Open main menu


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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


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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcut:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


Contents

April 2018Edit

ashiyuEdit

Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.
I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".
As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.
I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

do someone a frightenEdit

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

nu-maleEdit

Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

misdemeanorizeEdit

Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

eighthfinalEdit

Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? -84.161.23.222 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

broderickEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The verb has passed (two cites on page and one on citations page). The noun still needs one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

mlemEdit

Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018Edit

blepEdit

"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

KevinismEdit

I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

chudEdit

Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).
Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

stevenEdit

stevven, steavenEdit

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[1]].

skotEdit

DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

wemEdit

AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

ledishEdit

Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish2 which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hoang-tcheouEdit

An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [2]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [3] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

muscutyEdit

Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

datelinerEdit

Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

toomEdit

I suspect this is obsolete if it still exists at all. The English Dialect Dictionary has pointers to some citations we could use, except that many are actually Scots, or use a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a few cites. The 1896 work is written in English, but two of the characters in the story (Corp and Tommy) speak in Scottish dialect. Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

LOLEdit

I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

  • 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
  • 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
  • 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
  • 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [4]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In most of the stuff you get on Google Books for "LOL" + "lots of love" this usage is framed as a misunderstanding. [5] [6] Usenet seems more promising, though. [7] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If you ask anyone over 60 what LOL meant at the end of a letter, they will tell you it was a common abbreviation for "lots of love". It has been totally eclipsed now by laugh out loud, and doesn't really make it into permanently archived sources, but I still think this one was common enough to get in by common usage. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely generational. Certainly was "lots of love" when I was sending greeting cards to relatives. If three of us find some old greeting cards with LOL and upload the images to Commons, would that be good attestation? DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any old letters to prove this (got rid of them when I emigrated), but it was such COMMON USAGE!!!!! DCDuring clearly remembers it as well. Part of the reason I feel so strongly that this one should be included is because of all the current reactions to older people who interpret this as lots of love. They are not finding a completely unfamiliar acronym and making a wild (incorrect) guess rather than trying to find out what it means, they are being misled by their own past experience because it used to mean lots of love, which is a much more reasonable mistake. Kiwima (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If we could establish a likely period for usage there are publications which include many personal correspondences (e.g. soldiers writing home). I agree that this will be a hard one to track down, but perhaps not impossible. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt that LOL was commonly used for "lots of love" at the end of a letter, similar to how XOXOXO is used today (that is not at all to say that "XOXOXO" is some recent invention), because, although that was a bit before my time, I have a large family, and they (a large number of them under sixty [although I would note that there is a saying {albeit one that has begun to no longer been true ever since the advent of the blasted social media age that we now unfortunately live in} in my state that means in a nutshell "that which begins in California/out West, and is not readily apparent {in other words, not a common trend or fad}, takes roughly ten years before it comes to {MY STATE}", which I suppose makes perfect sense considering that California is on the polar side of the country from where I live--even the northernmost parts of California are notably below where my area is on a map. In any case, I bring this up because the saying in question also indicates a broader point, I feel, that much of that which begins and much of that which fizzles out in another part of the country {outside of the Northeast} has historically taken much longer to begin or to fizzle out where I live]) recall and have told me in the past (many years ago) precisely what User:DCDuring and User:Kiwima recollect. Was this, perhaps, less common in the United Kingdom than it was in North America (I'm not suggesting that it was specific to a particular area or anything like that, I'm just wondering if it was more common in one than in the other)? Because I have a pretty strong feeling that if I were to go at this very moment and ask the kind elderly woman who lives right next door to me if there was another way of indicating what "XOXOXO" indicates at the end of a letter, she would tell me that "LOL" or "lots of love" has served that purpose. Even if I do end up taking the time to find clear evidence of that fact, though, I would decline Equinox's (probably unserious) offer, as I am a staunch teetotaller-- always have been and always will be. Tharthan (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've tried search Google Books, restricting the title to include "letters" or "correspondence", with time period 1800-2000. No joy. DCDuring (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the problem really. On the one hand I can imagine the frustration of Kiwi et al (as though I had to defend a word like autofire after the accidental burning of all 1980s video game magazines); on the other hand I don't think we should ever make exceptions to attestation rules just because we like our editors and they're probably right. What if it's a massive hoax that only comes to light 50 years later? boo. Equinox 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the cites in the entry, I'd dismiss the first (2002), but the others seem to meet our standards. The fact that there is difference between what older users and younger users mean and understand by LoL warrants a dated label. I fail to understand how evidence of misunderstanding isn't relevant attestation. I agree that it is mentiony, but it is substantive, in-the-wild mentioning that we are seeing. I think we should be happy to find some attestation for such a common misunderstanding, especially involving intra-familial communications, often involving children. It would be interesting to determine whether the "lots of love" meaning predated widespread use of greeting cards. I think not, but I'm not sure how we could find out. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the association with greeting cards is just from your particular experience. In my experience, it was commonly used in thank you letters. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The OED Third Edition has the new entry (March 2011) with cites from 1989 for the laughing sense, but makes no mention of the love sense. That's not to say that they might not find an instance of older usage in the future, but previous editions had no entry. I never used it in any of my thank you letters. Dbfirs 15:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

auriphrygiaEdit

Looks more like Latin. DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, it looks like English, but all I can find are mentions. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

harmonometerEdit

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

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

axonotrophyEdit

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

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

March 2019Edit

regeneromeEdit

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

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

synkaryophyteEdit

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

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

polarpolymerEdit

Only scannos where the two words have run together. Equinox 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar has a number of hits that are hidden behind the paywall, so they are impossible for me to verify. However, this hyphenates the term at a line break, meaning it is either polarpolymer or polar-polymer. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

somniloquaciouslyEdit

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

AotearoaianEdit

Nothing in books or onelook, I do see some on Twitter and maybe blogs? Can we cite this per CFI? - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything I can find is not CFI-compliant. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

fedoraEdit

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

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

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

grammarismEdit

RFV-sense "(neologism, slang) A neologism formed by grammatical rules." It would help to have examples of the kind of word this is intended to describe.
Searching for the plural, and excluding scannos and typos of "grammarians" and instances of "bad grammarisms" which are properly parsed as "[bad grammar]-isms", I think there are enough hits to suggest there is some countable meaning like "a form consistent with the grammar (or even spelling?) of a language or dialect" (one book refers to "such terms as Baryte, colour, mollusc and other typical British 'grammarisms'"), but not this. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The American author of the quoted passage, taken from a book review of the book Rocks, Minerals & Fossils of the World, confuses spelling with grammar. Notwithstanding the scare quotes, I think this too should be parsed like “[British grammar]-isms”.  --Lambiam 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

mandolutistEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

gelicolousEdit

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

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

forleseEdit

Rfv-senses:

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

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

-angleEdit

Geometry suffix. The claimed derived terms, triangle and quadrangle, were not in fact formed this way in English. So what was? Equinox 19:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added more of them, but even the ones that were formed anew in English can IMHO be analysed sufficiently as (Latinate numeric prefix) + angle. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

oxynosemaEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

reccEdit

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

CMNFEdit

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

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ninja copEdit

All the Google Books results are for literal cops that are ninjas 104.226.7.82 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can be found on the Web though, e.g. [8]. Equinox 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

gossockEdit

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

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see these two links: [9] [10] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [11] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [12] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

coonEdit

"(US, racial slur, neologism) A black person who disagrees with left-wing politics." Equinox 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Poked around on Reddit a bit and it seems that this may be used specifically by black people to criticise other black people. If so, might need a usage note. Equinox 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this relates to this verb sense of coon: “(African American Vernacular, of an African American) To play the dated stereotype of a black fool for an audience, particularly including Caucasians”. The person doing this is “playing the coon”, and I bet the noun “coon” in this sense is used in the black community to refer to black people who are seen to be playing the coon. The supposed neologism is likely an obvious extension to black people lending support to what is perceived as dominant white policies that objectively oppress black people. I think “racial slur” is a mislabelling – as is “African American Vernacular English” in the label for the verb sense.  --Lambiam 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
So a sort of synonym for Uncle Tom? Equinox 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Kinda, but more nasty, like calling someone a “sellout” is more nasty than accusing them of “playing along”. At least, that is my guess; I’m far from an authority on the use of the term.  --Lambiam 14:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My uninformed impression is similar. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion suggests that the definition is over-specific (and also, possibly not recent/'neologism'). - -sche (discuss) 23:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

scorpion spiderEdit

Definition: Synonym of pseudoscorpion.

Everywhere I look, I see this as a synonym of sun spider, which is another type of scorpion-like arachnid. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I found it on several different blogs, so it would seem to be an informal name for pseudoscorpion. NBC News also called it such [13], though with a hyphen, unlike the blogs.
The Phrynus genus, Amblypygi order (whip spiders), and Pedipalpida order (false spiders) also seems to be called scorpion-spider. (which are also not Solifugae order (sun spiders))
-- 70.51.201.106 22:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I got my wires crossed on the sun spider part, I probably should have said whip spider. By the way, the correct way to refer to taxonomic names and ranks is rank first, then name: "The genus Phrynus, in the order Amblypygi" (not Pedipalpida, which is obsolete, and overlaps with Amblypygi). As for blogs, those mean absolutely nothing when it comes to our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Though, on further examination of the Google Books searches I was looking at originally, there are a number of references to Galeodes, which is in the Solifugae, and even some true spiders, such as Platyoides in the family Trochanteriidae. All of which is beside the point: there are zero references to Pseudoscorpions as "scorpion spiders". If you had done any kind of search, you would have had to wade through pages and pages of references to other orders of arachnids as scorpion spiders without seeing anything using "scorpion spider" as a name for pseudoscorpions. I still haven't found one after going through an unrestricted Google search that should have pulled in all of your blogs. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

tumbarumbaEdit

DTLHS (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any hits that fit the definition searching for "a tumbarumba" or "tumbarumbas" on Books, News, Scholar, and Groups. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some citations (which are sadly more "mention" than "use") that hopefully help to verify that the term does indeed exist. -Stelio (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • 2010, Bill Casselman, Where a Dobdob Meets a Dikdik: A Word Lover's Guide to the Weirdest, Wackiest, and Wonkiest Lexical Gems, Adams Media, chapter 5:
    In Australia, tmesis is popularly called tumbarumba. Tmetic infixation is common in Australian street talk.
  • 2012, Ethan Ham, Net Works: Case Studies in Web Art and Design, page 113, "Tumbarumba":
    The poem, in turn, popularized tumbarumba as a synonym for tmesis—the inserting of one word in the midst of another word or phrase.
  • 2017, Mario Brdar, Metonymy and Word-Formation: Their Interactions and Complementation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, page 18:
    In addition to these two types, there is a similar phenomenon invariably called tumbarumba or expletive infixation, illustrated in: ¶ (11) a. kanga-bloody-roo ¶ b. abso-blooming-lutely ¶ c. abso-bloody-lutely ¶ d. guaran-damn-tee
Mentions, not uses. Canonicalization (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

hypocapnicallyEdit

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

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

hadeEdit

RFV of etymologies 1 and 2 ("person", "sex", "order, rank", "state, condition", and "to ordain, consecrate"). Etymology 3, the mining/slope-related senses, I have just cited. Btw "biological" is a weird context label. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the header of RFV pages, requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium. We have a template {{rfv-etymology}} for this purpose.  --Lambiam 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Etymologies 1 & 2 should be Middle English or rather Scots, and obsolete. Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity: I mean I am RFVing all the senses in the etymology 1 section, and all the senses in the etymology 2 section. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

heleEdit

healEdit

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

A look at the Middle English Dictionary shows that helen₂ (to hide; conceal) was used right up to the end of the Middle English period, and it also shows some citations at and beyond 1500: 1500, Theyre gownys be sett with plytys fele, To schortt yt ys theyre kneys to hele.; 1500, Clothes of sylke ye shalle haue..Fayre townes and castelles to hell In your hede.; 1525, Þe yonger kynge henry..the lyddernysse that he hadde I-thoght to hys fadyr nold no lenger hellen. (though this looks much older, it is clearly given as 1525). Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

macdinkEdit

"To repeatedly tweak the format and text of a document or other file to little practical effect." This is one of the words from the old Hacker's Dictionary, quite a few of which are unattestable outside of that work. Equinox 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get to the cites later, but Google Groups shows what looks like three independent usages in that capitalization and a couple MacDinks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

cornlyEdit

The given citation does not make much sense to me. I was not able to locate the work for further context. DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It can be viewed (in part) here [[14]]. Leasnam (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
THere is another here [[15]], however this looks like a mistype for comly (i.e. comely) Leasnam (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That in the sole citation it appears in quotes is highly suggestive that it is a nonce. DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Shall I speedy ? Leasnam (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

capacEdit

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

Comment: Wouldn't the pronunciation mean the plural is spelt capaces instead of capacs? Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The word spec as informal short for specification is pronounced /spɛk/, not /spɛs/, and its plural is specs.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is one occurrence in a book: [16]. I think, though, that in this case it is an abbreviation, usually written as capac. and easily attested in that form, but here with the final full stop omitted; if the author had been asked to reading this text aloud, they would probably have pronounced it as /kəˈpæsɪti/.  --Lambiam 15:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

goblinaEdit

I was tempted to just delete this, but I'm not that good at searching the places outside of Google Books (lots of scannos for "goblins", a chimpanzee named by Jane Goodall, names of characters in works of fiction, and a number of hits in other languages) and Google Groups (one hit in the description of a non-Usenet group) where this might be found. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would you be tempted to delete it when I specially flagged it as internet slang, something you can't find from written books? It's a word I have seen being used in sites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube for years. Go-Chlodio (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read our Criteria for inclusion. For better or for worse, websites like 4chan, Reddit and YouTube aren't valid evidence of usage, especially in view of all the "Let's make up a word and fool everyone into thinking it's real" games that have been played in the past. Our rules are far from perfect, but they're the rules. At any rate, I wasn't able to find anything at all that matched the definition, which made me suspicious- but there are others who are far better at looking for such things, so I brought it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you rfving both senses? There's two senses there, and I'd like to also rfv the "female goblin" sense, as well as the "ugly woman" sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The "female goblin" sense was added after I posted this. If there had been two senses, I would have used {{rfd-sense}}. I see no reason not to include both in the rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit

scibileEdit

When it does appear in English it's in the context of discussing other Latin works. DTLHS (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the uses are almost always italicized (or else between quote signs), typographical clues that these uses are code-switching. Additionally, the plural used appears to be the Latin plural form scibilia, not scibiles. I think we need an entry scibilis.  --Lambiam 20:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
If the English-style plural scibiles exists then that's convincing. Equinox 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I added a number of cites to the citations page. Only one uses scibile without italics or scare quotes, which, as DTLHS points out, could indicate code-switching, but which might also simply call attention to the fact that the term is used with a very specific meaning (as philosophical jargon). I also added some cites to show that if we are going to include this as a noun, we should probably also consider adding it as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

glarkEdit

To guess a word's meaning from context. One of the Jargon File/"hacker" words, which are rarely or never found in use outside of that document. Equinox 23:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We have two cites on the citations page. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

TERFdomEdit

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

opotherapeuticallyEdit

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

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

July 2019Edit

all-as-oneEdit

Could not find anything for "an all-as-one" or "the all-as-one" phrases in Google Books. The adverb, being hyphenated, seems particularly unlikely. Equinox 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

the two online news cites i found [17] [18] both didn't use that verbiage before the word, so maybe we should try with different search terms to get more results. --Habst (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The adjective is cited. The adverb is not. While it is easy to find instances of an adverbial use of "all as one" (without hyphens), I can't find it with hyphens. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

acerataEdit

Possibly Latin and not English. Also doesn't have a totally convincing definition. Equinox 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While the supporting quotation defines “acerata” as “sharpened”, its author re-defines it as “with steeled points” in a later version of the same text, also putting the term between scare quotes. Apparently he was himself unsure of the meaning of this term, which – judging from the surrounding text – he found in old texts dating back to the reign of Edward III, that is, 1327–1377. So that would make it Middle English anyway. I wonder if there is a relation with the word serrated, like an illiterate misspelling of “a serrated [arrowhead]” such as referred to here and offered for sale here.  --Lambiam 01:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Added a request for deletion. —Piparsveinn (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

anopsologyEdit

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

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

spotted dogEdit

Rfv-sense: Lycaon pictus. Like ornate wolf, has only appeared in lists of alternative names, never in sentences of the kind "the foo does bar". --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I found and added one citation. In addition, I found this, which is simply an image caption. Kiwima (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I would think that an image caption counts, though we often say use should be in 'running text'. Unfortunately Google won't let me see it. DCDuring (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The captions of surrounding entries do not inspire confidence that they are intended to serve as lexical designations for the animals depicted:
JackalMisunderstood
CheetahRecord breaker
Hunting dogSpotted dog
ServalAcrobatic cat
CivetPungent
 --Lambiam 10:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In light of what you show that Google concealed, I agree that the caption is not of the term in the challenged meaning. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The image shows a Lycaon pictus specimen, though; judging from the image L. pictus lupinus, even as the book is about Southern Africa.  --Lambiam 20:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

censuallyEdit

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

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

fiddly Edit

Sense 2: "Requiring frequent adjustment. The fuses are very fiddly, and keep blowing out." — as opposed to sense 1: "Requiring dexterity to operate. The buttons on the tiny mobile phone were too fiddly." I don't think I have ever heard of "fiddly" indicating a requirement. Equinox 17:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just an example of the "Of or relating to fiddling or fidgeting motions" definition. (that is, requiring fiddling) Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

impossible burger Edit

Brand name of Impossible Foods: not a generic term, I would assume, since it's a very new brand and product. Equinox 02:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

News sources all write this accordingly with capitals: “Impossible Burger”.  --Lambiam 08:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete it!Ndołkah (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

heaveEdit

Rfv-sense: broken wind in horses --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

heaves seems a lot more common for this. (We have it there, too, with a clearer definition: "A disease of horses characterized by coughing and difficult breathing.") Equinox 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The singular form may be seen in attributive use, as in “heave line”.  --Lambiam 08:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

forswinkEdit

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

If we consider the language of Edmund Spenser (early) Modern English, then this is one use: [19].  --Lambiam 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

ÆnglishEdit

"Archaic form of English." Had a quote to a Wikipedia article clearly meant as a joke. — surjection?〉 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a quote to the citations page. Frustratingly, Google reports "English" (in italics) as "Ænglish", so there are MANY false positives to check. Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
hi, i added an additional quote. also presumably this guy's books use the word but i can't find the text online: [20] --Habst (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
How could, especially in the modern English period, "Ænglish" be an archaic spelling of English? I mean, the letter ash isn't even used in usual/standard Modern English spelling.Tharthan (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Tharthan exaggerates. Spellings like cæcum linger on, though the encoding of the vowel seems debatable. (For plain text, I'd prefer the spelling with ZWJ.) -- RichardW57m (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
If this exists as a Modern English word, it seems far more likely to me that it would be an alteration of "English" based off of Old English Ænglisċ.Tharthan (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
yes, my interpretation was that it is an alternative form of Ænglisc used in modern times. --Habst (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

river crab Edit

"Government censorship". A term "used by Chinese netizens", despite being English? Equinox 18:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions. I did put three uses on the citations page, but I am not sure how durably archived they all are. Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

f8Edit

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

snaughleEdit

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

caldography Edit

DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

caldographEdit

DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

tocrush Edit

DTLHS (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The OED has it as "to-crush". Calls it obsolete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

enetophobia Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I can see lots of mentions. Keep if some more cites can be found. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

chaon Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This one is very hard to search for, what with the name (which is quite common) and with typos for "chain" ("o" and "i" being right next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard). I am convinced it is a real thing, especially from the uses I found on Redditt (which I did not cite, as they don't meet CFI). I did add two cites to the citations page, one a citation from a physics book that uses chaon in the title, and one that is a somewhat different meaning from chaos theory, which is presumably where the term comes from. Kiwima (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
One is a typo: Chaos and generalized multistability in quantum optics. Could you link where you found it on Reddit? DTLHS (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
this, for one. Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Google Scholar searches for [chaon delocalization] and [chaon interacting particles] come up empty-handed (except for scannos and author names).  --Lambiam 08:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Reading the reddit post linked to, I am not convinced the author was referring to a specific physical concept, and certainly not the one in our definition. Rather, it seems to be a made-up placeholder name for referring to any odd subatomic particle, just like “John Smith” may refer to a random male person.  --Lambiam 19:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

insipidEdit

Sense “cloyingly sweet or sentimental”.  --Lambiam 20:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not see how the cites support this specific sense. It is easy to find cites in which something is said to have a “dull brown colour”, yet this will not support the sense “lustreless brown” for dull.  --Lambiam 10:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Do they strike you as supporting any of the other senses? They certainly do not mean flavourless. Neither do they seem to mean bland and colourless. I might go for trite, (other than the taste of liquorice quote, which I cannot honestly see as meaning anything other than cloyingly sweet.) Kiwima (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Of the four cites, perhaps the first is not good support, IMO. The two uses in a series of near synonyms (synonymia in rhetoric) seem good. And it is hard to argue that treacle could be insipid in any of the other senses. DCDuring (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought the authors could mean flat, lacking character or definition, boring, vacuous, dull, bland, characterless. The synonyms fatuous and trite offered for this sense also have no sense of being cloying.  --Lambiam 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just delete those purported synonyms of the sense under challenge. I was only interested in the use of insipid in parallel to "cloying" and "syrup-sweet". It is very hard for me to accept any of the other terms as semantically appropriate in conjunction with "cloying" and "syrup-sweet". I am surprised that insipid has taken on this meaning in any usage, but the evidence seems sufficient to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised, too. I read those usages as meaning "without flavour sufficient to gratify the palate" or possibly "wanting the qualities which excite interest or emotion; uninteresting, lifeless, dull, flat." (OED definitions.) I think these are good descriptions of some of the liquorice I've eaten. Dbfirs 09:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

With apologies for coming in rather late, I'm going to re-open this to add to the discussion: if we had been presented with these citations without someone having added "cloyingly sweet" as a sense to the entry, what would lead us to deduce that this is what the citations meant? Is there something e.g. in the word's etymology or in other dictionaries that to suggest it has such a meaning? Or is this a case where, a sense having been made up, ambiguous citations can be found which could support it — but, as Dbfirs says, could also just be using the usual sense? (I see the sense was added all the way back in 2007, by one of our best editors, so I'm optimistic, but still questioning.) The idea that something could not be "insipid"-as-in-flavorless if it is "cloying, syrup-sweet" (as in the 2007 cite), or "insipid, cloying, the taste of liquorice" or "insipid treacle", and that therefore "insipid" in these citations must mean something other than flavorless, is rebuttable: I can find a book referring to "flavorless sweet frosting", one referring to a "flavorless sweet taste", several referring to google books:"flavorless syrup" and even "sweet, flavorless syrup" (and "creamy, flavorless syrup"). - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I was a newbie in 2007, could have been wrong then, and could be wrong now. Maybe the cites aren't unambiguous. I don't know what cites or arguments can resolve this. Can we find cites that indicate that flavor is sometimes used in a way that requires more than one of the simple things our five/four kinds of taste buds (sweet, sour, salty, bitter, umami) can detect? DCDuring (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I can find cites for "flavorless/flavourless sugar/salt". DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that (all our citations of "flavourless" syrups, sugars and salts) establishes that the citations previously offered do not in fact rule out the usual meaning (either "flavorless" or "lacking character"), and I don't see anything in them to suggest the novel meaning, and I find similar citations where "insipid" is likewise used near e.g. "cloying" but where further context shows that the usual meaning is meant. Consider:

  • 1994, The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore: Poems (ISBN 8126012951), page 21:
    The charges of banality, irritating obviousness and insipid, cloying rhetoric made against the translations by him (as well as by others with his approval) are too well known to reiterate.
  • 2006, Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture (ISBN 1441232796):
    Our music is often insipid, cloying, and romantic. We sing pop-style love songs to Jesus, confessing our undying love for him in the same way that pop idols sing to a boyfriend or girlfriend. Where is the danger? Where is the responsibility?

I think the translations, also being called banal, are being alleged to be colourless, not "sweet"; similarly, I think the Christian music is being alleged to lack character (danger! responsibility!), not to be "cloying" (some could argue "cloying" could also work given the comparison to love songs, but I think it's the word "cloying" in the sentence which conveys that, not the word "insipid", which seems to connote "vacuous, lacking character" like it usually does). IOW I think the RFVed sense doesn't exist and the citations offered in support of it are only using the regular sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

sickoEdit

I'll just quote what I said in the Tea Room:

"I have always taken sense two and sense three to be the same in practice. I'm not sure how one could adequately distinguish them.

Perhaps usage notes are warranted here to explain the commonly found link between senses two and three?

In my experience, if someone calls some person with unpleasant tastes, views or habits a sicko, there is often the implication that there is something off about the person being called that."

-sche suggested a shift in venue. And here we are; presto changeo.

Can we figure out how best to define this term, and how many senses it actually has? Tharthan (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Note -sche pointed out that "a mentally ill person" might merely be depressed etc. rather than "sick" (perverted, murderous, or whatever). Equinox 04:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the main sense, when applied to a person, is someone who vents ideas, or displays behaviour, that is considered sick (“morally repugnant”, “perverted”, ..., rather than “ill”). Telling someone they are a sicko is basically the same as saying, “you are sick, bro!” It is tempting to ascribe this to a mental condition, and so calling someone a “sicko” may imply the application of a layman’s psychiatric diagnosis. However, I am not familiar with use of the term in a more general sense of being mentally ill, also in a non-revolting way.  --Lambiam 10:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant to mention this earlier, but including perversion in that definition actually does open the door to public perception of mental illness. Think about it. I truly wonder how much the general public would distinguish "You are sick" = "You are icky and/or think icky things" and "You are sick" = "There is something wrong with you".
I honestly think that, outside of certain particular circumstances, the distinction is not always obvious. And, in fact, whether a specific something that is considered "icky" rises to the level of "something disgusting that is caused by something mentally wrong in the person thinking it" varies from person to person when it comes to perception.
Unless every citation has "...and there has to be something mentally wrong with them" following the use of "sicko", how are we to be sure which "sense" (more accurately, I think, nuance) is meant? Tharthan (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, as I mentioned in the Tea Room, I think it comes down to whether it's ever used with reference to just the "ill" sense of "sick" (like contrasting a depressed "sick-o" with a "well-o" or something), or whether the suggestion is simply that "disgusting/repugnant/perverted" people are mentally ill or vice versa, which isn't a separate sense (IMO). I can find some citations where the former might be the case, but it's hard to be sure. Consider:
  • 2014, Elizabeth Wurtzel, Prozac Nation: Young and Depressed in America, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (ISBN 9780547524146), page 317:
    Every so often, I find myself with the urge to make sure people know that I am not just on Prozac but on lithium too, that I am a real sicko, a depressive of a much higher order than all these happy-pill poppers with their low-level sorrow.
  • 2004, Laurie Notaro, I Love Everybody, and Other Atrocious Lies: True Tales of a Loudmouth Girl, Villard Books (ISBN 9780812969009), page 141:
    It's true, my mother swears up and down, that the purple, clinically depressed four-legged creature handled her. [...But] the only violence she could summon up against Eeyore was a disgusted look [...and] she said [...] 'You know, you're weird in the videos I've seen, and I don't care how sad you are because nothing goes your way, you're a sicko! A sicko! you know that? That's why things don't ever work out for you, you friggin' sick donkey!'
  • 2003, Adbusters:
    So come on, doc, precisely which kind of sicko is America? You might plump for depressed (isolationist), psychopathic (lack of empathy) or even psychotic (barking mad - what P.G. Wodehouse referred to as "thinking you're a poached egg").
Wurtzel (2014) could well just be using it to mean "sick/ill", but with Notaro (2004) it's less clear, as she seems to be expressing that Eeyore is repugnant to her. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, we might be missing an adjective sense, though I'm not entirely convinced it isn't a recurring typo ("was sicko" as an error for "was a sicko", etc): see Citations:sicko. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said earlier, if we are unable to come to a definitive answer, would usage notes be helpful? Tharthan (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Applied to a person, a sicko is a person who is sick in some sense. All senses and nuances of sicko should correspond to colloquial senses and nuances found for the adjective. Note that this includes “mentally unstable, disturbed” as well as “in bad taste". If usage notes can help, perhaps the adjective is the first place – IMO these adjectival senses are connected, with “perverse” as a bridge.  --Lambiam 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I've gotta say in most instances I think usage notes are an absolute last-instance emergency. I also think that the modern "psychiatric establishment" is mostly a corporate lie that tries to sell us drugs and tell us that depression is a disease, and not normal everyday sadness. You draw your own conclusions. Let's try to be neutral. Equinox 02:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The bigwigs in the psych fields are causing a whole lot of trouble for a whole lot of people these days, I agree. They seem to be returning to some mutated Freudian approach towards psych when it comes to the way that they look at things. Some would argue that it is precisely the opposite, but I'm pretty convinced that that is what is going on, and I say that that is a bad thing for the psych fields as a whole. However, I'm not sure that I agree precisely with your analysis of depression.
If you think that usage notes really ought to only be used in an absolute emergency, then we probably ought to ditch definition three and reword/add on to definition 2. There is a nuance that is not touched upon in our current entry as it is. Usage notes saying something along the lines of "For definition 2, a connotation of offness [or however you want to word it. "instability" sounds more off-putting to me, hence why I don't suggest it unless others think that it works better] is often present" or something would solve this, but if you think that it is best that we not do that, then perhaps we ought to do something else. Definitions 2 and 3 as they currently stand are somewhat nebulous. Tharthan (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think these two senses should be collapsed into one. This word (originally US) is defined by Green as "a mentally unstable person, with overtones of sexual perversion" and in the New Partridge as "an emotionally or psycho-sexually disturbed person", while Lambert (2004) defines it as "a disturbingly depraved person". I can find no evidence that it means some who is simply mentally ill (e.g. with dementia, infantilism, schizophrenia, depression, etc.). I think "a mentally ill person" is just a poorly worded definition. As for the "person with unpleasant tastes, views or habits" - this corresponds with the defs of other slang lexicographers, but again is poorly worded (i.e. too mealy-mouthed). -Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW - I have RFV'd def 1 - the supposed Australian slang for a "day taken off work due to (possibly exaggerated or supposed) illness" - this is a sickie in Australia, not a "sicko" (unless of course cites proving me wrong can be found) - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
In trying to cite the Australian "sick day" sense, I found this citation which seems to mean "a person who is sick" in the sense of physically ill:
  • 1993, Weekly World News, page 5:
    The amazing Mr. Sick Day [Milo Filbum] has missed an amazing 73% of 1,020 work days for such ailments as a toothache, [...] "I finally gave the sicko his walking papers when other people started doing the same thing — calling in sick and all," the manager [said] ...
Perhaps if there are other citations like that, the sense could be changed from "...who is mentally ill" to something like "...who is (mentally or physically) ill". But such usage seems rare and nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Kiwima has done a great job citing the "physically ill person" sense. Some of the citations currently under the "mentally ill person" sense are not so clear: the citation about a "lesbian sicko" seems likely to be engaging in / referring to the long practice of calling gay people perverts (and 'mentally ill" in the same way you might call a criminal who flayed someone a sicko and psycho), and the "gambler" could just be "a person with unpleasant tastes, views or habits", although that may be more due to deficiency in our definition #2. There do seem to be enough sitations to support the sense, but I wonder a) if it should be marked as uncommon or nonstandard in some way, since usually the other sense ("pervert") is the one that would be understood if you called someone a "sicko", and b) if perhaps the "mentally ill" and "physically ill" senses should be combined, or made subsenses of a "person who is ill" sense. - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Again:
"In my experience, if someone calls some person with unpleasant tastes, views or habits a sicko, there is often the implication that there is something off about the person being called that."
I still am not sure how one can argue that there is always a clear distinction between these two senses. Tharthan (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

tettixEdit

Rfv-sense: A cicada-shaped ornament for the hair. DTLHS (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

While I can find plenty of cites about wearing a tettix-shaped ornament in the hair, I don't see any real evidence that this was the name of the ornament per se. Kiwima (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

isomereEdit

Rfv-sense: A segment of a limb of one species that is homologous to that in another. Not sure if this is the same sense. DTLHS (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

double ententeEdit

An anon created this page. I only find this as Double Entente (cf. Triple Alliance) or to be a misspelling of double entendre Leasnam (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not English. It may be part of a French phrase. Wikipedia (the English one) states that the phrase double entendre is “a corruption of the authentic French expression à double entente ("double meaning")”. That three-word expression is proper French, and means “with a double meaning”; it is listed as an adverbial phrase in this online dictionary and also has an entry in the French Wikipedia, where it is classified as an adjectival phrase.  --Lambiam 19:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I could find no evidence for the supplied defintion, but there is evidence for a synonym or near-synonym of double entendre. I added a number of cites to the citations page that use the phrase without italics or scare quotes, which could be taken as evidence that the author considered it English. Particularly convincing, perhaps, are the quotes which use the plural ("double ententes") which would not be correct french. Kiwima (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations have now been added. But none of them relate to the definition given, rather to "double entendre". SemperBlotto (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Two that relate to the first sense: [21] (tongue-in-cheek); [22].  --Lambiam 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

IWLTEdit

I woke up like this. It seems to be a brand name. Perhaps the brand name comes from the initialism. --Pious Eterino (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The phrase “I woke up like this” comes from the song “***Flawless” on Beyoncés album Beyoncé: Platinum Edition, where it is repeated in the chorus. “Like this” = flawless, a subtext made explicit on the brand’s home page, so the brand name is a clever choice for a line of beauty products that targets young women. On the products the brand name is styled in all-lower-case as “i woke up like this”; see also this web page (in Korean) about the branding and design. As registered in the USPTO database: The mark consists of wordings of "I WOKE UP LIKE THIS" and "IWLT" above the "I WOKE UP LIKE THIS". (The two-line version can be seen on their facebook page.) My little investigation did not shed light on the question whether the initialism can be attested independently of the abbreviated version of the brand name.  --Lambiam 20:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
fcuk was kept. Equinox 05:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
But fcuk is listed as a proper noun, as it should. Is IWLT as standing for “I woke up like this” a phrase, used e.g. on social media, or merely a brand name and thus also a proper noun?  --Lambiam 19:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

VoTEdit

Rfv-sense: (computing) Initialism of Video of Things (The field of IoT concerned with automated video production and streaming of everyday events or things)

Not much out there. This corporate page uses it: [23]. Equinox 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

lesspersonEdit

A subhuman. May only have been used in the book Does America Hate the Poor?. Equinox 04:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

dioicusEdit

This does not look like an English adjective! Perhaps it's a quite bad misspelling for dioecious. Equinox 05:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Or for dioicous. — Eru·tuon 07:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Is the latter really an Alternative form of dioecious? I thought the two have different meanings.  --Lambiam 11:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Salafi ChristianEdit

Equinox 09:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

playEdit

Ethology sense, "defined" only by this unattributed phrase in quotation marks: "Repeated, incompletely functional behavior differing from more serious versions ..., and initiated voluntarily when ... in a low-stress setting." Since our first two defs already deal with human play and animal play I think this is redundant; at the very least it needs a rewrite. Equinox 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

See the talk page for where it came from. It strikes me as an attempt to codify a concept rather than describe usage. The talk about how one author took 30 pages to arrive at this definition, while another took 60 pages to arrive at theirs tells me that this isn't something that anyone has in their mind when they use the word in running text or speech. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

rixatrixEdit

Appears italicized and in Latin compounds like "communis rixatrix". DTLHS (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

clustersizeEdit

Scannos I think. You find a space when you look at the actual pages. (Remember, if you do super-hard work and verify this by scraping three from the bottom of the barrel, it's your responsibility to mark it as rare or nonstandard.) Equinox 09:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it did not seem all that hard to find uses of clustersize as opposed to "cluster size". I have added several citations to the citations page, and found quite a few more. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel unhappy about these kinds of entries that seem to me more like authors either referencing a variable name or being unable to distinguish the writing of a variable name from proper English. Mihia (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary would be a better dictionary without this entry. - TheDaveRoss 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

prequirementEdit

Scannos again I think. (Remember, if you do super-hard work and verify this by scraping three from the bottom of the barrel, it's your responsibility to mark it as rare or nonstandard.) Equinox 09:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

scraped from the bottom of the barrel --Habst (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Most of your cites seem to be by Indian/Asian authors, probably NNES, and I would consider this a simple typo or error. "Uncommon" is as much as I can hope for I suppose. Equinox 20:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
it definitely isn't a typo in the random sense (because there aren't attestations for e.g. qrequirement, wrequirement, rrequirement, etc.) and i would disagree with the prescriptive characterization of "error" for something that occurs often enough independently. finding cites for this word was just like finding them for any other word, i thought the phrasing "scraped from the bottom of the barrel" was funny but also kind of contradictory, because if you have to scrape cites from the bottom of a barrel then the word shouldn't be on wiktionary anyways. evidently that wasn't the case with prerequirement or clustersize. --Habst (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone should check if the word occurs multiple times in the cited works (evidence that it's intentional) or if "requirement" is otherwise the spelling used (suggesting "prequirement" is a one-off typo). Also, bear in mind that we have the option of labels like {{lb|en|chiefly|NNES}} for Category:Non-native speakers' English. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Unstruck: following up on my comment, I see that the first citation (copied and pasted complete with OCR error "cmo" for cm3) only uses "prequirement" once (p. 32) and "prequirements" never (when I put the word in quotation marks to ensure only matches for that exact spelling turn up), whereas it uses "requirement(s)" at least six times (including on pp. 25, 52, 44, 83, 87), suggesting the one occurence of "pre-" is a typo, not a use of some word meaning "prerequisite requirement". Likewise, the second citation, which has other {{sic}}-requiring errors even within the sentence of it which is quoted, uses "prequirement" only once vs "requirement(s)" 44 times, even more strongly showing the one-off error to be just that, a one-off typing error. Ditto for all of the other citations. This reminds me of the RFV of the use of they as a demonstrative article the: some uses put forth books where the was used a hundred times and typoed as they once, but those didn't verify the sense, we needed works that used it consistently or in contexts that made clear it wasn't a typo. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

pineEdit

"To feel irritated; to reflect on a problem; to think something over." This bears no relation to my understanding of pine, which is to languish or feel depressed (see our other senses). If it can really mean "feel irritated" or "think something over", aren't those two separate senses? They don't seem like one single thing. And how would it be used? Can I "pine" over my Rubik's Cube, as I logically (with happiness and pleasure) try to solve it? Can I "pine" (with irritation, but not sadness) over muddy footsteps left on my carpet? Equinox 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sole contribution of User:Masters1955, from 2016. No such sense in Century 1911. DCDuring (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The big OED has "To complain, moan, fret. Now English regional (eastern) and rare." but the last cite is from more than a hundred years ago, and it's not a usage I have ever heard. Dbfirs 15:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope we are brave enough to say sometimes "OED you are bullshit" and just NOT copy them. Equinox 03:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(At first I was going to disagree, and say that the OED is superbly researched—but, on examination, their quotations for that sense are entirely unconvincing. Each usage but the oldest could be easily taken to denote the usual sense.) —Piparsveinn (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of interpreting the phrase "pining for the fjords" to actually mean "being irritated about the existence of fjords". - TheDaveRoss 12:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrespective of the OED's foibles or merits, "complain, moan, fret" (also in the EDD) does not really mean "feel irritated; to reflect on a problem; to think something over" in any case, so its a moot point. I think that whoever added this definition was recording their own idiolect and that we should remove the def. ... unless of course someone can turn up reliable cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we should copy the OED, just trying to fathom where the suggestion came from. I'd be happy to see the questioned definition removed. There's better evidence for adding the curing fish or meat sense, though it is probably restricted to Scottish these days. Dbfirs 08:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

square yoctometerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this was added as a joke. We don’t even have the easily attestable square millimeter. As far as I am concerned, all these square <length of unit> entries are SOP; same for cubic. Some may be defensible as being phrasebookish.
*sigh* I have added a cite to the citations page. It seems to me, however, that your objection is more that it is SOP, which is an issue for Requests for Deletion, not requests for verification. I understand that it is sometimes easier to get rid of a word through RFV, but it just creates busywork for those of us who hunt down citations. Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
lol. I think that any "square ___" should be an RFD issue for hopefully obvious reasons. If you don't get it then kill yourself. JUST KIDDING MAYBE. Equinox 03:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

NOEdit

User:SemperBlotto wants the sense “abbreviation of New Orleans” verified.

  • I’ve found a couple of attestations for this sense, but only where the meaning is overdetermined by context.
  • Google results lead me to believe that NOLA is a far more common abbreviation. —Piparsveinn (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The quotation given in NO is for N.O. - that's why I added the RfV. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

snatchEdit

Etymology 2 meaning "handle of a scythe" appears to be an input error for "snath". Not listed in other dictionaries; not in the English Dialect Dictionary or Scottish National Dictionary. But, perhaps we should look for cites before removing it.

I added this in 2013, from Webster 1913, but I can't now find it in Webster 1913 (I checked a few sites) so I agree it was probably my mistake, or an error in my source files. W1913 lists the forms snath, snead, sneed, sneath, sneeth, snathe, sned (the last one marked as Scottish and the others as used in England). Equinox 13:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

embryomorphosisEdit

DTLHS (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I added one citation, but everything else I find has Isaeva as one of the authors, so they are not exactly independent.

centroscopyEdit

DTLHS (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I only managed to find one cite for this (plus a mention or two). There is, however, another meaning, which is treatment by centroscope. Kiwima (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AIDS babyEdit

"(derogatory) A person born diseased especially with HIV and starvation." Created by the notoriously unreliable Luciferwildcat. As far as I can tell, an "AIDS baby" is one born specifically with AIDS, not just "diseased" in general, and starvation has nothing to do with it. (If the entry is changed to say "a baby born with AIDS" then it might be deletable as sum of parts, unless we get picky about "born with AIDS" vs. "got AIDS shortly after birth somehow".) Equinox 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I think something like "a baby born with AIDS acquired from its parents" would be OK. The term definitely exists. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Would a baby who got AIDS by transfusion not be an AIDS baby? Some sense may pass RFV, but not RFD, I don't think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Are babies ever born with AIDS? They can be born with HIV, but HIV in infants is usually contracted very late in gestation or after birth, it seems like it would be very rare that an infant developed AIDS before birth, if that is even possible. If an AIDS baby is born to parents with AIDS that is probably not SOP, if an AIDS baby is one which developed AIDS at some point during infancy that would probably be SOP. Cf. also crack baby, which I understand more to refer to the general familial welfare of a child than to the actual drug use of the parents. - TheDaveRoss 17:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You're technically correct, I'm sure, but the problem may be better recorded at AIDS. AIDS/HIV makes a distinction rarely made in other diseases; e.g. Wikipedia says "Two-thirds of syphilitic infants are born without symptoms", not "Two-thirds of infants infected with Treponema pallidum are born without syphilis." (Heathline says "HIV can progress to AIDS, also known as stage 3 HIV." Huh? Then is HIV the name of the virus and the disease?)
Basically AIDS baby means AIDS--I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah, HIV/AIDS--okay HIV, which may turn into AIDS--baby. It's part of AIDS, not AIDS baby.
Crack baby referred specifically to crack cocaine; w:en:Crack baby redirects to an article all about the effects of cocaine during pregnancy. The actual effects associated with crack baby may be more to do with the general familial welfare, but the article is clear that it was about crack cocaine, and the general familial welfare was generally ignored by people who used crack baby.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

look throughEdit

Sense 4:

  1. To penetrate with the understanding.

To me this definition does not seem like exactly correct English, but I think it is trying to say that "look through" can mean the same as "see through" in the sense like "He saw through my litle fib". Can it? Or if someone can penetrate another meaning out of this with their understanding then please enlighten us. Mihia (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're closing an RFV after one day because one person can't figure it out? Restored with 1 citation added, for further discussion. Equinox 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the 1832 ("look through this deception") unambiguously supports the challenged sense. I have now added another from 1829 ("he would look through my very soul"), which might better be placed under the other sense "take a view of the contents of"; it is arguable. Equinox 12:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Dracula has this (about someone's diary?): "I took them before we knew that all was yours, so that no strange hand might touch them — no strange eye look through words into her soul." But to me that one sounds more like look + through, more SoP. Equinox 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

corner pub Edit

"A pub on the corner of two roads." - If this is similar to corner store (that is, often not on a corner at all), then it is probably non-idiomatic. Are these generally actually on corners? Is that important to their nature? If not, are these distinct from other pubs in some meaningful way? Is this more idiomatic than local pub? My suspicion is that this is a sense of corner (corner drugstore, corner deli, corner store, corner laundry, etc.) and this isn't a special term at all. - TheDaveRoss 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a phrase I am particularly familiar with (but I do spend a lot of time in pubs, some of them on corners). I think it's SoP. Creator was Wonderfool! Equinox 18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, we have the same image in French: restaurant du coin, café du coin, épicerie du coin. As you can see, du coin can qualify a variety of shops. Canonicalization (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There are several near me - all on corners. But, like corner shop, it seems SoP. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
If a corner shop is any small convenience store, whether on a corner or in the middle of a block, then it is not a SoP (IMO), at least not for any of the senses listed under corner.  --Lambiam 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • There is of course no doubt that the phrase "corner pub" exists, but I think what is important here is whether it is used idiomatically for pubs that are not specifically on the corner of two roads. I'm not sure that any of the present citations unambiguously attest that sense, but finding such attestations could be tricky unless one actually is familiar with the area described. Mihia (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
not intended as a durable cite, but just to prove that the idiomatic sense of a "corner pub" exists, see w:Coffee_palace#History: "Intended as an alternative to the corner pub, they were often about the same size, and just about every town of any size soon had at least one." clearly in that sentence they're talking about the atmosphere of a corner pub and not its location. --Habst (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the citations that could be referring to a particular corner location to the citations page. We still have four cites that seem to use the term more generically, to mean something like a neighbourhood pub. Kiwima (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, sorry, I think I might have slightly got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. Somehow I managed to read TheDaveRoss's original nomination as saying that this phrase was non-idiomatic if the pub was actually on a corner, so we needed examples where the pub is not on a corner, whereas actually he is saying that it is non-idiomatic if the pub needn't be on the corner. I tend to agree that this is potentially a separate sense of "corner" because there are many possible examples ("corner chemist", "corner newsagent", "corner sweetshop" etc. etc.). If the view is that generally these neededn't literally be on a corner, then I think we do need a sense at "corner". Mihia (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, well I added the sense to corner. Anyone disagrees, please make any changes you think are necessary. Mihia (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

piebakings Edit

A plural. I removed it; Kiwima restored it. Equinox 19:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

While I cannot attest piebakings, piebaking is an alt form of pie baking, which does have an attested plural, as does pie-baking. It seems excessive not to allow a common inflection of an alternate form. Kiwima (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Given that there has been no response, I am calling this RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

nookEdit

Rfv-sense "(furry jargon) A tanuki; a raccoon dog." Removed by Special:Contributions/2.31.222.21 in Special:Diff/53833354 with reason "unattested definition, no citations". — surjection?〉 19:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tom Nook? heh. Equinox 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought of immediately as well. Tharthan (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

corton Edit

I see lots of scannos, a type of wine and a region. Any evidence for the listed sense (Synonym of creton)? I do see one use in a recipe name, but it also states that it is a Quebecois recipe, so it might be French. - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess the recipe referred to is the one from Wicked Good Burgers, which I saw copied or referred to in several places. The online Encyclopædia Brittanica uses the term; this may have been copied from the English Wikipedia. I do not find enough uses to satisfy CFI.  --Lambiam 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The recipe in Wicked Good Burgers, is clearly a cite. In addition, there is a recipe in The New Firefighter's Cookbook, so that is two. Sadly, the Encyclopedia Brittanica quote given by Lambiam is only a mention, so we still one more use. Kiwima (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I found a third (on citations page) - in Kerouac's Book of Dreams. It seems somewhat iffy on its own, but there is a recipe for the stuff by Kerouac in Dents de Lion.

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

caprizant Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

hysterocysticEdit

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

nanocormia Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I only found two cites, unless you count this, which uses the term to define nanocormus. Kiwima (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

sexdigital Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

soliflor Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

VoldypantsEdit

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

enhanced interviewEdit

Euphemism for torture. In Google Books it mainly refers to actual interviews that are enhanced in some way. Equinox 15:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe mistaken for enhanced interrogation? - TheDaveRoss 18:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added one so-so cite to the citations page, but I'm inclined to agree with TheDaveRoss that the euphemism is enhanced interrogation. As one of the articles I found while searching put it, "Interrogation is an enhanced interview. Torture is an enhanced interrogation." Kiwima (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

elkEdit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#elk.

Sense 1 is currently: "(originally) Any large species of deer such as red deer, moose or wapiti." I can't find sources to suggest this is true. OED, Lexico and the other Wiktionary articles for words related to elk do not support this. It's also not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The original use for elk seems to be the current European use of the term, referring to what North Americans call a moose. Mclay1 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Since this requires verification of usage, it really belongs here (I know you were told rfd, but that was an error).
I also have my doubts about whether the second definition is distinct from the third, and whether the accompanying usage note means anything, but first things first. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I am very reluctant to rely much on the WP article or Wiktionary articles which don't even give a nod to what Mammals of the World calls Alces americanus. If the taxonomy is a bit controversial, then we really need to work hard on the vernacular names and not necessarily lean on the taxonomic names for our definitions. DCDuring (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really feel qualified to make sense of this, but Tule Elk and Elk and Elk Hunting provide some breakdowns of Elk species that don't seem to correspond that well with our definitions. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
And their definitions don't correspond well with those of the subspecies of Cervus elaphus in Mammal Species of the World[24] at Bucknell. (See comments, which indicate how unsettled the taxonomy is.). DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

bronzepunkEdit

DTLHS (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

hypercopresenceEdit

DTLHS (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected the obvious spelling error (presence, not prescence): now there's one single Google hit, a Daily Mail article: "Families fight so much at Christmas due to 'hypercopresence'" [25]. Equinox 19:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like it was coined by Melanie Booth-Butterfield, and all mentions of the term I am seeing are related to her. While many mention a "study" in which the term was coined none link to it or cite it, so maybe someone can track that down. - TheDaveRoss 20:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

eleventh hourEdit

(idiomatic) The final hour leading to a crucial moment or an important event.

How is this different from the usual sense? Is it suggesting a usage meaning literally the last hour in a 12-hour period? Seems unlikely to me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

To me, this seems an uneasy combination of literal "hour" and idiomatic "leading to a crucial moment or an important event". Mihia (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

PHYEdit

Rfv-sense: methadone. It is not common uppercase. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Not allcaps, but often with an initial uppercase, Phy, as an abbreviation of the brand name Physeptone. Examples: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I notice a preponderance of Irish sources.  --Lambiam 13:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

manasthaEdit

Looks like transliterated Sanskrit. Canonicalization (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Several English terms are transliterated Sanskrit (e.g. ahimsa and yoni), so that is not by itself an issue, but I can only find this as a Bengali term with a different meaning. “Hope” in Sanskrit can be मनस्विता (manasvitā) and “desire” can be मनस् (manas), so perhaps this is neo-Sanskrit coinage. In any case, I did not see usable attestations conforming to our CFI. Obviously, the plural of manastha is not Manastha with a capital letter.  --Lambiam 11:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I noticed on the entry's history page that the creating user is suspiciously also Manastha (talkcontribs), who is indef-blocked on Wikipedia for spammy edits. I suspect that our entry is probably rubbish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

angrietyEdit

Although this entry needs proper formatting and a general makeover, it seems to be legit in the world of slang (possibly even pharmacology?). Can we find at least three durably archived citations? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

incantationism Edit

"Spiritualism." I have outright deleted a second, apparently nonsensical sense ("a policy of incantation") which I assume was copied blindly from another -ism entry (many -ism words are indeed policies). This word gets only two English hits in Google Books, when I try searching. Equinox 19:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I suspect it just means "the habit of making incantations". The current definition (Spiritualism) refers to specific mediumistic beliefs about spirits of the dead. How can we confirm one way or the other? Equinox 21:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your suspicions. "Goryeo's Buddhism had so rapid a tendency of incantationism and formalism" in particular seems likely to refer specifically to a habit of making incantations (formulaic words), rather than to mediumistic beliefs, although I suppose this is rebuttable if someone looks into this specific branch of Buddhism...! But I think we can probably just modify the def. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-resolved (modified definition) Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

AmerimuttEdit

Tagged but not listed. Searching for citations... PseudoSkull (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only thing I found was this (which is in the form of amerimutts, the plural form uncapitalized). This RFV will probably fail.
User @Illegitimate Barrister created the entry in July. A simple Google search reveals it started as an Internet meme, and largely still seems to be. "Amerimutt, also known as “Le 56% face,” is a meme started by European users of /pol/, a Right-Wing/Alt-Right board on 4chan." ([31]) See also some descriptions from Know Your Meme and Urban Dictionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

OTOTEdit

6 definitions, some more plausible than others --Pious Eterino (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. (informal) On Top Of This
  2. (informal) On Top Of That
  3. (informal) On Top Of These
  4. (informal) On Top Of Those
  5. (informal, rare) On Top Of Them
  6. (informal, rare, humorous) On Top Of Thee

anodyne necklaceEdit

All I can find for the "noose" sense is the quote from The Vicar of Wakefield, and various slang dictionaries that were published after it and may be derived from it. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

clearEdit

Rfv-sense: To fell all trees of a forest.

The wording would seem to define an intransitive use. Also the first (transitive) definition has a citation that is of clearing a forest. Wouldn't this be the same use of clear if what was being removed was rocks, structures, shrubbery, tall weeds, people, mines, etc.? DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I expect that intransitive "clear", meaning "clear (implied object, potentially including trees)" probably exists in a somewhat peripheral way, though I'm not sure it needs a separate listing. However, my guess (I could be wrong) is that this particular definition was supposed to be a transitive sense specifically for object "trees", which isn't covered by any of the other senses, or possibly for object "forest", or possibly for some not-properly-thought-out combination of the two. There definitely seems to be a missing sense where the object is the thing removed, rather than the thing that something is removed from. This missing sense could apply to both object "forest" and object "trees". At least one of the quotations for def #1 ("the Art of the statuary only clears away the superfluous Matter") mixes up the "remove" and "remove from" senses. Mihia (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
There are enough examples of “clearing the rocks” (of a field or suchlike) meaning “removing the rocks” to merit inclusion. I think that in relating that a field was cleared, one would specify the nature of the undesirable elements removed, like “the field was cleared of rocks”, or “the field was cleared of fans”, unless in the context it had already been stated that the field was not yet suitable for agriculture, being littered with rocks, or that the game had been suspended when fans stormed the field. In a phrase like “every second 1 to 2 acres of rainforest are cleared for palm oil plantation”, it is understood what the rainforest is being cleared of: rainforest. It does not need a further specification. So a corresponding definition might be: “(transitive, of a forest) To raze; to fell all trees of.”  --Lambiam 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there are two types of objects of clear:
To remove (all obstructive objects) from (something)
To clear trees etc. from the hillside
To clear the hillside of trees, etc.
But "to clear (some substrate)" without specifying what is being cleared implies that "everything" obstructive is being removed. "Honey, could you clear the table?" means Honey is to remove all food, plates, cutlery, glassware, used napkins, etc. but not necessarily the tablecloth, flowers, etc. because the latter are not obstructive at the time.
I looked to see if Century 1911 or a OneLook reference had a sense like the one under challenge and didn't find one. I wish I didn't find little problems like this (or worse) in almost every long (and ergo hard-to-edit) English entry. DCDuring (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I assume that we don't want to have separate definitions for 'clearing the table/room/shelf/lot/desk/peninsula/bed/countertop/etc'. The objects being removed are mostly clear from context. I view the 'rainforest' example as the same. DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I added what seems to me to be the missing sense, like so:
2. (transitive) To remove (items or material) so as to leave something unobstructed or open.
Please clear all this stuff off the table.
The loggers came and cleared the trees.
Hopefully this should cover a transitive intention of the RFV'd sense. I left the RFV'd sense intact for now, in case there is a "strong" intransitive sense that needs covering. My thinking is that a "weak" use, such as "What are the loggers doing?" / "They're already clearing", which probably could be attested, is not worth mentioning. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It should get its 30 days. DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Rightio. A bit of a puzzle remains for me about what to do with the following quotation, which is presently under sense 1:
Since the mid-1980s, when Indonesia first began to clear its bountiful forests on an industrial scale in favour of lucrative palm-oil plantations, “haze” has become an almost annual occurrence in South-East Asia. The cheapest way to clear logged woodland is to burn it, producing an acrid cloud of foul white smoke that, carried by the wind, can cover hundreds, or even thousands, of square miles.
It isn't completely clear to me whether these uses of clear belong to sense 1 or sense 2. I am leaning towards sense 2 for the first instance and sense 1 for the second, but I'm not certain. What do you (or anyone else) think? Mihia (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
To me forests are obstructors, whereas logged woodland is the substrate with stumps still remaining. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, so are you agreeing with me about the senses or disagreeing? Mihia (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

incelibateEdit

Are there (enough) attestations for the sense “involuntary celibate”? See also Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/August#incel vs incelibacy.  --Lambiam 18:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Fredo Edit

Requesting verification of use as an "ethnic slur". Chris Cuomo saying some nonsense is not a reference ("'Fredo,' an ethnic slur? It's debated"). DTLHS (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

100% agree with DTLHS. Not only do the two sources listed [32] and [33] not claim Fredo is an ethnic slur, they also do not claim it is used especially against Italians. The recent sourced used about Cuomo saying nonsense in the heat of the moment in a crowd of people is the opinion of one man and is completely unsubstantiated as a slur against Italians in sources. The recentism in sources published as of yesterday only provide mere speculation and has on place on wiktionary or wikipedia without concrete sources from the start before a big claim like that should be stated. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
No reason to get all wound up. It seems very plausible that the heckler intended it to be an ethnic slur. The question now is whether there are a sufficient number of independent and durably archived instances, spanning at least a yesr, of the term being used as an invective aimed at people of Italian heritage. If so, that sense merits inclusion. One use is not enough. But Wiktionary is not Wikipedia; over here we do not require “reliable sources” stating that the term is a slur against Italians.  --Lambiam 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Fredo was used by Rush Limbaugh to associate some (presumably Italians, but maybe not exclusively) with the weasely character in the movie. I am reminded of the term Shylock. It could be considered anti-Semitic or it could be (and is) used to refer to usurious money-lenders of all persuasions and ethnicities. It could be hard to determine the intent. DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Of course he intended it as a slur, but it is not known if it really is a slur or just synthesis. "over here we do not require “reliable sources” stating that the term is a slur against Italians." I can't believe that this is a think over here - this ideology would let anyone just write whatever they want on wiktionary regardless of facts - this is really dangerous, no exaggeration, not only in this case, but I can imagine in others. But you do agree "One use is not enough", the key word being use. The usage is not widespread, the coverage in the media is, all of it being speculation from the one man, Cuomo's, in the heat of the moment statement. What the sources say is that it is tenuous at best that Fredo is really a slur, and all the other sources provided other than from yesterday and today do not claim it is "especially against Italians" or an "ethnic slur". Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

cited, although most of what I found was not an ethnic slur - and most of it was in books about running a family business. Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the cites supports either it being directed at Italians, let alone being a slur. It seems to just be about a weak member of a family. DCDuring (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Searching Usenet:
Rock bottom came when she compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga. "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw," she said, imitating the sound of gunfire. (2004)
But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president [GW Bush] saddled with the nickname Fredo; (2007)
Saudi prince brags he has Fredo Kushner in his pocket (2018)
I had used Limbaugh to see how he had applied the term, but the more recent quotes are from Limbaugh fans and the 2004 is from Air America radio, a Democrat-supporting broadcast business. The term was applied to a WASP, a Hispanic, and a Jew (I think). DCDuring (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you User:DCDuring, exactly. It is a term that may be offensive, but for the reason "about a weak member of a family", or of the sort - nothing to do with ethnicity or Italians - it just happens that the person it revolves around was of Italian descent but none of the sources use it as an ethnic slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
But wait, there's more:
Some years ago someone called Teddy Kennedy the "Fredo" of the Kennedy family. (2002) DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Right, further shows it is not used “especially about Italians” or as an ethnic slur. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have changed the definition to fit the evidence at hand rather than wait 30 days. It is too topical for such a delay. If evidence pointing in different directions emerges, we can make further changes. DCDuring (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    If someone could find some evidence supporting it being an ethnic slur, I'd be happy to see changes. But, at the moment there's not even a shred of actual evidence that I've been able to find. The name is used as in jokes that depend on supposed Italian pronunciation of English. In contrast, a name that is more of a slur against Italians (young Italian males) is Guido/guido. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
it's irresponsible to make this judgement when the term's global use has changed dramatically over the past 24 hours. until we can accurately survey the "new" post-Trump usage of the term, i reverted the edit. even Anthony Julian Tamburri, the Dean of the "Italian American Institute", told BBC that his institute thinks it is a regional ethnic slur:
 

"The use of the word Fredo as an ethnic slur... is a regionalism," said Mr Tamburri, who is a third-generation Italian American. "It's definitely something more local than it is national."

 
i understand that this is a prescriptive characterization, but even a quick glance at right-wing twitter right now shows that the term is currently being used specifically in an offensive manner to highlight Italian aspects of people. we need to not jump to conclusions here and diversify our sources. --Habst (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. We do not have to label something as a slur based on the events of the past 24 hours. There is nothing wrong with revisiting this in a year or 5 years. DTLHS (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Especially without any supporting attestation, and based on identity politics ranting. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just going to throw this article in here (used my last free article of the month for this). My own personal conclusion from researching this topic is that there is no consensus as to the validity of labelling Fredo as an ethnic slur. However, it is used in that way by some and its usage has unequivocally changed due to recent events and media coverage. Is it going to stick? Hard to say, but I definitely think that adding the label "sometimes used as an ethnic slur" is warranted. It's also worth mentioning that The Godfather where Fredo is one of the main characters, is seen by many Italian Americans as derogatory, specifically so by Chris Cuomo's late father Mario Cuomo ("[He]was an ardent critic of The Godfather books and films, boycotting them for decades because he thought they depicted negative stereotypes of Italian Americans"; whole article here). Is it as bad as the N-word like Chris Cuomo claims? Absolutely not and I doubt that we can find sources equating the two terms. With that said, it's not supposed to be up to the mob to decide what is a slur and what isn't – it's the individual on the receiving end of it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when do we delegate the job of ascertaining the meaning of words to others? Ultimately we rely solely on attestation.
Do you have any attestation of any use as an ethnic slur? I have looked for its use as an ethnic slur. I cannot find such. But maybe I haven't looked hard enough. It is not that slurs against Italians don't make it into print. Many have, including, fairly recently, guido/Guido. The Godfather (book) was published in 50 years ago and Godfather Part II (film), in which Fredo figures prominently, was released 45 years ago, so the use of Fredo as a slur should be findable.
Obviously, given the role of Fredo in the book and movie, it is negative in reference to the person so called. DCDuring (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a side comment: I think this is the first time I've seen a term brought to RFV to verify the glosses and not the actual term (although many months ago, with leftist Twitter in mind, I asked "what will happen when someone claims a term is offensive and maybe it isn't"; perhaps that's where we are now). Equinox 21:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a definition is separated by a bright line from the labels that precede it. In this case, the definition itself seems to have been written with the idea that Fredo was primarily an ethnic slur. I have added a definition that, IMHO, fits the actual attestation. If we look at what have been labeled ethnic slurs they range from those that have no other function in current usage to those that, similar to this, are allusions to the characteristics, utterances, or actions of literary figures who are not primarily ethnic stereotypes. DCDuring (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
And this should not happen. One has to rely on exterior information to pin down meanings. Even for nigger one would not know it is an ethnic slur if one “relied solely on attestation.” Such things can be the subject of whole studies, as they have been. If a white calls someone nigger there is little to bewray from the context that it is “an ethnic slur”, what ever that is, and not something else, you might have hundred quotes. It says on Wiktionary “now offensive, ethnic slur, vulgar”. While “offensive” can be seen by the reactions in dialogue, “ethnic slur” and “vulgar” cannot be demonstrated for “nigger” this way. If people in some text ever discuss the quality of the word just used the exitiable “use–mention distinction” comes in the way. Or does one even argue from its absence for something?
Easy example: Historical units of measure. One does not find a contemporary source of 16th Scotland stating how many cubic centimeters a certain measure of capacity was. Though texts may compare measures to other things and thus one can conjecture approximate size, one often knows the exact measure by measuring the container. Non-philological evidence. And there are reference works for historical measures. But boo, these are all mentions and thus do not count, innit. Should we not use everything available but “rely solely on attestation” in form of “uses” in those limited-selection durable corpora?
Similar goes for distinctions between plants and diseases. Funny how Wiktionary wanted to find out if pomelo meant grapefruit in historical sources. Nuances get lost after reencoding. When A writes a text about his citrus fruits to his pen pal B, B will know the cultivars from his common education. But if C reads it two hundred years later the world has changed and he might not so easily know, and so the world is full of “dog whistles” the exact meaning of which must be transmitted in real life with all appropriate smirks and pictures and not by texts merely. I wouldn’t know the connotation of “nigger” if it weren’t mentioned so often and I hadn’t heard it said in an angry fashion. Who has heard “Fredo”? One gets all the wrong impressions. {{uncertain}} belongs to Fredo, except that the quality of an ethnic slur is too irrelevant a detail and it is not that uncertain.
If one is unsure about things that flee the texts, the glosses should stay ambiguous, or it can also be a usage note. Fay Freak (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't dispense with citations just because we have an authority's say-so. The authorities help us know what to look for. I looked through the articles and found nothing that was any particular help in identifying where such citations might be found. In this case what we have is a few interested parties of no particular actual linguistic or cultural authority speaking off the top of their head, possibly after consulting their attorneys and publicists.
It doesn't take an advanced degree to surmise that Chris Cuomo may have been upset because he was being called the weak sibling in his family. It doesn't take an MBA to surmise that CNN may be defending a talent asset because they benefit financially. It doesn't take great socio-political insight to see that the most confident participants in the public "discussion" are arguing based on their own social and political identities. It doesn't take an excess of skepticism to discount the public "discussion" almost in its entirety. DCDuring (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I can think of one (other) entry where a scenario like Equinox mentions already happened, that a word is not (generally) offensive but certain people claim it is in bad faith. (In that case, it's people with institutional power and platforms who are de-facto on the right wing doing the claiming.) Ultimately, if we have proof some group X takes offence at a word, I guess the word is at least "sometimes considered offensive by group X" (or something)... but in this case, it doesn't seem that "Italian-Americans" or "Italians" take offence, but only that a few individuals have taken offence in the last few days. Ehh... - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    This is a term that, in speech, could easily be used to insult someone. That does not make it an ethnic slur or insult. If one called a German-American a kraut or Fritz, that might be an ethnic slur. If one called a German-American Adolph, that would not be IMO. I think Fredo is like Adolph and Guido is more like Fritz. Calling someone by a name associated with their ethnicity, but that is not not their name, is insulting because it intentionally de-individualizes them, which is not usually an ethnic slur, though Sambo shows such a name could be an ethnic slur. In any event, we still need to find evidence that the term is used as an ethnic slur. We have abundant evidence that it is used allusively to place a person in a constellation of family relationships. DCDuring (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think the claim that this is an "ethnic slur" is the most dubious thing currently in the entry. Once it is removed, I am not sure if these really has two senses, or just one one. - -sche (discuss) 09:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not @DCDuring, I'm starting to come around to the same conclusion as you. The dust has started to settle and I'm finding it increasingly hard to find evidence that supports an "ethnic slur" label – maybe in time this will change but right now I'm no longer sure that including such a label is the right thing to do. Nonetheless, mentioning the current discussion somewhere – maybe under =Usage Notes= – might be an appropriate compromise. Concerning the last remark in my statement above, I just want to clarify that what I was trying to say was, what some people consider to be offensive or a slur, is subjective and stems from the individual's own personal experience. What is offensive to person A might not be offensive to person B even if they come from the same background. I just felt that this whole discussion started with the intention of trying to dismiss Cuomo's experience of being on the receiving end of the Fredo remark, ergo, politicising what should have been a semantic and linguistic discussion. It shouldn't be up to the general public to say "it's not an insult, so don't be insulted". I full-heartedly support the requirement of finding durable sources, but as it was pointed out by Fay Freak, context is sometimes lost when trying to prove usage. In this case, Fredo is definitely used to offend a person who is the black sheep of the family and the entry should, as it does now, say so. As to the ethnic slur debacle, as I suggested earlier, adding =Usage Notes= might not be such a bad idea after all. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with usage notes, but I'd like some not in the media to say at least:
  1. they have heard Fredo being used as an ethnic slur
  2. they would be offended by its use
There would still be the question of whether they knew the difference between an ethnic slur and other kinds of insults.
That would at least make it seem that the whole thing was not just one Sonny ("hothead") overreacting to being called a Fredo in public in front of his family.
I would welcome any evidence, especially citations, that Fredo might be or have been in use as an ethnic slur, even if just as a 'typical' ethnic given name referring to someone with another given name (the de-individualizing type of slur). DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"[T]he term's global use has changed dramatically over the past 24 hours", Habst? I think not. Also, since when did the usage of a word by some bigots in some subcultural community suddenly mean that the word itself is now bigoted? And you're absolutely right that making such a change would be prescriptive. Although we do have some odd, unhelpful prescriptive definitions here, we aren't supposed to have them, and we don't need any more.
Also, @Robbie SWE: Are you sure that we ought to be adding things like:
"At the moment, this term is potentially developing racist connotations"
to an entry? I am not aware of much precedent here for doing that, unless we would like someone to come across some Wiktionary entry in the future, and say. "Wow. This dictionary sure seems dated"
I'm not sure what value there is in adding a sort of "as we speak, usage could **perhaps** be evolving" to the entry so soon after the aforementioned happening took place. I'm not sure what good justification there could be, either, as ever since the social media revolution reared its ugly head there have been "fad senses" that come and go in a flash. Tharthan (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tharthan; no, not in those words. Maybe something along the lines of "Is believed to have been used as an ethnic slur in certain communities, however to a limited degree. Labelling it as an ethnic slur is difficult because of a lack of trustworthy and durably archived sources". Might not be how we've done things until now, but maybe that's where we're heading (to be honest, not a fan of this development). --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

feminationalismEdit

One result on GB. 2600:1000:B123:663:D566:A723:BF05:FAA0 18:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Plus one on Google Scholar gives us two... Kiwima (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of the current quotes added by User:DaddyCell, the second one is a clear mention and not a use, as is required. — surjection?〉 09:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Even so, it looks like there is enough there to call this cited Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

MarmitegateEdit

DTLHS (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

thunder feverEdit

DTLHS (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

GaybrahamEdit

It seems like this is mostly used referring to a "Gaybraham Lincoln" bit by Colbert, which may fail the independence criterion. The current cite is arguably a mention (e.g. "They decided Liz's name is lizard breath"). Google News also shows references to a fictional one-man show "Gaybraham Twinkin" that seems like a mention as well. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

loxismEdit

There seem to be very few durable attestations. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't spot anything on Usenet, Issuu, or Google Scholar (except one instance of the word ichthyosarcoloxism, which is apparently also not otherwise attestable). It's mentioned in a paper of which one copy is on academia.edu (if it were a use, I would spend more time trying to figure out if another copy existed somewhere durable like a university's archives). - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sinking a cess, or raising one perhapsEdit

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Tea room#Sinking a cess, or raising one perhaps.

Thank you. I'll move over. JonRichfield (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

hexaplexEdit

"Non-standard word for a six-screen multiplex." — surjection?〉 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

groundEdit

Adjective, both senses:

  1. Crushed, or reduced to small particles.
    Synonym: milled
    ground mustard seed
  2. Processed by grinding.
    lenses of ground glass
I don't think these are true adjectives rather than mere past participles. (I don't get the distinction between the definitions either.) DCDuring (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The obvious distinction is that the first applies to the thing ground in its entirety, and reduces it to a less defined mass substance, while the second just applies to some part of it, generally the surface- there's a big difference between grinding a mirror into dust and merely grinding it smooth. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I see the distinction you are making. But i still don't see it in the second definition and usage example.
But the main issue is whether these are true adjectives. MWOnline, for example, doesn't have any adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't addressing that issue, just your aside about not getting the distinction between the senses. Obviously you get something to be in a state that can be described as ground by grinding it, so I don't see it as anything but verbal. Also, you don't have something more ground, just more finely or more completely ground. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I can seem to imagine a difference between "that meat you bought, was it ground?" (i.e. was it already in that state; the focus isn't on whether an agent did the grinding; compare "was it cold?") and "when was that meat ground?" (much more verbal, dealing with the act, not asking "when was it in that end state?"). Equinox 20:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The OED seems to have both verb and adjective senses for this sort of word, in most cases. Equinox 20:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have access. Do they have definitions for this particular word as adjective? Do their cites for the adjective use of this word meet our tests for adjectivity? DCDuring (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess a test might be use after forms of copulatives other than forms of be, eg, seem, appear, look, feel, sound, smell, taste. Use after forms of be is too ambiguous. Can all past participles be used after those sorts of verbs? If so, why would we ever need an adjective section unless the past participle took on a novel meaning, not one found in the verb, or could be modified by very or too. DCDuring (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they have "reduced to fine particles by grinding or crushing". Citations include "ground and powdered refined sugar", "rice whole, [ditto] ground", "oatmeal and ground linseed", "ground indigo", etc. and even "the roots of chicory, when dried and ground". Equinox 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Those don't establish that it is an adjective. DCDuring (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I tried searching for "(is|are|was|were) {very ground|more ground than}" but there were no relevant hits. - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Which sense is right for this cite?
*
2013, Victoria Jenanyan Wise, The Armenian Table Cookbook[34], page 129:
Lamb is the signature meat of Armenian cuisine. It appears ground for meatballs, as whole leg or whole beast, in kebab chunks for grilling, as shanks for braising, and as riblets to add a meat element to vegetable stews.
(Not copulative)
I'll look for more. DCDuring (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 2000, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland[35], page 258:
    The axial perforation, the handle socket and the quern base are all rough and do not appear ground or polished
  • 1985, Sergeĭ Aristarkhovich Semenov, Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear[36], page 14:
    been used on hard materials the traces of wear have the appearance of dull patches that look ground.
Two more, four three to go. DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
All six cites are in the entry, three for each definition. Thanks to all for bearing with me. DCDuring (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, how do you feel about preground? If your sentence said "it appears preground" then that could conceivably be interpreted as a verb pregrind + -EN but to me it feels like pre- ground (ground already) which is not a verb form. And how do you feel about unground, likewise clearly not a verb form? Equinox 12:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel really good about them, so I'm optimistic that somewhere there is attestation for the term under challenge. Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic about finding it soon. DCDuring (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

tag teamEdit

"(slang, vulgar) A gangbang." Note that even if "tag-teaming" (verb) means engaging in that sexual act (which it may, or not), this is an RFV for the noun sense. Also be careful about whether the "team" is the act itself or the people doing it. Equinox 20:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

somethingburgerEdit

Nonce word to contrast with nothingburger. I've found and added only one book citation. Equinox 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It is likely more of a news media word than a book word. Added a two cites, but it might fail based on the time span. There is also this on Issuu from 2013 (page 12), but it is hyphenated because of a line break. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

ChernbogEdit

Supposedly a male given name. At best it’s a rare variant spelling of the medieval Slavic god Chernobog; as a given name it doesn’t seem attestable (and I’d be quite surprised if it was). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedied. This looks like the work of BrunoMed, whose modus operandi was to use scripts to create large blocks of entries with identical contents from word lists. This is obviously one of the many cases where they didn't check their word list, and created an entry for a word that didn't fit their canned definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Also: Bjelbog, Bjelobog, Crnobog, Crnbog, Dabog, Domovoj, Gerovit, Jarilo, Jarovit, Jutrobog, Porenut, Svarog, Svjetlobog, Triglav, Troglav, and Zlebog. See Special:Contributions/Sheldonium. Apparently the list they were using was a general list of names that included mythological figures as well as men. Based on past behavior, I have a hunch that there are going to be names of obscure Balkan historical figures as well, many of them predating the introduction of surnames and thus likely never used as given names. You'll notice that they included a Serbo-Croatian and an English entry for each, which means that even the ones that are legitimate Serbo-Croatian given names will often be unattested in English. @Vorziblix this really needs someone who knows enough Croatian to spot the mistakes- any chance you could go through these? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I’ve deleted another series of mythological figures (Hors, Banik, Vodanoj, Pokola, Bjelun, Vodan, Drinus, Rugovit, Svantevid) and early Croatian (really Avar/Bulgar) rulers whose names aren’t even Slavic but transcribed from Turkic languages via Greek (Kuber, Porin, Porga). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

anxitieEdit

When was it used? Is it really not just an early spelling of anxiety? DTLHS (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not in Century 1911 nor in Middle English corpus at Univ of Michigan. DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Early Modern English (but not Middle English oddly). I found some cites [[37]], [[38]], and a gloss [[39]] Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Found the plural in more recent usage (India) [[40]] Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

roughcastEdit

For Noun, sense 1, and verb, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

cited. Also, I found a number of cites that look like use as an adjective, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

burstenEdit

Adjective, sense 1. Tharthan (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Both adjs are probably obsolete; please consider glossing. Equinox 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is used several times in the collocation “bursten fig” in the poetry of D. H. Lawrence. If not a fig, it could be a “bursten flood”. In the Alps we find “bursten lakes”, and a microscopist may observe a “bursten cell”.  --Lambiam 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

labiatifloralEdit

DTLHS (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)