Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

This page is for entries in any language other than English and Chinese/Japanese/Korean. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English. For CJK-language entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged RFVs

July 2017Edit

The Slavic Latin contributions of

All of the contributions of this anon seem pretty shady to me, or at least under wrong title. @Metaknowledge, could you take a gander? —JohnC5

Also everything under Special:Contributions/ —JohnC5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Affected Latin entries:
Additionally all these entries might miss a label like {{lb|la|Medieval Latin}}, {{lb|la|New Latin}} or {{lb|la|Medieval Latin|New Latin}}.
As headers and inflection do not fit:
  • The names ending in -o could be nominatives or be inflected forms, e.g. Budimero as nominative or as dative/ablative of Budimerus (gen. Budimeri) or maybe of Budimer (gen. Budimeri).
  • Names ending with mer or mir could have any of the following declensions: a) indeclinable, b) 3rd declension wih gen in -is, c) 2nd declension with gen. in -i and maybe with dropping of e in mer or i in mir similar to e.g. Maeander, gen. Maeandri.
As for vowel length as inflection templates add macra on the ending:
dunno. Maybe after comparing Slave names lengths can be assumed. But before comparison is done, it could be better to give everything without macra.
As for specific names:
  • Muntimerus (Muncimirus) does exist. Muncimir could barely exist (there appears to be a document from 892 (DCCCXCII) containing this name, and two other usages which might relate to that document). Muntimer might be wrong (correct inflection table, but entry and head missing -us). Muntimirus, Muncimerus could exist too, but that's another thing.
    By the way: Muntimerus was created by who added a few more Slave names in -us.
  • Budimerus does exist. Created entry Budimero probably just is the dative/ablative of it. Budimer in the inflection section might be wrong.
  • Terpimerus could barely exist (the gen. Terpimeri can be found). Tripimirus might be inexistent.
- 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5, Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [1] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

December 2017Edit



Russian given names. Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominated by User:Recruos. Шахла́ (Šaxlá) spelling is citeable. It's just a transliteration of a name. I suggested the nominator to withdraw RFV. Ша́хля (Šáxlja) is a variant, harder to cite and, IMHO, the stress is wrong but with foreign names, the stress is not well-established. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atitarev Will you provide citations for the <a> variant, so I can close this?__Gamren (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gamren: Cited the a-variant in Atitarev's stead. Thadh (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

February 2018Edit


@Carl Francis marked this for speedy deletion, claiming that it is not actually Tagalog and not the correct spelling. I see use of this as a Filipino surname, and I'm not sure why @TagaSanPedroAko would be wrong about their native language, so I've brought it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


a It's Lumocso, not Lomocso and it's Cebuano. b The guy is just making stuff up as he goes along (see: Licuanan). c The guy is practically claiming every Filipino surname as Tagalog just because it's in forebears.io (see: Alterado, Magdayao and Bayot). He even made up an etymology for Alterado, claiming it's Spanish when his main reference, forebears.io, doesn't even have stats on Alterado in Spain.

@Carl Francis I have been out of WT for weeks, since I left for Canada, but I am pulled in to this thread by the arguments you point. So, let me answer your arguments you are pointing on this issue, since you pinged me in while I am away from WT:
  1. There is really a surname Lomocso (as I see it on one name I found in the news) , and Lumocso would be the main form, not the only correct form. Just mark Lomocso as an alternative form, and nothing else, so we do not inflame this argument.
  2. What do you mean of me creating out stuff? Yes, Licuanan also occur on the Tagalog regions because of migration, and that is not a reason to make it up as it is Tagalog. It is of Chinese origin, not Cebuano, and I have the sources to find their etymology. Don't push the argument they are Cebuano because it is common on its speakers. It is just associated with it, but not always, because there would be many families with that surname outside the Cebuano/Visayan regions, and not all of them would have their ancestors traced back to those.
  3. Claiming every surnames to be Tagalog is because they can be encountered in the Tagalog regions, particularly Metro Manila, and not just for because they are found in the Forebears surname database. I used Forebears for the stats for the surname as an approach I started after I found many Filipino surnames being listed in English already, through admin TheDaveRoss, who added many surnames in English based on 2010 US Census stats for a million surnames collected in the US. But, I now reduced my activity in adding surnames, and concentrated on the Tagalog vocabulary. And you are even claiming several Cebuano surnames of Spanish-language origin taken from the 1849 Catálog alfabético de apellidos to be native Cebuano. Alterado would have derived from Spanish (from a word that is not typically taken as a surname, but become so under the 1849 colonial edict on surnames for Filipinos), but not from Spain. You are free to remove the Tagalog entry of it, until I can prove it also exists in Tagalog. Please drop the argument that I mark every Filipino surname as Tagalog, as I changed my approach there: add only a Tagalog entry of a surname from any Philippine language if I can only prove it has also existed in the Tagalog regions, through migration of people who carried them. "Bayot" and "Magdayao" are, yes, Cebuano in origin, but that is not a reason to have it also in Tagalog.
I know you are a prolific contributor on Cebuano vocabulary, but let this thread be solved properly, without having to give further arguments that may worsen this..-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit


Only 64 hits on Google, I never heard this word before. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Morgengave, who made the entry. I can find some use on one Belgian blog, but otherwise only scannos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
While not common, there seems to be a slowly increasing use of the word:
  • (1998, NRC Handelsblad): Nu vier regels uit de Ballade van de dames uit vroeger tijd met de bekende slotregel, die trouwens bij Chaucer al te lezen viel over de sneeuwen van gisterjaar. [2]
  • (2015, Nieuwpoort Nieuws): Foto’s Van gisterjaar: Marktstraat in Nieuwpoort en het trieste waargebeurde verhaal van Peter ‘ Petje de Kortn’ Provoost. [3]
  • (2018, Autofans press release): Aan de éne kant heb je het Opel van gisterjaar met GM-invloeden, aan de andere kant het Opel van morgen onder Franse PSA-vleugels. [4] Morgengave (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Morgengave Are Nieuwpoort Nieuws and Autofans durable sources? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Morgengave Reping. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't think so. They don't seem to exist in printed form. Morgengave (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time to close. I think the citations above are nonce words. The first is a calque of “the snows of yesteryear”, the second intentionally pseudo-archaic, and the third I'm not sure, but it's online only. I found not a single mention in https://gtb.ivdnt.org/search/?owner=wnt, for the entire history of Dutch.

ᡩᠣᡵᡤᡳ ᠪᠠᡳᡨᠠ ᠪᡝ ᡠᡥᡝᡵᡳ ᡴᠠᡩᠠᠯᠠᡵᠠ ᠶᠠᠮᡠᠨEdit

I'm wondering about this word's existence. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See w:Imperial Household Department. Also 內務府. Google depends on OCS for Manchu script, so you'll probably have to search using the transliteration. You could probably find it in Paul Georg von Mollendorf's "Essay on Manchu Literature" in Journal of China Branch of R. A. S., Shanghai, vol. xxiv (1890), p. 1-45. —Stephen (Talk) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit


Attempted removal of {{hot word}} without any citations, let alone spanning a year. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This word was seen in the category Hot words older than a year, so I removed that template from the word's page, as it was written on the Category's page that this category should be empty.
    • Also, this word came into common usage when Indian PM announced demonetization of 500 & 1000 rupee currency notes, on 8th Nov 2016. So, yes, it has been over a year.
    • Nonetheless, the word was always in existence, as earlier too demonetization had taken place in 1970s.
    • Entire news is filled with this word. You just have to Google नोटबंदी, and you'll thousands and thousands of news articles on this word, both in domestic and international media. Most recent example I can quote now is this BBC Hindi report here dated 30th August 2018.
    • Also on there is Hindi Wikipedia [page] on that incident, in which this word comes frequently. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by JainismWikipedian (talkcontribs) at 00:46, 1 September 2018.
  •   RFV-Passed 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not yet attested as there still aren't 3 durably archived quotes. Thus it would be RfV failed by now. --Myrelia (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I took the above explanation by User:JainismWikipedian to demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that “the term is in clearly widespread use” (see top of page). In the time that no one objected it could have passed thirty times, but alright, @SodhakSH, AryamanA, would one of you like to resolve this? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
There's not that many people who know Hindi here. Also, perhaps we should just remove "clearly widespread use", since most of us have avoided using it; the argument is it's an excuse to remove red (sense, color of blood and strawberries*) from RFV without bother. I'd think demonetization would need quotes if brought to RFV, and the Hindi version is no different.
* It amuses me that I used the exact same two references for the color red that the entry uses without looking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The procedure should probably be reviewed if it results in an endless page of unresolvable rfvs. For the time being I'm in favour of using the wriggle room in the rules to treat Hindi entries with more leniency than English entries if it means we can keep what is probably a perfectly fine entry, at least according to the native speaker above.
* You're right that is amusing. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2018Edit


This "combining form" is only found in one word (xochihcualli), and it's not clear that it should be divided into xochih-cualli rather than xoch-ihcualli. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The mentioned entry at xochihcualli gives cualli as "something good" and offers tlacualli as a comparison. However, the latter entry's etymology, itself a bit of a mess, derives cualli as cua (to eat) + -lli (presumably a nominalizing suffix, though we have no entry for this). Meanwhile, the etym at derived term xochihcualcuahuitl (edible fruit tree) glosses xochihcualli as "edible fruit"", apparently corroborating the "eat" sense underlying cualli.
I know very little about Nahuatl, but simply applying logic to what we have with these entries suggests that what we have is a dog's breakfast in need of cleanup. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018Edit


(Indonesian term) - The Indonesian Wikipedia link doesn't use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Some web pages in Malay using the term in their titles: [5], [6], [7]. I don’t know if these pages are specifically in Indonesian Malay.  --Lambiam 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those first two links are written in Indonesian. The first link use Indonesian cyber guidance. The second link is a online mass media in Cirebon, Indonesia. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This article using the term is from CNN Indonesia. And this FAQ in Indonesian also mentions mecin / micin as alternative names for MSG.  --Lambiam 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those links are written in Indonesian. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Attested in Indonesian books: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Attested in Indonesian websites: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. ―Rex AurōrumDisputātiō 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Rex Aurorum, could you add the cites onto the page so that this can be closed? — surjection??⟩ 11:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

jouer avec ses armesEdit

Not an idiom in French, as far as I know, so I'd like some proof that it's lexicalised. Uses like this are few and far between, and nothing else than literary fancies, imo. Per utramque cavernam 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I see enough Google book hits plus many more Google news hits to sustain the idea that this is idiomatic. It would appear that the verb is extracted from an idiomatic phrase or saying chacun joue avec ses armes.  --Lambiam 08:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's clearly lexicalized. Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of Google Books hits (for inflected forms), but many are more literal, and do not have the claimed meaning. It would be helpful if someone who speaks French could identify and add some of the idiomatic citations Lambiam says exist. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

April 2019Edit


This "root" has no e in it, which makes it suspicious. IEW is 60 years old and thus not adequate as a source, and the Wiktionary page name doesn't match the form given in IEW anyway. —Rua (mew) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, this should just be deleted. --{{victar|talk}} 13:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victar I added De Vaan as a more trustworthy source, but it's still somewhat dubious that there are no full grades anywhere. —Rua (mew) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Rua: I deleted the PII forms because those were all impossible. Now we're just left with the Latin and a couple dubious extra-Latin forms. --{{victar|talk}} 14:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua, Victar: I don't know about this particular root, but *bʰuh₂- is one root that doesn't seem to have had a full grade, so it wouldn't be without precedent. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Like I said, I'm more concerned with the lack of indubious cognates outside of Latin, which is grounds enough for deletion. --{{victar|talk}} 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
What are the IE cognates of Skt. √śad ("fall, fall out, fall off; collapse; decay, wither, perish")? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: Hölderlin2019 raises a good point. It's clear that Proto-Iranian *kat- can't be connected and should be deleted, but why is Sanskrit शशद (śaśada) = Latin cecidī impossible? It could even be evidence for a full grade *ḱh₂ed- (since zero grade *ḱh₂d- would have given לid- rather than śad-). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Well for one, ×शशद (לaśada) does not exist -- it's actually शशाद (śaśāda), and that word reflects PIE *ḱe-ḱód-e, which itself points to a *ḱed- root. Secondly, I've only seen that word in the context of listing cognates for the Latin -- it's not in any of my Sanskrit dictionaries -- so it's very poorly attested which makes me question its meaning entirely and think that it's just a bunch of semantic massaging by Latinists. Not all Indo-European words need cognates, nor are all words actually from PIE. --{{victar|talk}} 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It's listed in both Whitney and MW? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant to write, "is it", and no, in Sanskrit the word शशाद (śaśāda) actually means "eating rabbits", as seen in Monier-Williams. --{{victar|talk}} 15:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant that it's listed in both Whitney and MW. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, accidental question mark than. That's the danger of using older sources; often inflection tables are assumed and not based on actual sources. The only form that is found in Sanskrit, and again, very poorly attested, is (only found once in AV) शत्स्यति (śatsyati) and everything else is fabricated. So again, ×शशद (לaśada) did not exist. --{{victar|talk}} 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It was a quizzical question mark. I don't know why you think the inflections are fabricated (by whom? Whitney/MW? the Indian grammarians?); both Whitney and MW assert that this particular one is attested in the Brahmanas. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Inflection tables are made up all the time. We do so even on en.Wikt. Modern sources ({{R:ine:LIV}}) cite the word as शशाद (śaśāda) and not ×शशद (לaśada) as seen in MW. Also, MW mistakenly associates this word with the unrelated शीयते (śīyate, to fall down), which is from *ḱey-. --{{victar|talk}} 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: But शशाद (śaśāda) does exist? If so, it can come from *ḱe-ḱod-e as you say, but surely it can also come from *ḱe-ḱh₂od-e, from a root *ḱh₂ed-, of which both the zero grade and the full grade could give Latin cadō. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Is *ḰHeT- even a valid root in PIE? In PII, you might also expect the laygyeal to have some sort of aspirating power. --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: We have entries for *kh₂em-, *kh₂eyd-, and *sh₂ey-, so the root shape seems to be rare but not impossible. As for aspiration, you'd expect it after a stop, but probably not after ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I was asking *ḰHeT- (=*KʲHeT-), not *KHeT-. I don't think it is. Aspiration would have been pre-PII. --{{victar|talk}} 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: In both cases I suspect there aren't enough examples to allow us to generalize. CHEC is a rather rare root shape to begin with, so the apparent lack of ḰHeC- could be coincidental. And even if *-ḱH- became *-śʰ- in PII, are there enough examples of PII *-śʰ- to be sure that it didn't simply become ś in Sanskrit? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: I found an example with *sḱeh₂i- ~ *(s)ḱh₂ey- ~ *(s)ḱeyh₂- (cut open, sting) which allegedly yielded σχάω (skháō) and ἔσχασα (éskhasa). Theoretically, I would think PIE *ḱe-ḱh₂ód-e would have yielded > śeśʰh₂óde > PII *ćaćʰHáda (=/tśatśʰHáda/) > PIA *śaśʰHáda > शहद (śaháda). Problem is, we lack clear examples of *ḱh₂. --{{victar|talk}} 20:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
My point exactly. We know that *źʰ became h in Sanskrit, but that doesn't mean *śʰ did. It may have become simply ś. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: This discussion is surreal. Whitney does not "make up" inflection tables; Whitney does not deal in inflection tables, except in his introductory grammars. What he does do is catalogue attested Vedic + Skt. forms and assign them to roots. MW is not in error; he's simply following the synchronic analysis of the ancient grammarians, whose fiat assignment in this particular case Whitney explicitly discusses. The reduplicated perfect in question is multiply attested in the Brahmanas. I'm frankly astounded by how tenuous your grasp of how to understand the Sanskrit is, never mind the Sanskrit itself Hölderlin2019 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
But Whitney doesn't list *शशद (śaśada); he lists शशाद (śaśāda), whose existence Victar isn't denying. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 16:40, 24 June 2019.
For one, I've only been referring to MW, not Whitney. Secondly, I'm not infallible and if I misread some source, I'm happy for someone to point it out, but personally attacking me is unnecessary. And lastly, any author is also fallible, especially in older works when our understanding of PIE and Sanskrit was not as developed and defined as it is today. I'm not sure which part you are claiming MW isn't in error of, but Rix agrees that MW mistakenly lumped शीयते (śīyate, to fall down) into this root, which probably had bearing on the definition he gave for it and calls into question the semantic connection to the Latin. --{{victar|talk}} 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, {{R:ine:LIV}} reconstructs the root as *ḱad- (*ḱád-e-ti > cadō) and {{R:ine:LIPP}} as *ḱed- (*ḱd-é-ti > *ḱₔd-é-ti > cadō). --{{victar|talk}} 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That could work too for those of us who believe that PIE primary a was merely rare but not nonexistent. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: Yeah, I'm not a fan of PIE a entries either. I think, however, there is some argument to be made that it existed natively in onomatopoeic roots. My preference would be for *ḱed- though. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that this root existed, with descendants in three indo-european branches, the only question is its shape. I'm in favour of *ḱad-, because it's the simplest shape that explains all forms, with *ḱh₂ed- as alternative (problematic because of Greek). The existance of *a in PIE, though rare, is beyond doubt at this point.


Kroonen does not have this verb. It only has one descendant, which does not match the reconstructed form. The noun *buþlą/*bōþlą, which the verb supposedly derives from, is not found in Kroonen's dictionary either. All this together suggests that this is a rather ad-hoc reconstruction and not supported well enough to have an entry. —Rua (mew) 16:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't reconstructible to Proto-Germanic really, only to (Proto)-Old English. build specifically has to come from early Old English metathesis of earlier *buþlą to *bulþą, with characteristic voicing to *buld-a- after /l/, then *buldijan-. An extra-Germanic cognate is found in Ancient Greek φύτλον, so the word is old, albeit with semantic shift, "live/grow". Burgundaz (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Rua: Old Frisian belda exist and derives from PWG *bōþlijan.[1] --{{victar|talk}} 02:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but then there's still no common preform that both of them can descend from. —Rua (mew) 09:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Boutkan, Dirk; Siebinga, Sjoerd (2005), “belda”, in Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 1), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 36: “Denominative verb *bōdl-jan > *bēdl-(j)a(n) > bēlda with metathesis *dl > ld”

I don't think this can be reconstructed. English and Frisian etymology should point to *bōþla/*buþla instead, which should stay. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


Not found in Kroonen's dictionary either, and few of the attested descendants match the reconstruction. Old English preserves -þl-, as shown in the descendants of other Proto-Germanic terms with this cluster, which rules out bold and botl. Moreover, these descendants have a short o. Old Saxon shows Proto-Germanic d, rather than þ (compare *nēþlō, where þ is preserved). Middle Dutch merges þ and d, so there is no evidence there either way. Old Norse indeed has a regular change þl > l, as is visible from the descendants of the other pages. All in all, I don't think there's enough evidence to clearly reconstruct this. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Rua: I went and added source and cognates. Old Frisian also exhibits the same metathesis, so maybe just an Anglo-Frisian random variant. --{{victar|talk}} 04:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly sufficiently well sourced to stay. Additionally, the short vowel in Old English[1] can be a result of an ablauting paradigm *bʰeh₂u- > *bō- and *bʰh₂u- > *bu-. There are three similar ones: *fōr, *funaz (fire), *sōl, *sunaz (sun), and *krōhō, *krukkaz (jug).[2] For the metathesis: “Parallel examples are Old English seld = setl , northern seþel ‘seat, settle’, also nǽld = nǽdl , *nǽþl ‘needle’, áld = ádl , *áþl ‘disease’” (OED under “bold, n.”).


  1. ^ bottle, n.1.”, in OED Online  , Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, launched 2000.
  2. ^ Kroonen, Guus (2011) The Proto-Germanic n-stems: A study in diachronic morphophonology, Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, →ISBN, pages 319f.


Looks spurious, also as Maria Besse, Britter Wörterbuch. Moselfränkischer Dialekt am "Tor zum Hochwald" has "Fuppes m. .. dummes Zeug, Unsinn ..". Super Teddy 3 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of Welt (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree.  --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam, Super Teddy 3 I'd say this one is cited, but we may consider moving Die Welt into the etymology section. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a procedure for contesting a closed rfv, but simply reinstating the tag should not be it. See also Wiktionary:Tea room § Regional German Fuppes ("football"). For establishing in the etymology section that this is not simply dialect, this page from the Rhineland Mitmachwörterbuch can be a second reference. (The article is not dated, but this was "word of the month" in May and June 2018.)  --Lambiam 09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lambian: Please read the part about "Closing a request", especially this part: "“cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed": It wasn't cited for more than a week, and thus it wasn't closed correctly. Additionaly, one of the three cites wasn't even a usage but only a mentioning which isn't sufficient (WT:CFI#Attestation), so it wasn't even cited in the first place.
@Alexis: Additional mentionings can also be next to the usages. It doesn't count for attestation, but can give further information nontheless.
Now it's indeed more or less cited. It could be questioned if Tonight is really durably archived, but well. (en.wp, de.wp, tonight.de sound like it isn't.) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371C:3D52:F002:102E:8593:BFEA (talk) at 10:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

May 2019Edit


Spanish, eye dialect spelling of España. Ehpaña is much more citeable. Ultimateria (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: There's a lot of hits on Google Groups; are these just typos? Julia 08:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Julia: It can be hard to tell which ones are typos, but it looks like the majority to me. One is "epaña eh diferente" which uses another eye dialect spelling ("eh" for "es"). That and "pero que eto eh epaña" make only two that are definitively intentional. Ultimateria (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A query.
English spelling is extremely squishy. We've got oddball things like knight and night both pronounced like nite. Words like are could be realized as /aː/ or /ɑɹ/ or /aʊə/ etc. An argument could be made that English spelling is approaching logographic in its divergence from strict phonetics. Spelling night as nite is clearly just a visual divergence: both are pronounced the same.
However, various other languages are less loosey-goosey with their orthography. Words are pronounced as they're spelled. Thus, España and Epaña are not just visual differences -- the different spellings represent different phonetic realizations.
At what point does this spelling-difference phenomenon shift from "eye dialect" to just "dialect"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Once again, Wiktionarians are misusing the term eye dialect, which refers to a nonstandard spelling reflecting a standard pronunciation (e.g. English sez for says, whose standard pronunciation is /sɛz/). Unless /eˈpaɲa/ and /ehˈpaɲa/ are standard pronunciations in Spanish, these aren't eye dialect. They're nonstandard spellings, i.e. spellings reflecting nonstandard pronunciations. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Mahagaja (talkcontribs) at 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC).

Die GrünenEdit

The first sense. This doesn't count:

  • "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
  • "Grüne", "die Grünen" etc.
  • "Die Grünen" at the beginning of a sentence

For the second sense, one can find enough examples searching for "Partei Die Grünen". Daloda (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that your issue is that sense 1 is actually the sum of the definite article die and the plural form of the noun Grüne(r)? If so, I think you are right. But the sense ”(in plural, collectively) the German green party, 'Bündnis 90/Die Grünen'“, currently found at Grüner, may be more in place at Grünen. (Does it make sense that this noun has separate masculine and feminine entries? Can’t we combine them?)  --Lambiam 05:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No, my point is: Does "Die Grünen" meaning "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen" exists, is it attestable, are there pars-pro-toto uses? "Die Grünen" refering to an older party exists. And because of the capital D it's not just "die" + "Grüner".
(Grüner/Grüne and Grüne are different words with different gender and inflection.) Daloda (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This sense is extremely common: dwds Kernkorpus 2000-2010, though the article is usually not capitalized.

This is about Die Grünen (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and not die Grünen (the greens collectively, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), and there sill are zero quotes (in the entry or on the citation page). --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Similar as with the Hindi term above, except that this is one to which I can directly attest, this sense of ‘die Grünen’ is the usual sense and it is so common that “the term is in clearly widespread use”. I use it and hear it every time I talk about politics. The majority of the citations you can find through the link I gave use the sense “the political party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen”, not “the greens collectively”. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
At DWDS' corpus it's die Grünen and not Die Grünen (notice the capital D). --Myrelia (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not useful. I've already noted the lack of capitalization. The party stylize their name with a capital. German capitalization rules prevent the article from being capitalized when the term is w:used, although I don't think this rule is strictly followed. It works the same way for the West-German party ‘Die Grünen’ and for newspapers like ‘Die Zeit’ and ‘Der Standard’. Could you instead suggest a way forward? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Lack of capitalisation means it's die Grünen which is easy to attest and not questioned. Die Grünen for the West-German party can also be found (e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21]) and isn't questioned as well. This is only about Die Grünen in the pars-pro-toto sense "Bündnis 90/Die Grünen". Without three quotes with capital D and the pars-pro-toto sense, this would be: RFV failed. --Myrelia (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the pages in your links you'll see that every time ‘Die’ is capitalized it is either at the beginning of a sentence or part of a quotation or title (ie it's ‘mentioned’). In all other instances the article is written small, in accordance with German spelling conventions. There is no difference between how “Die Grünen” is used when describing the pre- or post-1990 parties. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Die Grünen is the proper name of the West-German party and is used that way. For the post-1990 party (from 1993), the proper name is Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and is used in a similar way:
  • [22]: "(Wahlprogramm Die Grünen 1980: [number])" & "(Wahlprogramm Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 1980: [number])".
  • [23]: "und 1980 in die Bundespartei Die Grünen aufgehen sollte."
  • [24]: "präsentieren die SPD und Die Grünen alternative Entwürfe", "Auch Die Grünen legen am 8.7.85 Änderungsanträge [..] vor."
  • [25]: "eine Analyse der Beziehungen der Partei Die Grünen sowohl zur Regierung als auch zur Opposition in der DDR."
  • [26]: "Die Entwicklung von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen von 2002 bis 2005"
  • [27]: "der baden-württembergische Landesverband von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen"
As for Die Grünen (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (from 1993)) quotes are still missing. As for Die Grünen (a West-German party) it could fail another RFV because it's rather mentioned than used, or because of WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY, or could be send to WT:RFDN, but that's not part of this RFV request. --Myrelia (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Only number 7 arguably constitutes use of "Die Grünen", because the author consistently spells it that way, but that's only twice in the whole book... This is clearly not enough to keep the 2nd sense. Could you instead make a constructive suggestion? Why not broaden the scope to make the entry better? Just deleting the sense is undesirable because a) it's in common use and b) it would be inconsistent. I see two options: either leave as is but add a note about capitalization or move the entire entry to "die Grünen". —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
a) die Grünen (the greens, the green party) does already exist (it's sum of parts of the definite article and a noun + inflection).
[It's similar to die Engländer (the English), die Dakota (the Dakota, the Dakota people), die Markomannen (the Marcomanni).]
b) Die Grünen (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (from 1993)) is unattested for years; the proper name is Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. As long as the the alleged pars-pro-toto sense is not attested, there's no reason to keep it, see WT:CFI.
c) Die Grünen (a West-German party) can be found. It could fail RFV because it's rather mentioned than used, or because of WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY (it's not really a company, but still some kind of organisation), or could be send to WT:RFDN, but that's not part of this RFV request.
d) Whether or not Bündnis 90/Die Grünen deserves an entry is similar to c) and out of scope of this RFV request too.
--Myrelia (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not productive. We need to find some common ground and agree on a solution. Can you get behind the following:
  • The term ‘die Grünen’ usually refers to ‘Bündnis 90/Die Grünen’. Historically it also refers to it predecessor named ‘Die Grünen’.
  • This information should be on wiktionary in some form or other.
I am willing to implement any solution that works with these two points. The exact scope of the rfv is of lesser importance to me than feeling that I'm improving wiktionary as a whole. If you disagree is it alright if I leave it to you to resolve this? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Compare a) above: die Grünen (the greens, the green party, that is Die Grünen or since 1993 Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) does already exist. --Myrelia (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Right now it doesn't mention the use of the article to get that meaning. If you add that then it's fine. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The article isn't needed, e.g. "CDU bei Kommunalwahlen vorn, Grüne weit abgeschlagen" (welt.de). But well, often it's present. --Myrelia (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Additions were made to Grüner and there now is also an example with Grüne (strong pl.) without article. So die Grünen is covered.
Die Grünen (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (from 1993)) on the other hand is unattested for over 2 years, which means: RFV failed. --Myrelia (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


Spanish, "to tame". Ultimateria (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's in this dictionary (not sure what "sl" means). DTLHS (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently it means "slang". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It was WF who made the page, which is a bad sign. That guy sucks. Anyway, it seems to mean, unsurprisingly, to school or educate. Rare as hell, though. --I learned some phrases (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019Edit


Swedish. Along with kd, seems to be uppercase. --I learned some phrases (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Used in various Brazilian funk song, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzavRj4pnK0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsl3uQdQw0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7urWiVOLcc

The sense in question is "(slang) to twerk", which currently has no cites. — surjection??⟩ 20:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

July 2019Edit


gen pl vicumEdit

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Does not appear to exist. This is a defective noun with only certain cases attested. As those attestations are very frequent, I would expect the missing forms to be truly missing, not simply unattested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: It seems they don't (so say the dictionaries, and a morphologically untagged corpus search for this form is made useless by the existence of vīcus) - so I've removed them from the table. The vocative doesn't make sense with that word at all (like a vocative of "some kind"). An issue that also came up with some other defective Latin nouns is how to list the lemma. I've replaced it with — because there's currently no way to indicate that the lemma is not Nominative - exacerbated by the fact that it's immediately followed by an auto-generated Genitive that can't be disabled. I suspect this is less than ideal; would it be possible to add the possibility of specifying the lemma's form and disabling the autogenerated Genitive? Brutal Russian (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Having the headword line of vicis#Latin be "—" seems very nonstandard; if vicis is attested then vicis should be the headword, with a note about what case form it is if it's not the usual (nominative) one, and if it's not attested (but some other forms, listed in the inflection table, are) then why is vicis the pagename / entry and not one of those other forms? (Is vicis the "reconstructed" but unattested nominative? Then I would say:) If we're confident enough (that vicis is what the lemma form would be) to put the entry at vicis, then the headword line should also say vicis, not "—", and the usage notes should explain which forms are attested. PS if the display of certain forms needs to be suppressed from the headword, fall back on {{head}} and manually spelling out categories like Category:Latin feminine nouns in the third declension. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I made the headword display the attested form and say which case it is; cf entries which are e.g. plural where the headword says it's plural-only rather than listing "--" as the singular and then giving "(plural: foo)". - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


Because of the missing dot it looks English and not Latin. --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Possibly should be mag̃ro, cp. [28], [29], [30]. BTW: Similary ptate (properly ptãte as in [31], [32]?), hmoi might be wrong... --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

As to the latter, I see ħmoi, ħmõi and hm̃oi, but also (because of limited typographical capabilities?) vanilla hmoi.  --Lambiam 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

not.-Tir., n.-Tir.Edit

"-" makes no sense (in Latin). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but the same can be said for a full stop to denote an abbreviation; yet, the latter is conventionally applied all over the place. Note that we also have n.-Tir. I believe the corresponding versions without hyphens (not. Tir., n. Tir.) are in use but unoccupied here, and so it appears safe to move them to that spelling.  --Lambiam 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
German and Latin not. Tir., Not. Tir., not. Tiron., Not. Tiron. (also with capital in Latin) can easily be found (Latin: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]).
[41], [42] have not. tiron..
I had no luck finding n./N. tiron./Tiron., n./N. tir./Tir. (in any combination regarding capitalisation) or any hyphenated form.
not. Tiron. had, for whatever reason, "|head=not.-Tīrōn." with hyphen. Based on that, I too would assume that "-" was incorrectly added (in a hypercorrectly Frenchy way?). --Brown*Toad (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess I was fooled by occurrences of n. Tir. as seen here, but examination reveals that the juxtaposition of n. and Tir. is incidental and that Tir. stands for Tirocinium.  --Lambiam 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


Latin albicillaEdit

@la, Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 I strongly suspect this is an erroneous adjective created by someone who didn't know Latin genders very well rather than a noun. In particular, it is used in Haliaeetus albicilla, which was originally named Falco albicilla. I suspect the person who chose the name Falco albicilla thought that falcō was feminine rather than masculine (an easy mistake to make), and accordingly used the feminine of albicillus (white-tailed). This error was then propagated when the genus was renamed. Benwing2 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed (Falco is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled about considering this Latin if it's only used in (one?) taxonomic name, but the evidence above suggests that the analysis of this as a noun whose second element is the noun cilla, rather than an adjective, is plausible. Anyone else want to weigh in? - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If it helps any, I suspect that Linnaeus capitalizes nouns in his taxonomic names, somewhat like modern German does. That would mean that Albicilla is confirmed as a noun rather than an adjective. As for whether this is Latin or Translingual: I've managed to track down some of the passages referenced by Linnaeus' inscrutable abbreviations, though perhaps not the same editions. These are works that predate the current binomial system, and they're mostly in Latin. These have albicilla as one of the names for the bird in question: Geſn.av.205 is Volume III of w:Conrad Gessner's Historia animalium, page 199 (in this edition, at least). Will. ornith. 31 is w:Francis Willughby's "Ornithologiae Libri Tres" page 31. Raj. av. 7 n. 5 is w:John Ray's "Synopsis methodica avium & piscium", page 7 no. 5. Although these are arguably mentions, note that two of them mention it in the accusative singular, in Latin running text. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, so, this appears to be attested, indeed as a Latin noun, and now the remaining question is: Chuck Entz, when you say certain works "have albicilla as one of the names for the bird in question", does that mean the definition (currently "white tail") needs to be changed, to e.g. "bird with a white tail" or some specific bird? - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
For Haliaeetus albicilla, it does look like it might the original Latin name for the species. All of the references I linked to above quote "Gaza" as their source, apparently Theodorus Gaza. It's the name used by Gaza to translate Ancient Greek πύγαργος (púgargos). I just found a reference used by the Wikipedia article on Haliaetus albicilla, [43]] that explains everything quite well: the use of cilla for tail seems to come from a medieval misinterpretation of the -cilla in Latin motacilla as the object of the mota- part of the word rather than a diminutive suffix. In other words, as a "move-tail" rather than a "little mover". Gaza then used this word in a reversed-order calque of Ancient Greek πύγαργος (púgargos) (which is from πυγή (pugḗ, rump) + ἀργός (argós, white)). Later, taxonomists seem to have reanalyzed it into a straightforward compound adjective meaning "white-tailed". here is a reference to "Hortulanum alibicillum", with "Hortulanus" on the same page, which looks like "Hortulanus albicillus" as the name of a specific bird used in the accusative. That name, however, seems to be an adjective modifying a masculine noun.
From the above, I would suggest that there are two senses: a name for Haliaeetus albicilla used by Gaza to translate Ancient Greek πύγαργος (púgargos) and an adjective meaning white-tailed or white-rumped (I'm not sure which) used in pre-Linnaean taxonomy. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  RFV-PassedCaoimhin ceallach (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You put this everywhere. Maybe review Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation and for extinct languages/spoken languages not represented on the internet Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Number_of_citations. This discussion is well sourced. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
For non-WT:WDLs a single mention can be sufficient. But the entry doesn't even have a single mention; there's nothing to support albicilla (white-tailed eagle) (inside the entry or on Citations:albicilla). At the very least, one of the above (possible) sources should be given in the entry. Compare the introduction of this page, where it is: "Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning". --Myrelia (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right, it says add quotations to the page, I've added them now. I originally intended to do that after seeing if someone objected on the substance. I presume btw that you don't, otherwise you would have said so.

  RFV-PassedCaoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


Latin manuculus: Attested or not?Edit

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Latin manuculus is marked as "Vulgar Latin", and many sources put a star by it indicating it's reconstructed. Can we attest it? Benwing2 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Often stars are put wrongly or after obsolete or uninformed sources. With references and several variants and even several derivatives mentioned by Wilhelm Heraeus Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen p. 45 bottom. I note and link here the earlier form maniculus in Apuleius book 9. The Thesaurus linguae latinae has manuculus too. Fay Freak (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There still are 0 quotes. --Myrelia (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, this should have a star, as it isn't directly attested, but emended from mamaculus in an ancient glossary and it can be inferred from manuciolus (small handfull). —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's not really attested and only a correction.
On the other hand, there are similar issues with:
1) manuscripts and editions – editions can contain corrections as well (compare e.g. Northus);
2) ancient inscriptions – often people have to guess about word divisions, spellings and meanings (see e.g. Bergakker inscription, Old Latin#Fragments and inscriptions).
So I guess all three is possible: Have mamaculus, manuculus or *manuculus - of course, with label, explanation and source (Heraeus mentioning a gloss). --Myrelia (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 This is defined as "Vulgar Latin form of auctorō". The comment says "attested by Brodsky in Spanish Vocabulary: An Etymological Approach" but I can't find any attestations in Google Books. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

[44]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [45], [46]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: So move to *auctoricō, because it's unattested, but a necessary preform of Spanish? Is that the gist of what you're saying? Or could it have been derived later within Spanish? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

Latin Aunes = AuniosEdit

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 Aunes is claimed to be the Medieval Latin equivalent of Aunios, found in Pliny. The listed declension makes no sense (genitive Auniī) and I can't find any attestations. I'm inclined to just delete it straight away as nonsense but would like to see if anyone can attest it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lambiam Benwing2 (talk) 05:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The heck, @Froaringus probably mistyped or something like that. First created as Aunis, then moved to Aunes, then the content to Aunios but not bringing it over to put a {{delete}} to Aunes. It’s a thing made up in his mind, sure. Fay Freak (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry with Aunis, it was a mistype and I later forgot about it. The correct form, present in local Medieval Latin charters (CODOLGA) is Aunes.--Froaringus (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  RFV-PassedCaoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Latin odeō, odīre; podeōEdit

@Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5 @Lambiam Claimed to be an alternative form of odiō; conjugated like . Is it real? Benwing2 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Also podeō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I don't remember seeing anything like that the last time I researched the various forms of the former verb, or ever. The closest thing to other one seems to be this medieval macaronic form (also see podibat in the end of the article). Brutal Russian (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian Thanks. I will delete odeō. As for podeō, this is supposed to be a variant of pudeō rather than possum. BTW when you say "medieval macaronic form" are you referring to spellings like "aucturetate" (like in the podibat article you cited) for "auctoritate"? What happens if someone wants to add a spelling like this to Wiktionary? My instinct is not to include them, otherwise the categories could be overwhelmed with such variant spellings. I asked the same question earlier with regards to escaiō, a macaronic spelling of excido. For that entry, someone actually created a full paradigm escaiō, escaīre with a Classical pronunciation, which seems very bogus. Benwing2 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Yeah, it is indeed a different verb. Aucturetate is an actual Late Latin/Medieval spelling, this type of vowel confusion is absolutely ubiquotous in Gallia after the 4th century (basically random chance error rate) as well as elsewhere a bit later. Podibat on the other hand is precisely the same macaronic type as odiātus and escaio, a Romance form minimally adapted to Latin morphology. I did see your question, and it's more or less the same one I had asked in the above-mentioned discussion - it seems like people generally feel the same way, but can't quite decide to do something about it. In my opinion before we decide what to do with these forms, we should sort out what are actual (ante-/post-)Classical alternative forms that currently reside under Category:Latin_misspellings, as well as the one macaronic form there, and then also sort out the whole Vulgar Latin thing, which for the time being I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent exactly - seems like a general dump for anything non-standard regardless of period, style and attestation. Where would be the best place to ask what's the working definition of Vulgar Latin on this website, and why this notoriously undefinable and largely rejected term has been chosen? Brutal Russian (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian I think the best place to ask about Vulgar Latin would be the beer parlor. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brutal Russian For me “Vulgar Latin” is about style, register. It is also the same question whether a term is literary Arabic or dialectal. I as others have also spoken of “Vulgar Turkish” in reference to the diglossia of the Ottoman Empire. Many terms for one idea. This works everywhere where one writes significantly differently from how one speaks on the basis of a Dachsprache tradition.
Another question is why we have duplicates like “Vulgar Latin” Reconstruction:Latin/werra together with Medieval Latin werra. That’s a bloody joke, it’s the same word, I opt for deleting it. It’s not even that the Latin is reborrowed from Romance in this case, but even in such a case I tend to believe that the duplication should be refused. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, see, your attempt to define it already highlights the problem to me, seeing as it combines references to style and register - aspects of one language -, as well as to diglossia - which is quite the opposite! Moreover, modern scholarship expressly rejects the notion of Latin diglossia, while a separate phonology and dedicated inflection templates for a certain style or register of the same language is something I've yet to see a precedent for, anywhere! To quote one of the best books to read on the topic, Social Variation and the Latin Language by J. N. Adams:
"Many have tried to give Vulgar Latin a precise meaning {...}, but it has continued to generate confusion. Lloyd (1979) identified thirteen meanings that have been assigned to the term (no doubt many others could be found: see Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2005: 25) {...} In recent decades the inadequacy of ‘Vulgar Latin’ has been increasingly felt with the advance of sociolinguistics as a discipline. Analyses of social variations across well-defined social or occupational groups in modern speech communities are bound to show up traditional concepts of Vulgar Latin, however the phrase might be defined, as hopelessly vague."
The word you're referring to seems to show that two different people had two different ideas about what constitutes Vulgar Latin, both of them probably likewise "hopelessly vague" :) Brutal Russian (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: What's the status on podeō? I can't find anything. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • odeō   RFV-Failed
  • podeō ???

September 2019Edit


Persian: Tagged by Emascandam (talkcontribs) --Mélange a trois (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Added source. --{{victar|talk}} 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Are there three quotations for this? Persian is a WDL. — surjection??⟩ 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


Real Spanish? Yes. Have I seen it before? Yes. Have I considered adding this term to WT before? Yes. Is it jocular? Yes. Is the etymology interesting? Yes, it's a Spanishized pseudo-English calque of por la cara. Does it appear in durably archived media? Not at first glance, but I'm sure with a bit of digging it might be. --Vealhurl (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is used here as the title of a news category; I am not certain that enredando.info counts as permanently recorded media. A book use: [47]. Another one: [48], but there it seems used as part of a proper noun (Baidefeis card), which may not count.  --Lambiam 05:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Old French plaigne and descendantsEdit

This is claimed to mean "plain" (flat expanse of land), which is misspelled "plane" in the entry. It appears the correct word is either plain or plaine. This is *maybe* an Anglo-Norman word; http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ has "plaingne" in this meaning among many other variants, which is similar to "plaigne". The form "plaigne" is also given in this dictionary as the first feminine form of "plein" "full". The English descendants "plain" and "plane" are claimed for this word, which doesn't agree with the etymologies listed for those words. BTW how would the gn sneak into this word? Maybe a non-attested VL *plānea? But then how does the feminine of "plein" end up as "plaigne"? @Fay Freak, Lambiam, any ideas? Benwing2 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The term occurs in the Vulgate Lancelot, in some mss. twice (see the footnote on p.329). I have no theory on the origin of the intrusive g, but note that Romansch plagn shows that nasalization of [n] can apparently also take place without high vowel following the n.  --Lambiam 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectivesEdit

RFV for any neuter form. Instead of "masculine and neuter forms identical to feminine forms" it might be "masculine forms identical to feminine forms; neuter forms not attested". --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly attested uses of some such adjectives with neuter nouns in some case/number combinations, although it's not commonly seen. I discussed this type of adjective on Benwing's talk page, where Benwing brought up the application of the adjective to the neuter noun vinum (Benwing gave the form vīnum aliēnigena, while Lewis & Short gives a quote for the same phrase in the ablative: "“vino alienigenā utere,” Gell. 2, 24"). Similarly, the L&S entry for indigena gives a citation for its use with the form vinum. I said on the other page that I don't know of any examples of a first-declension form being used for a neuter in the plural, and I am quite suspicious of the neuter plural nominative/accusative forms in "-ae" that we currently display. Many such adjectives seem to have had collateral second-declension forms.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also vinus m - might that occur in "vino alienigenā"? --Marontyan (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the Pliny citation that I mentioned in my last post, and it looks like it is actually ablative as well: "de indigena vino". So you're correct that these forms are not distinctively neuter as opposed to masculine, although I don't believe either of these authors ever uses the masculine nominative form "vinus". I will look for examples of the nominative singular in Classical sources (it's fairly easy to find a few post-Classical examples just by Googling the phrases mentioned above).--Urszag (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A much-mentioned example seems to be the use of ruricola to modify aratrum, in Ovid, but in this case as well the actual attested form doesn't seem to be nominative or accusative: the verse is given as "Tempore ruricolae patiens fit taurus aratri", with the genitive singular.--Urszag (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Another update. The post-classical examples that I mentioned seem to mostly be dictionaries, which are not so great I think as examples of usage. But in any case, here is one concrete example of "indigena" used with an unambiguously neuter noun: "Landwein: vinum indigena, vinum in ipsa terra natum: vinum vernaculum", page 1402 in Ausführliches und möglichst vollständiges deutsch-lateinisches Lexicon oder Worterbuch zur Übung in der lateinischen Sprache, by Immanuel Johann Gerhard Scheller, 1789. Because of the pedagogical tradition of classifying such adjectives as common gender, there seems to be a fairly firmly established idea in taxonomic circles that forms ending in -cola can be used in the nominative as neuter adjectives (these two blog posts reference that idea: https://diaphanus.livejournal.com/1658229.html, https://interretialia.tumblr.com/post/120246141998/atmidolum) so I'd imagine taxonomic examples can be found, but that runs into the issue that you've talked about in your other RFVs.--Urszag (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Are these even really adjectives, and not simply attributive nouns? --Lvovmauro (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Is "attributive" the term you're looking for, or did you mean to say "appositive" instead? Adjectives and appositive nouns are formally distinguished in Latin in certain contexts by the fact that appositive nouns could be of a different gender from the head noun; e.g. "flumen Tiberim". But aside from that, adjectives and appositive nouns tend to behave similarly. So despite the existence of this distinction, there were some doubtful or variable cases. Madvig, transl. Woods 1870 mentions the case of adjectival neuter plural forms victricia and ultricia derived from originally appositive victor/victrix and ultor/ultrix. It seems that compilers of other Latin dictionaries have generally been of the opinion that the use of indigena and alienigena in the quotations above was adjectival.--Urszag (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Old Prussian lemmasEdit

For everything spelled with a macron (e.g. Dēiwas/Dēiws, piēncts) as it looks like reconstruction, neo-Old Prussian. See also: User talk:Beobach972#Old Prussian. --Trothmuse (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered about our Old Prussian coverage as well, but I'm not sure anyone active here knows enough about the language and its corpus to dare to speak up about it or to be able to answer this rfv satisfactorily. I really am not sure what is to be done; if I had the leisure time right now to research this all on my own I would, but I don't. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they are. I know that Old Prussian has long vowels, furthermore the Elbing vocabulary, the one online, provides, I think, a reconstruction of words phonetically. The examples above are strange given the other Baltic languages don't have a ē in Lithuanian diẽvas and Latvian dìevs. From what I know, Old Prussian had no phonological development that caused stressed vowels to lengthen, only the opposite, that unstressed long vowels were reduced to simple vowels. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RFV for the following:

  • azzaran: EGPV "See   Assaran", see assaran
  • ballo: EGPV "Stirne   Batto"
  • dags: see EGPV in dagis
  • irma: EGPV "Arm   Irmo", TLP "irmo, Arm, Oberarm", see irmo
  • kams: EGPV "Bene   Bitte" & "Hu͡mele   Camus", TLP "camus, Hummel, [..] Voc. 788."
  • naguttis: EGPV "Nagel   Nagutis", TLP "nagutis, Nagel am Finger"
  • pazzuls: EGPV "Nacke   Passoles", TLP "pa-ssoles, (pl.?), Nacken"
  • salts: "(manuscript forms:) salta" sounds like "salts" is a non-manuscript form, i.e. a reconstruction. TLP "salta, kalt", WBdSG "kalt   Salta"
  • sirablas: EGPV "Silber   Siraplis" - only attested as acc. sirablan, cp. TLP?
  • skals: EGPV "Kinne   Scalus", TLP "scalus, Kinn"
  • sunnis: EGPV "Hunt   Sunis", TLP "sunis, Hund", WBdSG "Hundt   Songos"
  • swerreps: EPGV "Keynhe͡gest   Sweriapis", TLP "sweriapis (keynhengest) Voc. 431. ist nunmehr wohl hinreichend klar gelegt als Zuchthengst, Beschäler; es ist das Masc., welches den Femininis poln. [..], böhm. swerzepice, Stute, entspricht; [...] niederrhein. kîen, beschälen [...]"
  • August, Daggis, Rags: not in EGPV, TLP, WBdSG.

EGPV = Elbing German-Prussian Vocabulary (by G. H. F. Nesselmann, online with reconstructions); TLP = Thesaurus linguae prussicae (etc.) by G. H. F. Nesselmann; WBdSG = Wörterbuch des Simon Grunau.
BTW RFC for undan and unds, see the comment in unds and in the source of wundan. TLP "wundan, Wasser, Voc. 59., wunda, Gr., vgl. und-s" and "und-s, nom., undan, acc. undas, gen. sg., undans, acc. pl., Wasser; Ench. [..]; wundan, Voc., wunda, Gr. s. dd." --Trothmuse (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (town) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (town), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (village) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (village).
If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (water) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (water).
One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [49] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectivesEdit

All created by the same user.
Just la.WP/WT protologisms (with changed capitalisation)? --Marontyan (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)





Telugu: Abbreviation. Apparently means "cat on the wall". Why would anyone abbreviate that???? --Vealhurl (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Rajasekhar1961...  --Lambiam 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
short form of గోడమీద పిల్లి (gōḍamīda pilli) (Cat on the wall). It is similar to మి.మీ. (mi.mī.) for మిల్లీ మీటరు. (millī mīṭaru.). If it is not clear, can we put a fullstop between the letters.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961 Yeah, but why would you abbreviate such an obviously SOP phrase? A google search brings up what looks like a movie/show, along with actual cats on walls. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be an idiomatic expression expressing uncertainty about how a situation will develop. (Self [te-0] and Google translate [te-1] at best, so this interpretation may not be on the nose.) It is pointless to define it by giving its literal translation, which does not carry that sense in English.  --Lambiam 11:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
This Telugu dictionary explains it as “a proverbial expression for sitting on the fence”. It is not clear to me whether the idiom applies to a person (a fence sitter), or to an unresolved issue that can go either way, or can apply to either.  --Lambiam 12:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


-- 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([50], [51]) as well as elsewhere ([52], [53] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([54], [55]).  --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


The quote is in English, put in a French section --Vealhurl (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are two French sources, but the term is spelled “p.p.c.” or “P.P.C.”: [56], [57].  --Lambiam 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit


I have no problem with the word or whenever it existed or not. My issue is in regards to whenever the word should be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *erþaburgz (earthen mound, earthwork) or *erþōburgz. This example is one of many PGmc where the first noun of the reconstructed compound ends with "ō" but the reconstructed compound has medial "a". I would normally check the descendent to see if I can deduce more information, however, most have no medial compound vowel e.g. Old English eorþburh, Old High German erdburg, Old Norse jarðborh. So now, I'm left wondering what form it should be. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The default medial vowel in pre-Germanic had become -o- for the thematic classes, as in Celtic and Latin. PGmc medial*-ō- would presumably have left some trace in OHG. Burgundaz (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

octavius, octariusEdit

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


This word is not found in either of the cited dictionaries. There is a word tzapalotl in Morelos Nahuatl, but that's spelled differently. Alexis Wimmer's Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl classique has an entry for zapalotl citing Clavigero's Historia antigua de Megico, but as far as I can see it only includes the Spanish loan zapalote, and not the Nahuatl word. (Plus I'm not sure if the Nahuatl of Clavigero's time would be considered Classical.) --Lvovmauro (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This string of letters, with some meaning, is mentioned as a Nahuatl word in a number of texts, one of which asserts it as a word in Sinaloa:
  • 2010, Daniel F. Austin, Baboquivari Mountain Plants: Identification, Ecology, and Ethnobotany, University of Arizona Press (→ISBN), page 30:
    SPANISH: lechuguilla (little lettuce), maguey (see A. parviflora for derivation), zapalote (from Náhuatl zapalotl, the name for A. tequilana farther south, Sinaloa);
And others place it as a word in Honduras, if that helps narrow down what varieties of Nahuatl to search in:
  • 1907, Alberto Membreño, Aztequismos de Honduras:
    Zapalotl, plátano. Color moreno de una clase de maíz. / Zapoyolo. Tzapoyollotl, centro del zapote. El hueso del mamey mexicano y del zapotillo.
  • 1982, Alberto Membreño, Hondureñismos:
    En azteca, zapalotl significa banano, plátano.
  • 1989, Alessandra Foletti-Castegnaro, Alfarería lenca contemporánea de Honduras:
    [] zapote, y "yolotl", corazón. maíz de color oscuro, negro veteado con rojo. Del nahua "zapalotl", plátano.
I can only find one string of running text, and the bibliographic details of it are unclear:
  • (on Google Books as "1958, Proceedings":)
    Sen tonali icuac notscaltili hueyi oquili nantzin nejua nicnequi nicmatis catlejua onquinosa tlacal tecuanantli oquili tlacal cuy hueyi san zapalotl quinopialia miec mañas Totecuiyo Dios mispiali. oquito tecuanconetl nejua niau nictetemos nana  ...
- -sche (discuss) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro do any of the books above (narrowing down where it's supposedly used), or your own knowledge, help identify what Nahuan lect the one citation above might be in? (Is it just someone's late "conlang Nahuatl" like neo-Gothic?) - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


This doesn't fit the Greek form, which reflects *temnō. —Rua (mew) 09:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. According to Beekes 2010 in the entry for τέμνω, "The nasal present τάμνω << PGr. *tamnēmi < PIE *tm-neh₁-mi is original, as is the root aorist 3sg. *etemet < *h₁e-temh₁-t, which was replaced by a thematic aorist ἔτεμον. This situation was levelled in various ways in the dialects: Att. innovated with the present τέμνω, while epic Ion. and Dor. secondarily created the aorist ἔταμον." Beekes states at the beginning of the entry that the form τάμνω is attested in Epic Ionic as well as Doric. This τάμνω appears to be simply a thematicized version of the original athematic nasal present PIE *tm-neh₁-mi attested in several IE languages. --Demolition man (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think there's several aspects to look at then.
  1. Athematic vs thematic inflection.
  2. The appearance of the ē.
  3. e or a in the root.
Based on the forms you've given here, all forms of Greek seem to agree on the first two points: thematic inflection with no ē. They only differ with respect to the third point. I think Beekes is therefore correct on the distribution of e versus a. On the other hand, I think it goes too far to reconstruct Proto-Hellenic with athematic inflection and ē. After all, we know that PIE started off in one situation and Greek ended up in another, but we can't tell at what point one form got replaced with the other in the history of Hellenic. It could be entirely possible that an intermediate stage had thematic inflection but kept the ē, i.e. *təmnēō. In cases like this, I believe the reconstruction should be based on the later point in time (which is actually attested) rather than the earlier point (which is reconstructed). So I think that we should reconstruct *təmnō (aorist *(e)temon) for Proto-Hellenic, with points 1 and 2 agreeing with their later attested forms rather than their earlier PIE reconstructed forms. —Rua (mew) 08:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologismsEdit

In actual Classical texts, the names for these countries are simply loaned from Spanish: Francia, Inglatera and Alemania. --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [58], Mexico City.
That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
(That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New reference.

Commenting to cross-link a related discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/December#Nahuatl_(nah):_convert_etymology-only_or_delete?. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
If these terms meet the attestation requirements (momentarily disregarding the date of the attestations), then the question is whether to view modern use of this language as more similar to Latin (where we include sufficiently-attested modern terms) or Gothic (where we exclude even attested neologisms). Marrovi's comment suggests we should take a Latin approach. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The reality of Nahautl seems to be that the 1.4 million speakers of Nahuan languages, as divergent as they might be, do try to work online and in literature as speakers of Nahuatl, not many different dialects (wisely in my opinion); see the Nahuatl Wikipedia for example. I think we should recognize this, and not act as if writing in a common lect of a group of tiny related languages is the same as writing in long-extinct languages like Gothic or PIE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the editors of the Nahuatl Wikipedia do not seem to be native speakers and I'm not sure if their writing would even be intelligible to native speakers. --Lvovmauro (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Latin: abbreviation of Publius. In lowercase. Good luck finding cites. --Vealhurl (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare: WT:RFVN#k,_m,_q.
Also I'd like to add the sense "Abbreviation of populus" as it should rather be p. or P. or P (as in SPQR) --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


For "pascha n (.., genitive paschae ..); first declension ..", which is not in Gaffiot or Lewis & Short. --B-Fahrer (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Instances of paschae, pascham and pascharum. I didn’t immediately see uses that verify that the noun is also neuter in this declensional paradigm. BTW, I doubt that Aramaic פסחא(paskha) is “from” Hebrew פסח(pésakh); I think the two terms are merely cognates.  --Lambiam 23:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I already added a citation to Citations:pascha that shows it being used as a neuter first-declension noun (nominative "Pascha annotinum" alongside ablative "de Pascha annotino"; if it were masculine, these would be "Pascha annotinus" and "de Pascha annotino"; if it were feminine, they would be "Pascha annotina" and "de Pascha annotina"; and if it were third declension neuter, these would be "Pascha annotinum" and "de Paschate annotino"). For a few other examples, view the answers to this Latin Stack Exchange post, which I made in May: Was “Pascha” ever used as a neuter first-declension noun?. The question post there also cites a few sources that describe this word as being declined in some sources as a first-declension neuter with a genitive singular in -ae.--Urszag (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The citation at Citations:pascha could also have an indeclinable neuter and not a neuter 1st declension noun. Some of the examples at stackexchange are better (thank you for the link) - but they are Medieval Latin and hence there should be a note in the WT entry, or a much older citation. --B-Fahrer (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@B-Fahrer, Lambiam, Urszag: So is there any evidence of 3rd-decl use? And if anyone wants to add a usage note to the entry, that would be much appreciated. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
All of the forms built on the stem paschat-/Paschat- unambiguously belong to the third declension. The things that are difficult to find evidence for are the gender of the first-declension genitive singular form "Paschae" and the declension category of the neuter singular nominative/accusative form "Pascha". The ablative singular form "Pascha" is clearly not a third-declension form. B-Fahrer suggests it could be an indeclinable form; that is technically possible, but a text that uses "pascha" as an indeclinable neuter would be expected I think to lack genitive "paschae" or to contain genitive "pascha" (which is as far as I know unattested, although I haven't tried to check for its existence yet). So I think "Pascha" in the ablative singular with neuter agreement is pretty strong evidence for the first-declension neuter paradigm. With regards to usage notes and dating, I don't know if I agree that the paucity of early examples is especially notable with regard to the first-declension neuter paradigm: as far as I can tell, the word wasn't very frequent in any of its forms until the rise of Christianity, so I'm not sure whether the feminine first-declension and neuter third-declension forms can be established as any older. The only hits for "Pasch" that I find in the PHI Latin Texts corpus are from Zeno of Verona's Tractatus (Zeno Veronensis Tractatus, ed. B. Löfstedt, 1971) . Zeno apparently lived in the fourth century CE. The sermons themselves seem to only contain the form "pascha"; there is evidence from adjective agreement that it is neuter (e.g. "legitimum pascha"). The first-declension genitive singular form "paschae" shows up in this document in sermon titles and in the table of contents—but I don't know what date those were written.--Urszag (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Any texts in which this word, as opposed to ἅρπη (hárpē), appears? I didn't see a Doric or Aeolic form mentioned in any of the dictionary entries linked from ἅρπη (hárpē). — Eru·tuon 03:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Χαῖρε, hello, nice to (virtually) meet you...
With regard to recent edits on ἅρπα I wasn't sure where to post this, I was just responding specifically vis-à-vis the Doric Greek morphology of ἅρπα but ran long touching on the broader subject of Greek dialects and their inclusion on Wiktionary, so I'll post this full comment on your talk page too...
Personally I am bewildered that a simple 1st declension noun like Doric ἅρπα for Attic ἅρπη would be controversial...? This is pretty basic Ancient Greek dialectal morphology variance. Doric (and Aeolic) retain original ᾱ which Attic changed to η in many cases (there are exceptions after certain letters ε, ι, ρ; whereas Ionic nearly always changes old ᾱ to η). 1st declension singular -ᾱ, -ᾱς, -ᾳ, ᾱν. In the plural the forms are the same as Attic except in the genitive plural Doric -ᾱων typically contracts to -ᾶν. Unlike some other dialectal variances, on an academic level Doric 1st declension in -ᾱ, -ᾱς for Attic -η, -ης is a fairly well-established consistent paradigm, a minor lengthening of one vowel...
....and Western/Central Greek dialects (Doric-Aeolic) preserved ᾱ which was the original Ancient Greek form; Attic-Ionic lengthening ᾱ to η was a later dialectal novelty unique to the Eastern Greek dialects (Attic-Ionic). Attic is in fact the variant form here from the original authentic archaic Greek form which Aeolic and Doric much more faithfully preserved...to this day Tsakonian, descended from Doric, spoken in the Peloponnese (albeit sadly endangered) preserves ancient α where later Attic-derived Greek substituted η.
And in the ancient world, Doric and Aeolic Greek is what they spoke in Sparta and all of Laconia, in Thebes and all of Boeotia, in Epirus, in Achaea and Thessaly, Corinth and Olympia, on the islands of Lesbos and of Crete (also a bastion of preservation for the most authentic original Ancient Greek, being the birthplace of Greek civilization going back to the Mycenaean Greeks and Minoan Greeks), and also in much of Magna Græcia (Italy and Sicily), including Syracusæ in Sicily, the home of Archimedes, and by the Classical period the greatest and most significant rival city of Athens in the Hellenic world, by some sources Syracusæ was even larger and more significant than Athens. (And of course if you know your history, Athens deciding to launch an infamous "Sicilian Expedition" to attack Doric Syracusæ during the Peloponnesian War would prove a catastrophic ruinous mistake for the Athenians).
This seems to touch on the other general problem raised by recent edit reverts, which is bias in Wiktionary's coverage of Ancient Greek hitherto, bias that should be removed. A 21st century electronic 'Wiktionary' should not perpetuate biases of 19th century-20th century elite French and Englishmen who based on historical judgments idolized all things Athens, put up on an Ionic pedestal (the other 2 Greek column orders being Doric and Corinthian, both Dorian speakers!) while demonizing and denigrating Sparta and all of the Doric and Aeolic Greek worlds, in fact all of Ancient Greek linguistic history except for c. 5th century BC Athens. Biased scholars many centuries later decided that Attic was superior and real Greek while other dialects mere imitators, Archimedes in Syracusæ did not speak Ancient Greek of the Doric dialect, rather he spoke an inferior "Doric forms" of REAL Greek which is only Attic.
Other than such historical bias, there is no reason why distinct words and forms of Ancient Greek in Doric or Aeolic should just link to the Attic form as REAL Ancient Greek. Attic has more unique local noveltiies diverging from standard Ancient Greek than Doric/Aeolic. In their time Doric and Aeolic Greek were of equal if not greater significance, and spoken by far more people than the novel local dialect of Athens, which again only became looked at as the "model"
Doric Greek is different from Attic Greek, different enough that Doric/Aeolic forms deserve their own entry (at least a West Doric/Aeolic separate from Attic/Ionic). Different but an equally valid form of Ancient Greek in its own right and merits inclusion of Doric/Aeolic forms that stand on their own, not just (mis)represented as inferior variant forms of Attic. The language is called "Ancient Greek", NOT "Attic Greek". Doric/Aeolic Greek words and forms should be added/provided whenever possible-and as their own entries, not links to Attic, 'tis biased historical revisionism to imply Doric and Aeolic Greek are just variant forms of REAL (Attic) Greek, when in fact the dialects developed independently and were of equal standing and signifcance in the time when they were actually spoken and used as living languages (and Doric was actually closer to the original, Attic was the odd local provincial dialect that diverged most from Proto-Hellenic). As a reference source for all languages including ancient languages no longer spoken (some of which far more speculative like e.g. Phoenician/Punic), Wiktionary (and Wiktionarians) should seek to provide Doric Greek entries no less so than Attic entries. The biases of the recent past against any form of Greek except 5th century BC Athens dialect should be left on the ash heap of history. Rather, for a fair, unbiased and thorough modern reference source on Ancient Greek, the dialects should be treated equally as their own forms of Ancient Greek language with their own unique morphology.
Reducing Doric/Aeolic Greek words to mere dialectal variants of Athens just linking to the Attic variant is akin to having Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Galician, Leonese, Occitan, even Portuguese, all just have links to the (Castilian) Spanish entry e.g. Catalan joventut entry should say just "Catalan form of juventud" with a link to the Castilian Spanish juventud entry. After all, like Attic among Greek dialects, Castilian Spanish is the clear historical winner of the Ibero-Romance languages, the other Ibero-Romance languages are historical losers, just inferior imitation dialect forms of Spanish language not worth recordng and preserviing in their own right, like Doric and Aeolic are just inferior imitation dialects of Attic REAL Greek...
Respectfully, I would suggest perhaps re-examining your potential ingrained Athenocentric biases that have plagued Greek classrooms and textbooks and lexicons for the past few centuries which conflate Attic Greek with Ancient Greek, and which ignore or disparage other dialects as irrelevant inferior imitations of Attic at best, missing the forest through the trees; try to zoom out and get a new bigger picture perspective conscious of these insidious deeply ingrained...some of us have actually studied and are actually interested in researching and preserving Doric and Aeolic Greek for their own sake as equally valid and historically and linguistically significant forms of Ancient Greek, not as mere trivial inferior variant subdialects of Attic. Someone who wants to research Doric Greek forms should not have to click through every entry to go see the Attic variant as the "real" form. Attic is the spin-off from the original, not Doric! And at the very least Doric and Aeolic Greek entries deserve to exist! Especially such simple forms conforming to basic paradigms of what we know about the standard morphology and usage of Doric and Aeolic Greek dialects. Wiktionary cannot claim to have comprehensive coverage of Ancient Greek as a reference source if it neglects the other equally significant, equally legitimate, equally valid, equally deserving divergent dialects. Wiktionarians should seek to add Doric Greek entries just like they add Catalan and Galician or Asturian despite being varians of far more well-known and widely used Castilian Spanish which like Attic Greek just happened to win the historical winners-and-losers lottery...
And this is the case with Doric-Aeolic ἅρπα, ἅρπᾱς, an equally valid independent Western Greek form deserving of its own entry distinct from the Eastern Greek Attic-Ionic variant ἅρπη, ἅρπης...across many other languages there are many far more redundant forms of words in closely related languages (often forms identical or nearly identical, more closely related than the rainbow of diverse Western Ancient Greek and Eastern Ancient Greek dialects) that may not be so commonlyused much but are considered worthwhile to preserve as a comprehensive linguistic reference source database.

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D2%3Achapter%3D13%3Asection%3D13 Smyth grammar 2.13.13 FIRST DECLENSION (STEMS IN α_)

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

[*] 214 D. 1. For η, Doric and Aeolic have original α_; thus, νί_κα_, ϝί_κα_ς, ϝί_κᾳ, νί_κα_ν; πολί_τα_ς, κριτά_ς, Ἀτρείδα_ς.

2. Ionic has η for the α_ of Attic even after ε, ι, and ρ; thus, γενεή, οἰκίη, ἀγορή, μοίρης, μοίρῃ (nom. μοῖρα^), νεηνίης. Thus, ἀγορή, -ῆς, -ῇ, -ήν; νεηνίης, -ου, -ῃ, -ην. But Hom. has θεά_ goddess, Ἑρμεία_ς Hermes.

3. The dialects admit -α^ in the nom. sing. less often than does Attic. Thus, Ionic πρύμνη stern, κνί_ση savour (Att. πρύμνα, κνῖσα), Dor. τόλμα_ daring. Ionic has η for α^ in the abstracts in -είη, -οίη (ἀληθείη truth, εὐνοίη good-will). Hom. has νύμφα^ oh maiden from νύμφη.

8. Gen. plur.—(a) -ά_ων, the original form, occurs in Hom. (μουσά_ων, ἀγορά_ων). In Aeolic and Doric -ά_ων contracts to (b) -ᾶν (ἀγορᾶν). The Doric -ᾶν is found also in the choral songs of the drama (πετρᾶν rocks). (c) -έων, the Ionic form, appears in Homer, who usually makes it a single syllable by synizesis (60) as in βουλέωνν, from βουλή plan. -έων is from -ήων, Ionic for -ά_ων. (d) -ῶν in Hom. generally after vowels (κλισιῶν, from κλισίη hut).

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpa&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic ἅρπα noun sg fem nom doric aeolic

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=arpas&la=greek#lexicon ἅρπας noun sg fem gen doric aeolic

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

Nominative: https://morphological_el.academic.ru/687234/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%82#sel=10:3,10:3 ἅρπας

   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc pl
   ἅρπᾱς , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem gen sg (doric aeolic)

Accusative: https://morphological_el.enacademic.com/687226/%E1%BC%85%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD ἅρπαν

   ἅρπᾱν , ἅρπη
   bird of prey
   fem acc sg (doric aeolic)

Inqvisitor (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not studied Doric and Aeolic in depth, but I am aware of several of the dialectal differences, including the retention of long alpha. Yes, ἅρπᾱ (hárpā) would be the likely Doric form, but I'm asking for an attestation (see WT:ATTEST) because lexica such as LSJ often mention a Doric form if it is used, but they don't for this word. We don't add hypothetical Doric forms for all Attic words. I don't know if the morphological tools that you linked to are restricted to attested forms (though I suspect not).
As for the rest of your post, I don't have the brain power to write a point-by-point response. I'll just say I'm in favor of marking dialects in Ancient Greek entries, as you did in ἅρπη (hárpē).
Putting most of the content in one entry is simply so that we do not have to synchronize two or more identical entries. (There are not a huge number of Ancient Greek editors and I suspect that many of us don't feel that synchronizing entries is a worthwhile use of our time when there are lots of lemmas and inflected forms missing.) The Attic or Koine entry is typically a good landing place for most of the content. The phrasing of the non-Attic or non-Koine entry ("Doric form of" the Attic form in this case) is perhaps misleading but is not meant to imply incorrect notions, such as that Attic is the ideal form while the others are distorted reflections (or that Attic is the parent and others developed from it). If this is not enough and you still want to drum up enthusiasm for changing editing practices for Ancient Greek, a better place to discuss it would be WT:BP. — Eru·tuon 09:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


—⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 07:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"Edit

@Leasnam, Lambiam, Urszag, Hundwine User:Stardsen created these entries several years ago. andwyrdan definitely means "to answer", but I can find no dictionary that verifies the meaning "to present". The derivation from andweard makes total sense semantically and phonetically, but just doesn't seem to exist. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I found this [[59]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[60]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[61]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


"reference book"s don't attest anything for Well-Documented Languages (WT:CFI, WT:WDL), and too few results at Google Books. --B-Fahrer (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I created Schembeis and I just wanted to mention that some Sondersprachen are not very well documented in general for obvious reasons as they function as secret languages. In the entry I have referenced the word with the “Illustrated Lexicon of German Colloquialisms/Slang” and quoted from a book about a distinct variety of Sondersprache. If this does not meet the attestation criteria then that’s the way it is. It’d be a pity though. I wonder how documenting these kind of cants should be done then? — Best regards, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
[62], [63], [64].  --Lambiam 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
That should count as one usage (WT:CFI#Independent) as the sources are: Klaus Siewert (editor), Textbuch Masematte & Textbuch Masematte II & Textbuch Masematte III. --B-Fahrer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Siewert only selected these stories from the archives of the Masematte project group, which collects them to make sure this endangered lect is archived from original speakers before it dies out. The sources of these stories are independent people.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
What's the evidence for this: "The sources of these stories are independent people."? As far as I can see, the texts start with the title and end - there's no author given next to the title or at the end. The contents don't give an author either. As an additional note, the text of the 2nd book states that proper Masematte was never written and that written Masematte is younger, less authentic. --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Because of the gender change in the entry, also RFV for the gender, if the term itself is attested. 1st and 2nd book have "im Schembeis" (m. or n.), 3rd book has "son Schembeis" (should be m. or n.) and "noch innen Schembeis" (should be m.). --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yiddish בית‎(beys) can be both m. and f., and you’d expect the gender to be retained in borrowing Germanic languages that have grammatical gender, possibly frozen on one of the two possibilities. Rotwelsch Beiz is reported here as m., but the Dutch cant bajes as f.. The Hebrew etymon בַּיִת‎ is m. In view of this all, neuter gender looks somewhat improbable.  --Lambiam 18:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The gender change was due to a typo of mine. My bad. In the reference book by Küpper the gender is neuter. Compare Rotwelsch Bajes (and its various alternative forms such as Bais, Baiß, Baiz etc.) which is neuter as well and also from Yiddish בית‎(beys). (Source: Siegmund A. Wolf: Wörterbuch des Rotwelschen: Deutsche Gaunersprache. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1987, p. 40.) — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


German, rfv-sense of "German casual game franchise for PCs". Unlikely to pass WT:Brand. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Likely to pass, must pass. It’s a thing that only German 1980s kids know. You can’t imagine how much it was on everyone's lips in the decade around 2000, being on “every” office computer, hence giving rise to many legal cases. Search for Moorhuhn and Arbeit or something like that. I see it genericized together with Solitär, minesweeper and the like. Fay Freak (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the first umpteen GBS hits I checked, I did not notice ostensible genericity; the term appeared to be used as a proper noun in reference to the original grouse-shooting game. Can you dig up some indisputably generic uses?  --Lambiam 10:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
So what you're saying is "gimme more Huhn"? (trigger warning for terrible, terrible music). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, if you're so sure, add some quotes, else it will be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this example sufficient for WT:BRAND? [65]: "Er sah die Menschen Pause machen, [...], sah sie Moorhuhn spielen, [...]"
BTW related terms:
-- 02:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


The Lithuanian form has a short vowel rather than the long one that this form predicts. The Slavic noun is an o-stem according to Derksen, not a u-stem. Too many discrepancies to reconstruct a PBS form if you ask me. —Rua (mew) 21:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Slavic noun is an u-stem according to Nikolaev, not a o-stem. Gnosandes (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
So which of them is correct? —Rua (mew) 21:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikolaev is looking at the data of the dialects. Derksen had apparently(?) never worked with them. I don't know.
*vȃrъ, gen, varũ. -ũ, with old traces of the dominant valence [+]. Proto-Balto-Slavic *wā̂ru-, the (AP) 2 Proto-Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (mobile accent). -ũ > -u with late recessive valence [-], also as in Wiktionary.
See also: Dybo (2012) Proto-Balto-Slavic accentology system, and the results of the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European accentological system.
Zaliznjak, A. A. (2014), “Drevnerusskoje udarenije. Obščije svedenija i slovarʹ”, in Languages of Slavic Culture (in Russian), Moscow: Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Gnosandes (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


Only one descendant, and no PIE cognates. Therefore, there is no evidence that this word is of PBS date rather than formed between PBS and PS. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The PIE root page gives slaids as a cognate. --Tropylium (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

chó hoang châu PhiEdit

Plenty of hits online but only one Google Books hit, namely this, which appears to be a children's picture book teaching them English words + Vietnamese translation. (The book is seen here, not a context where the word would be in running text.)

As Vietnamese is a WDL, we need 3 durably archived occurences in running text. Another of my own created entries that I'm reporting. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are some uses on what look to me like news sites: [68], [69], [70], [71]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived.  --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020Edit


-- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


-- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples (to exclude the homographic passive participles) can be found searching "على المقلى". Example from some recipe that goes around:

نضع الزيت في المقلى على النار ثم نضع البيض على المقلى دون خلط البيض
We put the oil in the frying pan on the fire then put the egg into the frying pan without mixing the egg.

Unless this is misunderstanding the occurrences and they actually all mean “fried thing” مَقْلِيّ(maqliyy), passive participle of قَلَى(qalā), since the same recipe has the مقلى as مقلي on some places, and such occurrences is where the dictionaries have the word مِقْلًى(miqlan) from, but this is dubious because I wouldn’t know that مَقْلِيّ(maqliyy) can be used as a noun. Fay Freak (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwuEdit

Gothic: [Term?] (lēw), Gothic: [Term?] (lēwjan), Old English: lǣwan, Old High German: gi-lāwen, Ukrainian: лïви́ти (lïvýty), Czech: leviti.

It might help if you explained why you're throwing all these redlinks at us that aren't mentioned in the entry. The Old English reflexes in the entry look like they're from Old English lǣwan, but you would have been better off linking to Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan and its parent Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną than dumping a random-looking heap of their descendants in front of us. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, Thanks to these examples, you provided help. However, the reconstruction of Proto-West Germanic *lauwu is unconvincing; I suggest removing this reconstruction. It is likely that the Proto-Germanic *lēwijaną and Proto-Germanic *lēwą dates back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₁w-. The Old English lǣwan probably dates back to the Proto-West Germanic *lāwijan.
Unconvincing reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European *leh₁wéh₂; it must be changed to Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂ < *leh₂w- (watch the discussion above). The Proto-Balto-Slavic *lā́ˀwāˀ (with Hirt's law), as well as the Proto-Germanic *lawwō (with Holtzmann's law and Dybo's law), date back to the Proto-Indo-European *leh₂wéh₂. At the same time, it is a big mistake to associate the Proto-Germanic *lawwō with Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (to cut), with incorrectly specified semantics by the user @Holodwig21 (how to output this?). But Proto-Indo-European *lewH- (louse) ≠ Proto-Indo-European *lawh₁- (to cut, to slice)? Emphasis paradigms should be taken into account. And do not unite the roots, as is customary.
*leh₁w- (a revision of the semantics) (to let (go)?) *leh₂w- (berth?, bed?)
*lawh₁- (to cut off; to cut, to slice) *lewH- (louse)
Gnosandes (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Your PIE *leh₁wéh₂ should be deleted. At best, any connection between the two words is only worth mentioning in an etymology. Otherwise, PWG *lauwu is just fine. --{{victar|talk}} 03:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: to make cross95.185.32.82 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The definition is ambiguous: "cross" is probably a verb here, in which case it would be better as "to cause to cross". That's at least halfway plausible as the literal counterpart to this etymology's figurative senses. I sincerely doubt it's an adjective, which would mean "to cause to be annoyed; to annoy". Chuck Entz (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
That’s what Lane, Edward William (1863), “عبر”, in Arabic-English Lexicon, London: Williams & Norgate, page 1937a writes about this sense: عبّرهُ بِالمَآءِ, (Lh, K,) inf. n. تَعْبِيرٌ; (TA;) and بِهِ المَآءَ ↓ عَبَرَ, (Lh, K,) and النَّهْرَ; (TA;) He made him to cross, go across, or pass over, or he conveyed him across, the water, (Lh, K, TA,) and the river. (TA.). Yes, a ditransitive verb is meant. Fay Freak (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, this عَبَّرَ(ʿabbara) is “to get across” in the literal meaning and in the figurative meaning (but only the latter is notorious nowadays and perhaps already in the 7th century). I do not see in what distinct sense “to interpret” is meant here which the IP added. In the example quote for the base stem it is not much different, it is just “to express to make something known with the other party”, and interpretation is always part of the process of expressing something. Probably one should change the definitions of both verbs to “to get across”, because that’s what it basically is, adding that it is normally or by now only used in the figurative sense of expressing or interpreting (to be safe in case somebody ever comes across a literal use so he might be incited by it to add his quote; now there is no hope for us to find the literal meaning by systematic search because occurrences of عبر‎ in any form are most likely to be the base stem and the very common sense of expressing and the very common preposition “across”) Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020Edit

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjanEdit

Doesn't have any native reflexes, only borrowings. How can we be sure that this term existed? —Rua (mew) 10:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Move: Should be a moved to a Vulgar Latin entry. --{{victar|talk}} 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/būtiEdit

Only has reflexes in one descendant, and an uncertain borrowing. This could easily have been formed within the separate history of Dutch. —Rua (mew) 10:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The etymology is so widely circulated that even if it is wrong, which is hard to say (though I do prefer a direct Gaulish etymology for the Latin), it should just have an entry anyhow. --{{victar|talk}} 19:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
But should that be a Proto-West Germanic entry? The term is literally has only one descendant, that's not enough evidence to claim it's of PWG date. —Rua (mew) 20:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's mostly reconstructed as PG, so PWG is even safer, no? --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
A term with only a Dutch descendant (which is doubtful, as Etymologiebank says the term is Low German in origin) can't even be reconstructed for PWG, let alone PG. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
And others the opposite, and others still both inherited. --{{victar|talk}} 20:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Related to this a Frankish label could be handy for PWG with only Dutch and Latin descendants. --{{victar|talk}} 20:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fellōEdit

Same as *dubbjan above. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: OHG added. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You're aware that this is RFV, right? There's no keep/delete votes. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep: --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
...kay. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rua: So does that resolve this? --{{victar|talk}} 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if having only an OHG descendant is enough either. But I'll leave that to third parties to decide. @Mnemosientje, Mahagaja, DerRudymeisterRua (mew) 20:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If there really aren't any other West Germanic reflexes, then I'd be inclined to delete and just say the Latin is a loanword from OHG. It's not clear where OHG fello comes from, though, since Proto-Germanic *faluz doesn't have an OHG reflex. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on the context of the Latin attestations, it looks to have originated from Frankish, not OHG, and if we were to say it didn't exist in PWG, we have to somehow explain how it was novelly constructed in OHG. --{{victar|talk}} 08:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Could it possibly be from Proto-Germanic *faljô, a derivative of *faluz ? Leasnam (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


--Marontyan (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

centiampère (Dutch)Edit




Unattested units. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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

@Lambiam, Rua, DrJos, Thadh, Morgengave, Mnemosientje, MuDavid Do any of you object to the deletion of those entries? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

[72]: I know this isn't a durably archived source, but I think this is prove that centiseconde is in use. Thadh (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a durably archived use of the plural centiseconden. One use is not enough for our CFI. I’m afraid I do not really care. On one hand, if no three cites can be found now, it is predictable that more uses of these SI units will eventually appear in books and journals. On the other hand, these compounds are completely transparent; as long as we do not even have entries for much more common compounds such as stormwaarschuwing, why care?  --Lambiam 21:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is another one, so centiseconde at least looks promising. This article might have a third independent use, but it is paywalled. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not necessary to check the paywalled article, there are other cites here, on file page 31, original page 49. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree: just like "yottaseconde" it is a unit that could be used. Otherwise you should strictly adhere to the three cites rule for every lemma. Yottaseconde has a French lemma so why not a Dutch? --DrJos (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That reasoning could justify thousands of unattested derived SI units. It clearly is not a workable standard for an empirical, descriptive dictionary. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
My opinion: these units (and the ones with zepto/zetta/yocto/yotta above) obviously exist: they are SoP and can therefore be used whenever the need arises. Most of them probably see little to no use though, and as they are SoP I won't lose any sleep over their deletion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Centiseconde has been cited. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

دعشEdit 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: There are quotes in the entry, but the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Could you sort this one out? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Fixed. The quotes provided did not have it reflexive as labelled, and such usage is not expected of form II. The Saudi IP was of course affronted by the example:
لِمَاذَا يُدَعِّشُ السُعُودِيُّون؟‎‎
li-māḏā yudaʿʿišu s-suʿūdiyyūn?
*Why do Saudis join Da'esh?
as it does not work this way, it would mean “Why do Saudi make [missing object] Dāʿiš”. Fay Freak (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Thank you, although these don't seem to be durably archived, unless I'm mistaken. Can you assess this and rustle up cites sufficient to pass CFI? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No. Libraries are closed. Not that I would have one in my vicinity anyway, or would go to one if there were one. Or know a considerable searchable corpus or archive of Arabic content produced since the prominence of Dāʿiš. Maybe Wiktionary should stop balling with formal requirements that nobody can fulfil to turn a blind eye on material reasons of inclusion. Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

homem sanctvmEdit

Converted from a speedy added by an IP, no rationale given. — surjection?⟩ 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems more a like a case for RFV than RFD. Pinging @Ubizias, who created it. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


There is no variant "urroj" for urrej and I've looked for it. This is reasoned by earlier Latin loans often being suffixed with "-ej" instead of "-oj" or another verbal ending. HeliosX (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Albanian never has [ð] as a variant for [d] within the consonantal cluster [dɹ] or [dɽ]. The terms are unable to be encountered anywhere. HeliosX (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


The consonant [θ] is never confounded in variants with [f], hence the entry should not be kept. HeliosX (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


Dutch protologism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It is attested here and also in the subtitle of an article about Heleen van Royen (so NSFW) here. Perhaps someone could check Usenet? Should at least be tagged as rare if it passes. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Also used as a title here, but whether that should qualify as a use is rather arguable. As an aside, it turns out that it was also the title of a column about car photos in the 70s. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


Sounds like a "dictionary-only" word. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And is that really one word? This looks like a long descriptive phrase with all the whitespace deleted. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget that this is a polysynthetic language. It's not a long phrase, it's a compound of compounds, with affixes filling the role of particles instead of separately. Here's a page showing the morphology and related words. You can even hear it pronounced. Given Ojibwe's LDL status, that might even suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chuck Entz, my comment was actually inspired by my study of a different highly agglutinating polysynthetic language, Navajo, where we find things like chidí naaʼnaʼí beeʼeldǫǫh bikááʼ dah naaznilígíí (tank, as in an armored fighting vehicle) -- a long descriptive phrase, literally parsing out to "the thing that's a car that crawls about and has a cannon and people sit on it". So when I see super long words like the one above, and then I see it broken down, I find myself wondering if this is really just a typography problem where someone decided to remove the whitespace. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The key question is whether the University of Minnesota's webpage counts as durably archived (I'm on the fence here). Secondarily, they spell it with a bunch of hyphens separating morphemes, so if we do keep it, we probably ought to move it to match their spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that the UMN website has a shorter word, lacking the badagwiingweshigani component (see also badagwiingweshin) in the entry taken here from the Anishinaabemowin website.  --Lambiam 11:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

They may be putting the hyphens in solely as an aid to the reader, the way Russian dictionaries put accents on that aren't used in normal writing. There are other examples of this such as biinji-gizhaabikizigan, though I cant say for sure that hyphens are never used in ordinary writing in Ojibwe either. Soap 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Okay I see native speakers using hyphens, but it still could be that one dictionary is using them to show the morpheme boundaries as an aid to the reader when they would not be used in ordinary writing. Soap 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the very long delay, but I forgot about this. user:CJLippert replied to me on Wikipedia and the answer is here. Soap 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

April 2020Edit


Cebuano. Removed by an IP; originally added by User:Carl Francis. — surjection?⟩ 11:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Citations:Vladimir 15:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “to meet with one's wish accidentally“ and “(modern) to request” -- 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


{{pi-alt}} automatically generated this form (with tall AA) as the Tai Tham script form of papphāsa (lungs), and the entry that should have gone under ᨷᨷ᩠ᨹᩣᩈ (papphāsa) (with round AA) was entered under this form, although the quotation unambiguously shows round AA. The form with round AA has been created.

I am using a RFV rather than a RFD in case someone can show that the Pali orthographic syllable pphā does get written with tall AA in the Tai Tham script - tall AA is the expected form in the Burmese script. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 may have some relevant evidence. --RichardW57 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Latin "medior" as comparative form of adjective "medius"Edit

The page for medius says "comparative medior" (there is no separate entry for medior as an adjective form, and no citations are given for this form). This is contradicted by the Wikipedia article Latin declension which says "Comparatives and superlatives of -eus/-ius adjectives: First and second declension adjectives that end in -eus or -ius are unusual in that they do not form the comparative and superlative by taking endings at all. Instead, magis ('more') and maximē ('most'), the comparative and superlative degrees of magnoperē ('much, greatly'), respectively, are used." Which is correct?--Urszag (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This online tool for Latin conjugations and declensions agrees with Wikipedia. Semantically, the comparative is rare (what is the comparative of the adjective half?), but I see magis medius used by Aquinas in his commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. That does not mean much, though, as the Doctor Angelicus liked to form comparatives with magis.  --Lambiam 20:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Kölsch: Bajore, Belljie, Brandeborsch, Bulljaarije, Finnlandt, Frankrish, Hamborsch, Heßße, Italije, Jrußbrittannije, Liechtensteen, Littaue, Luxembursh, Meckleborsch-Vüürpommere, Nederläng, Needersachse, Noodrhing-Wäßßfaale, Norrveeje, Ößtrish, Rhingland-Pallz, SachseEdit

Bajore, Belljie [now Beljie at ksh.wp], Brandeborsch, Bulljaarije, Finnlandt, Frankrish, Hamborsch, Heßße, Italije, Jrußbrittannije, Liechtensteen, Littaue, Luxembursh [now Luxemburch in the wp article, though the other form still occors elsewhere], Meckleborsch-Vüürpommere, Nederläng, Needersachse, Noodrhing-Wäßßfaale, Norrveeje, Ößtrish, Rhingland-Pallz, Sachse, Schwäjz, Shvede, Thüringe, Tshäshäij.
See Talk:Bälliin. --Marontyan (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

At Talk:jannowaa it was already pointed out years ago, that these are uncommon Wikipedia-invented spellings...
(ksh.wp has [73], in which history it reads "de user losse sich nit von einem admin de Schrievwies vürschrieve" lol.) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:371C:3D30:4890:BC59:6F39:B6EE (talk) at 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
Here some real attested Kölsch: Berlin, Frankreich, Griecheland, Hamburg, Italie, Januar, Kanada.
And BTW it's also Babylon, Eurydice, Orpheus (added as translations).
It's time that the fake/protologistic stuff gets deleted. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3797:DD04:C3FD:9FC8:4F28 (talk) at 18:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC).


Inaccurate reconstruction and meaning. -- Gnosandes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

accecini as perfect form of Latin verb accanoEdit

As far as I can see, no sources list a perfect of the form "accecini", and I'm suspicious of it because reduplicated perfects generally don't show up with prefixed verbs. I can't find any genuine uses of "accecini" or "accecinit" from an online search.--Urszag (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Attested uses of accanui, accanuit or accanuerunt would settle the matter, but an (admittedly somewhat cursory) search did not yield any of these either. More research is needed.  --Lambiam 16:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The grammars I've looked at seem to only mention accano as a collateral form for the present-tense forms of accino, which is listed with a perfect form accinui (which I've seen attestations of). So if we do list a perfect form for accano, accinui currently seems the least bad option to me.--Urszag (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Azerbaijani. Tagged but not listed. Old Man Consequences (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


Very strange un-Italian spelling, very few hits. Misspelling of alchechengi? ping @GianWikiJberkel 00:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Or a misspelling of alkekengi (seen used here, here and here)?
We do have English alkekengi, which, by the way, is a different species than the cape gooseberry.  --Lambiam 06:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jberkel None of the Italian reference templates seems to contain the lemma, but a Google search seems to suggest a (somewhat marginal) use of the term. I can't really say where it comes from, though. Could be listed as a synonym of alchechengio peruviano (“cape gooseberry”, the plant Physalis peruviana), even though it'd lack etymological info. — GianWiki (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The term occurs in the 1915 book Nella terra dei Negus: Pagine raccolte in Abissinia, volume 2, p. 65 (US access only), also here in GBS snippet view: “Altre fruttifere furono importate e crescono quali l’ananas, il nespolo, i cocomeri, gli alkikinger, le fragole.” The fact that it is considered a fruit suggests the cape gooseberry, not the ornamental alkekengi. The etymological origin, Arabic كَاكَنْج(kākanj), is nevertheless undoubtedly the same. Perhaps – this is pure speculation – the author picked up this spelling while visiting Ethiopia.  --Lambiam 11:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)





Tagged in diff. Also add OD. --Mittsloo (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It is shorthand used by ophthalmologists in eyeglass prescriptions.[74] I am not sure if this qualifies as Latin; we classify per os found in medical prescriptions as translingual. For the rest, now we have to find three durably archived eyeglass prescriptions :).  --Lambiam 08:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Here are three book uses: [75], [76], [77].  --Lambiam 08:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
per os does occur in English and German, so technically it's used translingually. In Latin however, it's SOP (per os).
As for the uses, they are English OS/O.S. & OD/O.D.. And here are mentions of German OS/O. S. & OD/O. D. as well as of German LA & RA: [78], [79]. So there might indeed be Translingual OS & OD. However, that does not make it a Latin term and does not attest a Latin term.
BTW: Latin O.S. & O.D. have an RFV-sense too.
--Marontyan (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


This is said to be a neuter i-stem, but such nouns have a lemma in *-i, while *-iz is reserved for non-neuters. Either the gender or the inflection is wrong. —Rua (mew) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And none of the alleged Germanic descendants is in Wiktionary! The Finnic loan is present, though. RichardW57 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Kluge reconstructs a z-stem as the ancestor to the OHG and ON. --{{victar|talk}} 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


Probably only used in terms like KBC-Waffen / ABC-Waffen, in which at best there is a pseudo-prefix KBC- / ABC-. --Bakunla (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Old English wesan (to feast, consume)Edit

This is listed in the descendants of *wesaną, but it's not listed in Bosworth-Toller. Köbler does have it, but with a question mark. It also lists the derived forwesan without a question mark, while BT is missing that too. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: I've chased why this wesan (to feast) is in some dictionaries. It's only used once—maybe—in Old English (and possibly again in Middle English? I haven't gone after that one yet), but it's fairly doubtful. I've added the info at the entry. —caoimhinoc (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

kanker (Dutch)Edit

RFV-sense of "Something incredibly bad, poor or annoying", noun. I only know this intensifying usage as a prefix, not as a noun. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The following moved here from #kanker.  --Lambiam 13:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The 2nd definition is also correct. In dutch, flemish and german (among others), one can use nearly any disease, vulgar term or otherwise negative word as a prefix to the noun or adjective as an offensive intensifier. It's also possible to use kanker or other diseases as a prefix to a positive adjective to put emphasis on it. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:02, February 16, 2021‎ (UTC).
That usage is not the disputed one. The prefix already exists at kanker-, but the definition and the part of speech of the contested sense clearly is that of a noun. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


Greek for León, Spain. According to Wikipedia it's Λεόν. Ultimateria (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión.  --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes @Metaknowledge, it is as Lambiam explains. Many cities have both variants: phonetic unadapted simplified spelling and -usually older style:- adapted with declension. But The female's name is only Λεώνη, not Λεόν, @Ultimateria. ‑‑Sarri.greek  | 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

May 2020Edit


Rfv-sense: “politeness” — 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit


Because of the lack of space and partly the small g it looks modern English.
Latin usages: "cod. Urb. Gr.", "codicibus Urb. gr." & "Cod. Urbinas graecus", "codices Urb. gr.", "cod. urb. gr.".
BTW English with spaces: [80]. --Marontyan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


All I can find is one use on soc.culture.esperanto, where it seems more likely to mean Malaysia (maybe a typo for Malajzio?). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I found it in the Nanyang Siang Pau: [81]. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Google Books:
Saman supersimplan sistemigon oni trovas ankoraŭ nun ĉe kelkaj SAT - anoj , kiuj alkroĉas sian sufikson - i al ĉia landnomo kaj maltimas skribi : Koreio , Malajio , Urugvio , Kanadio ktp . Kiam la cirkonstancoj kaj la kritikoj invitis al pli funda ...
Lingvo kaj vivo
( 9 ) Oceanio : ( 91 ) Malajio . ( 91 . 4 ) Filipina insulo . ( 93 ) Australazio . ( 9 . 31 ) Nova Zelando . ( 9 . 32 ) Nova Kaledonio . ( 94 ) Aŭstralio . ( 95 ) Nova Gvineo . ( 96 ) Polinezio . Tabelo 3a – Helpaj nombroj de lingvoj aŭ idiomoj . La nombroj de​ ...
Internacia scienca revuo
Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(disclaimer: I do not know Esperanto. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC))
Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find. The Lingvo kaj vivo quote is a mention. The Internacia scienca revuo quote may be a mention, but I can't see enough context to tell for sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Internacia scienca revuo, full text: [82]Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Not thrilling, but I think it's more than a mention; it's saying that (91) in their book system will cover books about Malaya.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Are we sure about what it means in that context? It seems to include the Philippines as part of 91. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps it's one of those cases where we have several cites but no one clear meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I did some searching, and was only able to come up with the above examples provided by the person offering this up for RFV. All of the sources that I've found are definitely referencing this as a historical term, but I feel as though there is not enough documentation with either of the sources provided to be able to verify this term at this point in time. Please keep in mind that I did spend about 20-30 minutes looking around for sources, and most of the sources that I found, I could trace back to the sources provided above. Razorflame 20:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • From what I can tell, the mention in «Lingvo kaj vivo» by G. Waringhien appears to be in the context of country names that are erroneous and should be avoided (note that «Malajio» is listed alongside «Kanadio» and «Urugvio» which are flatly wrong). So I would hesitate to list that as a legitimate citation. The context for the mention Internacia scienca revuo is unclear, as mentioned above, complicated by the fact that in 1909 (year of publication) some geographical names may still not have been standardized. Nanyang Siang Pau is a good find, but (in my opinion) is the only legitimate mention of those three.
  • I could find only two other mentions of the term:
  • [83] (may not be durable) - SAT Esperanto. Nur Ĉinio kaj Malajio eskapis el tio, malpermesante la eliron de la kapitaloj.
  • [84] La Pacdefendanto, no. 51, March 1956: aŭstralaj kaj novzelandaj trupoj en Malajio siajn militajn operaciojnkontraŭ la anoj de la nacia liberiga movado
  • If these two mentions are kosher, that should make three. If do end up keeping this entry, though, I would definitely flag it as {{obsolete form of}} and/or {{nonstandard form of}}. Audrey (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


This seems to be a morpheme, not a word. I'm not sure how to clean up the entry, or whether it should remain when fixed. According to the (Thai) Royal Institute Dictionary (RID), the independent word is อุตส่าห์ (note the tone mark and cancellation mark), yielding the unbound pronunciation shown, while อุตสาห is a trisyllabic prefix, notated อุตสาห- in the RID. (The Thai of the RID does use hyphens.) The RID also reports a trisyllabic stand-alone form, อุตสาหะ. Before one spelling reform, if the word existed (evidence?), the trisyllabic unbound form would have been spelt the same as the challenged lemma. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You will find lots of อุตสาหกรรม (อุตสาห + กรรม) in search results, and some rare compounds like อุตสาหการ (อุตสาห + การ). In Wiktionary, every form of a word can have its own page, that is, we can have อุตสาห, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุษาหะ, อุสสาหะ, and อุสส่าห์. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The compounds you cited are evidence for อุตสาห-, are they not? I'm not sure how to link all these forms. Linked they should be. Is the etymology of อุตสาหกรรม {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตส่าห์|กรรม}}, {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|กรรม}} or even {{compound|th|อุตสาห-|-กรรม}}? Or {{prefix|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}? And why doesn't the latter link to a form with a hyphen? Amusingly, อุตสาหกรรม gets broken between lines with a hyphen (at the morpheme join) in the 1999 edition of the RID.--RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If อุตสาห is now only the combining form (the disyllabic nonocombining form has vanished since I raised this RfV), why is its part of speech 'adjective' as opposed to 'prefix'? --RichardW57 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I added {{compound|th|อุตสาห|กรรม}}. Thai lemmas here do not have hyphen for prefix/suffix because they have same meaning of its full word so prefix/suffix will be written on the same page, unless they are spelled different. And Thai lemmas can always attach to another word even they are not prefix/suffix (a noun can modify another noun, etc), like Chinese and other languages in the SEA region. In case of อุตสาห, the dictionary said:
อุตสาห-, อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ น. ความบากบั่น, ความพยายาม, ความขยัน, ความอดทน, ใช้ว่า อุษาหะ อุสสาหะ หรือ อุสส่าห์ ก็มี. ก. บากบั่น, พยายาม, ขยัน, อดทน.


อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ น. อุตสาหะ. ก. อุตส่าห์.
that means the entry อุตสาห should be noun (น.), since morpheme cannot be verb (ก.). อุตส่าห์, อุตสาหะ, อุสส่าห์, อุสสาหะ, and unmentioned อุษาหะ are full words. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it means the preceding combining form is written in words as "อุตสาห", while as a whole word it is อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) or อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). The rest means that the word forms are both nouns and verbs, and that there are yet other spellings in use. Taking the RID as a whole, it's not clear to me what the status of อุษาหะ is; unlike the other forms, it has no entry of its own in the RID. Note there is no entry อุตสาห in the RID; the entry is อุตสาห-. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two main modes of noun compounding in Thai. Indic words are combined in the order (modifier, head), and the first element usually sprouts a linking vowel and the restoration in speech of the silent final vowels, and often clarification of the phonation of a final stop. There may also be spelling changes. This the old Indo-European order, still seen in English compounds like coalmine. The native order is (head, modifier), and it is often not clear whether this is syntax or word derivation. The first element may be modified, e.g. by the vowel shortening, but this is not visible in writing. There are then a few anomalous compounds, like ผลไม้ (pǒn-lá-máai, fruit), with native ordering but still a link vowel. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Note that in this case that the noun and its compounding form are written differently. I believe there is no big problem with giving the etymology of the compound as {{compound|th|อุตสาหะ|กรรม}}; what is uncertain is whether it is a compound of the 2- or 3-syllable form. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I notice that Octahedron80 has sneakily changed the part of speech to 'noun'. With that change, the entry is clearly a candidate for deletion, as there is no noun อุตสาห (utasāha) in correctly spelt modern Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I have originally created it as a noun, since the PoS distinction in a language such as Thai is blurred, especially for compound words. I was guided by its meaning and my Thai is below average.
It's was reasonable to change it to noun. The term is present in Sanook dictionary. There are so many derivations. Please keep the word. อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) should be the alt or the main spelling, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not a word in modern Thai! The Sanook dictionary is a compilation of other dictionaries. Which one are you citing? The headword from the RID looks corrupt, but perhaps it's from so old a version that the hyphen wasn't there. A 1950's book teaching Thai laments that the spelling นม represented both of what are now written as นมะ (námá, homage) and นม (nom, milk)). --RichardW57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's the link. What are you suggesting? I don't think it's very typical to have Thai entries with hyphens. Another solution, like having a component as SoP may be required. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm stating that as a copy of a recent RID dictionary, the headwords in the Sanook dictionary are corrupt. I have one other big Thai dictionary, and that also shows combining forms with a hyphen. It seems that the correct way forward is to:
  1. Mark this entry as a 'noun form', the combining form of อุตส่าห์ (ùt-sàa) and อุตสาหะ (ùt-sǎa-hà). (I have jocularly referred to Thai as having a genitive case.) --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  3. On those two pages, say, in the usage notes, how compounds are formed and handled. Display this entry with a hyphen, which is the expectation of readers who have used a good Thai dictionary. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
A longer term solution is to change {{prefix}} so that it expects Thai prefixes to have hyphens, and rename this entry to the hyphenated form, as seen in good dictionaries. Special handling will be needed if we can find evidence of the use of the challenged word's form as a noun. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Michell's 1892 dictionary has อุสสาห, but curiously indicates a disyllabic pronunciation. If that had been entered as a noun, it would be right to keep it as an obsolete spelling. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hundreds of words are in the same case like this. For example แพทย/แพทย์, อินทร/อินทร์, ศาสตร/ศาสตร์, ธุร/ธุระ, etc, if you want to look into it. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. They need to be dealt with. I intend to create a template for noting the existence of a combining form. I think I'll call it {{th-combining}}. Its expansion may need rework, as head-initial and head-final compounding are different, but I couldn't think of a snappy way of saying that to non-linguists. For แพทย์ (pɛ̂ɛt, physician), แพทย์หญิง (pɛ̂ɛt-yǐng, female doctor) versus แพทยศาสตร์ (pɛ̂ɛt-tá-yá-sàat, medicine (the disicipline)) exemplifies the difference. --RichardW57 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

German "Suffixes"Edit

  • -beck, -büren/-bühren, -broich in place-names: Instead of being formed with the suffix, rather the place-names are borrowed, e.g. German Lübeck from Low German or Middle Low German.
  • -vitz/-witz in surnames: Rather from place-names, e.g. Horowitz from the German place Horowitz, influenced by Slavic.

--Marontyan (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


I can find no online source for this entry. It could be a mash up of two morphemes waabik (dollar) and minik (how many), but even that would be the product of a unique morphology. Or perhaps it comes from a printed glossary somewhere. SteveGat (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


I can find no online source for this suffix. It might be a participle, or maybe a medial+final combination that may appear together. SteveGat (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(vulgar, offensive) promiscuous slut". Originally added by an IP (with the wrong template) with the reasoning: "Reliable source needed for that use of the word" in diff. — surjection??⟩ 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There are lot of senses in this word. But of course it also has the sexual connotations associated with dogs, actually more than the English bitch which often refers to the pesky behaviour of dogs (→ bitchy), so translation is not one to one. Maybe all those senses you find for как суку in pornographic sites on the web are examples for this gloss. Fay Freak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say not necessarily promiscuous, but a slut in some quasi-positive sense, more like a sexually attractive sophisticated woman. --GareginRA (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

دائميEdit 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020Edit

New Saxon SpellingsEdit

See the search results. The Wikipedia article was deleted. --B-Fahrer (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Anon added Ancient Greek to this entry, but I'm wondering if it actually was a prefix in that language. Anyone care to shed some light? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's something to start with: πρωτ- and πρωθ- Chuck Entz (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Does this mean that it's a variant of πρωτ- and πρωθ- or the main prefix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd say πρωτο- (prōto-) is the primary form and πρωτ- (prōt-) and πρωθ- (prōth-) are alternative forms. I'd also say it's a real prefix, though I'm not sure how to test that hypothesis against the alternative, namely that words beginning with it are compounds of πρῶτος (prôtos). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Because the test is either impossible or impracticable, for Old Armenian I put the derivatives under the primary form and add a usage note, as in պէս (pēs) and բան (ban). --Vahag (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

inflection table for Gaulish entryEdit

The entry given has a declension table for the Gaulish pronoun "tu". I highly doubt even half of these forms are actually attested. RubixLang (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Used to convey joy, excitement, or celebration. As an experiment to see what kind of citations would satisfy this. DTLHS (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Google doesn't index emojis and neither does Issuu, so this means it's impossible to attest emojis, even when they're used in books, magazines, and other durably-archived media. This has been in use since at least 2019 (it's inspired by the 2018 "Crab Rave" video), and appears easily citable off Twitter. It's doesn't seem reasonable that a whole area of language would be precluded from inclusion simply because the technical limitations of Google mean we cannot find "durable" citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Twitter citations added here, spanning 2018 to this year. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm torn about this. Surely there are books or magazines with extensive use of emojis that could be collated and scanned by eye, but it's undeniable that the burden of attesting emojis is vastly higher for purely nonlinguistic reasons. That said, we can't just switch to using Twitter to attest things, in part because tweets are easily deleted or removed, and in part because that would be a conscious choice to attest emoji usage on Twitter, which is often rather distinct from its usage elsewhere. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Citing this the old-fashioned way would require someone to manually read through every book and magazine printed in the last two years in the vain hope they can find three instances of the crab emoji being used. (I think I've happened upon the eggplant emoji in print once in all my deep-diving through Issuu). There's no way to cite emojis except through platforms that index emojis, and Twitter is currently the largest, most active platform that does. The "durably archived media, except Usenet" thing is unnecessarily hamstringing our ability to document emojis, and possibly other Internet slang as well. Seriously, it was a weird policy ten years ago. Now it's just silly. Almost no one is having conversations on Usenet in 2020. Google has nerfed Groups to the point it's basically useless. I can't find things anymore unless I know exactly which newsgroups to search. And you couldn't find emojis on Groups, even if Usenet was still being widely used.
Of course there needs to be standards. I'm not suggesting the one-year citation span be thrown out. I still think emojis should have to meet that threshold. But it's silly that emojis should be excluded simply because Google Books, Google Groups, Google Scholar, and Issuu don't let you search for them. Technical limitations imposed by the services we use to find citations should not limit how we document language. This isn't an impassable roadblock -- it's a problem in need of a solution. And that's where Twitter comes in. It's widely used. It's easy to search. It's freely viewable for almost everyone. Sure, tweets sometimes get deleted. But "durably archived" has never meant "freely accessible for everyone in perpetuity." Books go out of print. Libraries take titles out of general circulation. Books moulder or are destroyed in fires. Old newspapers get converted to microfiche, which can then become damaged and unreadable. New newspapers end up filed away behind paywalls. The good thing about Twitter is that there's generally a fresh supply of new tweets to replaces ones that may get deleted. It's not perfect, certainly, but it's the only reliable way to cite emojis, as it stands. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
My practice for creating slang entries is to tolerate fewer durable citations if the word is mentioned in a reputable slang dictionary. People sometimes write about twitter words. Are there any less ephemeral mentions to add to the citations page? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
This is also found a lot on e.g. Reddit [85] [86] [87] [88] – quotes: "🦀 Hey a good thing happened! 🦀", "🦀Little man is gone🦀", "🦀🦀London is gone🦀🦀", "🦀 no authenticator delay 🦀". – Nixinova [‌T|C] 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


The meaning of wood for mitig is attested as an inanimate noun. I can't find a source for it as an animate noun. SteveGat (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Ukrainian: (Canada) Diminutive of ґара; car, little car. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Ukrainian: --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)(Canada) car, automobile. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This usage was once widespread in Western Canada. It's still used as slang but now the literary Canadian-Ukrainian word is "авто". The word is most notable in many older Canadian-Ukrainian songs sung at dances. It's tough to find written examples of this but here are a few:
--Danielcentore (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Verified (?), just barely, considering Ukrainian is a well-documented language. --03:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Danielcentore: Could these quotes be added to the entry? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung, Danielcentore, Kevlar67: I have checked again. I can't use any of the links, even long Youtube videos don't have a correct timings and examples above look dubious and grammatically incorrect. I won't insist on deletion of the entry, since this is a dialectal word and may not require the same verification. What shall we do? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: Canadian Ukrainian is spoken by people multiple generations away from those who came from Ukraine, and declensions and other parts of grammar are often misused when compared with a more "pure" form of the language. I don't think that makes the dialect and its vocabulary any less real or less deserving of being documented thoroughly. The timing in the D-Drifters-5 video is at 29:05. The quotes in the Freddie Chetyrbok song take place at 0:28 and 2:00. I personally think the word belongs here - it is fairly common slang in the Canadian Ukainian dialect and it is used in at least two very popular songs sung in the Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora. Danielcentore (talk)
I have also found a fourth example: "...while those who say hochu vs khocho; rowbyty vs robyty; pejlo vs vidro; gara vs avto identify themselves as North American speakers of [Ukrainian]". Between Ukish and Oblivion: The Ukrainian Language in Canada Today - Danylo H. Struk on page 1. Danielcentore (talk)
@Danielcentore, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: I don't want by any means, suppress dialectal terms but we are following WT:CFI. If terms are not attested, they are not kept (deleted). The rules may not be the same for well-documented and poorly documented languages (there's a category for the latter but I don't remember where it is). Ukrainian belongs to the first group but it's hard to attest dialectal (mostly spoken) terms even for the first category. So maybe dialects shouldn't fall into the first category?. I also don't know think we should be adding any Ukrainian citations in Latin script or obvious misspellings from Internet (e.g. роз'їхав as розїхав). @Danielcentore, are you able to prepare three citations? We can review later. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the citation "Часто сміємося зі слів 'до штору', 'ґара'" is a mention, not an actual use. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Justinrleung, Kevlar67: I've updated the entry with 4 quotations, please take a look if you think they're satisfactory. I found an additional 1965 entry which was phonetic but I transliterated it to Cyrillic using the table provided at the beginning of the book, as the book is supposed to use 1:1 Latin:Cyrillic correspondence. I personally see no reason phonetic Latin entries should not be admissible - it is somewhat common to write Canadian Ukrainian in Latin (I have an entire book from the 1970s which is Cyrillic on the left pages and Latin on the right, for example), and if we don't have any better alternative I think it suffices. The "розїхав" entry is not just a random quote from the internet, it is in a PhD thesis paper, and I'm reproducing it faithfully, with the typo. I did not include the mention, thank you for calling out the inadmissibility of that. Danielcentore (talk)
@Danielcentore: Thanks for your efforts. The quote from Struk (1998) is a mention as well, so it's probably no good if Canadian Ukrainian is to be treated the same as Standard Ukrainian (as in being stricter with attestation per WT:ATTEST and WT:WDL). I'm not sure what Ukrainian editors think, but I don't know if we should be converting Latin script into Cyrillic if the original source is in Latin script. Perhaps both Latin and Cyrillic should be listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: I've included the Latin script in parentheses after "original text:", hope that seems like a satisfactory solution. I'm not sure I agree that we should be as strict with Ukrainian-Canadian given how few speakers it has compared to standard Ukrainian and the fact that most written materials still used some form of literary Ukrainian, but I'm okay with removing the entry in this case given that we'll still have 3 entries. Danielcentore (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore: Also, "Gusting Winds" seems to be in Cherwick (1999: 136). The way you've cited it makes it look like it was Daniel Centore (you) who wrote the song. It should be attributed to the actual songwriters, not to you. I guess there's an issue of independence if this song and the song by D-Drifters-5 are recorded in Cherwick (1999), and we're citing the same source for the written lyrics. They are technically independent if it weren't for Cherwick, so I think it'd be fine. We just need to give the songs the right credits. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Justinrleung: The Gusting Winds lyrics in the WikiSpiv book were independently researched from before I was aware of the Cherwick source (and the Cherwick one has a few mistakes where WikiSpiv does not, though this particular quote is identical in both). "Розїхав ґаром, скидав черевики" is from the song "Гандзя" by the "D-Drifters-5" on their album "D-Drifters 5 – Sing and play traditional and original Ukrainian songs" and "Залетіла в ґару муха" is from the song "Gusting Winds" by Freddie Chetyrbok in the album "Pub with no beer". I found that there's a quote-song template and switched to using that, no longer referencing Cherwick or WikiSpiv anymore at all. How does that look? Danielcentore (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore: I think it looks great now. @Atitarev, what do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
@Danielcentore, Justinrleung: Thank you both. I am OK to pass it and I agree that maybe some regional dialects could use less strict rules but we don't have these rules in place yet. For example, an Israeli Russian word мазга́н (mazgán) is not known in Russian but since satisfactory citations have been provided, we are keeping it. Relaxing CFI rules would allow an influx of made up words, which should be prevented.
@Danielcentore, you may also try searching for spellings like "гара" (or its inflected form), since letter "ґ" is still considered rather marginal in Ukrainian and is often replaced with "г" with or without affect on pronunciation. For example газе́та (hazéta) may be pronounced ґазе́та (gazéta) in the diaspora (only) but can be spelled "газета" regardless of the pronunciation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Various Ukrainian senses. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020Edit

буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллівEdit

@Atitarev This has no hits outside of Wiktionary, and the grammar of галичан віллів seems questionable; галичан is genitive plural, which doesn't fit, and віллів cannot be found in any dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Entry created by User:Kevlar67, apparently from hearsay, used by some narrow community in Canada. I don't understand the grammar and most of the vocab in the phrase. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Benwing2 "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers. http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67 So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: Obsolete is a bit strong; it's in decline, sure, but so are thousands of languages and dialects around the world. The research was done the [[w:Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village]|Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including Klymasz] Robert Klymasz the preeminent Ukrainian-Canadian folklorist and expert on the local dialect. The link I provided is a summary comprised of the glossaries of several published works of oral history research, most notably Robert B. Klymasz, Sviéto: Celebrating Ukrainian-Canadian ritual in East Central Alberta through the Generations, Edmonton, 1992. Notice that the title is even in dialect, the standard being Sviato. Yes, indeed the phrase it should be given context labels. I have no issue with that, in fact I can do it now. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
About the transcription: it is a modified version of the Library of Congress system that the research staff at the Ukrainian Village adopted for their first published report in 1976, Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta by John Lehr, when access to word processors that could make diacritical marks in Canada was limited. Further, the materials were meant to be read by non-linguists, mainly museum employees, historians, folklorists, etc. I don't see this as an issue in any way. Works about the dialect were also published in Cyrillic, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Rudnyckyj Jaroslav Rudnyckyj's multi-volume Ukrainian-Canadian Folklore and Dermatological Texts (Winnipeg, 1956, 1958, and 1962-63). Kevlar67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67: The phrase has no value and should be deleted. It was poorly transliterated (the page just uses phonetic Anglicisation, not any specific standard) and poorly translated or rather described. Now I understand what it meant:
At play is a variation of two verbs with similar meaning:
си́пати/насипа́ти (наси́пати)/висипа́ти (ви́сипати) vs ли́ти/налива́ти (нали́ти)/вилива́ти (ви́лити)
"sýpav" refers to си́пав (from си́пати-impf) and "výlliv" is ви́лив (from ви́лити-pf, to pour out).
There is a mix-up in East Slavic languages, not unique to Ukrainian about си́пати (to pour friable/solid objects, such as sand, sugar, salt, etc) and ли́ти (to pour (liquid). Using си́пати (*sỳpati) is normally considered incorrect in standard Ukrainian, ли́ти (*liti) should be used for liquids. This incorrect usage is ascribed to a Galician speaker and it's supposed to be funny in how one person from Bukovina pours water in, the other from Galicia pours it out but they just use different verbs to describe their action.
The sentence uses inconsistent aspects - the first part is imperfective and the second is perfective.
It's grammatically incorrect. It can be rewritten as "букови́нець си́пав во́ду, а галича́нин вилива́в" (imperfective) or "букови́нець naси́пав во́ду, а галича́нин ви́лив" (perfective). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along. It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language. Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke. This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused. Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity. In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect. Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


Gichi- is one of the ways to say right (not left). It is not clear whether it should be considered a preverb (see here) or an initial (initials are written without a hyphen), as in gichinik, or whether it can be analyzed as a separate lemma at all. SteveGat (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Latin: Used to mark abbreviations. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 4 August 2020 with also the RFC template (“for more information as . is the usual abbreviation mark - although · does occur in inscriptions as word separator and abbreviation mark too (as in [89], [90])”), not listed.

I created this entry because I found it used in a painting and on a British coin but uses that meet the CFI better, to add as quotations, could probably be found easily. J3133 (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

cheveux blancsEdit

Not familiar with this. PUC – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: [91], [92], [93], [94] (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: [95].  --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian зграEdit

Per User:Atitarev, a dictionary-only word found in Dal with a ? by it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The entry in Vladimir Dal's Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (in that time "Great Russian"=Russian, as opposed to Ukrainian or Belarusian) dictionary looks like this:
ЗГРА? донск. искра (зга?).
Question marks are preserved. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I've added reference to Dahl. If it's kept, the inlfections should be removed as unknown. зга (zga) exists in modern Russian but preserved only in expressions. Also diminutive зги́нка (zgínka). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont get it .... why arent we just assuming the etymology is that it's a variant of искра? thanks, Soap 23:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


Spanish. Removed by IP in diff. For such a common word, you'd expect entries in other dictionaries, but I can't find any, but I can find some results, so it might not be a complete hoax. — surjection??⟩ 16:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • FailThe only "good quotes" were by the same author, found below. MM0898 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • 1998, Andrés Trapiello, Una caña que piensa
      orinales en los que han mingido tres generaciones de viejos prostáticos
    • 2000, Andrés Trapiello, Las inclemencias del tiempo
      estaba uno en los mingitorios de la planta baja, mingiendo, se me apareció

fake newsEdit

Rfv-sense "any news considered insufficiently flattering by populists [from 2016 or 2017]". Very specific definition, and the wording makes me suspect it's a jab at a particular politician that some editor doesn't like.__Gamren (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the sense in which populist politicians generally use the term; just read the Wikipedia article Fake news. Dutch politicians are no exception. So there is no strong reason to think the editor had any specific politician in mind. Instead of “insufficiently flattering” I think the term denotes, rather, news for which it is more convenient for the speaker if it can be discarded as not being true. I am not sure why we do not have an English entry, but as used in the sense of “it's all lies, folks — so dishonest....” it is not the more usual sense of a hoax news item (“NASA: Mysterious UFO appears to 'sit and watch' Hubble telescope”; “Mother-of-ten (aged 77) pregnant with triplets – doctors are baffled”; “VP Shoots Fellow Hunter: Cheney peppers Texas lawyer with birdshot during quail hunt”*)  --Lambiam 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

* O, wait, that one was actual news. But here is a bonus made-up story.
I'm not sure if the "news I don't want to be true" sense is the same as "fabricated news", or if we want to add a sense "2. false news." Certainly there are news stories I don't consider "fake news" that have been called such, but you have to get into the speaker's head to know the intended meaning. If I call evolution or quantum field theory or N-rays pseudoscience, have I created a new sense of pseudoscience or used the existing sense in a way some people disagree with? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we can think about like this: Would it make sense for a politician to outright tell her constituency "this may be true, but if it were found to be true, it would undermine my policies, therefore we should agree to disregard it"? Certainly they would not take her seriously! Alternatively, I found an article claiming to debunk Trump's accusations of fake news. The authors of this article clearly understand those accusations to regard veracity rather than political usefulness. I definitely think the intent behind describing something as fake news is that it contains information known to be untrue. I wouldn't mind if a usage note was added explaining that the term has a history of being misapplied by politicians to demonstrably true information.__Gamren (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If use in Dutch is like use in English I would add a usage note rather than a definition. It functions as an emphatic denial like calling something a lie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Not true, this term pops up in relation to a number of populists who use it as a generic buzzword to discredit unflattering news. This sense is encountered often if you follow Dutch-language news and it genuinely seems distinct from sense 1. Politicians who use it generally seem uninterested in actually demonstrating falsehoods in news, for one. I also think it is poor form to speculate about the political motivations of other editors. Anyway, here are some hits, though some are less than ideal (mentions/mentionlike, only used in titles): [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] It is a sense you hear relatively frequently on broadcast media. Searching on Google is hampered because the results also include nepnieuws, even if you use quotation marks. Perhaps the definition is too narrow, because the term is also used in this way by the Chinese communists. "[P]opulists and autocrats", perchance? But that will likely attract more outrage and vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Do Chinese politicians really use this word, while speaking Chinese, or do they use some Chinese wording that gets translated as "fake news" by Anglophone media?__Gamren (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for astable. Never came across it, can't find any reference for it. --Droigheann (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


Hot word in Danish from 2016. Can it be kept? DTLHS (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Same situation with nihonium and moscovium. These new elements are kind of translingual, but not entirely because they can have language-specific inflection. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Danish Wikipedia article suggests that the word is no longer in use in Danish. I think that may have been the point of the RFV. Thadh (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, probably not. The form with -e at the end never really made sense, it's very "un-Danish". The form promoted by Dansk Kemisk Nomenklatur is tennessin, which also has a short entry on Den Store Danske (an online Encyclopedia). I've added three cites for that which I found on Infomedia, but they're one month short of spanning a year.__Gamren (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

More symbols from Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B block without any clearly meaningful definitionsEdit

I first posted three of these at RFD, but now it seems to me that RFV might be the appropriate place. The problem here is that supposedly mathematical symbols have been entered, but instead of a definition they have a description of the symbol itself.

, , , ,

__Gamren (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


"(mathematics) Three consecutive equal signs." __Gamren (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess this may be an alternative form of ===, which has a definition. We currently define as an alternative form of := , and ... (three dots) as an alternative form of (U+2026) – where I wonder if the other way around wouldn’t be preferable for the latter.  --Lambiam 15:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that anyone would make a programming language using a character that no keyboard is able to produce. Likewise, ≔ probably isn't used for the programming sense of :=. As for the ellipsis... in LaTeX, at least, inputting three periods in an equation usually looks very ugly. In natural-language contexts, I doubt anyone would go out of their way to typeset an ellipsis character, but some text editors by default make that substitution, just as they may replace -- (two regular dashes) with — (one em dash) -- which naturally makes it seem as though many people use it when they actually don't make a conscious decision to do so.__Gamren (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The documents under w:Supplemental_Mathematical_Operators#History suggest that it shouldn't be made up ("This proposal is the culmination of a several-year process of collation and review of mathematical symbols, cooperation between the Unicode Technical Committee and the STIX Project, involving extensive expertise"). Maybe there is a trail of documents that can be followed. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
In the first document it says that "a very large collection of source citations has been collected by the STIX Project group of STIPUB". I went to their website and found the address stix@aip.org, and so I wrote to them. Wonder if I'll get a response.__Gamren (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
It's unlikely w:APL exists?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
APL (programming language)surjection??⟩ 20:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I have used systems with APL keyboards, so I think of it as a typeable language. Perhaps not readable, but typeable. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)





Larger than, smaller than. Are we talking about physical size, or are they synonyms of the common symbols < and >? Or is this a whole different sense of "smaller" and "larger"?__Gamren (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)



"Double precedes" and "double succeeds". What does it mean for something to "double proceed" something? If it's analogous to the difference between > and ≫ I might guess it means "succeeds by a lot; occurs much later in some sequence".__Gamren (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're parsing these wrong is written double, and is written double. In other words, there's less to the definitions than meets the eye. The definitions were obviously copied directly from the Unicode character names, and those tend to describe the glyphs rather than their meaning (e.g. å is "small letter a with ring above"). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that. That's the problem. A description of the glyph is not a definition.__Gamren (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020Edit

mutatis mutandisEdit

--Der Zeitmeister (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  • «malmanĝi» and «maltrinki» are fairly common children's euphemisms, which should be well-attested. However, I cannot specifically find the compound «malmanĝejo» seriously attested anywhere. Audrey (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @J3133: Of this word, there exists an article on Wikipedia, as well as an entry on Wiktionary, not to mention its consistent and concise etymology, which is given. Is there any reason as to why you doubt this word's existence? Jackchango (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jackchango: See WT:CFI: “We do not quote other Wikimedia sites”. A “consistent and concise etymology” is not relevant because it does not replace citations. J3133 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • @J3133: While I disagree with this consensus as well as its representativity, (years ago and from few users) does a bab.la entry suffice? There also appear to be a few others, too. (from dict.cc, Glosbe, and OpenTran) This word is no doubt accepted by the Esperanto community. Jackchango (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Jackchango: I already saw those dictionary entries, which are mentions, not uses. J3133 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
          • @J3133: The difference being? Why are waiting for someone to use a word in a creative work when we there is already wide consensus of its existence? Jackchango (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
            • @Jackchango: The difference being Wiktionary’s CFI policy. J3133 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • @J3133: OK, so this is what I'm picking up from this. Despite there being unanimous consensus of the word existing, the sole reason it won't be listed on this site is because of sources consisting of "lone definitions" due to this CFI policy? What is the reasoning behind this? Jackchango (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                • There is “unanimous consensus” of this word being mentioned by dictionaries, not of it being used. WT:RFV is the place for “prov[ing] that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion”, not for changing the CFI. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • @J3133: I now understand the difference, and I never brought up changing it. I just asked for reasoning, and since you are enforcing this rule so strongly, I think it would be safe to assume you know why it is put in place. Why are we dismissing dictionary entries as mentions when the clearly provide meanings? Jackchango (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                    • English dictionaries have lots of terms that someone made up for a word list, a dictionary added based on the word list, and other dictionaries copied from that dictionary. Constructed languages have the added problem that everything is so regular that it's possible to predict the exact spelling of a term that no one has even made up yet. Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary. You can't describe something as existing that numerous sources agree theoretically ought to exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                      • @Chuck Entz: I still don't see the issue here, I never coined the term. Is your argument a lack of standardization? What on Earth other than spliff could "cannabis cigarette" possibly translate to? Seven sources (two of which aren't allowed for reasons unbeknownst to me) point toward the word existing, exact spelling and all. How many more do we need for it to stop being "theoretical?" Is it just three people to use it in creative work? Where do you think they will get the word from, if not these sources? Jackchango (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
              • @J3133, @Jackchango: I don't speak Esperanto, but does this suffice as a quote? Also, definitely a reference. Thadh (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                • The WordPress blog is not durably archived and the dictionary entry is a mention. Note that Esperanto terms need three citations, not one. J3133 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • Here's another mention: [103]; More quotes from WordPress: [104] (maybe we should archive these?) I furthermore think one can't really expect to find enough mentions of this particular word because of its and the language's context. Thadh (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I get one result for kanabcigaredon (dum e[sic] tri monatoj, nur pro tio, ke tiu fumis kanabcigaredon!) from this issue of Kontakto, but there is no usable preview; the Google preview probably contains a scanno. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I just added that quote the the article. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are three webpages where the term felano is used:

  1. https://eo.wikifur.com/wiki/Felano (created 27 September 2011, last edited 2 September 2015)
  2. https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felanaro (created 16 April 2006, last edited 23 August 2020)
  3. https://medium.com/@Vanege/most-common-esperanto-words-plej-oftaj-vortoj-en-esperanto-b56422d13a7f (written 27 December 2016)

Fußmatte (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Fußmatte: We do not quote Wikimedia sites. The others are not durably archived. See WT:CFI and WT:QUOTE. J3133 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked through 43 pages of a search for the word on books.google.com and all I came up with were lots of Italian, Latin, and Spanish/Portuguese sources for this word, and no citations for this word in Esperanto. Razorflame 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • While this term is indeed used in online contexts, I am (surprisingly) not able to find any citations. This seems like the sort of term that would be easily attestable in ~10 years' time, but certainly not today. Audrey (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I suspect we'll have to host this on WikiFur for now, along with lesser-used furry terms in other languages. We're getting to grips with Wikibase and it should be possible to add lexeme support, which is in our prototype on WBStack already. GreenReaper (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    I put it on WBStack for now. Our first lexeme! Would be nice if e.g. "derives from" -> wikidata:L12345 (felo) was possible. (Also, if it showed the references without editing.) GreenReaper (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Only found 2 times in regular books (not dictionary or glossary) in Google Books (other used as person name). First book used "rain" sense. Second book is not clear. Rex Aurorum (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The word is listed with the given meanings in the KBBI, the official dictionary of the Indonesian language. While Indonesian is not an LDL and this is a mention, not a use, it is a strong indication that the term exists.  --Lambiam 22:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
LDL? Many foreign words forced listed in KBBI to enrich KBBI (to encourage people to use these words) while ignoring attestation in Indonesian. See Wiktionary:About Indonesian#Detailed considerationRex Aurorum (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
If I understand what is written there, such entries of foreign words are labelled with a code indicating which language they are from, like Jw for Javanese. The entry for abulhayat has no such label.  --Lambiam 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but not all loaned words required a etymology (language label) according their policy. According a KBBI Daring editor: language labels are not required for common words. Almost all words which used language label is part of 'forced borrowing' what i said in earlier comment. So, it's not weird for KBBI do such partice. —Rex Aurorum (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Isn't on INFCOR (where apa / aba is given) and the plural seemed suspicious (should have been "abbe" instead of *abbi). Couldn't find any non-wiki usages. Would be nice to have a verification. Thadh (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


Seems suspicious, especially given the ending -r, which isn't normally present in Corsican verbs, both from the northern and southern dialects. Is in any case a form of avè, with which it apparently shares most verb forms. Isn't on INFCOR and isn't recognized by AIACCINU as a verb. Thadh (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


I added the Latin definition "Habsburgus." Anonymous "" added the verify sense rfv. Anonymous failed to create a verification post here. Aearthrise (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The existing quotation is unverifiable – to which edition of Comenius’ enormous œuvre does the page number correspond? Moreover, the “64b”, “31b” and “32b” are strange; is the quote not taken from running text but from an Index? Three uses: [105], [106], [107] – the last one not authored by "Jezuité", as Google Books would have us believe, but by Georg Widmanstad.  --Lambiam 12:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam: I received the index here. Aearthrise (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aearthrise Quoting from the index is usually a bad idea, since indexes aren't really part of the work and are often added later by an editor. Also, "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus, imperator 64b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 31b. Ferdinandus II. Habsburgus, imperator 32b." is terrible formatting. In English, items in a list should be separated by commas or semicolons, not periods. If you want to use separate lines instead, you need something like <br> to force a new line. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess, it's also a matter of RfC: Which sense of Habsburg is meant (proper noun: castle; proper noun: family; common noun: family-member)? In "Rudolphus Habsburgus" and "Ferdinandus I. Habsburgus" it looks to me like the common noun. -- 06:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

denk (Afrikaans)Edit

Rfv-sense of "thought", all I find are old-fashioned verb forms or parts of compounds. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: "maar hy hat het iets in hom gehad wat buite die denk van ons volk gereik het" "maar vir die denk moet ons onderskei - en altyd onthou dat dit ons is wat die onderskeiding gemaak het.". I suppose the translation "thinking" may be better, but there is definitely a noun in this form. Thadh (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Thadh These are basically substantivised infinitives, like Dutch het denken. So yes, the translation is "thinking". I don't think they are lemmatised separately. @Metaknowledge? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


--07:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 07:43, September 28, 2020‎ (UTC).

Note that this RfV is for the Swabian entry.  --Lambiam 12:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

harpastum AmericanumEdit

0 results at b.g.c.
If it fails add: basipila, capitilavium (NL sense). --23:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


Spanish, doesn't follow normal suffixing. Plausibly borrowed from Italian, but seems unlikely to be used in this form. Ultimateria (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Term is extremely well-documented, I'm not even gonna bother citing this. Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Reopened. BGC doesn't appear to give a lot of Spanish results. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
How about these?
  • [108]: "por los corleoneses Riina y Provenzano del capo de la regíon", "de la Cupola del clan corleonese", "por el clan corleonese"
  • [109]: "y el grupo corleonese de Luciano Leggio"
BTW for other terms which might be more common:
  • corleonés: "de los corleoneses", "Los corleoneses mataron sin [...]", "un mafioso corleonés"
  • corleonés: "del corleonés Leoluca Bagarella", "el corleonés Leoluca Bagarella"
--Myrelia (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2020Edit


Originally RFD'ed with the text "not exist", belongs in RFV.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete It does not exist. Nowhere to be seen. Perhaps just someone's name and they want entry for it. ศังข์ + รัศมิ์ might be thought of. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


RFD'ed with the reason "not exist (both entry and etymo)", the (purported) etymon in this case being Sanskrit सोढि (soḍhi).__Gamren (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I already checked that the term only occurs in few people's name. And सोढि is not even found in Sanskrit. So it is meaningless. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


Initially RFV'ed with no reasoning by @Білгіш Шежіреші, created by @幻光尘.__Gamren (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren: RFV doesn't require reasoning. The term may be citable but barely. It's very rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, I meant it was RFD'ed.__Gamren (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


--2003:DE:3729:1760:ED26:A4B3:E529:5D 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "cave, old Taino word from Puerto Rico". Ultimateria (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Some leads:
A book[110] gives a different meaning from Puerto Rico:
Guácara ... for Puerto Rico the only meaning given (termed 'rare') is campesino, but it appears likely that the guácara of the saying also refers to the long-outmoded article of clothing.
A snippet[111] has
Las Guácaras son cuatro grutas existentes en la Loma Sierra Priete. Guácara viene de la voz nahua "auazcara" que se traduce "mansión santa".
So there is a connection to a cave. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


An IP tagged this, saying: "Form not listed in GPC or GyrA; is this a typo for pabïau, plural of pabi?".__Gamren (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


Three different translations. Are they really all correct? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That does indeed seem improbable, but let's give @Enigmatic persona a chance to provide some proof for this. Persona, also see the three words below.__Gamren (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Five different translations. Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The horse, camel and village senses are all present on Malayalam Wiktionary. Google Translate translates "അത്തിരി സന്തോഷം" as "very happy". A strange word indeed. 05:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


Four different translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


Two more-or-less opposite translations. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


French. Tagged by Languageseeker today (“I don't see "often making small holes in clothes" in any dictionary.”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The definition in Le Trésor is: “Small piece of coal, incompletely burnt, that mixes with the ashes or escapes from a hearth.”[112] There is no suggestion it is still burning or even smouldering. Here is a patent for the invention of a sifting apparatus to récupérer les escarbilles (recover the remaining pieces of coal) from the ashes, something I had to do by hand as a child.  --Lambiam 08:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
To solve this, I suggest formulating this part of “escaping etc.” as a potentiality, because it clear that this also means remaining pieces of of coal in ashes, sufficiently quoted at French Wiktionary and else of clearly widespread use, but on the other hand – the Trésor also defines that hand – such parts really tend to escape and, and this seems to reflect the meaning @Nicolas Perrault III had in mind when defining as present, what are devices that are anti-escarbilles? I find many hits for this in relation to grills and industrial applications. @PUC, maybe you find corresponding idioms. Fay Freak (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I rewrote the definition and imported two quotations from TLFi, one meaning scavenged fuel and the other meaning floating embers. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


French. Tagged by DPUH on 11 July 2019 (“Is this a typo for gaspareau?”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a typo, but an alternative form. I've added to the Alternative forms on gaspareau. Leasnam (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

à la guerre comme à la guerreEdit

French. Sense: “In time of crisis, all means are good for achieving one's goals; roughly all's fair in love and war, or the ends justify the means.” Tagged by Cos on 11 September (“Flagged the first sense as dubious; the senses here were written based on the French Wiktionary entry, where that first sense is being challenged”), not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by 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)


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)

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)
  • It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • @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:10.2307/40267100, 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)
Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@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)


Latin. Sense: “(Vulgar Latin) he, she, it (third-person personal pronoun)”. Tagged by Brain-Dwain on 18 June, not listed:

“at least a cleanup is needed (pronouns, determiners and articles are different parts of speech), the RFV is reasonable as well (sometimes unattested Vulgar Latin is given as if it were attested)”, “cp. Talk:illeJ3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ille legalem paternitatem Iesu accipere non timuit
Francisco (2020). Patris Corde. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/la/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20201208_patris-corde.pdf —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 03:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC).
Moved from a new section. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Ego baptizavi vos aqua, ille vero baptizabit vos Spiritu Sancto" Mark 1 8
I baptized you all in water, he in fact will baptize you all with the holy spirit. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 16:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
Moved from unnecessary new section. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by GuitarDudeness on 24 January 2018, not listed:

“If not from -lus added to nouns ending in -ius or -eus, is there proof of free use of this suffix?” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that -olus is an allomorph of -ulus, and not a distinct suffix: their distribution is predictable and comeplementary aside from the variation between o and u after u/v (as in aquula~aquola~acula, servulus~servolus) which is not specific to this suffix (it's the same phenomenon as the variation between vulgus~volgus) and which does not indicate any difference in meaning. We presumably should still have a page at -olus, but whether or not it should just redirect to -ulus with a full explanation on that page is a question of preference.--Urszag (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by Marontyan on 3 November 2019, not listed:

“I only saw Physalis”, “If attested in Latin: The usage note doesn't apply to Latin, cp. the quotes in ruderalis, Physalis.” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that I meticulously tried to find Latin uses, and I came to the conclusion that it has not been used in Latin texts, because obviously its Greek and in Latin one can use vēsīca or bulla or else; for literal and transferred senses there are enough native words, so this is, meseems, really ever only a component of translingual species names. Fay Freak (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by Bakunla on 5 May, not listed. J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


Dutch. Used in a lot of company names, but not common on Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020Edit


--Der Zeitmeister (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

dur comme ferEdit

Is it ever used with other verbs than croire? 20:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, although the usex at dur comme fer, actually a quote from a book, contains a form of the verb croire, the verb governing dur comme fer in the example is vouloir. Its use, other than in the fixed collocution croire dur comme fer, is defined in a 19th-century dictionary (by an example in which it is a predicative adjective) as meaning “having a very great hardiness“.[113] Here are some book uses: a 16th-century use; an 18-th century use; a 19-th century use (rather SOP here); and a 21th-century use. Here are some stand-alone uses in news sources: [114]; [115]; [116].  --Lambiam 10:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


It is used nowhere in the sense of "public opinion" other than as a mass media's name, Matichon. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


It is used (nearly) nowhere mocking the term มติชน.↑ Google only found in Uncyclopedia and just one topic in Pantip. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: narrator -- 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


Is หน้าม้า really used to refer the Hindu god? Does someone have example? If so, can Krishna be called หน้าช้าง too? --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Untrustworthy Scots entriesEdit

See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/November#Attestation_of_Scots.



RFV failed (admin please delete)


RFV failed


RFV failed (admin please delete)

Cape TounEdit

RFV failed (admin please delete)


RFV failed


RFV failed


Guatemala CeetyEdit










Libie appears at least three times in one work, Gavin Douglas' 1513 translation of the Aeneid. If we treat Middle Scots as LDL this is enough, but it is currently a phase of (modern) Scots which requires three independent uses. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cp. Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/November#Attestation of Scots. --2003:DE:373F:4013:C05F:826B:3C85:3D79 21:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)




North Ossetie-AlanieEdit

North Rhine-WestphalieEdit

Panama CeetyEdit

RFV failed



RFV failed



Sooth CarolinaEdit

Sooth DakotaEdit


Unitit StatesEdit


RFV failed



Scots words added by somebody who doesn't know Scots. No obvious trustworthy Scots hits in a web search. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I am marking some of these with the Middle Scots label if I can find one pre-1700 use. I assume one pre-1700 use is enough for Middle Scots. If not, it will fail RFV. Evidence of modern use is welcome, otherwise the RFV should be resolved without deleting the entry. So far, unitit, Egyp, Libie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Vox Sciurorum: if I'm not mistaken, Middle Scots is classified under Middle English on Wiktionary. (see Category:Middle Scots) Thadh (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Thadh: {{lb|sco|Middle Scots}} adds the term to the Middle Scots category. With language code enm the Middle Scots label is not recognized as special. The category description reads "This category contains Middle Scots: terms or senses in Middle English as spoken in Scotland from c. 1450 to 1700." That is after the end of Middle English. The wording should be changed to "terms or senses descended from Middle English, as spoken in Scotland from c. 1450 to 1700". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    CAT:Middle Scots, however, is a subcategory of CAT:Scottish Middle English, not of CAT:Scots language, and Module:etymology languages/data lists its parent as enm, not sco. And while {{lb|enm|Middle Scots}} doesn't add a category, {{lb|enm|Scotland}} adds CAT:Scottish Middle English, a category which also includes CAT:Early Scots. Chronologically, though, only Early Scots is really contemporaneous with Middle English, while Middle Scots (except for a 50-year overlap from 1450 to 1500) is contemporaneous with Early Modern English. And all of the entries in CAT:Middle Scots are actually Scots entries anyway, not Middle English (though some have listings for both langauges). So I suggest we formalize the de facto status quo and make Middle Scots an etymology-only variant of Scots rather than of Middle English (but keep Early Scots an etymology-only variant of Middle English). However, one consequence of doing that will be that we can no longer put {{inh|sco|sco-smi}} into Scots etymologies, because an etymology-only variant of a language cannot also be an ancestor of the same language. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    I wonder if we should change that and allow (modern) languages to derive words from earlier, etymology-only temporal stages of themselves; we had this issue before with people wanting/trying to derive Hebrew words from Biblical Hebrew. Mehhh. Anyway, I agree with the rest of your comment. - -sche (discuss) 05:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


This one is more plausible, snaw + buird, but I haven't seen a citable use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


According to DSL duin is a present participle equivalent to English doing. It is defined as the past participle done, which according to DSL is any of dune, deen, dene, dane, din, don, deen, but not duin. Entered as RFV-sense because this is a real Scots word with a possibly wrong definition. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link [[117]]. It lists duin as a past participle/adjective. Searching on the page for "duin" will highlight the examples (it should already be highlighted in pink). Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I updated duin to be alternatively the present or past participle of dae. We will have to decide whether the two uses in the 2005 DSL supplement are enough to attest the form. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


Created by a different user claiming sco-2. Not in Dictionary of the Scots Language with this meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

[118] [119] [120] Thadh (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, the meaning seems to differ Thadh (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I should have clarified. To save others' time, Wiktionary defines cairt to mean map but DSL only has cart and card as meanings, meanings shared with Scottish Gaelic. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Cited as Middle Scots, copying quotations from A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


In DSL as an obsolete variation of gem. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

More country namesEdit

















Proper names not in DSL or scots-online.org. Likely coined by the contributor following a pattern because the English -ia to Scots -ie change does show up in some documented place names. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • RFV failed with no citations except for Armenie which I marked as Middle Scots. It is used three times in one pre-1700 work, quotations in A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. If anybody wants to strictly apply CFI, go ahead and delete it. Otherwise I'm willing to tolerate limited attestation for Middle Scots if it appears in a work considered by DSL to be Scots worth preserving. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Arabic): “prepared, ready” -- 22:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

dada (Dutch)Edit

Childish for "bye-bye; away". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be Flemish: Het Vlaams woordenboek (sense 2); schrijvenonline.org; Agreed, not the best sources, but still mentions. Better one: Het Dialectenboek (page 193) Thadh (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Dutch, "hoarfrost, rime", a rather nice compound equivalent to "dew frost". Nothing on Google Books, DBNL or Delpher. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

daven (Dutch)Edit

Base form for the frequentative daveren, but I am not convinced that this is attested in Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

1881 1820 1629 1618 I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thadh 1618 is draaft, 1629 is ſlaaft (next to draaft), 1820 is laaft and 1881 is correct, but also a bit mentionny and an example sentence. (It is used to illustrate the mentioned verb daven.) ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thadh Yes, many scanned texts before 1850 are of very poor quality, so there are many scannos and other problems. Long s is rather common in Dutch before 1830. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

De HaagEdit

Dutch, area form of Den Haag. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Archaic Dutch: [121] [122] Haags Dutch: [123] [124] ([125]) [126] Thadh (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

December 2020Edit


Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:371b:bd88:f550:e41e:6251:c0db today, not listed:

“no derived terms” J3133 (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:371b:bd88:f550:e41e:6251:c0db today, not listed:

“unreliable reference, strange alternative form (lack of a capital).” J3133 (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


German. Tagged by on 29 November 2016, not listed. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


German. Tagged by on 19 October 2016, not listed:

“RFV for the attributive forms like "outer" (e.g. *"ein outer Mann"). This word is usally (AFAIK only) used predicative like "(something) ist out".” J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


German. Tagged by Malpadam on 8 October 2019, not listed. J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I added one use with that spelling. There are more in Google books. I have a hard time reading those old German fonts. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [127], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [128] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[129][130], but maybe this is only a rare misspelling under the influence of reading ſz as sz. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • In older texts I wouldn't call it a misspelling. There was a time when sz, ss, and ß were sort of competing ways of rendering ſz in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Modern Philology (inside the entry) is English and [131] is Dutch. That aren't good examples for German spellings. --Schläsinger X (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
          The proceedings are mainly in Dutch, but the context around Eszwaren obviously isn't Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


German. Tagged by Bakunla on 5 May, not listed:

“Bismarck is just one usage”


(derogatory) offensive term refering to Albanians

(the term was used by German chancellor Otto von Bismarck back in 1878 (June 10), three days before the Berlin Congress, he denied the existence of an ethnic Albanian group / Albanian nation)
[132] Spiegel article Die Stämme da unten (Engl. 'The tribes down there') - written by Roland Schleicher, 12.04.1999 / Transl.: On June 10, 1878, just three days before the start of the Berlin Congress, the Albanians proclaimed the "League for the Defense of the Rights of the Albanian People" in Prizren, the second most important city in Kosovo. But Bismarck refused to receive these "mountain turks" at all, he knew no Albanian nation.
[133] Ethnischer Nationalismus und ethnische Minderheiten (Ethnic Nationalism and ethnic Minorities) - by Georg Feyrer (Autor), 1999 / Translation: At the end of the Wars of Liberation, in the late 19th century, the Serbs conquered large parts of Albanian territory and committed massacres on the muslim population. The Albanian resistance cannot receive attention and support at the international level, quite the opposite, the Albanians are not even accorded the status of their own people. In this context, the German Chancellor Bismarck speaks derogatory of 'Bergtürken' (German for 'mountain Turks') J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


German. Tagged by Der Zeitmeister on 10 June, not listed:

WT:CFI#Brand namesJ3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


German. Tagged by 2003:de:372e:5559:f486:9bf3:e5c6:ae42 on 2 November, not listed:

“This isn't Flüstern, Flüster- (as in Flüstergeräusch) or flüster (form of flüstern)” J3133 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nonexisting form, perhaps confounded with Geflüster. – Jberkel 15:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


Italian. Tagged by Embryomystic on 12 December 2019, not listed: “Is this a typo for intermediaria?” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Italian. Sense: “movie theater, cinema”. Tagged by on 24 February, not listed: “These senses may not exist, need verification”, “My sense verification request for Italian was removed, presumably because the definition was 'theatre (all senses)'. So I have broken down the definition and added the rfv-sense to the specific sense that requires verification.” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

di traversoEdit

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


Spanish. Tagged by on 14 March, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Spanish. Tagged by Embryomystic on 26 March, not listed: “Is this a misspelling, or just an uncommon form?” J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It was clearly a mistake. Delete Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Dutch, diminutive of deeltjesversneller. Unlikely to be attestable, most particle accelerators are enormous facilities. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Teilchenbeschleunigerchen. Beautiful. – Jberkel 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me: @Soap, this may be one for your list ("little particle accelerator"). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly however, very small particle accelerators are being investigated. See for example these two newspaper articles which are using the diminutive: [134], [135]. Morgengave (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Heh, for once, reality catching up with the dictionary? – Jberkel 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that when I looked for attestations of the diminutive; unfortunately they do not use the diminutive for it yet and Wiktionary is for describing language as it is currently attested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A suitable term to dub or subtitle the movie Ghostbusters (1984), original quotation "Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our back." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)



According to a complaint of a native Mon speaker (Special:PermaLink/61255799/#Mon_Vocabulary_problem_explanation_(ကွေန်ၚါ်တြုံ); File:You stop hurt my language.jpg), these two spelling variants for ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ (boy) are non-existent. I googled these two and failed to obtain favorable results though some of their components (ကောန် (kon) / ကွေန် (child), တြုံ (truˀ, male)) are attested. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

About its author, จำปี ซื่อสัตย์, I don't know if he is still alive. He must be 90 years old now.
Anyway, you should copy my another dictionary too พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย.pdf (1984).
And if you can open sqlite database, also take this too Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite. I extracted from this mobile app.
--Octahedron80 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Thank you for your explanation. I have difficulty understanding Thai, so it would be harder without you. OK, some combinations of the components are indeed attested. Then, is there any source that shows each of the spellings from beginning to end? Even some parts of them are attested, it would be another matter whether these two combinations are documented as they are. The variants listed at the current version of ကောန်ၚာ် (kon ṅāk) are of course OK, but when it comes to the forms seen at ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ, things are quite uncertain. Your attitudes gives the impression that you could create an entry *徒葩 as a spelling variant for Japanese 徒花(あだばな) (adabana, a flower that blooms but never bears fruit) since both (quite uncommon) and (quite common) are read as hana and have the sense “flower, blossom” in common, therefore they are always freely interchangeable—no, no, actually it is not! We cannot do such a horrific deed without complete evidence —otherwise, what we do will be perfect invention! --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@エリック・キィ About the whole word "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ", I was not the one who created it at first, I renamed to another form and, after 咽頭べさ was mad, then I reverted back. (I cannot rename same page twice so I edited it instead.) I can only verify ကောန်ၚာ် and တြုံ solely. You may ask him about "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is some evidence either. (It should be documented somewhere / or it is just SOP?) I could remove alternative forms of "ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ" if there is no evidence, even their parts have.--Octahedron80 (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, 咽頭べさ mistakenly put some unknown texts into IPA template in many words; I assume he does not know IPA. I must follow his track to cleanup this mess. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 I agree with you on this point. I asked him about this topic (it seems something other than IPA, then what is it?) before, but he has made no reply so far...--Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
A few observations: First, the self-assessment by this editor as "en-2" is rather generous. Figuring out how much they understand our policies is likely to be a challenge, and explaining anything doubly so.
Second, it's easier to take the word of a native speaker as to the existence of something in their language than its non-existence. Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
Also, in an environment where their language is actively discouraged, one would expect a certain prescriptivism that sees variation from what they're battling to defend as an attack (that environment would increase isolation between speakers, as well, which reinforces my second point).
Of course, I have no direct knowledge, so I could be completely off base. I would rather bend over backward and walk on eggshells than risk piling on with those around them who don't want to hear their language. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Octahedron80, Chuck Entz Please don't worry, I have no doubt about the existence of the term ကောန်ၚာ်တြုံ itself, since I am able to find its records through Google Search. What he (yes he, judging from the audio records) and I regard as a problem is which combination is allowed to spell and which is not. --Eryk Kij (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz >Unless they're familiar with all the other dialects, they could be just as ignorant as non-speakers about the vocabulary of people a couple of valleys over.
Of course, I understand this point. That's why I have made this edit. Mon language has numerous dialects but no official standard variety is seen while something similar to it exists (Bauer 1982: xvii; Jenny 2005: 30; Jenny 2015: 555). Thus, even if a certain word itself is attested in a material in terms of pronunciation and spelling, there is NO guarantee that we can apply it directly to other dialects. --Eryk Kij (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeju terms for modern conceptsEdit

As categorized by UNESCO and as discussed in Wikipedia, fluent speakers of the actual Jeju language were all born in the 1940s or earlier. The following terms relating to modern concepts are not likely to be found in traditional Jeju, which was spoken solely by impoverished peasants. As what is now spoken in Jeju Island—an indubitably Korean dialect—is not what we mean by Jeju in Wiktionary, I believe these entries should all be deleted unless someone can provide an actual early attestation (preferably from the very first academic studies of the dialect, in the 1960s). The Digital Museum for Endangered Languages and Cultures or the NIKL dictionaries ported at Urimalsaem is not necessarily reliable in this regard, since they do not really make this distinction.

Making the distinction between traditional, soon-to-be-extinct Jeju and Category:Jeju Korean is crucial for maintaining some integrity in Category:Jeju lemmas. The most credible dictionary of Jeju, 개정증보제주어사전, does not bother with these modernisms and I believe we should follow their lead. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Karaeng Matoaya (talkcontribs) at 19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC).


Wasei kango for "society", not a traditional word. I think it should be deleted entirely because the actual form in modern Jeju speech is likely to be 사훼 (sahwe) (due to the loss of /ɔ/), which is pronounced identically to Standard Korean 사회 (sahoe). The word ᄉᆞ훼 represents an intermediary stage between "true" Jeju and the modern Jeju-tinged Korean, and I do not think we should categorize this stage as Jeju.


How many bicycles existed in Jeju before South Korean industrialization? This form is a dialectal pronunciation of 自行車, a term which was definitely used in many mainland dialects in 1945, so it could well be a post-1940s introduction into the island. Should be changed to 자영거 (jayeonggeo) under the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.


This word is not attested in Korean in the "tourist" sense before the 1910s, and is a Japanese import. How many tourists were in Jeju before South Korean industrialization?


"Memorial hall" in the modern sense. Also likely to be a modernism.


"Refrigerator". Refrigerators were not common in South Korea until the 1970s.


English loan meaning "brand" (as in a perfume brand, etc.). Highly unlikely to be found in traditional Jeju.




"Biosphere" in the modern scientific sense.


"Electric fan". Electric fans were not common in South Korea until the 1980s.


"Demon, Devil". Has Christian connotations to me as a native speaker of Korean, and not found in 제주도무속자료사전 or other sources on Jeju religion; the very concept is alien to Jeju religious practice. Likely a late Christian introduction; the date is unknown, but Christianity was very marginal in Jeju until the 1950s and is still not particularly important there. If it fails RFV, should be changed to the Korean header with {{lb|ko|Jeju}}.


A modern historiographical term that could not have existed before the 1950s.


"Main character; protagonist" in the modern literary sense, probably from Japanese.


"Television". Did not exist in Korea before the 1950s.


"Wind power plant".







Theoretically possible but apparently unattested SI units. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)



Dutch. These seem unattestable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how chemical CFI works, but compounds with decyl: N,N'-bis(10-(p- methoxyfenoxy)-decyl)-p-diaminobenzeen, di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat decyl-trimethylammonium, plain decyl: [137]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
That is a systematic name but has Dutch spelling of components, benzeen instead of benzene, etc. A paper from 2009 talks about chemistry translation: doi:10.1021/ci800243w. I think di(n-hexyl,n-octyl,n-decyl)ftalaat appearing in a Dutch paper can be used to support decyl, octyl, and ftalaat (= phthalate, I assume). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

deel en heersEdit

Dutch, many scannos on BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be archaic or obsolete: [138], [139], [140].  --Lambiam 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That is certainly an obsolete spelling, but I agree they are all valid uses. If this spelling isn't attested, it can be moved to that spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


RFV-sense of "firm, impressive", distinct from "fashionable, flashy". Not found in the dictionaries I checked. Most results on Google Books are clearly in the latter sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Not found, but I see the term used as a noun in the expression – presumably idiom – de blits maken: [141], [142], [143] In the last cite it translates English (to carry as) a badge (for one’s peers).  --Lambiam 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it exists as a noun; it relates to the uncontested adjective sense "fashionable". De blits maken means "to be fashionable, to make a fashionable impression", there are also the expressions de blits uithangen and colloquially de blits zijn (maybe not durably attested) that are more or less synonyms. I'm not sure how it should be lemmatised. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

schalk (Dutch)Edit

RFV-sense of "(Outdated) A knave, servant.". Not in the WNT, etymological dictionaries suggest this didn't outlast Middle Dutch. The definition is unclear, too. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's listed here [[144]], and I can find uses in Google Books [[145]] (search "een schalk" "nederlands"). Leasnam (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly archaic, but in early modern Dutch it seemed to have been used in at least some religious texts, in phrases such as "Heer, ik ben uw schalk" (Lord, I am thy servant) and in compounds such as Godschalk (God's servant = priest) [146] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's certainly a valid use. But I'm curious where those 19th-century writers got it from. The Vorstermann-, Deux-Aes- and Statenvertaling all use "knecht" [147] [148] [149] and it seems "schalk" was very pejorative in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. So my guess is that is was from an eighteenth-century (maybe late seventeenth-century) Psalm translation that had been published separately. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The book Antiquitates Germanicæ linked to above is an 18th-century text; possibly later writers, who do not quote more than this single phrase, copied it from that text. It has somewhat the nature of a mention; in particular, how can we be sure that the unidentified (rhyming?) translation of the Book of Psalms was Dutch and not Middle Dutch? If the term schalk came from a Middle Dutch psalter it was not the 1360 translation, which has O Heere, ic ben dijn knech, ic ben cnecht, dijnre dierne sone.[150], and also not the 1483 psalter linked to from Middelnederlandse psalters, which has O hee want ic dijn knecht bin Ick bin dijn knecht eñ ſone dijnre diernen.[151]  --Lambiam 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Without exception each use of schalck(en) in this Bible concordance from 1645 has a sense of depravity, extending to priests (Want beyde Propheten ende Priesters zijn ſchalken). I find it hard to imagine a contemporaneous sense of pious submission. Interestingly, the word is also used as an adjective (Exempelen eeniger ſchalke menſchen).  --Lambiam 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I also noticed the adjective, it seems quite common from the 16th up to the 19th century. I have personally never seen or heard the adjective schalk before this month, but the more clearly marked adjective schalks is still a very current word. However, it does seem like the meaning of schalk (adj.) was rather more negative. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


I can't find this term in any reputable dictionary. --{{victar|talk}} 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: [152] --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@Victar: Repeating the call. Do you still insist on the verifications? I won't be able to add citations in Persian, I am afraid, need native speakers. I have found the term in another dictionary English-Persian Persian-English (it requires registration and this dictionary can be borrowed for an hour). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ZxxZxxZ, Dijan, Qehath Anyone? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I found it only in Amid dictionary. It's a relatively smaller Persian dictioary containing words found in the late Persian literature. The Amid dictionary of the Vajehyab website has cited a couplet (I guess it is based on the revised edition of the Amid Dictionary). --Z 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


Tagged by IP, "lacks definition and source/reference". "East Central German" word added by @Lo Ximiendo.__Gamren (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the German Wikipedia Wiktionary lists this under the lemma Tier as an Upper Saxonian dialectal expression (Dialektausdruck), next to Dier and Biest. Upper Saxonian is an LDL.  --Lambiam 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
German Wikipedia, entry Tier doesn't have this.
German Wiktionary (having de:Viech, de:Tier) is a foolish mess.
  • German WT is unable to differ between regional Standard High German and dialects, in so many ways.
    • de:Mandl, de:Boandlkramer are given is "bairisch" (not bayrisch/bayerisch), yet the inflection is SHG and Duden sometimes used as a source is for SHG.
    • de:Abdach, de:Pogge are given as "niederdeutsch", yet the inflection is SHG.
    • In de:Tier, Low German is present twice, in two different places: 1. It's present among other non-High German languages, where it is "Niederdeutsch" and with the addition "Nordniedersächsisch". 2. It's present between High German dialectal expressions, where names of Low German dialects occur: "Lippisch", "Mecklenburgisch", "Ostfälisch", "Ostfriesisch".
  • In de:Tier German WT uses it's own made-up orthography only documented at a user-page: de:Benutzer:UliDolbarge/Orthografie.
--2003:DE:373F:4031:3515:67E:BD2C:B01B 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Dialectisches aus dem Erzgebirge states that Erzgebirgisch is part of Obersächsisch and mentions Viech = German Vieh. --2003:DE:373F:4013:C05F:826B:3C85:3D79 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
First of all, it might still need attestion - or a better label. Erzgebirgisch is not, at least not always and universally, included in Obersächsisch or Upper Saxon (see examples below). So what does the label "Upper Saxon" in the entry mean, Upper Saxon in a broader sense including Erzgebirgisch or Upper Saxon in a stricter sense exluding Erzgebirgisch? If it's supposed to be the strict sense, sources are lacking. If it's supposed to be the broad sense but currently only attested in Erzgebirgisch, then the more specific term Erzgebirgisch seems like a better label.
  • [153]: "drei Dialekten (Obersächsisch, Vogtländisch, Erzgebirgisch)"
  • [154]: "Die Grenze zwischen Obersächsisch und Erzgebirgisch, das auch in Deutschböhmen gesprochen wird, läuft"
  • [155]: "das Obersächsische im engeren Sinne .. die Dialektgebiete des Meißnischen .. und des Südwest/Südost-Osterländischen .., also unter Ausschluß des Erzgebirgischen und Vogtländischen .., des Nordosterländischen und ... sowie des Lausitzischen .."
-- 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Same holds true for Been, though being pedantic one could question it: East Central German Been = Bein was sourced, Bein means leg and bone (in this sense a bit dated though), so one could questions which sense or senses East Central German Been has: both or only one? --2003:DE:3720:3733:F84C:4C4E:8FDB:64C9 12:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Imme fEdit

Sense: a swarm of bees. --幽霊四 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

幽霊四: If you just looked into the darn standard references instead of the Duden which covers only the last century you wouldn’t need to request. Especially impudent if the sense is explicitly labelled obsolete. Here a selection of attestation-based dictionaries: FNHDWB, DRW, Grimm. Etc.. With varying spellings of course, but we wouldn’t want to have the word under Yme etc. either and as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know. Case closed, newb without user page? Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Grimm: It's "imme, m.". Different gender (and also different capitalisation). Also Grimme covers more than New High German.
  • Examples have "ein immen", "ain imp", "ein unverfolgter impen", "ein imme", so often have other forms and where the gender is revealed without any doubts [i.e. in "ein unverfolgter impen"], it's masculine.
  • Meaning: "Bienenstock und -schwarm" (bee-hive and bee-swarm), that's different from the entry. (Is it even both bee-hive and bee-swarm (a single sense) or either bee-hive or bee-swarm (two senses, though sometimes/often hard to distinguish?)
  • DRW's quotes are incorrect as can be seen by the 1709 Mutach quote for Impen at Talk:Imme#Citations. ("Normalization" in a quote makes the quote incorrect - a correct quote keeps spelling including capitalisation of the original work. In case of Impen also the page-number is wrong: It's 41 and not 40.)
  • "I Bienenstock und -schwarm" with "den hochflugk der impen lassen wir" looks like it could be wrong too: It could be a feminine singular genitive der impen of imp/impe/impen = "swarm of bees", but also a plural genitive with the second sense "bee".
  • DRW also includes OHG, MHG and MLG, so many quotes are insufficient for German.
FWB (= Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, this is the abbreviation used there and not "FNHDWB"):
  • Sense "1. Bienenschwarm, Bienenstock" with "sehet an die immen, die machen das honig aus der edelsten manna aller blumen" looks like it could be wrong too: it's immen pl. = bees, so rather an example for sense "2. Biene".
  • Adelung doesn't have this sense. "Im Friesischen Ihme, in andern gegenden Ympe, wo es auch einen Bienenstock bedeutet" refers to Frisian (East Frisian Low German or Frisian Frisian?).
  • BMZ and Lexer are for Middle High German.
  • ElsWB, PfWB are for dialects which aren't part of German in Wiktionary.
-幽霊四 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC) & 幽霊四 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Because of the grammar of the Early New High German texts, in many cases it is not clear which gender the quotes have – you do not seem to understand the grammar, “ein imme” can also be feminine back then; especially in Bavarian areas also “ein immen” –; in addition to what FNHDWB says that in many attestations it is not clear if a swarm of bees or bees as individuals are meant. However I see from some quotes there clearly that the meaning of an individual bee has also been masculine. So a solution is to change to masculine and have a feminine POS as alternative form because the feminine is only a modern perversion of some poets and it does not matter whether it has recently been used more often as feminine since it is not often at all; or give m in the head and then f immediately after. In any case the way you requested here is to be reprehended since someone dealing with it and not knowing where to search German could have, because of nobody answering, just deleted the sense while at most a gender switch would have been appropriate. And no, capitalisation is irrelevant, New High German nouns get added capitalized even if they died out before capitalisation of nouns was a thing, and those liberal writers who do not follow the capitalization rules in modern times are treated as if they have written their texts capitalized regularly, because otherwise it’s confusing. Fay Freak (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you point me to the rule that says we unify? I was under the impression it was a contentious thing, done on a language-by-language basis. And WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings", so as a rule, we don't unify German. Perhaps instead of harassing the "newb without a user page" you should check what the rules actually are?
Just verify the damn thing, Fay Freak. The general rules say that we need cites for any words, not cribbing from dictionaries. We can quibble about stuff after we have a suitable number of citations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Can you point me to the rule that says we do not unify and have to find every sense in every spelling in every gender three times? No, because it’s not true. The word is not “spelling”, hence unifying. I have proven it also on various places, as for example by the fact that one can attest from audio, or texts written scriptio continua, etc., e.g. above under Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#baußen, also on Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#Huang-ch'i I noted that “we cannot derive from the mere entry layout practice that for alternative spelling pages entries are cloned the requirement that each such sense or even only part of speech needs three citations”. The fact that one needs to argue for certain interpretations of the law does not speak against the stance of him who argues.
I have shown attestations above; the dictionaries give quotes. Can you demonstrate me a rule that we need cites typed off into the page and that referring to dictionaries quoting the senses or spellings, e.g. even other Wiktionaries, wouldn’t suffice? The fact that we constantly have too little personnel and are underpaid suggests otherwise, as well as the fact that blind quotes of quotes given in other sources are avoided in science.
You don’t seriously suggest we should have this word under Ymme or Yme or perhaps ymme or yme because of not being quoted in the modern spelling and the particular gender and particular sense? Because “we operate under the tyranny of entry titles”?
I have presented multiple ways of representing the word. You speak of harrassing but it is perfectly legimitate to point out that his request was unclear in concerning the particular gender so it could have lead to excessive deletion of a known sense, and a fact that one is negatively disposed towards users who do not state their language levels on their user pages, and I do not forgo to notify particularly newbs of uncomfortable truths, because they in particular have to get to know things. If “newb” is an offensive then one shall forgive me because I am not responsible for every neutral word’s meaning being ousted by connotations to an extent that we cannot communicate without a nimb of aggression. Language hasn’t been made for the internet. Fay Freak (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, WT:About German says "Wiktionary includes all attested spellings". You shouldn't say "as a rule we unify, if you didn’t know" to a newb, if there are established users who would argue against it. There's a difference between arguing for a position, and informing someone that a position is the rule.
Nice change in standards of evidence, if you make a claim, you don't have to provide evidence. If I make a claim, I have to demonstrate an exact rule. Have I been wasting my time on RFV when I could have just responded by "check out Google Books"? When I added cites to Uno, people disagreed that some of those cites were appropriate cites: see the archived discussion on Talk:Uno. It would have been a lot harder to have that discussion had I and other people not copied the text into the article. In this case, the user has disagreed with your cites; it would be much easier to work with if the cites were here where we could read them, instead of just handwaves at dictionaries.
Yes, I seriously suggest we should have this word under the spellings it's used under. As you quote a vote, you know that this is not an uncontentious issue at Wiktionary--Wiktionary:Votes/2020-09/Removing_Old_English_entries_with_wynns closed 9-4--and the vote you quote is very limited, as wynn can be replaced one for one with w in all cases in Old English. We shouldn't have to map from a spelling used in real life to some arbitrary spelling invented by a dictionary writer, us or someone else.
You don't distinguish "uncomfortable truths" from "Fay Freak's opinions", and this is not the first time I've seen you do this. Here's an uncomfortable truth; you'd be running a chance of getting blocked on some other English Wikis, and acting like it's other people's fault and "Language hasn’t been made for the internet." is absurd when many other people manage to follow these rules and newb says "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory)", so yes, it's made for the Internet, and it's always had that negative meaning. And while "newb" may be somewhat problematic, the fact you're asserting Fay Freak's opinions as "uncomfortable truths" that they obviously should have known (despite the fact you can't cite any place on the Wiki where they could have learned those "truths") is much more problematic. As is saying "the way you requested here is to be reprehended", which condemns the person instead of focusing on the action, say, "an RFV on a word could cause it to be incorrectly deleted." Which is itself garbage; if someone feels a word needs RFV, they should feel free to RFV it. There are points someone RFVing a bunch of words that are going to be kept could be a problem, but I'd say that's never the case for words that might get deleted; nominating words for RFV should get cites added, making them clearly attested words, and in many cases get definitions refined and separated out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes I have added a few cites, though it is advisable that a native speaker looks it over. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)



Dutch, two senses: "(chiefly Belgium) A place name" and "(chiefly Belgium) A surname with the prefix van". The second sense exists at Vandievoet or Van Dievoet because that is how Flemish names work, the first sense does not seem attestable in use; although there are mentions of a hamlet in Ukkel (Uccle). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Morgengave What is your view on this? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't know the place myself, but Dievoort seems to be a place near Breda: [156]. The place in Ukkel is indeed called Dievoet, not Dietvoort. Morgengave (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

besser ein schreckliches Ende, als ein Schrecken ohne EndeEdit

only two results at Google Books for this variant: Walter Ulbricht (as "Besser ... Ende, wie es Friedrich Schiller ausdrückte"), SPQR - Der Falke von Rom: Teil 6. --20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC) —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:373F:4037:3C6C:85B5:850A:BEA0 (talk).

See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#besser ein schreckliches Ende, als ein Schrecken ohne Ende and lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende, listed as saying (phrase, idiom, or proverb) in the Duden.[157]  --Lambiam 13:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Not all of the "newspaper quotes provided at RFD" are newspaper quotes and durably archived:
  1. [158]: It's only an online comment (by "gesprächsbereit") to a newspaper article.
  2. [159]: "188 LIPA GmbH Die ganze
    Es geht um die Machenschaften von Lipa euroconstruct ... T ? können wir wohl abschreiben aber besser ein schreckliches Ende als ein Schrecken ohne Ende
    lipa-plan.de". It's misquoted text from [160] (with € instead of ? in: "10 T € können")
  3. [161]:
    • Is it durably archived? The publication's name is "Chess.com" and the author "PeterDoggers".
    • Is it real German? The site is multilingual (you can change the language) and the author has a Dutch flag behing his name. The spelling is inconsistent (dass vs. Mißgeschick, wußte). The text is originally Slavic, from "Yan Nepomniachtchi @lechesisq" at twitter: "Как говорится, лучше ужасный конец, чем ужас без конца #EnoughIsEnough", and then translated.
-- 22:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

an toàn đệ nhấtEdit

Not how you normally say "safety first" in Vietnamese (an toàn là trên hết is used instead), most google hits are from translations of Chinese novels.PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@PhanAnh123: Just advice since I saw this. If the term an toàn đệ nhất exists, but is just very uncommon, you can add it as a synonym in the main entry an toàn là trên hết, and label it as rare or uncommon, and put the same label in the other entry. We don't need to delete this entry if it really exists, but is just rare. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Phan Anh is being polite when he says it is not "how you normally say" it. ☺ All instances I could find of this online seem to be automated or community-generated translations of Chinese stories. Nothing durable. Furthermore the people (or machines) who create those translations seem to follow the wuxia convention that anything fancy should not be translated but merely transliterated to the Vietnamese pronunciation. Most of those phrases would never be used outside of works translated from Chinese. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


Dutch. This could in theory be related to drek, but it is absent from many dialect dictionaries and I cannot find it used (results are scannos for drinken, drukken, etc.). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Morgengave, Rua, Alexis Jazz Do you think this lemma might be something or does it seem ephemeral? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo Never heard of this, and it's not in the (amateur) Vlaams woordenboek, which is with its ~34000 entries quite elaborate. So I suppose if it exists (does it?), it's likely part of a Dutch-Dutch or Suriname-Dutch dialect, or slang (which could explain its non-attestation)? It's a pity that the entry creator is anonymous. Morgengave (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Morgengave All right, that seems to rule out Belgian Dutch. It might be from dialectal usage in the Netherlands or a borrowing from Westlauwers Frisian or Low Saxon, but I did not find it in the eWND. Surinamese Dutch seems very implausible to me because of the vowel change that cannot be explained as a borrowing to Sranantongo and back. That said, I'm willing to wait this one out until libraries reopen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo Sounds familiar, but I think that's a false memory. Did some searches, all came up dry. Maybe something highly local that doesn't appear in any written text. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

January 2021Edit

Overiselo, OverejseloEdit

Esperanto for "Overijssel". Nothing on Google Books, and the results on Google Search did not seem durable. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I see I am mentioned in the etymology section. I do not think this word can be cited. The alternative form Overejselo can probably also not be cited. If we find any text in Esperanto on the province, it will probably not use an esperantized form. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


Did this word (which seems to be rare and obsolete) ever actually have the sense "species"/"kind"? The Dictionary of the Scots Language only lists the senses "a country" and "a people or community". The "species" sense isn't in the OED either. Zacwill (talk)

While we're at it, it'd be good to see some verification for the "region or province" sense too. Zacwill (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


Saterland Frisian. Seems a misspelling of /soːɡən/ ~ [soːɣə], which per Saterfriesisches Wörterbuch is spelled sogen. Thadh (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

BTW: It's sôgĕn (sôgen) in Julius Bröring's Das Saterland. Valid alternative form? -- 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Same as with soogen: Quite probably a misspelling of the actual lemma, njúgen. This time there is a difference in pronunciation (/u/ vs /uː/), but it could still very well be a result of an oral source ([uˑ] vs [uː] respectively). Only hit on google books I could check was a mention at Wurdlist Fryske-Sealtersk ([162]), not sure if this can be called an authorative source. Thadh (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I found it: The German Wikipedia explains this phenomenon that these vowels don't match up. It says that since every new researcher developed a new orthography for the language, and no official orthography has been developed, such cases as here (njuugen vs njúgen or soogen vs sogen) appeared. So this is a matter of deciding what orthography we want to follow on Wiktionary rather than whether these writing systems are correct. In light of this information, I believe this discussion should be moved to the Beer Parlour? @Leasnam, Chuck Entz, Apisite pinging other editors that have been part of this conversation some way or another Thadh (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It rather sounds like the vowels do match up and both uu and ú denote a long /u:/ :) . Like with colour vs. color both should stay and be labelled. (People might come across either spelling and search for it here.) -- 01:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
But once again, in the orthography handled by SW, uu denotes the short /u/, while úu denotes the long /uː/, so they do not match. As for creating entries, we still need to decide which spelling to give a full entry (opposed to an alternative form) and if we want to include any mentioned form or just the ones quotable. Thadh (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

rocker (Spanish)Edit

I propose remove the Spanish meaning of rocker. In Spanish we used rockero and roquero. This word is not used in Spanish, "rocker" is a English word. Although there are about 20 results in Google Books, I think that does not give the right to create an entry in Spanish of a word in English used 20 times in Spanish. Because if we do this, we would have to add thousands of English words to Spanish. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a previous RFV discussion at Talk:rocker. Though the word has a fair number of unitalicised attestations on BGC, I must say that it often occurs in translated texts and that it is frequently italicised when rockers are contrasted with mods. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: What's is "BGC"? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vivaelcelta An abbreviation for Google Books. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

German GrogramEdit

No hits for this as a German term except for mentions of it as an English term. Benwing2 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


Created based on mention in etymology of burgeon. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. The usual forms in Old High German are burien, burren, buren, and purjan all meaning to "to lift, raise, straighten, begin". However I was able to find a mention of the form burjan here [[163]] Leasnam (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
If I change your search term from althochdeutsch to ahd I find an old dictionary of old German (Altdeutsches Wörterbuch) with an entry "[burjan], purjan, purjen, purren, puren, burren, burren"[164] which may mean burjan is reconstructed. I found unbracketed and unstarred mentions in etymology lists for other languages, which is what led to the entry here being created. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if it's reconstructed or not. There's really no need for references to reconstruct the term (i.e. *burjan), it definitely exists as burien, so I don't see the motivation towards sources needing to do that. burjan would have to be an early form though, so if attested it must be one of the first... Leasnam (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


I found a use spelled siscowet[165] but only mentions as ciscoette. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Old Saxon. This may be a reconstructed form in the wrong namespace. Also spelled enkel. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be two distinct senses.__Gamren (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't find this attested for Old Saxon. The "ankle" sense should be moved to *enkil. I have no clue where the "hip" sense comes from... Leasnam (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Allegedly Scottish Gaelic for underflow. Found no reliable evidence for this claim. --Droigheann (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by on 16 January, not listed. J3133 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


Latin. Tagged by 2003:de:372f:4574:d9ce:f109:7b6e:2983 on 26 January, not listed: “As participles get their own entries (e.g. laudātus, labōrātus), I doubt this does exist.” J3133 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This RFV sounds insane, as the entry tells that is exists in a particular form, so it does not claim to exist how IP pretends it is claimed to exist. But I see there even is one use for the 3rd person singular perfect oblongavit. However the definition would of course have to be “to oblongate”, like it means “to make oblong”. Funnily English oblongate at least exists in the form oblongated; a few hits however also for the participle oblongating. Fay Freak (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
All hits are New Latin; the verb is not even listed in the Du Cange. A well-known medical term is medulla oblongata, often colloquially shortened to just oblongata. In botanical texts, leaf shapes are often called oblongate,[166][167][168] and the term is also used in various anatomical descriptions.[169][170][171]  --Lambiam 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021Edit


Only request verification of the form glesen. All sources I have checked only show glæsen, and never glesen. And if the bulk of attestations fall to form glæsen, why not make that the main entry ? (as it was in the first place...) Leasnam (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Hundwine Leasnam (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
No response. Fixed   Done Leasnam (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

de lunatico inquirendoEdit

Latin. Tagged by on 31 January, not listed. J3133 (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


Volapük, "penis". Seems unattested. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


Looks English, cp. angiosperm, sperm, -s. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the outcome, possibly to add: magnoliids, monocots, core eudicots (also cp. core), superasterids, asterids, superrosids, rosids, fabids, malvids. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Clades are tricky, because many of them don't have an accepted conventional taxonomic name. The taxonomists working on them give them an informal English name, and other taxonomists use them like the conventional Latin-based taxonomic names- which we treat as Translingual(language code mul) because they're used in a great many languages without being a part of the languages. These English-based names for plants are technically invalid according to the taxonomic code, but they're definitely used in taxonomic contexts.
This particular one is odd because the clade has a normal taxonomic name, Angiospermae, and there's nothing about the formation of that name that precludes it from being validly given any rank above superfamily. It doesn't seem necessary to use an English-based name in non-English usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
And yet it is so used. DCDuring (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
IMO, none of these are Translingual. They were all created by DCDuring, who has no training in relevant fields and seems opposed to the distinction betwen taxonomic and common names used by workers in the actual field. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Is angiosperms (and are the others) used in multiple languages?
google books:"angiosperms" "das" (with German das n (the)), google books:"angiosperms" "le" (with French le m (the)) and similar searches (with other articles, with forms of translations of be, excluding the) brought up:
My search wasn't exhaustive, but I didn't see any non-English usage. --幽霊四 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If it is then it still does not mean it is translingual. In other languages there is still in principle a distinction between the native language and Translingual even if the terms look the same 100% (which they don’t, due to capitalization). Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Just move to English. It is formally clear here what is translingual and what English. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not a vote. That might be appropriate in RfM or RfD. There is attestation in scholarly journals for the terms being used in a manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names. There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms. DCDuring (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that this shouldn't be a vote. It's how it's used that should determine what language header it goes under, not a prescriptive standard. Our Translingual section should be just as descriptive as the rest of the dictionary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Re "There is more abundant attestation for Angiosperms": Is there? Google Books is not case sensitive, so searching for angiosperms and Angiosperms brings up the same results. As I searched, I didn't see more for the capitalised variant. --幽霊四 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I found abundant attestation for Angiosperm in use parallel to Latinate taxa at Google Scholar. I searched for "clade Angiosperms". DCDuring (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
“manner indistinguishable from the Latinate taxonomic names”. Cannot nachvollziehen such reasoning. It’s not only the manner, i.e. the context in which it is used which indicates which language something is. This is the same irrational approach that declares long Latin or Greek bonmots “Danish”. The Verkehrsanschauung is unambiguous about which language it is (and one can hardly with more quotes show that something is more translingual or more English; “eudicots” will not look less English because there are quotes in some other language that has the same pluralization practice, so it is true it is more RfM matter and not RfV matter – though even better, somebody who is able to sharply distinguish can just move/transform such entries for he can rationally defend it). Fay Freak (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The only use in a work not in English is a section of an unpublished Czech thesis which quotes from the English language product of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group adding a few Czech words in. Elsewhere in the thesis the word is treated as Czech, for example "angiospermní: krytosemenné rostliny, jednoděloţné a dvouděloţné" (angiosperms, plants with hidden seeds...). This supports a borrowing or parallel formation, not a multilingual word. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
It's very hard to find usage, because of the huge number of false positives due to English titles in their cited references. It's also true that there are taxonomists who don't view APG clade names as valid for taxonomic use and therefore don't use them translingually. Also, this term seems to be much less common than those for which there is no validly published conventional alternative. I was able to find a few that I would argue show translingual usage. I could probably find a few more, if necessary. Most of these are in tables rather than in running text, but I would contend that such is how taxonomic names are often used. Here (on page 10 of the pdf) is one of several where the APG names are contrasted with the standard classifications, but they are both treated as the same sort of thing. This pdf has it at the beginning, while this pdf follows a common Chinese practice of a mixture of translingual and English glosses in parentheses throughout the text, but has a table on the 5th page (numbered 524) where the clade names are in a context that has everything else in either taxonomic Latin or Chinese.
As for whether these are durably archived: the taxonomic codes, until fairly recently, explicitly required what basically amounts to durable archiving for anything taxonomic to be validly published. As far as I know, it's still very much the practice, with some online journals going so far as to print a limited number of hard copies that are placed in selected libraries to satisfy such requirements. As far as I know, theses for academic credit are all archived with the educational institution, and government publications are archived as well. I can't guarantee that all of these specific articles are durably archived, but there's a high probability that they are. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Here (on page 10 of the pdf)" - page 19 of the PDF, page 3 of the actual work, where it begins with Según APG IV (According to APG [Angiosperm Phylogeny Group] IV) and which also has core eudicots? That looks like a mentioning of APG – English? In the bibliography sections, it mentions Catálogo de las Angiospermas y Gimnospermas del Perú.
  • "This pdf":
    • It doesn't look durably archived.
    • It's mentioning English wikipedia, FAO with APG in URL. It could copy English stuff. "United Emirats arabes unis (Arab Emirates) (Arabe, Arabic)" also looks strange regarding the language.
--幽霊四 (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


Looks English, see also -s, also as there are non-English translations. --幽霊四 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

幽霊四: If it “looks English” then spare us such requests and move to English. Nothing would get lost. Fay Freak (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It's an English plural noun. The taxonomic clade is Eudicots. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.
  • [172] has "der Eudicots" (gen. pl., gender not revealed) and "die core eudicots" (pl., same; with italics), but it's just one source, not sufficent.
  • [173] has "Der Name Eudicotyledonae (engl. eudicots)", giving two reasons why it doesn't look translingual: 1. It's English. 2. There's an alternative.
  • [174] has it in French, but with quotation marks and also "higher hamamelids" (with quotation marks as well) which is even more English.
  • [175] has "Les Eudicotylédones (Eudicots)", "des Eudicots", "Les Rosidées". Could also be regular French (-s), or not?
--幽霊四 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

kakilima beratapEdit

Indonesian. Sent from RFD. — surjection??⟩ 10:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English#kakilima beratap (2). I am not sure about the orthographies of various terms, but Indonesian kaki lima, literally “five foot”, short for ”five-foot way”, can by itself mean the walkway under an arcade, usually housing shops. It is to be expected then that such an arcade is called a kaki-lima beratap. At least one dictionary lists the term;[176] and the term is used here. The issue seems to be more whether this is not a good old SOP. (Aside: we also have an entry kaki-lima, whose status seems dubious to me, just like “the shop on the corner” may often be a convenience store, but does not necessarily mean that.)  --Lambiam 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


Sent from RFD. — surjection??⟩ 10:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#masciddare.

I know I was not supposed to bring this up here, but I have no other choice. This is not an attested Italian word: one quick Google search and you will see one (1) result, and not even as a noun but as a probably unrelated verb. You can look masciddaro up, most results will refer to a certain gastronomical preparation, I guess; still a nonstandard Italianization of a Sicilian word, nonetheless.

I tried to mark the page as imminent deletion, but I was reverted twice by SemperBlotto (talkcontribs) (coincidentally the creator). I left a message on his talk page, but I was ignored. When this is not even remotely attested in Italian, so please someone delete the page. I am astonished and alarmed at the fact that someone so careless about their creations (and their proper layout too, see the first revision) is an administrator on this project. 16:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I am going to move this from RFD to RFV. After a quick search I agree there is no good evidence that this is an Italian word rather than Sicilian. I do find several uses of the plural masciddari in contexts where they are probably not meant to be standard Italian. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Spanish capacho "having horns pointing flat out to the sides" (bullfighting)Edit

In reality this appears to mean "wicker basket". I can find no references to bullfighting with respect to this term. Benwing2 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's loads of hits Oxlade2000 (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Most are mentions in dictionaries, but I saw at least three uses (also using a news search) that count for CFI purposes: [177], [178], [179].  --