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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

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

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

This page is for entries in any language other than (a) English; (b) Chinese/Japanese/Korean; (c) Latin+Romance; (d) reconstructed languages.

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 should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

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

Tagged RFVs

October 2019Edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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). [2] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

RFV-resolved for most of the above. Still TBD: I have to add the actual Enchiridion quotes to unds and undan, but they do exist. I want to make a template for that. Also, the various forms of "deiwas"/"deiws" with the macrons aren't attested. However, ignoring capitalization and the macrons, all of those forms are attested. However it's quite a mess at present, with different definitions on the entries instead of using {{alt form}}, and with lots of weird labels like "archaic" and "regional". (What does "archaic" mean exactly? The language is extinct!) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2019Edit

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)Reply[reply]

References.--Marrovi (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [3], 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)Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Ancient Greek. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I found this [[4]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[5]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[6]], 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2020Edit

Arabic. -- 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hans Wehr has:
مكواة mikwāh and مكوى makwan pl. مكاو makāwin flatiron; hot iron (for cauterizing), cautery (med.) | مكواة الشعر m. aš-šaʿr curling iron 19:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2020Edit

Arabic. Rfv-sense: to make cross95.185.32.82 09:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Well, this عَبَّرَ(ʕabbara) 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)Reply[reply]

March 2020Edit

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

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)Reply[reply]
It's mentioned here. I don't see anything on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

So to sum up, the current spelling we have for this word is fine. Some linguistic dictionaries will add hyphens, which would make the word miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-badagwiingweshigani-bakwezhigan, a policy which we seem to follow at least some of the time. But it is still definitely a single word and should not be written with spaces. Is it a dictionary-only word? I think not, because it's quite easy to find this word being used online on sites that aren't dictionaries. I would say that nearly all people using this word are specifically choosing it because of how long it is, but that hasn't stopped us from including other very long words. (Also, we never said this was the longest word in Ojibwe, since after all the part that means blueberry is just miini ... a blackberry pie would be a few syllables longer.)

I note, as said above, that this word also seems to be in circulation without the fourth morpheme, producing the slightly shorter miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan. Soap 01:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @-sche, who knows more about this language than we do. A lot depends on the context: if it's not accompanied with the normal morphology associated with similar words in similar contexts, it might be more like a mention or an example sentence than an actual use. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I correct in understanding that the remaining question is only whether the term should be spelled with or without hyphens, since its existence as a word (with no spaces, despite the length) is demonstrated by the Ojibwe People's Dictionary? Unfortunately, I don't speak much Ojibwe at all and haven't read enough literature in it to have a sense of whether this would most often be written with or without hyphens. Online, I find various mentions of the hyphenated word, vs only a few unhyphenated examples (often low-quality or embedded in Russian); based on that and the Ojibwe People's Dictionary, it seems it should be moved to the form with hyphens. As to why it's not spelled with spaces... as Chuck said in an early comment, some languages prefer strings like this, parsed as words (with or without hyphens: e.g. Nuxalk has some rather long strings with no spaces or hyphens, nor even vowels or syllable breaks), where other languages (like Navajo) might prefer to use several separate words parsed as forming a long descriptive term. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@-sche: This isn't in the Ojibwe People's Dictionary. Rather, a form with fewer components is: miini-baashkiminasigani-biitoosijigani-bakwezhigan, which I've just created. AFAICT, we generally hyphenate Ojibwe compounds, as does OPD. Compare akiiwe-wiigiwaam, aabita-niibino-giizis, gichi-manidoo-giizis, etc. I can't comment as to whether the hyphens are used in actual texts written in the language, because almost all hits I've found while searching for the preceding three terms on Google are mentions embedded in other language (usually English) text. Exceptions include this tribal constitution and this journal article, both of which use the hyphens.
As an LDL, one source suffices for Ojibwe. However, WT:CFI still says that "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Wiktionary:About Ojibwe is silent on that (as it is about hyphenation), but based on actual practice, OPD would undoubtedly be in that list. Would the current source pass muster? IDK. There may be others. Almost all the Google hits are just sites about long words, though.
Btw, I strongly suspect that the more normal word for blueberry pie would be miini-biitoosijigan, but ironically that isn't in OPD and barely registers on Google. OPD does have miskomini-biitoosijigan (raspberry pie), though. 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2020Edit

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

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

Untagged by @Mnemosientje here. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no doubt that Azerbaijani works will include references to foreigners (real or fictional) named Tom. E.g. here, talking about Tom Sawyer, here, apparently talking about Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, or here, talking about a zoologist affiliated with Oxford University. But I'm not sure about the definition "A transliteration of the English male given name Tom." How can it be a transliteration if the starting and ending points are in the same script and identical? Are we just using "transliteration" to emphasize that it's not used natively? 04:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

German. 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)Reply[reply]

Cited ABC, will look for KBC later. Used in a variety of hyphenated compounds. It's clearly a common initialism, and being a "pseudo-prefix" isn't really an argument to delete it, since by definition it implies it is really some other POS, presumably that of its constituents (i.e. adjective in this case). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ABC isn't cited yet, only some examples for terms like ABC-Krieg and ABC-Vollschutz were provided. It's comparable to terms with Langzeit- (Langzeit doesn't exists). Maybe compare with:
  • wissen.de which has it as Langzeit... It says: "in Zus." = in compounds, which is true like: Langzeitversuch = lang +‎ Zeit +‎ Versuch.
  • de:Langzeit- calls it a bound lexeme ("gebundenes Lexem") which they distinguish from affixes and also from "affixoids" (like de:tod- which they call prefixoid ("Präfixoid")). In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes.
  • duden.de while having some terms with Langzeit- has nothing like Langzeit, Langzeit-, Langzeit... but it lacks some affixes, affixoids or bound lexemes. (tod- is an example which they have and they call it prefix.)
--2003:DE:372E:DA74:2560:4D6F:A0D6:B2F5 15:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In en.wiktionary however bound lexems and affixoids are simply given as affixes"—not really, Wiktionary has things like {{only used in}} precisely for bound lexemes and generally those entries are not formatted as affixes. As for Langzeit-, in all but one of the existing entries in Langzeit- the term is straightforwardly broken down to lang + Zeit, the "affixoid" category with one entry you linked is not the standard practice. If we're following de.wikt, de:ABC has its own entry and is simply noted as "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich", which is comparable to the standard practice to en.wikt. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If de.wt's "meist in Wortverbindungen gebräuchlich" (meist = mostly, not only) is factually correct, then it deserves an entry at ABC. Question is, is it correct? --2003:DE:372E:DAD0:B169:E28F:1253:8DB8 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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

That article on the Greek Wikipedia gives Λεώνη as the “Hellenization” of León and Llión.  --Lambiam 08:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sarri.greek, could you please take a look at this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Sarri.greek: In this edit summary, you stated a willingness to add quotations. When you have the free time, it would be nice if you could do that, so we can close this RfV. (You can even just send me links to Google Books or similar and I'll do the rest, if desired.) 08:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy New Year. No need for quotation. A google search for "Λεώνη" "Ισπανία" (Spain) gives numerous examples with snippets and titles for given name and placename (of no other interest). I verify that both definitions exist. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 11:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2020Edit

Thai. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  2. Use first of these forms as the central lemma, referencing compounds to it. --RichardW57 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Russian. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

July 2020Edit

New Saxon SpellingsEdit

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

Gulf Arabic. فين أخاي (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2020Edit

Ukrainian. @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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Maybe this should be put into an appendix, along with any other such Canadian Ukrainian idioms that have a similar level of attestation, if there are any. 03:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ojibwe. 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)Reply[reply]

I can't find evidence of "gichi-" being used as a preverb in Ojibwe for directional right. Proto-Algonquian *keʔčineϴki is reconstructed for "right arm/hand", cf. Cree kihcinisk, and that is composed of *keʔči- (the same as gichi-) + *-neθki. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that gichi- on its own is productive in meaning "right" in Ojibwe, either as a preverb or initial, outside of the inherited word gichinik. I'd want to see more evidence for that, that I just can't find. But I'll ping User:-sche in case they want to have a look. 10:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian зграEdit

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

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Dutch. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

* 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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): [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
There may have been an even earlier sense of the term in which no malicious intent (except making money) was implied .... it was simply auto-generated clickbait that looked like news. "Why These Celebrities Have Never Played Cards", etc. The first political sense came later, and the second political sense came after the first. I can't confirm this, though. I just remember stubbornly resisting what I thought was a misuse of the term and then eventually conceding that I couldn't say 99% of the world was using it wrong. Soap 14:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

September 2020Edit

Indonesian. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

denk (Afrikaans)Edit

Afrikaans. 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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

November 2020Edit

Arabic. Rfv-sense: narrator -- 06:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thai. 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)Reply[reply]

dada (Dutch)Edit

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

1881 1820 1629 1618 I guess this is technically Dutch. Thadh (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Oh, you're right. Reading this writing is extremely difficult :O Thadh (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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

Archaic Dutch: [14] [15] Haags Dutch: [16] [17] ([18]) [19] Thadh (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2020Edit

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

  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • If by "those old German fonts" you mean Fraktur we have to be careful, because "ſz" in Fraktur is actually "ß". So at [20], for example, the search engine finds "Eszwaren" but the scan shows it's actually Eßwaren. But [21] is an unambiguous example of "Eszwaren" in Antiqua. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The one I added was in a legible font, not Fraktur. I found more[22][23], 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)Reply[reply]
        • 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)Reply[reply]
        • Modern Philology (inside the entry) is English and [24] is Dutch. That aren't good examples for German spellings. --Schläsinger X (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          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)Reply[reply]

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

Teilchenbeschleunigerchen. Beautiful. – Jberkel 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Interestingly however, very small particle accelerators are being investigated. See for example these two newspaper articles which are using the diminutive: [25], [26]. Morgengave (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, for once, reality catching up with the dictionary? – Jberkel 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

To anyone who's going through these, please do not delete them for now, as I'm finding cites and am planning on making a complete update soon, but have been behind recently. Thanks! AG202 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that your opinions have changed a lot since this comment and that we've been able to find a TON of material made in Jeju, so I don't fault you at all for making them at the time. Since the start of the revitalization efforts, there have been more materials being made in native Jeju by Jeju natives (and not in 제주 사투리) and more lexicons being made, so I don't necessarily agree with saying that everything must be from pre-1960, as even if the only Jeju speakers were born in the 1940s or earlier (there are younger Jeju natives but they're more rare), they'd still be able to make up new terms for things that have come into play since then. However, I have deleted the senses that I am completely unable to find and don't think that I will find, per the RFV guidelines. Additionally, the cites that I have found have been written by-and-large in native Jeju and not Jeju-tinged Korean, by or the with consultation of native Jeju speakers and have been published either by the Jeju Preservation Society, the Jeju Provincial Government, or in related Jeju studies. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 (sawhwe) 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.

FYI, the historical Korean reading for 社 was 샤, not ᄉᆞ. So it cannot start with ᄉᆞ in Jeju. -- 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed and I've moved the sense to 사훼 (sahwe). However, I have added the other ᄉᆞ훼(司會) (sawhwe, moderator), as that is cited in 개정 증보 제주어 사전. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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}}.

On the other hand, the historical Korean reading for 自 was ᄌᆞ. So it can start with ᄌᆞ in Jeju. -- 06:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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?

Cited. AG202 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in one source, and it doesn't seem like an actual usage, but just in a name. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"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.

RFV-failed. Was only able to find it in the name of something, not an actual usage. AG202 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"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".

RFV-failed. Only relevant hit (I found) is [28] (and another from the same encyclopedia). 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J3133 I'm sincerely sorry for the inconvenience, but when searching very thoroughly to make sure I didn't miss anything, I was just barely able to find three independent citations, so I think this should be restored and considered cited. Also these edits should be undone (I can't do it myself due to an edit filter). The other deleted ones should stay deleted as even with quite thorough searching in multiple corpora I couldn't substantiate them convincingly. Again, my apologies. 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, strike that. I was right originally. Both Winkler Prins articles are by J. A. Prins, so they're not independent of the other J. A. Prins article. So this should stay deleted. 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


CFI-mandated discussionEdit

Ends January 19, 23:59 (UTC)

Cited using a combination of durably archived sources and Internet sources. That said, I'm not sure there are three quotations that are both durably archived and clearly uses rather than mentions. So I'll open this to a two-week discussion, as mandated by WT:CFI in situations where online citations are in question. Should these citations be considered valid? (Notifying Rua, Mnemosientje, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Azertus, Alexis Jazz, DrJos): 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PTT Studieblad seems legit. De Standaard seems like a mention with a usage example. Deca is 10 also seems to be a mention. Twitter is not considered durably archived according to Wiktionary policy. Probably not a mention, though likely sort of close: "indeed, 400 decaseconds seems like a better unit" sounds like he's discussing the word, don't know what he replied to though. Twitter 2 (same durable archived issue) says "(x-as decaseconden, y-as ontladingen per minuut)" which describes the axes on a graph. This seems like no more of a use than "2 milk" on my shopping list. Twitter 3 is a use. Twitter 4.. Somehow I'm glad the video won't load. Not sure the quote is a use, but the Twitter user later replies to himself with a poll that seems to have a clear use. [29] is a use but not durably archived according to Wiktionary policy. [30] (same durable archiving issue) says "Als we de seconde gebruiken als de basis eenheid voor het metrieke systeem dan wordt een minuut een decaseconde, een uur wordt 10 kiloseconden..." (if we use the second as the basis for a metric system, a minute will be a decasecond, an hour 10 kiloseconds...) so it's unclear if they are using decaseconde in the intended sense. [31] is quite possibly durably archived as it's the answer key to a test which quite likely also exists in print. Whether it's a use, I'm not sure. Like most of the education I enjoyed, seems like a poorly designed test. There's an entry on Dutch Wiktionary which has been around slightly longer and was created by User:Romaine.
Another mention can be found at [32], unclear if durably archived. But the PTT use makes me think this likely could be cited, but only from old books/manuals. Kind of like CVE which study books from my school consistently used - and thankfully, just as I told my teacher back in the day, that word died because it's even more stupid than decaseconde.
Yay unhinged rant. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the analysis. I will respond to a few points:
  • "not considered durably archived according to Wiktionary policy": This is true, though the policy changed last year so that the community can now decide to allow (or reject) such sources on a case-by-case basis. (You likely already know this, just making sure we're all on the same page.)
  • "it's unclear if they are using decaseconde in the intended sense": They kinda are, but you need to read more context to see. The idea is to examine what it would look like to redesign the time system from the ground up based on 10^n seconds instead of the more "arbitrary" 60 seconds per minute, etc. In this hypothetical the definition of a second would have to be changed to be 1/100000 of a day; a decasecond would still be 10 "seconds" (using a different definition of a "second"). A little confusing, but it makes sense.
  • "But the PTT use makes me think this likely could be cited, but only from old books/manuals.": Would you know where to find digitized manuals like that?
To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion about whether to include this term or not based on the current citations. I'm mostly just trying to get this resolved because it's been open for over 2 years and the RFVN backlog has gotten really bad. 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea where to find those. Sometimes on archive.org, but I already looked there. https://www.circuitsonline.net/forum/view/128278 has another not-durably-archived use. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Added another quotation, from the journal Nederlands Dagblad Variant+. Assuming no more quotations show up, would you prefer to keep or delete this, all things considered? 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure, this makes it even more likely that it can be cited, but technically it currently only has two clearly good cites. (and a few that seem to be mentions or where it's unconfirmed if they are "durably archived") User:MarcoSwart, can you think of any other place to look? — Alexis Jazz (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may have to go to a library to look in older technical publications. Dutch law is very clear that "decaseconde" is allowed usage (art. 3.1 mentions "seconde", art. 12.1 mentions "deca-" as a prefix that according to art. 12.2 can be combined with all units mentioned in art. 3.1). Why not simply "durably archive" one of the uses already found? MarcoSwart (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I would be inclined to let this pass now. I am not even sure if I would rule the Standaard citation a mention, it is a comment on the utility of the unit (e.g. like an instrument). Cf. "The decasecond could be rather convenient to" and "The halberd could be rather convenient to". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RFV-failed. No relevant hits. 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RFV-failed. Only relevant hit (I found) is [33]. 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cited. 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-passed. 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RFV-failed. No relevant hits. 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General commentsEdit

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


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

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: [34]. Thadh (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

It may be archaic or obsolete: [35], [36], [37].  --Lambiam 15:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
If we were to find the full version of this book [38] we might be able to have a cite for this spelling. Thadh (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

It's listed here [[39]], and I can find uses in Google Books [[40]] (search "een schalk" "nederlands"). Leasnam (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the first link doesn't give "servant" for modern Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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) [41] Morgengave (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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" [42] [43] [44] 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)Reply[reply]
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.[45], 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.[46]  --Lambiam 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

@Victar: [47] --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@ZxxZxxZ, Dijan, Qehath Anyone? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

@Morgengave What is your view on this? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I don't know the place myself, but Dievoort seems to be a place near Breda: [48]. The place in Ukkel is indeed called Dievoet, not Dietvoort. Morgengave (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I do wonder, how should we handle words that are mainly found in translations, particularly awkward or unnatural ones, in general? MSG17 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, if such terms made it into three independent durably archived sources, they should be included, as people may encounter them and want to look them up. If they only appear in machine translations posted online (as seems to be the case with an toàn đệ nhất) then I say we should just delete them. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

January 2021Edit

Scots. 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)Reply[reply]

Old High German. Created based on mention in etymology of burgeon. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 [[49]] Leasnam (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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"[50] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

This seems to be two distinct senses.__Gamren (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

February 2021Edit

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
And yet it is so used. DCDuring (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Just move to English. It is formally clear here what is translingual and what English. Fay Freak (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's English. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
“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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • "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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
It's an English plural noun. The taxonomic clade is Eudicots. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would add a request for Translingual Eudicots as well, with the same reasoning.
  • [51] has "der Eudicots" (gen. pl., gender not revealed) and "die core eudicots" (pl., same; with italics), but it's just one source, not sufficent.
  • [52] has "Der Name Eudicotyledonae (engl. eudicots)", giving two reasons why it doesn't look translingual: 1. It's English. 2. There's an alternative.
  • [53] has it in French, but with quotation marks and also "higher hamamelids" (with quotation marks as well) which is even more English.
  • [54] 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)Reply[reply]
It intuitively doesn't feel like a translingual taxonomic name, since it's not Latin. But maybe there are exceptions. I don't know enough to say for sure. @Chuck Entz and @DCDuring, experts on taxonomy. 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an expert, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It's tricky, because it isn't part of the standard Latin-based Linnaean nomenclature. The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group uses English in the names for their taxonomic entities rather than Latin, and they're more interested in the tree structure than in assigning standard names for every rank- but they're describing things that don't have a name otherwise. I would call the result a parallel, unofficial naming system, but it's used in multiple languages, which makes it translingual. It's not the system for taxonomic nomenclature, but it has its role. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It functions just the way the officially (ICZN, ICTV, LPSN, etc) sanctioned taxa do, as lamiids, rosids, eurosids, and a score or more of other APG clade names. It is neither here nor there, but I "feel" it to be a formal taxonomic name, as much as, say, the names of species of viruses (eg, Human alphaherpesvirus 1, which looks like a normal English NP, with an English adjective preceding the head). DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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;[55] 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)Reply[reply]

Thai. Sent from RFD. — surjection??⟩ 10:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translingual. Created by suzukaze-c; RFV suggested by @This, that and the other. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 cites from Google Books, in English contexts:
  1. Jack Bowen, If You Can Read This: The Philosophy of Bumper Stickers
    Fish symbol with "Ixoye" in the middle:
  2. Michael Theisen, Exploring Catholicism
    sacred letters, words, and symbols such as IHS, IXOYE, INRI, ✝, JESUS, ΑΩ
  3. Thomas Nelson Publishers, The Safe Sites Internet Yellow Pages
    Home to The IXOYE Page and Doulos Ministries. Specializing in everything from evangelism to homeschooling and prophecy
Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last cite is part of a proper name, so I don't think we can admit that. The other two look like mentions, so ordinarily I'd reject them, but I do note that the PoS is "Symbol". Maybe this shifts the goalposts as far as the use-mention distinction is concerned... This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misprint for ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for "fish" but also acronym of Ιησους Χριστος Θεου Υιος Σωτηρ, meaning "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour". The first Christians used this, or even sometimes just a stylized fish shape, as a sign of recognition which would escape the notice of their Roman persecutors. IXOYE should be ΙΧΘΥΣ in all three numbered links above. See w:Ichthys for details. — Tonymec (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tonymec: At Wiktionary we are interested in how language is used in the real world, not how it "should" be used. I don't think anyone would disagree with you that IXOYE is "wrong" on some level, but if it is in use we ought to include it. This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three more from Google Scholar, confirmed not scannos:
  1. Pathways off the streets: Homeless people and their use of resources Wright, Bradley R. Entner. The University of Wisconsin - Madison. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1996
    the parishioners of St. Andrews Church and Faith Community Bible Church. IXOYE.
  2. Oracle (Sep 21, 1973), and many more instances from the same series
    IXOYE (pronounced ICHTHUS)
  3. Esther Lim, Portland State University, Nine Months
    Next to “UCSB Dad” was a fish symbol with the letters “IXOYE” in the middle—the classic acronym for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.”
Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is OK to be honest. I don't think it's too different from the standard Catholic use of IHS to mean Jesus, where the "H" is really Greek eta. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Translingual Symbol sense 5Edit

  1. A system of paper sizes with similar proportions, as A0, A1, A2, etc.

Is the letter "A" used alone (in any language, since this is Translingual) to refer to a paper size system? I would make a claim that uses like "the A paper size system" do not support the inclusion of this term. Please argue with me on this though! This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attributively at least: A paper sizes. Fay Freak (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Still a strange thing to include in such a place in a dictionary. Fay Freak (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Translingual Symbol sense 6Edit

  1. An academic grade lower than A+ but greater than A-.

I dispute that this is used translingually, even if the definition were to be worded more generally. I contend that letter grades are only or largely confined in the Anglosphere. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some (if not many) Dutch primary schools use letter grades (E-D-C-B-A) interchangeably with digits (1-10). Cito also uses these. Thadh (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think few primary schools actually use those as the actual marks rather than as a mere secondary encoding of onvoldoende, voldoende, goed, etc. In any case, its marginal use by Dutch schools seems not much of an argument for its translingual status. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is kind of likely that in some Pacific islands and African colonies this system has been taken over, without school education taking place in English. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lingo Bingo Dingo This is something I've noticed actually. Is "Translingual" supposed to be a catch-all for a lot of languages or all languages? Because I've seen it heavily lean Western European, especially with punctuation marks, while many other languages would not use them as such. It's truly confusing to me. AG202 (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AG202 I've always treated it as "a lot of languages" - "all languages" would be a literally impossible bar to pass. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Komi-Zyrian. Seems to be dialectal Permyak rather than Zyrian (compare also Коми-Ёдз кыл). Thadh (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not in this corpus of Komi-Zyrian. The term may exist in Komi-Yazva, though I don't know whether we classify that as part of kpv. The user who added this has since been blocked for edits with questionable sourcing. 03:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch, RFV-sense of "an area around the end of a bridge". This seems an incorrect interference from the English sense; in relation to bridges it seems that the sense of "support/pillar of a bridge" does occur frequently. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the editor, I actually took this sense from the Wikipedia article landhoofd [56], which considers bruggenhoofd to be a synonym of landhoofd (e.g., the area connecting ground and bridge, including the support structure). Morgengave (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I agree it is used for the structure connecting the extended parts of a bridge and the ground. The meaning of English bridgehead in relation to actual bridges is about a small area (considered to be strategic) and to my knowledge not about really the support structure. [57] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Dutch it can have the same strategic sense: [58], [59], [60]. It can also be used in a figurative sense: [61], [62], [63].  --Lambiam 08:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lambiam I think there is a misunderstanding here due to my use of "strategic", but senses 2 and 3 are not contested. The discussion above is about the non-military sense for a small area around the end of a bridge, that I have RFV'd, and a support element at the end of a bridge. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish. Literally "hunter fly", defined as referring to the predatory fly family Asilidae but the few uses I can find are not so limited. A couple related uses refer to a species of Promachus, which is in that family. Another refers to Coenosia attenuata, sometimes called "hunter fly" in English. A third group of hits refers to family Chamaemyiidae, species of which are predatory as larvae. So I don't think there is any more than a sum of parts here. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish. Literally "owl fly". The definition is inconsistent, assigning the supposed insect to two distinct orders (Neuroptera and Diptera). I was unable to verify either meaning. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vox Sciurorum: People are saying this on the internet, example 1 and example 2, with pictures and descriptions leaving now doubt about the identification. The uses postdate the 2009 creation of the Wiktionary entry though, and there is a possibility people on the internet coined it after the English. On the other hand I do not believe the original editor had a need to make up names for all flies and he had to take the names from somewhere, though his name be literally Sinek. A Turkish Wikipedia article on the animal, a frequent source of such coinages, never existed. Is it possible that entomology works a badly indexed? In particular I am skeptical about Google Books providing even a sketch of the Near East’s zoology. By now it is proven Google systematically skews the portrayal of science in favour of the American hegemon.
A question has always to be posited: What else is it called? We have learned that even the caperberry in Finnish struggles with the CFI. And we are repulsed by an untrue statement in a translation table that there is no name at all in so bulky a language, for so unexotic an organism. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: I have no problem holding Turkish to lesser standards than English. (By precedent, if not rule, as nominator I can withdraw the RFV if I am satisfied and nobody objects.) I am not counting durable citations on my fingers, but looking for sufficient evidence of use. For some other derivatives of sinek I found that evidence. For the ones I nominated, I did not. There are many species that in ordinary English are simply "bugs". And there are people trying to prescribe names contrary to common use. Somebody who lives in Turkey and has taken an entomology course there will have much better insight than I could get reading literature from 8,000 km away. (Perhaps I will look up some entomologists and email them about common names.) The dominance of English and German in entomological literature gives those languages an advantage in popularizing vocabulary, whatever Google's prejudices may be. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m a bit unclear as to what the issue of relative standards is. Compare English sandfly, used for various fly species in different families. There is no lack of mentions that establish the several identifications with taxonomic groups, but in uses the specific identification is generally impossible to establish. Even if someone files a durably archived report of having been bitten by a sandfly in New Zealand, how can we be sure it was not a biting midge, with the reporter being a visiting Australian? Do we truly hold English common names for critters to the high standards of CFI?  --Lambiam 14:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This definitely a problem (to figure out which sense of a word is meant, in many cases), compare klaviform, which has been RFC-tagged as needing to have separate definitions matching claviform, but ... good luck figuring out which of the meanings is meant from any particular use! - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was always conceit to require that not only occurrences convey meaning, but they also convey all of the meaning and prove it alone. The nature of a use is that it does not convey meaning. Paradox, paradox, but evident; uses at large presuppose meanings having already been conveyed, though it occur that they add to them by their impressions. People employ the metric system without outlining what a metre or a gramme is. The more exact you want to be the more you have to look around. Paradox in discerning language, a holistic scheme!
Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning is only superficially an essential distinction and inherently irrational, it is a private language of analytic philosophers and you play a language game pretending that you conform, instead of owning it is fashionable nonsense. Fay Freak (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turkish. Rfv-sense stable fly. Might also be spelled karasinek. The house fly sense is well attested. The stable fly is generally similar in appearance (except it bites) so you could easily have one word meaning both. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In English the designation black fly is used for various flies in the genus Simulium. Likewise, in Turkish the term kara sinek may be used for them, like here and here (as a search key) for the genus, and here for S. erythrocephalum. After all, they are flies, and they are black. The same cannot be said of the stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans). Both are blood suckers, and they are often mentioned together as being biting flies, so I wonder if there has been some generic confusion.  --Lambiam 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply