Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Italic


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (Oscan, Faliscan, etc.), or any Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, etc.).

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 (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Tagged RFVs


November 2019 edit

octavius, octarius edit

Latin. The references are English and possible the language got confused (compare Talk:bibliothecologia). --Bolaguun (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

octarius is now cited, in Latin. Octarius seems to be the original form (coined by the Pharmacopoeia of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1809), octavius a corruption of it; I'm not sure if the latter can be attested in Latin.--Urszag (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, octavius is still dubious despite my best attempts, but I think the entry is sufficiently clear now to mark this as RFV-passed.--Urszag (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2020 edit

cheveux blancs edit

French. Not familiar with this. PUC10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: [5].  --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Des cheveux poivre et sel (wfw. "pepper and salt hair") means mixed black and white hair, often appearing grey. All-white hair is des cheveux blancs and donner des cheveux blancs à quelqu'un (wfw. "give someone white hair") approximately means "endlessly get on someone's nerves". — Tonymec (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2020 edit

Caphareus edit

Latin. Tagged by 84.161.26.75 on 19 October 2016, not listed:

“RFV for dat. and abl. "Caphāreī" and voc. "Caphāree". L&S has "voc. Caphareu", and Caphāreī and Caphāree seem to be incorrect.
BTW: There might also be a genitive Caphareos (based on Greek), and the archaic form "Capereus" (with p instead of ph) in "Pacuv. [Marcus Pacuvius] tr. 136".” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Brepols Library of Latin Texts has, for caphare*:
Caphare (1), Capharei (1), Caphareo (4), Caphareum (2), Caphareus (2), Capharea (4)
for caphere*:
Capherea (7), Caphereis (2), Caphereos (1), Caphereum (3), Caphereus (12), Capherei (3), Caphereo (1), Caphereu (1)
(note, it normalises everything to lowercase so I manually uppercased these). For capere* one only gets forms of capiō and Caperei (1 - Pacuvius). So the IP seems to be correct, noting that the declension of Caphareus would match that of Caphereus. This, that and the other (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

cocciferus edit

Latin. Tagged by Greenismean2016 on 4 November 2018, not listed:

“it looks like this should be coccum + fero” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Normally, the suffix is -fer – I don’t know the rules of formation of taxonomic rules in all fields of biology but this is incorrect Latin, so the page should be coccifer probably for both Latin and Translingual, ignoring now the distinction between Latin and translingual. So the taxonomic names with that form seem to be illegally formed. Scyphophorus cocciferus is one of the cases where a word is only attested in miswriting. Pinging @SemperBlotto as the author. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
      • @DCDuring, SemperBlotto: L&S is pretty careless about manuscripts. As with the ghostword zirbus, Georges has it differently and right as Georges lacks both these two forms and lists infrūctifer and deifer with the same two singular quotes as in L&S. The two 2 -ferus forms seem ghost words and their manuscript appearance, as well as their appearing in nominative singular in those singular quotes, is doubtful. We read in Rosén, Hannah (2000) “Grammaticalization in Latin? Two Case Studies”, in Glotta, volume 76, →DOI, page 105. »The inventory of these nouns up to the 6th century comprises ca. 190 -fer words (of which 60 are Late Latin, 4th to mid-6th century) and ca. 80 -ger words (of which 35 are Late Latin). […] Apart from variant forms there are 2 isolated (exclusively) -ferus words: Late Latin infructiferus and hybrid theoferus.« He goes on about some being calques of Greek terms with -αγρος (-agros) or -φόρος (-phóros), which explains deiferus which is however also deifer. You do find some New Latin quotes for infructiferus but mostly mentions and infructifer is rather in use. equiferus mentioned by Rosén is also a ghost word, one reads that we have “equifer als echte Nominativform durch die Glossen erwiesen”. The occurrences are all so rarified in attestation that they can be considered non-existing in native speakers’ Latin. In any case Wiktionary needs to have are coccifer, infructifer, deifer etc. as main forms, the others can only be had as dubious forms. @PUC, Brutal Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DCDuring Hey, thanks for the ping. I think it makes sense to distinguish between the ancient and the new latin usage. In Latin as a living language, at least for some speakers, these syncopated/non-syncopated, or more likely restored pairs were definitely alloforms. There are parallel pairs for -ger(us), and some words only exist with the full ending (mōrigerus). The situation can be further complicated by the reinterpretation of some of these as 3d declension forms, at least in some varieties (no examples come to mind there are some for sure, even if only detectable through Romance). There also exist forms like mascel, sicel for the regular masculus, siculus, albeit it's often suspected these are Sabellicisms (note the final vowel that escaped the regular u-colouring by the velar L, meaning the L had to have been geminate - or the word had to be borrowed). These then would be legitimate, native-speaker Latin. — Another thing altogether is New Latin, in our case used as a polite term for the Latin of the people who don't know Latin but make use of it in coining nomenclature. Their authority is a typical school grammar, and when their word-formation disagrees with the prescriptions of a school grammar, it's to be treated as a simple mistake on their part (this fine creation comes to mind) instead of referring them to any process characteristic of a living language. Now, these scientists' mistakes often coincide with attested non-literary Late Latin or reconstructed forms - no big surprise there - but I imagine they themselves would admit to simply having made an oversight in coining the term, and would hardly try defending their creation by appealing to attested non-literary Latin or any such whataboutisms. It's not a peculiarity of their idiolect of Latin or a specimen of ongoing grammatical change, it's a simple mistake coining a word in a language that you don't speak. — Ultimately, however, if a name is used, and isn't blatantly ungrammatical, I don't see what we can do about it other than list it as it is. Would anyone propose marking it as mistakenly formed and redirecting to coccifer? I hesitate to call that prescriptivism any more than I'd call it that when a teacher corrects a student. Even so, if a name is in use, we certainly need to have the entry - but what if the schoolgrammatically-correct name isn't used at all? Retroactively "correcting" what the editor perceives as "bad Latin" is hardly the task of a dictionary editor (imagine the task they'd have on their hands with Mideval Latin! xD). Brutal Russian (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, DCDuring: Tangential, but I sorted out deifer by moving deiferus and creating an altform entry at the source before seeing this discussion, so I thought I should leave a record here. Just to note, L&S's citation under deiferus, Cassiodorus's 6th-century Ecclesiastical History, is not Classical and does not have it in the nominative anyway (hominem deiferum), so this just seems to be a back-forming slip-up on their part. They also seem to have gotten the citation wrong (in the standard Migne it's only at 7.9, as Gaffiot has it, not 7.1, unless they were using some other edition I can't find). Apart from Deiferus being the personal name of a medieval saint, deiferus as adjective is a somewhat common alternative to deifer later on—it comes up in an early modern translation of John Damascene for example, which supports the -φόρος calque point—so it makes sense to keep the altform entry. I would tend to support Fay Freak's suggestion for coccifer and infructifer too, though I haven't dug into the terms. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The overt contempt for "non-standard", non-Classical usage seems inappropriate for a descriptive dictionary. Does Latin attract folks who don't like language as it is spoken and written by normal people, you know, evolving? Is such evolution only accepted once it has acquired an army? Many languages actually have alternative forms, unless they a suppressed by a language academy. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: I very much agree; in the case I am talking about "deifer" is merely the sensible main entry simply because it is more common and earlier. I personally think it makes no sense at all to talk about proscribed forms and the like in post-Classical Latin unless there is for whatever reason good evidence of them being proscribed synchronically. I don't know the situation of the other two. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

December 2020 edit

di traverso edit

Italian. Sense: “across, sideways, sidelong”. Tagged by Imetsia on 12 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

February 2021 edit

un coup edit

French. Old entry created by me, apparently unattestable. PUC11:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google. Sitaron (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

If it's real, we need citations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

fr:coup sense 12 says it is used as a synonym of "fois" (like here) but the first two (of three) examples given there belong to a more usual (less familiar) level of language than here. The third example, though, is exactly the colloquial use mentioned here, and it is a quotation from a well-known French author: J’ai eu du chagrin de savoir que ton neveu s’était fait refuser aux postes encore un coup.(Marcel Aymé, La jument verte, Gallimard, 1933, réédition Le Livre de Poche, page 25). — OTOH as a native French speaker I confirm that je passe un coup chez le dentiste or un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus do exist, as part of familiar spoken French; a tiny wee bit less familiar (more "standard") would be je passe en vitesse chez le dentiste and tantôt il me croit, tantôt il ne me croit plus. — Tonymec (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I took the liberty of adding the example above from fr.wikt at un coup. Passe un coup le sel! instead of Passe le sel, s'il te plaît. is very familiar but it is used in colloquial spoken French. — Tonymec (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tonymec: Thanks for adding sense 2 and its accompanying quotation. I also found some discussion related to sense 1 at w:fr:Français de Nouvelle-Calédonie#Un coup. Using "un coup" with an order may be especially common in that particular dialect, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist in metropolitan French or other dialects. But what we really need is a durably archived example of such usage. Have you been able to find any? 70.172.194.25 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tonymec: Would you say that the use of "un coup" in any of these would count as sense 1? [6] [7] [8]. The problem is that these are all articles by one author in one paper (from Mauritius). And there's also this article on Mauritian French which uses it quite heavily (although we can't cite the latter, because they're technically mentions instead of uses). My methodology to find these was to search for "moi un coup le/la" on Google, hoping that the inclusion of "moi" would tilt the results towards imperatives like "dis-moi", etc., and the inclusion of "le/la" would get adverbial uses of "un coup" instead of cases where "coup" is just acting as a regular noun. But there actually aren't many results. I'm not going out of my way to search for French spoken on remote islands, it's just what seems to pop up when looking for this for whatever reason.
If this is commonly used in Parisian France, wouldn't it be possible to find a song, TV show, magazine, or something that uses this? 70.172.194.25 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@70.172.194.25: I would count "un coup" as sense 1 if it can be replaced by "s'il te plaît" at the end of the sentence with no change of meaning; I would label it as "familiar" or "colloquial" and also "spoken language". Finding it in a song or magazine, I don't think so. In a TV show or even in a cinema film, I'd say maybe, if the characters are using colloquial spoken language. Teenager characters, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my head on it being easily findable.
In sense 2 "un coup" can be replaced by "une fois" at the same place in the sentence and I copied a quotation from fr.wikt about that sense. It is also "familiar" or "colloquial" but it has been found at least once in published text. — Tonymec (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@70.172.194.25: Maybe in some dictionary, but recent dictionaries might be copy-protected (in France, until the 31st of December following the last living author's death plus 70 years) and older ones might be unaware of such a recent evolution in the language. I don't know how far we can make use of the French "exceptions to author's rights" allowing "short citations for use as example or illustration" and "extracts for information" (see fr:w:Droit d'auteur#Exceptions au droit d’auteur with footnotes sending back to the Berne Convention).
In addition, "moral rights" are in France part of intellectual property rights; they are perpetual and can neither be relinquished nor given over, even by testament ("perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible"): the author, and after him his "natural heirs", cannot avoid exercising them. — Tonymec (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

ad tempus edit

Latin. Senses:

  1. on time, in time, punctually (not tagged)
  2. temporarily
  3. for the current time, for a while, at present

Tagged by 2003:DE:3702:3E91:54CA:403:2464:75BF on 20 February, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

L&S lists the senses, ”For some time, for the time being, for a while, for the moment“, giving references to Cicero, Livius, and Tacitus. Le Gaffiot gives the same Cicero references for a sense of “pour un temps, momentanément”.  --Lambiam 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2021 edit

pizdă edit

Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". — surjection??20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE, Bogdan: I found nothing. I'm also not familiar with this use. Fytcha (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym for pizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage: "spectacol pizdă". Bogdan (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I found it used as an adverb in a song: "Suntem tot ceea ce crezi tu că sună foarte pizdă". Catlop (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

mercum edit

Latin: “genitive plural of merx”. It was in the declension table instead of mercium (see Talk:merx). Should it be re-added to the table or deleted (i.e., it is wrong or not attested)? J3133 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Georges: "merx, mercis, Genet. Plur. mercium, f. [...] I) die Ware [...] tabes mercium, verlegene W. [...] 2) meton., der Preis der Ware, der Warenpreis, mercium quantitas, Cypr. de habit. virg. 14. [...]". But well, it could also depend on the edition (or manuscript), which is something which foolishly gets ignored here quite often...
  • Gaffiot 2016: "merx, mercis, gén. pl. mercium", but without any source.
  • L&S is without any note, so foolishly mercum could have been assumed, or be generated from the declension template without checking anything or without realising that the template could be wrong...
Additionally, mercum could also exist but be a low or medieval Latin form, which then should be mentioned but also should be marked. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply
[two occurrences here], a third can certainly be fished out in google, but this form is a clear solecism even medievally. I would relegate it to an Alternative form linked at mercium. Brutal Russian (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

June 2021 edit

volantes edit

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:3728:BF61:3CEF:6BEC:3439:FB55 on 7 June, not listed:

“for masc. gender.
L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”

J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context: (vermes) volantes or aves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves, columbae) and not to for instance culices or passeres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a noun powerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common;[9] and we also do not list an (attestable[10]) noun sense for flagellantes.  --Lambiam 11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

guantaria "glove" (relational) edit

(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia): Created by User:SemperBlotto, supposedly an adjective meaning "glove" in a relational/attributive sense. Unlikely to be correct as an adjective ending in -a, and not in any dictionary I can find. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective like guantario, except this, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form of guantaio (glovemaker)) – but that's all. — GianWiki (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think it's more likely that wordsense pulled it from Wiktionary. The entry has been around for 7 years. – Jberkel 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Treccani seems to use it (industria guantaria). Also in Google books: from 1937 (industria guantaria), from 1939 (industria guantaria, attività guantaria, produzione guantaria). As for guantario, there's this book (problema guantario), from 2006 (maestro guantario), from 1959 (settore guantario). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

July 2021 edit

Italian ammazzavampiri edit

SOP: "vampire-slayer". Benwing2 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

google books:ammazzavampiri seems to have enough results (even though several have Buffy l'ammazzavampiri = Buffy the Vampire Slayer) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3741:3181:23C1:CDC2:56E4 (talk) at 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

August 2021 edit

abeillage edit

French. The French Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings of abeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping are apiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère". 70.175.192.217 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

lagopus edit

Can somebody confirm the gender? This and also Lagopus and λαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However, λαγώς and πούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

As for Lagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latin lagopus as being feminine. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, eight-footed) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, red-footed). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way.  --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (ptarmigan) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, ptarmigan, white partridge) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dioscorides[11] and Oribasius[12] use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover),[13] and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig,[14] probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained.  --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the -xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowing lagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example.  --Lambiam 09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

September 2021 edit

memorium edit

Latin. Can this form, alleged to be a genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, be attested, or are we dealing with a so-called non-i-stem variant?  --Lambiam 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template:la-decl-3rd-1E has been retired to a template farm upstate, but I suspect this was the culprit, leading to an erroneous auto-generated entry. @Benwing2  --Lambiam 01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Might it be that A&G is mistaken: [15]? For some uses of the ablative memore, see [16], [17], and [18].  --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested?  --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
As for gen. pl.: Can the other, memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

December 2021 edit

Porthos edit

Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.

(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along with the RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we have Aramis as English, Porthos as French, and no entry for Athos. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Send to WT:RFVN and check regarding WT:CFI#Fictional universes? --21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4037:3c6c:85b5:850a:bea0 (talk).

January 2022 edit

proximus edit

Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense of neighbour (a fellow human being), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translates ὁ πλησίον (ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjective πλησίος (plēsíos) meaning near, neighbouring. Latin has the feature of zero-derivation nominalization of adjectives,[19] so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have used vīcīnus (neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”.  --Lambiam 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2022 edit

vesperasco edit

Latin. This is an impersonal verb; all finite forms except 3s should be deleted. vesperāscō and vesperāscis (once) are attested as mentions in grammar books, but there are no uses of personal forms in the Brepols Library of Latin Texts. This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed.--Urszag (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dimenche, vendredy edit

Are days of the week capitalized in Middle French? --TongcyDai (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2022 edit

paixa edit

Portuguese.

As it's slang, it's more difficult to attest it in writing. --2804:1690:806:2D50:63D2:7057:A6A8:E9D6 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

ahora que hay modo edit

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

Moved to RFV. Thadh (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

capitilavium edit

New Latin, per WT:RFVN#harpastum Americanum above. Thadh (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Condate edit

According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by Avitacum (talkcontribs).

@Avitacum: I moved this from the English requests page (WT:RFVE) to this one. This, that and the other (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. My mistake! Avitacum (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

etesia edit

Latin. Apparently Pliny used etēsiās once, but the Latinate first declension singular is unattested. It's a plurale tantum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2022 edit

Œdiporum edit

Oediporum edit

Originally marked for {{speedy}}, but I’m not sure this cannot be attested.  --Lambiam 13:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tagged it for speedy because Oedipus is a proper name with no plural. But you're right, it does seem to exist. The question then becomes, what does it mean? This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Max Beerbohm is reported to have said, “They were a tense and peculiar family, the Oedipuses, weren’t they?”.[20]  --Lambiam 12:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, many of the Latin cites (e.g.) seem to relate to the same meaning as Oedipuses often has in English: multiple different tellings of the Oedipus story. -- Visviva (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks like we need a better way of handling plurals of proper nouns, not only in Latin but in other languages as well.
As far as Latin is concerned, we currently have a lot of genitive plural form-of entries for Latin proper nouns (but no other cases, oddly). These genitive plurals are "orphaned"; there is no reference to them in the lemma entry. In situations where the plural of a proper noun is actually attested, it ought to be added to the lemma's declension table, perhaps with some kind of special note. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Lewis & Short: "Oedĭpus ... plur. acc. Oedipodas, Mart. 9, 26, 10". So plural is attested (maybe not in gen. but only acc., but that's usually no hinderance of giving all forms if they are predictable). Open Questions:
  • What does it mean?
  • Is it still a proper noun? Maybe the proper noun Oedipus (some king) became a common noun (with a meaning like 'mother-lover')
--22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
All cases of the plural are abundantly attested in post-Classical Latin so this seems rather pointless. Whether they're displayed in a case table in the main entry is one thing, but either way the non-lemma entry at Oediporum should certainly be kept. As an example of plural use: "Proinde principes, quibus hoc monstrum periculosius occurrit, si damni praecipitium evadere, et monstrum hoc enecare voluerint, aut Oedipi, ut ita dicam, sint, aut Oedipos, hoc est, consiliarios sequantur necesse est." ("Accordingly, those princes whom this monster rather threateningly attacks, if they wish to escape the precipice of injury and slay this monster, should either be Oedipuses, so to speak, or follow Oedipuses as counsellors" [21]).
I don't think it's wise to treat personal names in general as automatic singularia tantum: the ways in which they can be used as plurals are fairly predictable (most obviously a group of people with the same name, but also different versions of a historical or literary personage, applying the name metaphorically to multiple people as in the case I quoted, or different aspects of a classical god). Whether they're then downgraded from "proper nouns" to "common nouns" is a question I'll leave for the scholars. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

casum edit

Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle of cādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed. This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table on cado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPP casum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Paganini non ripete edit

Italian: "(usually humorous, sometimes menacing) Said when someone is unwilling to repeat what they have already said.". I created Citations:Paganini non ripete but I'm not sure the quotations actually support the definition given. 98.170.164.88 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this? 98.170.164.88 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The citations are all correct. Paganini non ripete is a super-common expression, you can find it in every good Italian dictionary, too. Sartma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.
I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.). 98.170.164.88 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proteus edit

Latin. For voc. sg. --學者三 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

More in general, I'd expect this to be a third-declension noun, like Perseus. The vocative Proteu is seen in Vergil’s Georgics, verse 4.447.[22] See also the genitive Proteos in Claudian’s epithalamium for Honorius and Maria (poem 10).[23]  --Lambiam 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Perse͡us (Gen. Persei, Dat. & Abl. Perseo, Acc. Perseum) is 2nd declension (from Greek). Proteus should be similar and with voc. Proteu instead of Protee. Georges states: "griech. Genet. -eos, Lucan. 10, 511. Iul. Val. 1, 27 (31): Akk. eum, Hygin. fab. 170 in.: Akk. ea, Ov. am. 3, 2, 35; met. 2, 9. Stat. silv. 1, 2, 129; Ach. 1, 32. Licent. poët. in Augustin. epist. 26, 3. Iul. Val. 1, 27 (31): Vok. Proteu, Ov. met. 8, 731.", i.e. with expected voc. Proteu and additional 3rd decl. gen. Proteos and acc. Protea. (3rd decl. dat. Protei isn't mentioned.) --學者三 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ancient Greek Περσεύς (Perseús) is third declension. We list Latin Perseus as 3rd (Greek-type, normal variant) or 2nd.  --Lambiam 09:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

June 2022 edit

foliaticum edit

Latin. Obviously corresponds morphologically to "foliage" etc. in modern languages, but it it attested in Latin as a noun with this meaning? Some etymological sources mark it with an asterisk. So far, I found an example where it appears to be an adjective (form of foliaticus), not a noun.--Urszag (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

accanturus edit

accantus edit

Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.

Latin. Described by @Theknightwho as: "Fake participle formed from the fake supine of absentō" (they meant accanō). This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

July 2022 edit

radioassistere edit

Created by User:SemperBlotto. Appears to be a nonexistent back-formation based on radioassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: It's a real word. Zingarelli has it too. Sartma (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: It is a technical term, so it might not be easy to find, but navigazione radioassistita is something even common people talk about. radioassistere (and servoassistere) are given in all major Italian dictionaries. I'm not interested in any of the fields where those terms might get used more regularly, but still, as a native speaker, I know those words... Reading you writing that they are "nonexistent" is a bit weird. Sartma (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

servoassistere edit

Likewise with radioassistere, this is a nonexistent back-formation from servoassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: This too is a real word. Sartma (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma This too is a dictionary-only word. Benwing2 (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Look for servoassistito in [this pdf]. I guess these words are used mainly in the past participle as an adjective. Maybe we can add that as a user note? Saying that these verbs don't exist or are dictionary-only words is a bit of a stretch. Also, what does it mean "dictionary-only word"? If a word made it to official and prestigious Italian dictionaries, I can assure you that it is an Italian word. How much people use it is a different question, but definitely nothing "invented" makes it to those dictionaries (with the only exception of feminine forms of certain words, added in dictionaries like Zingarelli for political reasons but that no-one uses). The other way round does happen though: there are words that people use and still haven't made it to the official dictionaries. Sartma (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: an example of an inflected form of servoassistere (search the page for servoassiste). Sartma (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma Thanks for your comments. A dictionary-only word is a word that appears in dictionaries but has no usage. This includes prestigious dictionaries. WT:CFI requires 3 citations in "durably-archived" sources (books, magazines, etc. but generally not blogs or online forums) in case of words that are challenged, and the citations must be of uses, not mentions (dictionary definitions and discussions of a word are mentions). IMO if servoassistere is a real word, it should be easy to find all sorts of citations as it would be a useful concept. The fact that it's nearly impossible to find cites indicates to me that it falls into the dictionary-only category. It looks to me like some dictionary took the word servoassistito and inferred a verb servoassistere out of this that had no usage at all at the time. Possibly due to the existence of the word in the dictionary, some people will eventually use the word, but at this time it seems to have no currency. Benwing2 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Google "che servoassiste". Sartma (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2:
Examples of servoassiste:
Zinagarelli registers the earliest attestation of this verb in 1983... It's been around for a while. It's definitely not a "dictionary-only" verb. Sartma (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Examples of servoassistono:
@Benwing2: Examples of servoassistere:
@Benwing2: "It looks to me like some dictionary took the word servoassistito and inferred a verb servoassistere out of this that had no usage at all at the time."
Also, about this, and to be clear: the dictionaries I'm quoting are not just "some dictionaries". "Treccani" is not "some dictionary". "Zanichelli" is not "some dictionary". Those are works of the best linguists and lexicographers we have in Italy.
Anyway, I've also found this. Apparently it's servoassistenza that came from servoassistere:
Do they have quotations? Existing in a dictionary =/= able to be added. Vininn126 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: None of my links is valid as a quotation? Also, the word is present in all major dictionaries, not just "a dictionary". I don't care if you don't want it on Wiktionary, to be honest. Delete it if you feel like. But can we at least stop saying that the word is made-up or nonexistent? To be honest, listening to non-native speakers telling me that a word I find completely and boringly normal is not a word in my own native language is starting to seriously get on my nerves. Sartma (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't referring to yours. I was referring to the major dictionaries. I am not arguing for or against the deletion of the word, but rather against the argument that "it is in x dictionary therefor it should be in ours". Vininn126 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: I'm not saying that we should keep those verbs because "they are in the dictionary". I'm saying that as a native speakers I don't see any issues with them, PLUS they also are in all major dictionaries (mainly to confirm that it's not regional/slang but actual standard Italian). Sartma (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: "IMO if servoassistere is a real word, it should be easy to find all sorts of citations as it would be a useful concept."
This is not true. That's not how languages work. Most written material in Italian tends to a nominalised style, so it's expected that you'd find servoassistenza or "SOMETHING servoassistito/servoassistita" more often than the declined form of servoassistere. It's more likely that people use the inflected forms when talking than when writing a manual. Internet will always be biased on this point, and the spoken language will always be more difficult to find, especially when it comes to technical fields. Plus, the semantic contexts where you would say that "something servoassiste something else" are quite marked, which contributes to make them more rare. But from there you can't logically derive the conclusion that "the verb doesn't exist". That's terrible logic. Sartma (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The sources listed above may not be “permanently recorded media”, but here are three print sources of è servoassistito: [24], [25], [26].  --Lambiam 18:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

afastado edit

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: I see this word being used in that sense quite frequently in my day-to-day life. Pretty sure I've used it like that myself. You can find it on the internet and in dictionaries too. 186.212.6.138 03:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2022 edit

Ghiolof edit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

French: Apparently this is the name of a former country in Africa. Probably just used by one author and copied elsewhere. Dunderdool (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Googling it throws up a historic map of Senegal. Is this wolof? Theknightwho (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Looks like the country being referred to is the Kingdom of Jolof and its predecessor, the Jolof Empire, which is the same word as Wolof (also Djolof, Yolof, etc.) and which we treat at Wolof#English (sense 3). Although the definition there may be a little misleading, since in the Kingdom period, it was only one of multiple Wolof-speaking states, the others including Waalo and Cayor ([27]). 142.166.21.76 14:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Belongs on WT:RFVN, although FWIW this looks very easily citable in French, and might even pass CFI in other languages like German, Italian, and English. 142.166.21.76 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

October 2022 edit

donner le mot edit

French. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/October#French: se donner le mot. If the term cannot be verified as a synonym of passer le mot, it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect to se donner le mot.  --Lambiam 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

abaliud edit

Latin. Taken from Gaffiot. Gaffiot, with du Cange, gives one citation, Tertullian Ad nationes 1.9 "abaliud a maiore defenditur", and apart from various scanos on Google Books it seems to be a hapax. But modern editions of Tertullian do not treat this as a word and instead render the passage "si ab aliquo aliud, a maiore defenditur" (e.g. Borleffs 1954). Von Hartel 1890 already comments, "An die Existenz des Wortes abaliud glaubt heute wohl Niemand" ("nobody today believes in the existence of the word abaliud"), and Schneider 1968 gives the emended sentence and labels abaliud a ghost word. I can't find any reliable source disagreeing with this assessment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Easily 'attested':
  • Tertullianus, Ad nationes [To the nations], lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:
    Abaliud a maiore defenditur.
And also found in dictionaries:
  • abaliud in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré latin-français, Hachette, page 3.
  • abaliud in Georges, Karl Ernst, Georges, Heinrich (1913–1918) Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, 8th edition, volume 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung
Add Category:Latin ghost words (done) and a usage note (missing). --Amicus vetus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin). By definition, it cannot be both a ghost word and attested. (Well, it can, but in this case it doesn't seem to have crept into actual usage anywhere, hence my RFV.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've read your comment carefully. It's found in Tertullianus -- at least in old editions thereof and an example was provided (and it's different from misprints/typos). That it is an error (scribal error in the manuscript, misreading, wrong conjecture or whatever) doesn't change that. Thus the entry is justified, and an explanatory usage note ('it's a mistake/ghostword' etc.) what is lacking. --Amicus vetus (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Amicus vetus: I think we're arguing at cross-purposes a bit. My point is that if there was never a word abaliud used by Tertullian or anyone else to mean "on the other hand", then our gloss is entirely spurious and should not be listed as a sense (it can be in the etymology, usage notes, or whatever—from elsewhere on this page some people might prefer this to just be a link to an appendix, I don't care too much either way). The only sense listed should, I think, be "alternative form"/scribal corruption of ab aliud. The fact that it is found in older editions of Tertullian does not support listing it as a sense, which is a matter of how the text is interpreted rather than how it is printed—and it's the sense that's being RFV'd here, since I'm not at RFD requesting the entry itself be deleted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

November 2022 edit

Transliterated names and surnames in Portuguese edit

Recently, I deleted several transliterated Japanese names and surnames created by a single IP that had little evidence to be in use in Portuguese language and looked like simple copies of the English entries. After a message from @Benwing2, I've gave some thought to this approach, so I'm opening this discussion in order reassess if the deleted should be restored or if the remaining unattested terms in Portuguese surnames from Japanese and Portuguese given names from Japanese should be removed as well. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1 My sense is that surname entries like this should be kept if they convey some useful info that is specific to the destination language, otherwise deleted. For example, if the surname is common enough to have a fairly fixed pronunciation, and we include that, this counts as "useful info". One example is Fukushima, which has a pronunciation given (maybe because it is also a toponym, and in the news a lot). I would say, on the contrary, that an etymology that is simply copied from the English entry doesn't count as useful info. Basically, we should discourage people from creating entries by just copying the English entry and making automatable changes to get an entry in another language. The intended result of this is that only sufficiently common or well-known surnames from foreign languages (e.g. names of famous Russian composers, in the case of Russian surnames) end up as entries. Otherwise we could end up with endless autogenerated surname entries swamping a given page. Not sure if this explicitly matches with CFI, but probably to the spirit of it. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Arabia Felix edit

Sense 2 (the city of Aden). While cross-referencing with modern scholarship I came across this paper (JSTOR) discussing the meaning of the term, and the one mention of this sense suggests that it's only attested in Greek for Ἀραβία Εὐδαίμων (Arabía Eudaímōn), in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea: "In the Periplus we hear about a city named Arabia eudaimо̄n which may be identical with Aden (Periplus § 26). But the relationship to the general concept of Happy Arabia is unclear and it may reflect a translation of the name Aden". The 19th-century source this sense was originally taken from, Smith's Geography, does not distinguish the Latin and the Greek. Is there any actual attestation in Latin? (Maybe post-Classically?) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

match edit

Spanish. I am not sure if this can be classified as a Spanish word. Pablussky (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

2000 hits for "match contra" is Spanish enough for me. We'll need another Tinder definition 3000+ for "hacer match" too. Flackofnubs (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

December 2022 edit

natalensis edit

Latin. Rfv-sense: (relational) Christmas. --11:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:372e:daf4:34eb:bf4:811f:a1d6 (talk).

It should be Christmas Island rather than just Christmas (-ensis refers to places), and probably moved to the Translingual section if it's taxonomy-only. The "from Natal" sense currently under Translingual does have actual New Latin attestation (e.g. passim in this book), but from what I can dig up, the Christmas Island epithets date from the 1930s and so are probably less likely to appear in actual Latin. I also found a lone use of "Natalensium" in a medieval chronicle, referring to people from somewhere in Italy, which I don't get [28]. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

January 2023 edit

u.a. edit

C.E. edit

Latin. Claimed to be abbreviations of "ut annuntiaretur" ("to be announced" i.e. TBA) and "constituturum esse" ("to be determined" i.e. TBD). Maybe, but they haven't been defined as such anywhere else and it smacks a bit of language-revivalist neologism. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

adespotos edit

Latin, feminine declension in -os, -oe. The Latin RFV IP wants to add this declension but I see no evidence for it in sources; expected phrases like res adespotos, res adespotoe, oda adespotos etc. look unattested (res adespotae is passably common, and indeed appears in the NLW entry, "quasi res anteà fuerint adespotae"). The form adespotoe looks totally unattested and my immediate searches did not turn up any instance of forms in -os, -orum modifying a feminine noun. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • adespoton can be found. Masc.nom.sg. to that is adespotos (not adespotus), even if it weren't attested.
  • How about these? [29], [30]; [31].
  • BTW: adespotωs
--04:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
2nd point, first link, "adespotos" is either agreeing with "impressus", not "Vuittenbergae" (it's not in the genitive), or being used as an adverb (thus -ōs?). Second link, sermo is a masculine noun. Third link (assuming "vita Arist. adespotos" is meant, and it's the vita that's adespotos) may count, although perhaps a rather thin basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
(this asked for forms in -os in general, regardless of gender. --06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC))

caeliscalpi edit

Latin: “genitive singular of caeliscalpium”. Mentioned by Al-Muqanna at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/January § Option to suppress archaic gen. sg. in Latin nouns in -ius/-ium. J3133 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does actually appear at this website but I assume it's a mistake (and not a valid citation anyway). Looks fictive otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

retinopathia edit

Can't find evidence of this being used in (New) Latin texts, although it appears in some Latin-style names for diseases (e.g. retinopathia congenitalis). Maybe just Translingual? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is used in English and German, and appears as a "new Latin" style name, so perhaps this should just be marked as English. Translingual won't account for individual language conjugations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

February 2023 edit

atrovare edit

Italian. Also RFV'ing atrovarsi. @Catonif, Sartma Both are these are another wonderful SemperBlotto creation, claimed to be alternative forms of trovare/trovarsi. No references given as to where these terms came from and they are not in any dictionaries. Attempts to Google them produce lots of typos for a trovare/a trovarsi but not much else (and excluding trovare from the search yields no hits). Benwing2 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I placed two quotes, though I normalized at attrovare per the sources and because a- instead of a*- is just an obsolete orthographical practice once greatly used especially by northern authors. The TLIO link shows great use in northern dialects. Hopefully I'll find a third quote in proper Tuscan. Catonif (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

cuntare edit

Italian. Created by User:SemperBlotto again. This is a dialect word from Neapolitan and Calabrese but I can't find any cites in Italian per se. Benwing2 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Convert to a normal Neapolitan entry? Nicodene (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

susamielle edit

Italian. Yet another Semper creation. Semper himself added the comment "I don't know for certain if this is Italian or Sicilian. Also don't know gender or number." which cries out for RFV. Benwing2 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

pitchpine edit

Romanian. I found this in DEX, but I havent been able to find it actually in use ... everything I turn up seems to be a dictionary, a list of words, or (in just a few cases) translation of an English-language text . I can't find a pronunciation given anywhere. There may be some French influence, as the definition given in DEX somewhat resembles that for pitchpin in this French dictionary.

I would be willing to count this as a valid use, but not this since the latter is clearly machine-translated. But that is all I could find. Soap 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded the entry with another use in a popular novel (albeit somewhat mention-y). I couldn't find any other examples of the term in Romanian texts. Einstein2 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Bogdan You added the Romanian section last year, perhaps you can dig up a third use for this term? Einstein2 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hey, if you regularly consult DLR/DA, you’re going to love this: https://dlr1.solirom.ro/Biolongvistul (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do Romanian pitchpine and French pitchpin refer solely to North American pine species? pitchpin”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012. says so. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think so, yes, though it's a bit of a mess, since as our own entry indicates, the pitch pine can refer to more than one tree. The DLR dictionary gives only Pinus palustris as the definition, but Wikipedia gives only Pinus rigida. Since the habitats of the two trees dont overlap much, I suspect at one point it was in use in English to describe both species, and that people probably still call Palustris pitch pine today, but as arborists have become more standardized, they ended up going with Rigida as the one true pitch pine. Whereas the foreign dictionaries were probably compiled much earlier.
Anyway, my Romanian isnt good enough to tell at a glance whether the cite given in the DLR dictionary is good enough to qualify as a use rather than a mention .... I'll trust you all if you say it is, and we can let the word remain listed in our dictionary. And we even got a pronunciation out of it, too. However, without the full context and with my limited skills in the language, I can't say on my own whether the DLR dictionary's cites are really uses in running text or more like "this is what they call a pitchpine" examples. Thanks, Soap 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
In English, it would not be surprising to me that Pinus rigida was usually the referent for pitch pine, but that the term was also often used for any pine that potentially yielded pitch economically. MW just uses an "especially" for P. rigida. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
You can rest assured it passes. There’s the quotation you found (which is better than you might have realised, as it is a transcription of an actually published text), then there’s quotation #1 from DLR, where it is used without explanation in a technical text, then there are these two occurrences in a forestry magazine. That makes three uses (as opposed to mentions) even if you don’t count DLR quotation #2 (which, as Einstein2 said, is more of a mention/English embedding indeed). Do these need to be on the page itself or does this mere discussion legitimise the entry? —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It would be better if they were in the entry, but we sometimes let users enjoy multiple link chases, if indeed they trouble to look at the talk page (where this discussion should be archived in due course). DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

March 2023 edit

maronitus edit

This is allegedly a Latin adjective meaning "Maronite", but the main word for that in Latin is definitely Marōnītae (usually found in the plural, like most words ending in -ītae), which I just added. I'm having a hard time figuring out whether "maronitus, -a, -um" actually exists as more than an occasional mistake. I added one citation of "Maronitorum" that I think is not a misprint (but could be interpreted as a grammar error; compare this similar example with -arum), so I guess that qualifies the word for inclusion based on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Limited_Documentation_Languages, but I wanted more eyes on this to check.

Two candidates I found that do seem to be misprints/typos or mistakes: this book refers to "la Grammatica arabica Maronitorum (París, 1616)" but the actual 1616 book seems to use the spelling "-arum"; and an example of "nomen Maronitum" in this book seems to be a mistake for "nomen Maronitarum".

I also found an example of "Colegium Maronitum" used in an English text. Given that "Colegium" seems to be misspelled, I'm not that confident in the Latinity of this. Urszag (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag: I think the best solution is just to tag it as a nonstandard altform of Marōnīta (more common than -ītēs when I checked). Though I'm aware many Latin dictionaries lemmatise demonyms and the like at the plural, given that that singular form is decently attested I think it's unhelpful for Marōnītae to be treated as a plurale tantum. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2023 edit

aciale edit

My understanding is that only acuāle is attested and aciāle is a reconstruction. @Hazarasp -- Sokkjō 07:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it's attested once in a Late Latin translation of Oribasius; see Adams and the cites at the bottom of the page. By the way, I would reconstruct Proto-West Germanic *akkjul or *akkil, with adaptation of the suffix to native *-ul, *-il, given that OHG usually has <o> or <i> in the suffix. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2023 edit

voltone edit

Italian. Rfv-sense: large face. Tagged by @Catonif but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

smanaccione edit

Italian. Rfv-sense: fusspot. Tagged by @Catonif but not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

biere edit

Old French Etymology 1 "beer". Appears to have been tagged late 2022, but possibly never listed here (?). Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

First attestation dates to 1429 per the TLFi and FEW, squarely in the Middle French period and hence a borrowing from Middle Dutch. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

șarmută edit

Romanian Synotia (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does seem to be a word (perhaps, as a Google search reveals, specific to the country of Moldova), but it is not at all attested in any durably archived material, and very sparsely attested even in user-generated sources. I’ve checked inflected forms as well. --Biolongvistul (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

(I) edit

Latin. This is apparently a way of writing (one thousand), but I'm pretty sure it should be ⅭⅠↃ. Putting brackets around the letter I might be visually similar, but smells like BS. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

egemonia edit

Ligurian. Tagged by an IP editor, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

rinascimento edit

Ligurian. User:Nacho2048 created the definition with an rfv template already included. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

tumata edit

Ligurian. Tagged years ago. Said to be a misspelling of tomata. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of misspellings, is it not supposed to be tomâta, with the phonemic long vowel? Nicodene (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

epilepsie edit

Old French. Tagged by User:Hazarasp, not listed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

ràdica edit

Sicilian. Rfv-sense of three senses defined as "root" meaning base of hair, privileged user on UNIX, and top level folder. Tagged by User:Catonif. All are plausible semantic loans from English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was introduced by a complete copy-pase of the English entry (diff). Catonif (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

dola edit

Portuguese. Added by @Trooper57. I can't attest this. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled upon some videos about Azorean Portuguese. I should've put it on the references. [32] Trooper57 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

isteropingografia edit

Italian. Created by SB; he meant isterosalpingografia. However, there are a couple of web hits, so I'm not speedying. This, that and the other (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2023 edit

lix edit

Latin alternative form of lixa (lye; water). Marked as "dubious" Leasnam (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

lixa edit

Latin. Rfv-sense: "lye". See above. Leasnam (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see a lot of information about derivatives (e.g. lixīvium, et. al.), but not for the root. Whence cometh this word ? Leasnam (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Commentary from W. M. Lindsay's Notes on Fetus and Nonius (page 10). Nicodene (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

prando edit

Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.

Italian. Only found in personal and place names. (The current definition claims "especially", implying the word would be attestable outside of those, which would make this an RFV problem, but that's contradicted by the onomatology label, so I'm bringing this to RFD.) Very unlikely to have ever been an Italian word in any case, as all the names it is in are Germanic coinages. Catonif (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose deletion: it is a rare poetic word; see here, where it is listed in a vocabulary of poetic words.--37.163.130.70 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, moved to RFV (sorry for the confusion. If it isn't clear, see the beginning of the page for explainations of how this works). The example you provide is curious: the glosses (prando together with polve, ritorte, etc.) are clearly about the sonnet in the preceding page (it's not a vocabulary), though in the sonnet, alongside polve and ritorte we find brando, which is widely attested also elsewhere. Looking at the gloss closely, I suspect that P is actually a B that lost its lower belly either in the printing or in the scanning phase, or alternatively a straight-up misprint. Note that even if we were to consider it a voluntary P, it would still not be enough to keep the entry per our criteria of inclusion. Catonif (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

decemmillia edit

Latin. Does not appear to be spelled as one word in reality. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

one word e.g. in [33], [34] (according to google printed in the 15th century).

aldaba edit

Spanish. Rfv-sense: in the plural "breasts". Is this legit? I can't find any references that don't look like machine translated calques of the English "knockers" JeffDoozan (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2023 edit

comparatio edit

Latin. Rfv-sense:

  • construction
  • constituent
  • combination, conjunction

Not in any of the references I looked at. It's possible they are meant as synonyms for the other senses provided (e.g. construction = arrangement of things = relation), but I wanted a second look before I removed them. This, that and the other (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not listed as senses in any post-classical dictionary I looked at either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

aqueste edit

Portuguese. Is the lemma registered in Portuguese or only occurs in Old Galician-Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

[35] [36] [37]
Do these contents help to attest it? SentientBall (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

cornutus edit

Latin. Rfv-sense: cuckolded. Removed out of process by @CleverBrownie. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 01:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It exists for New Latin: see this 17th-century (mock) treatise titled Discursus duo philologico-juridici, prior de cornutis, posterior de hermaphroditis [], i.e. discourses on cuckolds and hermaphrodites. Otherwise, not implausible, it's not listed specifically as a sense in any dictionary I can find but it is mentioned in various philological works. The association of horns with cuckoldry is apparently ancient. But the FEW has the sense first actually attested in late Middle French. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

August 2023 edit

postrimeiro edit

Portuguese or just Old-Galician Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

habundance edit

Middle French. Tagged in 2021 but seemingly never listed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added a citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

chèvre du Tibet edit

French: "# cashmere goat (Capra hircus angorensis or Capra hircus laniger)"

No citations present. The subspecies are not recognized by Mammal Species of the World, the Catalog of Life, WP, or Wikispecies. It is my understanding that the goats that are the source of cashmere are breeds that do not have well-defined links to subspecies. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The entry is confused, but that's no reason to post a confused rfv. This page is for verifying usage of a specific term, not goat taxonomy. Let me try to explain the main issues involved:
First of all, cashmere and angora are types of goat wool named after places in regions where they have historically been produced: cashmere from Kashmir and angora from Ankara. They are each produced by a specific breed of goat. French Wikipedia claims, based on this reference that the Angora breed was introduced to Turkey from Kashmir, and infers that the two breeds are basically the same animal, along with similar goats in places like Tibet. English Wikipedia, based on its own sources, says that the origin of the Angora breed is unknown and treats Angora goats and Cashmere goats as separate breeds, with the Tibetan goats included in the Cashmere goat article.
As for the taxonomic names: back before the taxonomic treatment of breeds and cultivars was somewhat standardized, it was common practice to assign them to taxonomic ranks like subspecies. I haven't done a very thorough search, but the taxonomic names in question do seem to have been in use (Whether the Angora-specific Capra hircus angorensis is used for Cashmere and Tibetan goats is another question entirely). IMO the entry would be better off without them, since they're obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading.
Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: there is at least one book that says "La chèvre Cachemire - égalment appelée Chèvre du Tibet", so for at least some people, they're synonyms. The sticky part is determining whether "chèvre du Tibet" is a term for cashmere goats in general, or merely for the goats found in Tibet, which are inferred to be the cashmere goat breed. In other words, would someone use the term "chèvre du Tibet" for a goat in Kashmir or China? To use an analogy, even though people in Brussels and in Paris both speak the same language, would anyone say that Parisians speak Belgian French? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I did not want to take it on myself to delete the taxonomy and leave the rest, as my skepticism may prove unwarranted. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

edēs as fifth declension noun edit

Latin. I'm sure that this word can be inflected as a third declension noun, as a spelling variant of aedēs; the inflection as a fifth-declension noun is more surprising, and I'm wondering what it is supported by. So far, I've found one non-spurious hit of edebus ("12 Thomas Cutt ex edebus Bright"), but it is in a document that also uses the spelling "edibus" ("Julie 18 Margret Spuria ex Edibus Prinne"), and so I'm not sure if "edebus" is either a spelling error or a case of variable spelling of an unstressed vowel. ("The Register Booke of the Parrishe Churche of St Christophers nere the Stockes in London") It would be helpful to have attestations of less ambiguous fifth-declension forms like genitive singular edei or genitive plural ederum.--Urszag (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. There are currently 192 entries in this category, most of which are not listed here. The tagging was largely done by Sarilho1. I am making this listing so that Portuguese editors can look through and either cite or speedy delete any obvious entries. This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this. However, most of the entries are names and surnames. I opened that discussion above some time ago. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Most of the tagged terms seem to be names and surnames that are either pretty common or very common in Brazil. Finding citations for a hundred terms is gonna be quite the tiresome ordeal. MedK1 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

September 2023 edit

after-dinner edit

French. PUC17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to exist: "Ce cocktail bière brune, liqueur de café, sucre et demi-expresso est un "after dinner"" [38]; "Que ce soit pour un apéritif en tout début de soirée ou un after dinner, le Bar du TIGRR est un des endroits incontournables du centre du village" [39]. Don't know whether it meets CFI. Equinox 11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

lapis philosophi edit

Latin. Given as an alternative form of lapis philosophorum (philosopher's stone). It's mentioned in a few non-Latin sources, but might just be incorrectly calqued from "philosopher's stone" since everything I can find in actual Latin texts is a scan error for lapis philosophicus. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Changed word order occurs in: J.K. Rowling, Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis. --07:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Saa edit

Old Galician-Portuguese. The entry was just a copy from the Portuguese one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

vandalismus edit

Latin, "vandalism". Not in the NLW, didn't find anything on Google Books. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

finco edit

Portuguese. Never heard this adjective in Portugal. Portuguese dictionaries don't register it either, so if it is indeed a Portuguese expression, it is at most colloquial. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

chuva de molha-tolos edit

Portuguese. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "misspelling of chuva molha-tolos". Ultimateria (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a 'misspelling'. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

cchjù edit

Sicilian. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "This entry is mispelled. The semiconsonant j- is widely accepted as a simple i- when derived from Latin nexus pl- and fl-". That may be the case but there is an entry at scn.wikt with several other spelling variants. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

pensamento desejoso edit

Portuguese. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

florecita azul claro edit

Spanish. In Google Books only mentioned (twice) as the name of a Crayola crayon color. I'm not sure we include those. The plural in the headword looks like nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

October 2023 edit

décousabilité edit

French. Can't find any uses. Weylaway (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

laçabilité edit

French. Can't find any uses. Weylaway (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

extranjero edit

Spanish, "foreign countries; abroad". This might be an error for el extranjero, as defined by RAE.es and the Spanish Wiktionary entry. It seems roughly parallel with how in English we say "I moved to the country" to mean "countryside" and the article cannot be omitted. Perhaps since this is such an unusual construction in both English and Spanish, some people are getting confused. Thanks, Soap 02:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If deleted, a placeholder definition should be added to redirect to el extranjero, as most people won't think to search with the article. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but my two cents are: it's simpler and it makes more sense to keep it in one entry. It's the same word; it just means something a bit different when you add the article el. The Gran Diccionario Oxford Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español includes the sense of "abroad" in its entry for extranjero. Not to mention the RAE entry doesn't bother creating a whole new page for el extranjero; they just make sure to distinguish the noun sense from the adjective senses.
Ascadian Idler (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

riabilité edit

French. Weylaway (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

vada and vada cheneral edit

Aragonese. Aragonario gives vaca as a translation of Spanish huelga, DOA gives vaca and vaga. Santi2222 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

tiretaine edit

French. Rfv-sense: "tartan". Weylaway (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

hawaïanité edit

French. I can find one use on Google Books. Weylaway (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

namoral edit

Portuguese. "Namoral" absolutely passes RFV; it's got thousands of hits on Google and even definitions in Dicionário Informal. I see it pretty often too. It's understandable that @Sarilho1 hasn't encountered it before, though: it's slang from Brazil and most likely not really used in Portugal. MedK1 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then you can add quotations that attest it and close the discussion, no? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure can. What counts as an okay quotation source? Surely you don't expect to find nonstandard spellings of slang in books, right? MedK1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
WT:CFI - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Lol if that's enough for you, then it falls under "clearly in widespread use". MedK1 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If it were clear, this entry wouldn't have been tagged for verification. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's a nonsensical statement. You putting an RFV tag on an entry doesn't make any difference to how widespread the term is. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

mecher edit

Portuguese. This does meet the criteria. It is exceedingly common and there are loads of pages, videos and Google hits regarding it. MedK1 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nathan edit

Portuguese. A quick Google search shows you many Brazilians with this name (among others that got RFV'd). One of my IRL friends has this name, spelt this exact same way. Seriously, what is up with all the random RFVs for anything Brazilian? MedK1 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The requests for verification are for Portuguese words, not "Brazilian". - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
??? @Sarilho. Are you unaware Brazil speaks Portuguese? We don't have any name laws over here. The RFVs, per definition, are on a per-language basis. It doesn't matter that they're not a thing in Portugal, they exist in Brazil and any three-second Google search would tell you as much. Just mark the term as (Brazil), duh! That's what you do with every other Brazilian term. 189.90.66.85 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
As you perhaps might be unaware, in Wiktionary there is only a Portuguese language, not a Brazilian one, except for etymological purposes, so all the rfvs I mark are Portuguese rfvs, not Brazilian rfvs. If I find that a Portuguese word needs verification, then I mark it with a rfv. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sarilho1: You two are just talking past each other. I hope you're at least making a rudimentary check for Brazilian usage before posting rfvs, because we're all volunteers here and it's not a good idea to waste people's time verifying common words. I suppose it might be annoying that people don't think of Portugal as much in relation to Portuguese as they think of England in relation to English or France in relation to French, but that's not something Wiktionary can do anything about. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
What wastes people's times is to 1. mass create unadapted names and surnames with no care for verification of usage, 2. mass create misspellings and eye pronunciations without proper attestation. The first, mass created by an IP some time ago, includes names and surnames from languages such as Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian, French, German, Polish, or Japanese, needs to be thoroughly verified (and everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion above on the topic or engage in that cleaning). The second, given their clear colloquiality or specialism (in case of eye dialects), clearly requires careful attestation. I've attested several misspellings, such as pristino, metereológico or Azerbeijão to justify their inclusion, I don't see why the same work shouldn't be expected for other misspellings such as namoral or mecher. I stress that we are not talking about common nor standard words here (I haven't mark for verification the various Old Tupi derived terms that have been created and can be easily verified as standardized terms, for instance) so your collective attempt to claim that I'm engaging in a crusade against the so-called Brazilian is completely senseless and unfounded. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
PS: Just to illustrate the dire need of properly attesting misspellings is the current attempt to label seteto as a misspelling from Portugal, completely ignoring the fact that the entry was created by a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. Instead of mindlessly including misspellings and label them as from Portugal or from Brazil when they seem strange, maybe we should request that the WT:CFI are applied first, as the word might actually not even exist in any variant. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Of COURSE the entries are unadapted! Like I said, there are no laws stating names in Brazil need to obey standard Portuguese orthography rules. Barely any names in English get attested either. You see names like Bradleigh go by unquestioned precisely because English doesn't have that rule; you can find English speakers with that name if you google it!
You're being intentionally disingenuous and obtuse here. It's exactly as User:Chuck Entz said: you're making people (me in these cases) go around verifying extremely common words for no reason. You're also the only one making the moronic implication that "Brazilian" might be a separate language from Portuguese: in my original RFV, I was explicitly talking about "Brazilian" as a region; a Brazilian form rather than an European or African one. "As you perhaps might be unaware" my foot!
You should be utilizing common sense and looking up the terms you're unfamiliar with before going around marking everything with RFV just because Portugal hasn't had any major influx of Japanese immigrants or anything in the past century. You should quit wasting other people's time by making them look for random people with normal names such as Furuhashi. Mark stuff for RFV only if you can't find any results for it or less than three as CFI asks. You literally RFV'd an ex-president's surname. An ex-president for crying out loud! And not a minor one, either — it's the one that got coup d'état'd by the military in 1964.
I didn't add "seteto" you know. I made sure to only add the ones that I come across online daily, ones that Google provides hundreds (sometimes thousands) of hits for precisely because they're common.
As a human being, I'm not infallible either. One mistake with septeto doesn't make your bullshit any more justifiable. Quit the dishonesty already. If you have the time to mark hundreds of random words as RFV willy-nilly, you have the time to find proper citations for a couple of them — not that they really need many anyway. John as a proper name only has one quotation. MedK1 (talk)
The discussion of the surnames is above, not here. You opened this section exclusively for the entry Nathan which is still unverified. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Way to go dismissing everything I said when you brought up those other words too, right above my response. MedK1 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
We are not on Reddit for me to feel the need to address your off-topic remarks and petty insults. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good thing there are no off-topic remarks nor petty insults here and just expressions of my disapproval for your actions amidst perfectly on-topic thoughts regarding all the random RFV markings. It's not off-topic to provide examples of what I'm talking about, but it is pretty derailing and unconstructive to point out that my paragraphs are a few lines too far down the page and say nothing else. It's not hard to engage with what is, in fact, on topic. Your distaste for my wording doesn't change the words' relevancy. MedK1 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You call it 'unverified', but wedged in the paragraphs you neglect to read is the mention of someone (among truly many, many others -- it wasn't even hard to only take soccer players for the sake of the examples here) with the name. I linked that same guy again. Maybe that'll be enough to sate your thirst for common name citations? Maybe we should RFV Henrique next, maybe it doesn't pass CFI even though there are thousands of people with the name. MedK1 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you are ensure, about the validity of Henrique, then open a discussion, rather than uselessly raise that possibility. Someone more knowledge than you will try to verify it and, with that, keep the quality expected of Wiktionary, rather than lowering it to include every and any unverified mass-copied garbage (like trying to justify a word as Portuguese by given the example that is used by people born in the Netherlands with no connection to Portuguese-speaking countries whatsoever). - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Ensure". Nice. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sarilho1 Your conduct is unacceptable: you are abrasive and rude, and you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting everyone who disagrees with you. If you continue to do so, I will block you for a week. Theknightwho (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that the first person to throw around vulgarities such as "bullshit" here and attacking the other person was MedK1, so I'm not sure calling Sarilho out for his rudeness is entirely fair... PUC21:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

seteto edit

Portuguese. Supposed misspelling of septeto. Some users attempted to mark it as European Portuguese misspelling, however the creator of the entry is a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Some users". No comment. I see plenty of hits for "seteto" online, among them something written by a Portuguese teacher. I see it in aulete too. This actually makes me think that not only is it attested enough for CFI, but it's also not a misspelling at all. MedK1 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, some users. You and some IP, which makes it some, not one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is "septeto" always or usually pronounced with [pt], or can it also be pronounced with just [t]? From what I could see, the 1990 spelling reform alleges that the correctness of "pt" vs "t" in spelling depends on whether the word has [pt] "nas pronúncias cultas da língua", so it doesn't seem possible that "seteto" could be a simple misspelling (unless by just omitting a letter): seems more like an alternative form representing an alternative pronunciation, and whether that pronunciation is stigmatized or unremarkable should be marked in the entry.--Urszag (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I meant that "seteto" couldn't be a 'misspelling of septeto' in Brazil because upon saying "septeto" out loud, the tendency would be to say it as "sepiteto"; the P wouldn't be omitted. The only way you'd get "seteto" is if it actually were an alternative form of the word... which does seem to be the case since I could find it in texts by Portuguese teachers and dictionaries alike. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Galician peido = "drunk" edit

@MedK1 This appears to mean "fart" but I can't verify the meanings "drunk" or "drunkenness" added by User:Vivaelcelta. Benwing2 (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I tried to attest it earlier today, couldn't find anything. I asked some Galician friends on Discord, and they said that using "fart" to mean drunk/high is only a thing in Spanish, not Galician (see pedo)
Looking for it one more time, I was able to find this, but it's a translation from Spanish to Galician and could very easily not be a 'correct' one. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

daí edit

Portuguese. This is about the 3rd sense. Are we positive this isn't just the 2nd sense but with the word moved to the end of the sentence (perfectly normal in Portuguese)? I'm saying the example sentence for sense #3 means "We could dine together tomorrow then." I added some synonyms to the second sense, and both of them could apply to the 3rd one too. "Podíamos jantar juntos amanhã então" is definitely something I can see myself saying. Is this really something only used only in Southern Brazil? Granted, that's where I'm from, but it sure doesn't feel like a regionalism and I don't think I've ever raised any eyebrows using it in São Paulo or when talking to people from the Northeast. MedK1 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Come to think of it, perhaps I used the wrong template. I'm not questioning whether it's used like that (because it is and I do), but rather if it warrants being listed as a separate sense (I don't think so). MedK1 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

la gracia de su merced edit

Spanish. New Mexican dialect of Spanish, actually. Perhaps that means it is not a well-documented language and only requires 1 citation, but I doubt it... P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Mexican Spanish is indeed poorly attested, as well as endangered, and Rubén Cobos’ “A Dictionary of New Mexico & Southern Colorado Spanish” (which I sourced), is the only major attempt that has been made at documenting it. Gluepix (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin protologisms? edit

--13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

contradestitutionismus edit

RFV-failed. Tagging for deletion.--Urszag (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instagramma edit

kemalismus edit

Prosopobiblium edit