Due to the nature of the change and typical behaviour of later West-Germanic topolects, the likelihoods are that the change is posterior. The West-Germanic topolects northwest of what would become High German have a penchant, increasing with time, for simplifying sequences of obstruent plus stop, compare ldll, ft → χt as from *kraftu. For this assumption of posteriority to work we admit a Proto-English, Proto-Frisian and Proto-Saxon language bundle preceding the attested language stages which latter expose the nasal-spirant law, i.e. the law would have operated in the Dark Ages after PWG and before Old English, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon—which does not make it less likely. Moreover, the change being posterior is suggested by it not even complete in attested times in the topolects affected by the law, that is, if we have attested forms with nasal, e.g. Old Frisian forms listed at *munþ. Fay Freak (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure Old Frisian mond, mund are from some Old West Frisian varieties that were influenced by Old Dutch, so they don't contradict the law. Thadh (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that probably is so, by reason that such a common term rarely has stable variation. The argument works better with rarer words, words less likely to be borrowed. Fay Freak (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021Edit

péché philosophiqueEdit

Unsure this means sodomy and not just philosophical sin Yellow is the colour (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it does mean philosophical sin; the corresponding article on the French Wikipedia has the title Péchés philosophique et théologique. Rather than deleting it, the definition should be fixed, accompanied by a box “ English Wikipedia has an article on: Philosophical sin ”. This is a somewhat technical term of (moral-theological) art, not a simple SOP.  --Lambiam 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I lean keep (but modify the definition) per Lambiam. The meaning is "sin that is sinful on moral/ethical grounds but that is not offensive to God", so philosophical/philosophique stands for "moral as opposed to theological" in a very particular way. No online English dictionary has a definition for philosophical that comes even close to explaining this distinction. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have added a sense philosophical sin; the question is now if the first and formerly only sense should be deleted. I’m happy with Delete, but perhaps someone feels this should go to RfV.  --Lambiam 09:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lambiam Where did you add the sense? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I must have forgotten to commit my change; now truly added.  --Lambiam 16:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/krūciEdit

This entry invents a completely new phoneme, that I have not seen in any sources, in order to reconstruct an entry. I know that Wiktionary gives some leeway for its own research, but a whole phoneme goes too far IMO. This is definitely something that needs to be sourced. —Rua (mew) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The Old Saxon, Old High German, and Old Dutch forms could maybe point *krūtsi, if I'm remembering the relevant historical developments correctly. The Frisian form is apparently a borrowing from Low German; if it was native, we'd expect *crēce. The OE form should maybe be excluded; unlike the other Gmc. forms; the consonantism may point to a loan from a dialect where Latin -c- before front vowels gave /tʃ/, not /ts/. If Old English crūċ is removed and Old Frisian crioce is relegated to borrowing status, a case could be made for the page to be kept as *krūtsi. This would be a sensible adaptation of pre-Old French /ˈkrut͡se/ into the late common WGmc. phonological and morphological framework. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC
Could it be that Proto-Germanic and Proto-West Germanic had phonemes only occurring in loanwords? Like the voiced postalveolar fricative occurs in German only in loanwords but in most familiar items like Orange and Garage. No doubt either the Proto-West Germans were able to pronounce [t͡s]. You have not seen it because of restricted use then, and by reason that Indo-Europeanists like to deal with inherited terminology rather than to sully themselves with language contact. Fay Freak (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
However, on second thought, the logic I employed further up is somewhat shaky; Dutch/Low German -s- isn't necessarily reconcilable with Low/High German -ts-. Additionally, the pre-OF form would be /ˈkrot͡se/; the note at kryds about the vocalism in /uː/ (> later /yː/) pointing to a late date of borrowing is spot-on. If the borrowing was late, it's not necessary to posit a common WGmc. source; separate borrowings in each WGmc. language could've easily resulted in similar phonological forms. In short, the WGmc. "cross" words seem to be separate, but interlinked borrowings from after the common WGmc. period (though this isn't watertight). However, the idea that some of the Germanic forms are borrowings from others is worth considering (Old High German → Old Saxon?). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
WG would have most certainly come into contact with Latin speakers that began to palatalize velars. The question in my mind isn't *if*, it's *how* we deal with these words. Using *c as a stand-in for an otherwise foreign sound is probably the easiest way to go about it. Compare also *unciju, which which has some interesting Old English variants. To quote what I wrote on the talk page, "1) even if the term entered one branch and quickly spread throughout WG, it's impossible to pinpoint the source, and 2) we're calling Frankish PWG so even if the word was adopted into Frankish and spread from there, that's still PWG yielding the word in every branch." --{{victar|talk}} 16:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the issues that I raised (I never said anything about the palatalisation of velars being a problem!), which mainly concern the vocalism (which could be seen as indicative of a later loan) and the discrepancy in the consonantism. Positing a PWG *c to cover for the discrepancy left me a bit skeptical with only one example, but now that you've found another, I'm a bit more open to the idea. You'll need to find one or two more to really convince me, though. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis)
By the way, shouldn't *unciju be ōn-stem *uncijā? Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 18:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hazarasp: Here's a fun one: *palancijā. As for the ō-stem, I was going by Köbler. --{{victar|talk}} 01:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
OHG and Old Frisian both have ō-stems, but Middle Dutch and OE both have a ōn-stem. This kind of stuff makes me suspicious that they're seperate borrowings. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Meh, that's WG for you. --{{victar|talk}} 05:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Little details like these are important if the basis for assuming a common source is tenuous in the first place. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hazarasp: ō- and ōn-stems were effectively merged by late Old Dutch, so you can't base any conclusions on that. This merger likely affected other dialects in the area, as we can see that modern German has it too. —Rua (mew) 08:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Good to know, though I probably should've checked that; I'm not too well-versed in what happened to the Gmc. continental breakfast. That still leaves the OE form difficult to explain, though. Of course, such a problem can be sidestepped if we see them as seperate borrowings (as we probably should; at the very least, the OE form is not easily connected) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
*strūcijō (ostrich). --{{victar|talk}} 05:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There is also a related entry *krūcigōn, derived from this noun. Leasnam (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that, I note that the assumption that the word is “clearly Christian vocabulary” is not without doubt. Primarily this relates to a kind of punishment, applied to slaves, and one damn well imagines that Romans made Germans acquainted with it even in the 1st century CE, so just for hyperbole and indifference argument I point out that it could be Proto-Germanic no less than postdating Proto-West Germanic. The real etymon of this verb is crucifīgere, from crucī (af)fīgere, in Medieval Latin written crucifīcāre (which is also in the TLL from some gloss, together with cruciāre). Formally, the common haplology points to proto-date, as also the parallel with German predigen, Old English predician, Old Saxon predikōn from which the North-Germanic forms like Danish prædike, Swedish predika, Icelandic prédika, Norwegian Nynorsk preika are derived, as obviously the Christians vexed man with preaching from the very beginning, “very far before the religion itself started to become a thing”. Fay Freak (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Whatever it's worth, the EWN calls it an "old Germanic borrowing" (so likely before Old Dutch) and the NEW vaguely calls it "a word of the conversion", which could mean a quite early date in relation to the Franks. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I found this paper https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2971774/view which deals with describing and dating various sound changes of the Latin dialect that West Germanic speakers would have been in contact with. It uses Germanic borrowings as part of its data as well. This seems very useful for figuring out how old they are, based on what Latin sound changes they have carried over. In 3.23 and 3.24, three changes are discussed that would have produced an affricate /ts/:

  • From Vulgar Latin /tj/: 2nd century. Reflected also in Gothic, e.g. 𐌺𐌰𐍅𐍄𐍃𐌾𐍉 (kawtsjō).
  • From Vulgar Latin /kj/: not found in early Germanic loanwords, late enough for the velar to feed into the West Germanic gemination, e.g. Old Saxon wikkia (< vicia). Velars from Germanic feed this in Old French, e.g. Proto-West Germanic *makkjō > maçon.
  • From Vulgar Latin /k/ before front vowel: not found in early Germanic loanwords either, e.g. Proto-West Germanic *kistu, *kaisar. Again, Germanic loans into Old French feed this, e.g. cion. Attested in inscriptions from the 5th century onwards.

Since PWG is considered to have ended around 400, this places it before the palatalisation and therefore forms like the one being discussed here are an anachronism. It is of course possible for Vulgar Latin /tj/ to end up in PWG as an affricate, but I find it unlikely that speakers would treat this as its own phoneme, since to their ears it would have sounded like a sequence /ts/ (compare how western European speakers nowadays hear Slavic c). So if we do want to denote this sound, I think a sequence *ts should be used and not *c. —Rua (mew) 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ending PWG at the 5th century excludes Frankish, and since we merged Frankish into PWG, that date needs to be pushed forward. --{{victar|talk}} 00:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of Wiktionary following a different standard from what is linguistically agreed upon. Wiktionary should be a linguistic source. —Rua (mew) 13:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Academics don't even agree that there was a single Proto-West Germanic, let alone on a date when all its descendants diverged. I feel like we keep having the same conversation about finite PWG vs. a WG continuum. If a dialect absorbs a word and it spreads through the dialects, that's still the language absorbing the word. --{{victar|talk}} 19:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

منتظر ... بودنEdit

This construction isn't really a word (not in Dehkhoda), and the attempt to treat it as a verb has produced the convoluted usage notes. The relevant information is now contained in منتظر#Usage notes, which I think conveys the information rather more succinctly.

I propose a hard-redirect to منتظر.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


With an unknown etymology and only Old Norse einir as a descendant, this entry should be deleted. @Rua --{{victar|talk}} 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The Latin term is a borr