Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

This page is for entries in any language other than English. For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcut:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged RFVs


March 2017Edit

pollus Edit

As mentioned in the Tea room, this seems to be a dead end: it's said to be an adjective, and to be an alternative form of polus. The only problem is that there's no adjective sense at polus, nor can I find a likely candidate in Lewis & Short at Perseus. There is pollulus, but that's an alternative form of polulus, a diminutive of polus. We thus have an entry and a complete set of inflected forms, but no definition and no examples of usage. Is this a complete figment of User:SemperBlotto's imagination, or is there a real word out there somewhere?

By the way, I tried searching for this, but there are scannos that mistake just about any letter with a vertical stroke for one or more ls. If it helps any, SB was apparently working on taxonomic names from User:Pengo/Latin/Most wanted at the time he created this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Probably a cockup. If nobody can dind anything, I'll delete it all. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
It is said that DMBLS, "The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources", contains "pollus v. 1 pola, 3 polus, 3 pullus". So it might be a British Mediaeval Latin spelling. -84.161.4.231 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
An Eighth-Century Latin–Anglo-Saxon Glossary has "polla, fusca" (possibly a mentioning) where "polla" could be ML for pulla (from pullus).
Thus pollus could be an alt form of pullus instead of polus. Alternatively the POS of pollus could be wrong and then it could be an alt form of a noun. -84.161.43.111 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed. There existed four irrelevant references on the form polla; two were about a personal name, I don't know what the other two were about.__Gamren (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

April 2017Edit

Compounds with quisEdit

quisquamEdit

For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

  • Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
    One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
    Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
    Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
  • Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
    Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
  • The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
    Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
    The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
  • The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
  • Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
    • Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
      "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
      "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
      So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
    • Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
    • The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
    • The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
      F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
      After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
  • With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

substantivally adjectivally
sg. sg.
m./f. n. m. f. n.
nom. quisquam quidquam/quicquam quisquam quisquam / [quaequam] quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen. cujusquam
(cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")
cujusquam
(cuiusquam etc.)
dat. cuiquam cuiquam
acc. quemquam
[quenquam]
quidquam/quicquam quemquam
[quenquam]
[quemquam / quamquam]
[ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]
quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl. quōquam
also quīquam
quōquam quōquam
also quīquam
[quōquam / quāquam] quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

quisquisEdit

RFV for:

  • feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
  • feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

  • Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
  • As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
    As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
    There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
    • If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
    • There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
  • Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
  • Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
    For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.

References:

  • See quisquis for some citations and notes.
  • Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
    "In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
    Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
    Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
    • Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
  • Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
    Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
    Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
    44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
    [....]
    [...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
    [...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
    Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
    The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
    44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
    [....]
    [...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
    [...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
    • So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
  • L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
  • The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
    (a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
    (b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
    (c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
    (d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
    Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
    For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
    There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
    As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
    F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
    So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

  • substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
  • adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

-80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
In short it is verification request for certain forms (see "For the feminine quaequam and the plural" and "RFV for [...]"). For the verification procress everything else such as references and citations can be ignored.
Discussions could then arise, if citations are found: Are the citations correct, or doubtful, from old editions or the like? Do the citations contain a selfstanding pronoun or what in English is also termed adjective (as in demonstrative adjective, indefinite adjective) or determiner (as in demonstrative determiner)? Additional problems do arise because of this BP proposal. Treating Old Latin and other Latin as different languages means that Plautus (as in quisquam#Citations, mecum#Adverb, illic#Pronoun) doesn't attest anything for the other Latin. -91.6.199.79 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Very late reply, but doesn't quamquam also mean "although"? Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectivesEdit

RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).
Notes:

  • It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
  • Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.

References:

  • Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
    "121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]"
    b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:1
    1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
    2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...]
    122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
    1 Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
    • Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
  • 21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
  • William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
  • Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

-80.133.100.252 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

sospesEdit

See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.

particepsEdit

See A&G cited above.
Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"

princepsEdit

See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.

desesEdit

See A&G cited above.

caelesEdit

See A&G cited above.
L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.
Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.

caelebsEdit

Compare: caelebs#Citations
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).
Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.

pubesEdit

See A&G cited above.
Compare: Talk:pubes#Latin
www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.

impubesEdit

Compare with pubes.
Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)

reduxEdit

  • L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
  • Lewis: "redux ducis (abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
  • Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"
This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).

supplexEdit

  • See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
  • L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex , ĭcis, m."
  • Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis (abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
  • Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"
This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?

uberEdit

For the doubtful plural forms.
  • A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
  • Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
  • Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.

May 2017Edit

camusEdit

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

L&S: "Perh. a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)." Maybe that's the source for it, and maybe in another dictionary it's without the "Perh.", or maybe it's coming from L&S but with ignoring the "Perh." which should abbreviate "Perhaps". -84.161.7.226 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Perh." means perhaps in L&S.
Dictionaries:
  • L&S: "Perh. [= perhaps] a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)."
  • L w/o S: "a curb, used as an instrument of torture: civīs tradere camo, H. dub. [= doubtful]"
  • Gaffiot: "carcan : *Acc. Tr. 302."
  • Georges: "Strafwerkzeug für Sklaven u. Verbrecher, Acc. tr. 302. Hor. sat. 1, 6, 39."
Based on this it should rather be a yoke (frame around the neck) than a necklace (jewelry worn around the neck).
As for Horatius, it does depend on the edition and camo could be less common than Cadmo.
The works mentioned by the dictionaries:
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Noni Marcelli compendiosa doctrina. Emendavit et adnotavit Lucianus Mueller. Pars I, Leipzig, 1888, p. 295f.:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em, praésto est camo† collúm gravem.
    16 Epigonis Me; epigono C. – 17 equidem illud camo idem quod κάμπτω olim putaveram. sed ne sic quidem sententia satis facilis et commoda. vulgo ita explicatur, ut camus sit κημός, et significet, quod exemplo caret, vinculum collare. propius a vero existimo catellae (cf. pg. 199 l. catellae) vocabulum latere et hausta quaedam, quibus octon. iamb. impleretur, ut puta: quid césso ire ad eam? eam praéstost. et catélla (ablat.) habet collúm gravem. nam interdum in hoc metro caesuram neglegi notum. illa quin de Eriphyla dicta esse videantur non intercedo. at pessime puto factum, quod Epigonos Accii eandem cum Eriphyla habuit fabulam Ribbeckius duasque res diversissimas Thebarum expugnationem et Eriphylae caedem una tragoedia contineri existimavit.
  • Nonius Marcellus, De compendiosa doctrina, page 200, line 16f. In: Nonii Marcelli de conpendiosa doctrina libros XX onionsianis copiis usus edidit Wallace M. Lindsay. Volumen I. LL. I–III, argumentum, indicem siglorum et praefationem continens, Leipzig, 1903, p. 294:
    Collus masculino Accius Epigonis (302):
    . quid cesso ire ád eam? em, praesto ést: camo collúm gravem.
    16 epigono (etiam F3)
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae, Leipzig, 1852, p. 148 (L. Attius [= Lucius Accius], Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302):
    Iám quid cesso ire ád eam? en praesto est: én camo collúm grauem!
    302 iam om. libri   em praesto est camo libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Otto Ribbeck, Tragicorum latinorum reliquiae. Secundis curis. Volumen I., Leipzig, 1871, p. LV and p. 176 (L. Attius, Epigoni, XIII (9), verse 302) (similary at wikisource):
    [p. VII and IX]  PRAEFATIO
    [...] eis
    ADNOTATIONUM COROLLARIUM
    quod infra sequitur contexui.
    [p. XLIX]  Attium et debebam et volebam ACCIVM scribere. Nam hoc fuisse poetae nostri nomen fidem facit cum frequentia, immo constantia huius potissimum scripturae in testimoniis, tum Pisaurensium titulorum auctoritas, ubi A c c i i apparent, maximi illa momenti, si probabiliter statuitur Accianum (nam sic apud Hieronymum dicitur) fundum, qui iuxta Pisaurum fuit, a patre poetae colono possessum et filio traditum fuisse. [...]
    [p. LV]  V. 302 violentius Buechelerus eiecto camo ad senarii modos constrinxit:
    quid césso ire ad eam? em praésto est : em (vel iam) collúm grauem.
    [p. 176]  [Séd] quid cesso ire ád eam? em praesto est: cámo [uide] collúm grauem!
    302 sed om. libri   em praesto est, om. uide, libri hem praesto est: camo en Vossius hem praesto est: en camo Grotius Bibl. crit. nou. IV
  • Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae = Sermones, liber I. In: Horace Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica with an English translation by H. Rushton Fairclough, 1942, p. 78f. (similary at wikisource and thelatinlibrary):
    "tune, Syri, Damae aut Dionysi filius, audes
    deicere de saxo civis aut tradere Cadmo?"
    "Do you, the son of a Syrus, a Dama, a Dionysius,d dare to fling from the rocke or to hand over to Cadmus citizens of Rome?"
    d These are common slave-names.
    e i.e. the Tarpeian rock from which criminals were sometimes thrown by order of a tribune. Cadmus was a public executioner.
-80.133.123.15 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
In an edition with English translation, Attius/Accius' "camo" is interpreted as necklace or neckband. So there are (a) Horatius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device) or "Cadmo" (proper noun) and (b) Attius/Accius with the doubtful "camo" (a punishment device or a necklace or neck-band). It's doubtful, but should be cited. -84.161.32.202 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuamEdit

Latin phrases purportedly meaning “everlasting” or “permanent”. I’m most sceptical, however, about the usage note included under ad perpetuum, viz.:

  • The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent.

I didn’t see anything about that in the usual lexicographic places (see perpetuus#References). The phrases in perpetuō (ablative) and in perpetuum (accusative) are well attested (elsewhere), but nowhere do I see mentioned a phrase with ad and any form of perpetuus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • www.zeno.org/Zeno/0/Suche?q=%22ad+perpetuam%22&k=Bibliothek has many mentionings of "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" or "ad perpetuam memoriam". www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/A/Bulle+%5B1%5D could imply that "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" appears in Medieval documents. As the pope lives in Rome and as it is "Roman Catholic Church" the quoted "Roman documents" could be correct, but vague or misleading. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Magni_aestimamus.jpg (said to be a bull from 2011 by wikipedia) has "Benedictus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam." and commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_Quo_Primum_tempore.JPG (said to be a bull) has "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam" at the top.
    www.zeno.org/Musik/M/Key%C3%9Fler,+Johann+Georg/Neueste+Reisen+durch+Deutschland,+B%C3%B6hmen,+Ungarn,+die+Schweiz,+Italien+und+Lothringen/Erste+Abtheilung/51.+Schreiben?hl=ad+perpetuum cites a text with "ad perpetuum" in it. Maybe it is a British Medieval or New Latin form of "in perpetuum"? -84.161.13.81 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

July 2017Edit

The Slavic Latin contributions of 89.172.183.48Edit

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

Also everything under Special:Contributions/89.172.170.90. —JohnC5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Affected Latin entries:
Additionally all these entries might miss a label like {{lb|la|Medieval Latin}}, {{lb|la|New Latin}} or {{lb|la|Medieval Latin|New Latin}}.
As headers and inflection do not fit:
  • The names ending in -o could be nominatives or be inflected forms, e.g. Budimero as nominative or as dative/ablative of Budimerus (gen. Budimeri) or maybe of Budimer (gen. Budimeri).
  • Names ending with mer or mir could have any of the following declensions: a) indeclinable, b) 3rd declension wih gen in -is, c) 2nd declension with gen. in -i and maybe with dropping of e in mer or i in mir similar to e.g. Maeander, gen. Maeandri.
As for vowel length as inflection templates add macra on the ending:
dunno. Maybe after comparing Slave names lengths can be assumed. But before comparison is done, it could be better to give everything without macra.
As for specific names:
  • Muntimerus (Muncimirus) does exist. Muncimir could barely exist (there appears to be a document from 892 (DCCCXCII) containing this name, and two other usages which might relate to that document). Muntimer might be wrong (correct inflection table, but entry and head missing -us). Muntimirus, Muncimerus could exist too, but that's another thing.
    By the way: Muntimerus was created by 89.172.168.75 who added a few more Slave names in -us.
  • Budimerus does exist. Created entry Budimero probably just is the dative/ablative of it. Budimer in the inflection section might be wrong.
  • Terpimerus could barely exist (the gen. Terpimeri can be found). Tripimirus might be inexistent.
-84.161.43.2 12:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Could you help attest some of these? I looked for Domosol and its variant Domosolus and couldn't find any hits outside of Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Muucimir as a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If it helps any, these look like the work of BrunoMed (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks), who was blocked several times for mass-adding entries via scripts from word lists that they obviously hadn't checked. Look for repetition of the same wording in multiple entries, even when it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks. I think that Domosol comes from this list: [1] The text is in Croatian so I'm not really sure what it says but it's pretty questionable as an attestation so I'm going to delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

実見子Edit

Japanese given name. —suzukaze (tc) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

google:"実見子さん" produces more hits than 実見子の. Not many, but a few more. FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Although it looks like a real name, I don't think there is a strong case for the name being a common one, Among the few online examples I found, many seem to refer to a single individual living in Yamaguchi. (Different sources, thus less chance that it is the result of scanno, I believe.) [2][3][4] Whym (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is certainly well-formed as a name, and there are occurrences on e.g. social media sites (Whym has shown some examples), but I wouldn't want to violate the privacy of some random individual just to verify that their given name exists. I don't know of any famous or newsworthy individuals, nor of any fictional characters with this name. I searched a newspaper database but didn't find anyone. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

French demonymsEdit

User @SemperBlotto has been mass-importing entries from French Wiktionary with, by his own admission, no checking of whether these words are actually verifiable. I decided to check a few of these, and (unsurprisingly) have been unable to verify the vast majority of them, particularly the demonyms for tiny communes, hence bringing them here. Note that these all have entries on fr.wikt, where the criteria for eligibility are far less stringent than ours. The (non-exhaustive) list is as follows; for brevity I have not written here the inflected (feminine/plural) forms, but I have also not been able to verify those so they are inlcuded too:

I've just started with the ones beginning with Y to see how this goes down. BigDom 06:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The history of this miniproject is as follows:- I noticed that a new user (Shiro1998 (talkcontribs)) was systematically added the plural forms of French nouns that we did not have (he seemed to be harvesting them from French Wiktionary). I didn't think this was very useful so started to add the missing singulars. While doing this I noticed that our French friends had very many French nouns (and adjectives &c) that we did not have - so started adding them. These included the above demonyms. My thinking went along the lines that, for a language such as French or Italian, we don't have to check the existance of all the conjugated forms of a verb, adjective etc., so I applied the same logic to the regularly-formed demonyms of French placenames. Some of these places are very small and the chances of the demonym appearing in print are slim - maybe in a local newspaper or a parish magazine, though these are unlikely to be archived. I assume that you are not complaining that any of these are actually incorrect, just that we can't prove that they are correct. My gut feeling is to keep them, and add any more that appear on the French Wiktionary or Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's pretty much it. I'm not saying these don't exist, but that they aren't used (in durably archived media, at least), which does seem to preclude them from having entries as per our inclusion criteria. I personally think we would be better served tidying up and citing our existing entries than creating unverifiable new ones, but if there's a consensus that such entries are allowed to remain, I'm not going to kick up a fuss. BigDom 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
These should definitely not be kept if they are not attested sufficiently. You did the right thing.__Gamren (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete if not sufficiently attested. – Barytonesis

November 2017Edit

-verkEdit

I'm not sure what to do with this. It appears in Norwegian Wiktionary, yet it's not a recognised suffix in the Bokmålsordboka or Nynorskordboka [5]. DonnanZ (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think -verk can be considered a suffix in Norwegian; it rather appears to be the second component in a compound? The fact that "verk" exists as a simplex in the same meaning as the proposed suffix seems to make it a suffixoid at best. Interestingly though, Wiktionary does have an entry for English -work. Morgengave (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes -work is a recognised suffix, whereas -works isn't, which is why it's now an RFD. Norwegian Bokmål verk (and Norwegian Nynorsk verk) is a word with two meanings and two genders, and I prefer to list derived terms there. DonnanZ (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The senses given at verk already exist at verk. However, perhaps -verk has one or both of the senses of Danish -værk that DDO gives?
Also, DWDS gives, for German -werk: bezeichnet mehrere zusammengehörende oder gleichartige Gegenstände "denotes several objects that are similar or that belong together", which it calls "not productive".__Gamren (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I just looked up “-værk” in Den Danske Ordbog. That's interesting. I wonder is it's an error of omission by the Norwegian dictionaries, who knows? I quite often find words in the DDO which don't appear in the Norwegian ones, yet they are definitely used in Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit

Edit

-- Dokurrat (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

, , , , , , , , , , , Edit

Chinese section. -- Dokurrat (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am who added these symbols. Have you ever seen them in Chinese newspapers? I have. They also used in some publishings. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Octahedron80: I'm not sure if the weekday meanings of these symbols are inherent or just a SoP of ring and character. If these meanings have survived Rfv, we may need to add weekday senses to un-ringed characters too, I think. Dokurrat (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Usage of characters in brackets are attested [6][7]--Zcreator (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Octahedron80 Most people type it out as three characters, e.g. (一), and rarely use the ligature character. Also, I haven't seen the usage with the ring. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • RFV failed for the ringed characters. As for the characters in parentheses, they are probably attested, but as mentioned above, most people would type it out as three characters. It may be more of an RFD issue than an RFV one. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

湯桶読み & 重箱読みEdit

湯桶読み lists three-kanji compounds, not just two like the definition claims. It's not an ideal source, so please provide with better ones. ばかFumikotalk 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Daijirin specifically defines these reading patterns as applying to two-character compounds (「漢字二字でできている熟語」 → "compounds formed of two characters"). C.f. Daijirin entry for 湯桶読み, Daijirin entry for 重箱読み. However, Shogakukan adds a note that these labels can be used more broadly for any single compound term (for 重箱読み: 「また、広く、一語の漢字熟語を音訓まぜて読むことにもいう。」 → "Also, broadly, used to describe readings of single-term kanji compounds read with a mixture of on-kun.").
Notably, the example terms with three kanji listed in the JA WP articles for ja:w:湯桶読み and ja:w:重箱読み all appear to be instances of an existing two-kanji compound read with on or kun and either prefixed or suffixed with another term with the opposite reading pattern. Some cases are what I would consider a multi-word term, like 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) or 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), and as multi-word terms, these would not be either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
(The 等幅 (tōhaba, fixed-width) portion of 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) is itself read with the 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) pattern, but the entire term 等幅フォント (tōhaba fonto, fixed-width font) cannot be considered as either 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi) -- especially so given the inclusion of borrowed katakana term フォント (fonto, font), which by very definition cannot be either on or kun).
However, some of the example terms include rendaku, indicating that these three-kanji compounds could be considered as integral words and not multi-word terms, such as 冬景色 (fuyu-geshiki, winter view, winter scene) or 雪化粧 (yuki-geshō, snow covering; to be covered in snow), and as such, the reading patterns for these could be considered as 湯桶読み (yutōyomi) or 重箱読み (jūbakoyomi).
I will rework the 湯桶読み and 重箱読み entries to clarify the definitions and to add usage notes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • First, most sources you frequently cite also make faulty claims, such as a Portuguese term as *Olanda, so I would take them with a huge grain of salt, and if I spoke Japanese, I would seek something, well, more linguistic than some dictionaries that might favor prescriptiveness over descriptiveness, or be outdated and therefore not reflect the true current status of the language (which they do seem like they do and are). Second, the way you divide words into smaller parts seems arbitrary; I've read a romanization guideline that would do very differently based on kanji count, but then with various exceptions. It doesn't help that Japanese doesn't use spaces to separate words, so it's very tricky to determine whether a morpheme is free or bound, whether it should be separated from other parts with spaces or not. I've been following a way that more or less resembles that guideline I've read (based on kanji count), factoring word-medially only processes such as rendaku or renjo. ばかFumikotalk 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You asked for better sources than Wikipedia. I provided several widely published monolingual Japanese dictionaries: Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Daijirin, Daijisen, and Shinmeikai.
As you note, these sources sometimes include mistakes. Importantly, mistakes such as the derivation of Japanese オランダ (Oranda, Holland) arise from misunderstandings of non-Japanese languages. These sources are quite solid when it comes to describing the Japanese language itself.
By your own self-description, you don't read Japanese. I'm not sure how you'd be qualified to judge the quality of monolingual Japanese resources.
Regarding romanization and word chunking, you're correct that rendaku and renjō are both important factors to consider. However, in the absence of these, I'm not sure how kanji count would factor into things, unless one is combining a simple count of kanji with an awareness of the underlying vocabulary. Probably most kanji-spelled integral terms are two characters in length. However, some are three characters long (天婦羅 (tenpura, tempura)), and some are only one character long ( (me, eye)). In 手榴弾 (te ryūdan, hand grenade), for instance, it helps to know that (te, hand) is an independent term, and 榴弾 (ryūdan, explosive round, explosive shell) is an independent term, but that *手榴 (*teryū, literally hand + pomegranate) is not a term. With this knowledge, we can tell that this is a compound of (te) and 榴弾 (ryūdan). This compound exhibits no sandhi (rendaku or renjō), the two portions have different reading types, the two portions are also used as independent terms, and the semantics are also clear as the two concepts put together as “hand” + “explosive shell / grenade”. Given all of these factors, it makes sense to render this in romaji with the space as two separate terms.
If you have a link to that romanization guideline, I'd be interested in reading it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Eirikr (except for the romaji part, I think, but I'm not sure how romaji is relevant to this RFV discussion). —suzukaze (tc) 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit

黒鳥Edit

Rfv-sense "(literally) a black-feathered bird". —suzukaze (tc) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, C.f. Daijisen and Daijirin entries, stating 「羽毛の黒い鳥」/「羽の黒い鳥」. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Attested:
  • 烏のようなる黒鳥が — 日本伝承童謡集成, vol. 2, 1974
  • 雪が降る中ヒマラヤ杉に黒鳥が止まり — 横浜市立大学論叢: 人文科学系列, vol. 40, 1989
  • ちょうどそこへ雌の黒鳥が飛んで来た。 — ゲセル・ハーン物語: モンゴル英雄叙事詩, 1993
TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

アキンボEdit

adjective: akimbo —suzukaze (tc) 23:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. google:"腕がアキンボ" gets one hit. google:"アキンボで" gets 2,070 ostensible hits, collapsing to 97 when paging through. However, the usage seems weird, and the meaning doesn't seem to be what our entry says. For example, one post is talking about a video game glitch, stating 「アキンボで走るときに」 (akinbo de hashiru toki ni, “when running akimbo”). That sounds super weird to me, and makes me think that this アキンボ is not just a borrowing from English akimbo. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This Yahoo answer pretty much explains it. It is apparently a borrowing from English akimbo, but its usage seems to be limited in the context of FPS games. Searching "アキンボ" on Japanese Wikipedia also confirms this. Nardog (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Nardog. The usage does appear to be more along the lines of "with pistols in both hands at the ready", similar to 二丁拳銃 (nichō kenjū, literally “two pistols”). For others here, the Yahoo link above describes how the term appears to be purely a gaming term, and pretty much exclusive to the Call of Duty first-person-shooter game. The poster there theorizes that the term came into vogue because of the game, and from a misunderstanding that "hands on one's hips" was more about gunslingers ready to draw their guns, and from there to having pistols in both hands.
It's clear the アキンボ (akinbo) entry needs reworking. I have other duties keeping me busy today, and possibly for the rest of the week, so I won't be tackling that soon. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikrsurjection??⟩ 23:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

𫶬Edit

"Cantonese: virtuous". —suzukaze (tc) 00:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This character has previously drawn my interest. The definition suggests this character may be - if it fits the attestation criteria - a (very unorthodox) variant of 賢. But I has little resources. Hope someone can investigate into this and figure out what's the story. Dokurrat (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The definition is based on 汉语方言大词典, which cites 木鱼书《蔡伯喈琵琶记》: “蔡公醒后长吁气,叫声~媳好伤心。” I wonder if there are any other 木鱼书 that has this character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

ШахлаEdit

ШахляEdit

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

Nominated by User:Recruos. Шахла́ (Šaxlá) spelling is citeable. It's just a transliteration of a name. I suggested the nominator to withdraw RFV. Ша́хля (Šáxlja) is a variant, harder to cite and, IMHO, the stress is wrong but with foreign names, the stress is not well-established. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018Edit

-thecaEdit

Is this productive? The five examples provided are direct borrowings from Greek, not Latin coinages. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

German terms ending with -thek should be from Latin and Greek or be rather recent creations like Videothek and Spielothek. The entries in Category:French words suffixed with -thèque might be rather recent creations too (though zoothèque might be older). Similary, Latin terms in -theca might be borrowings or be very recent formations difficult to attest as contemporary Latin is a LDL. yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2013/05/24/nuntii-latini (Finish Nuntii Latini, not durably archived) doesn't have anything ending in -theca or -thēca. In scientific Latin zootheca ([8] - cp. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], Oxford Dictionaries: zootheca) can be found. Would this single word be enough to attest a Latin suffix? -84.161.37.160 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW: -isma. -84.161.54.72 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

コピペ Edit

Rfv-sense "plagiarism". —suzukaze (tc) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's quite common to see コピペ in reference to a plagiarism that is literally copied from a source, and not uncommon in reference related phenomena such as Rogeting. Example: [14]. Cnilep (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems verified to me: there are currently three quotations attested across five years. More could be added, but does anyone think that is necessary? Cnilep (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
RFV passed, now to see if anyone complains about durable archiving.__Gamren (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

あき as reading of 商Edit

I know that read as しょう can mean “a business, a seller of goods”, and that the verb 商う (あきなう) means “to deal in, to sell”. But is the character ever read as あき, and does it then mean “the trade of goods”? Cnilep (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There are 商人 (あきんど, あきうど, あきゅうど, あきびと, しょうにん; "merchant") and 商物 (あきもの, "goods"), but that's probably it.[15] In both words the character indeed seems to denote business or trade. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cnilep -- In 商う (akinau, to do business), the character covers the akina- portion. However, etymologically, the root is aki plus suffix -nau, and the root appears to be what is reflected in these other terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

復審Edit

Seems to be the wrong traditional form of 複審. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There're many hits in Google Books.--Zcreator (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Zcreator: True. Do you think there are any differences between 復審 and 複審 in terms of meaning? (In Cantonese, they would be pronounced differently.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
That is the correct form, and 複審 is a wrong form, which must be verified ([16], [17]). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: (This is a really late response.) I'm not sure what you're basing your claim on. Guoyu Cidian only has 複審. It seems like both 復審 and 複審 are valid from the google hits, but there might be some differences in meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

LomocsoEdit

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

@Metaknowledge

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

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

硇#JapaneseEdit

Listed in WWWJDIC (c.f. http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MMC%E7%A1%87), but I cannot find any evidence of use in Japanese. The purported Google hits that I looked into at google:"硇は" all appeared to be scannos. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine that a query for "硇は" would bring up anything since it's not a stand-alone word... Daijisen includes 硇砂 (oddly, a search for "硇砂" doesn't bring it up). —suzukaze (tc) 04:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This webpage appears to be a digitalization of an old book that mentions 硇砂. —suzukaze (tc) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you suzukaze. I should have searched for google:"硇" "は" instead.
It appears that this character only shows up in Japanese in the term 硇砂 (dōsha, sal ammoniac, ammonium chloride), which appears to be an obsolete synonym for modern 塩化アンモニウム (enka anmoniumu).
I haven't seen any evidence for the nyō reading listed in WWWJDIC and KANJIDIC (see also https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%A1%87). Can anyone tell, is this a dictionary-only reading? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018Edit

まじ卍Edit

A hot word, tagged as being older than a year, with no definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing a report that it became popular to use the manji (卍) in Japan's youth recently. There's even a manji gesture which consists of crossing your arms in some manner. The included Wikipedia article says it's a symbol for hype and basically means 'awesome', but I can't read the details. First reference (Kotobank) on Wikipedia says it's a compound of 'まじ' (really) and '卍' (cool) and got some media attention. I think kotobank.jp was used as an acceptable source for verification here before, but I don't know our policies. I added a definition at . Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added two examples of slang usage in online advertisements. The examples are about two years apart, so I don't think it is a hot word. There is also a lot of mention on the web or in magazines explaining the usage. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

ポケットモンスターEdit

Rfv-sense "a Pocket Monster". —Suzukaze-c 17:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, what's in question, this is clearly in widespread use. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Korn If so, please add some cites so the RFV can be closed. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It's literally the name of the franchise, it's on every single product. Again, I don't understand what exactly is in question about it that has to be verified by the cites. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly in widespread use, but what about WT:CFI#Fictional universes/Wiktionary:CFI#Brand names? --Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

Vietnamese Edit

I find it odd that Vietnamese writers would make use of a specifically Japanese phonetic glyph with a value of nu as the typographic equivalent of the " ditto mark.

I suspect that the intended glyph is not the Japanese katakana character (nu, Unicode hex value 30CC), but rather the graphically similar Chinese (and thus Vietnamese chữ Nôm) character (again, as well, Unicode hex value 53C8). In fact, the Japanese phonetic katakana character originally derived from a shorthand version of (used phonetically to represent nu), which includes the glyph as its right-hand portion.

Our entry at cites a website that appears to be volunteer-based data of uncertain provenance. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Nom Preservation Foundation's online lookup tool has no entry for ヌ (Ux30CC), but it does have an entry for 又 (Ux53C8). Could someone check other sources and confirm?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The website in question says has a pronunciation of lại, and you can find several instances of pronounced lại on the same site. It is very likely to be a confusion of the two by their shapes. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information. The chunom.org website is the one cited at the ヌ#Vietnamese entry, and the data there is of unclear provenance. I cannot tell if this is a reliable and trustworthy source, or instead something that might be error-prone in a manner similar to Jisho.org. (That might be what you were suggesting, that chunom.org is error-prone?)
If, ultimately, the Ux30CC glyph is actually in use in electronic Vietnamese chữ Nôm texts, then we should probably have an entry. If instead electronic texts only use Ux53C8, ヌ#Vietnamese should probably go away.
Are there any other electronic Vietnamese sources, or even ideally published works, that use glyph (Ux30CC) interchangeably with (Ux53C8)? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is a reduced form of ("again"), used as an iteration mark in Vietnamese Chu Nom, e.g. 喑ヌ (ầm ầm), 猪ヌ (chưa chưa), 赤ヌ (xích xích), 紅ヌ (hồng hồng). Lại means “again”. Listing it on is probably using the wrong codepoint, but then I'm not sure where this should belong. Wyang (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
They seem to use U+30CC and U+31F4 interchangeably, which suggests there is no officially assigned code point. I prefer moving the information to with a soft redirect at , until the official code point is given in Unicode. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Even Chunom.org's main entry is the U+314F one (), while their U+30CC entry is pretty minimal.
In the absence of any Vietnamese editor input, I second Shinji's suggestion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji: I checked the links provided by Wyang and the character is indeed attested in Vietnamese texts published from 1909 to 1940. The only problem is that it shouldn't be using the same codepoint that is meant for katakana. I don't think this character is unifiable with (the glyph forms are different) so I checked the proposed charts for CJK Extension G and H as well as CJK Extension B,C,D,E,F but this character is not there. I propose moving the entry over to ⿻㇇丶 (See Category:Terms containing unencoded characters for other terms that are not yet encoded). KevinUp (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that using the katakana codepoint is less troublesome, in the same vein as how Cyrillic codepoints are used for some tones in the old Zhuang Latin script. —Suzukaze-c 20:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, any chance that's a scanno kind of problem? I highly doubt that the original texts from 1909–1940 were using any codepoints at all. :)  And thinking through how such texts became digitized, scanning + OCR comes to mind as a likely approach. And if the OCR engine weren't configured quite right, that might be how (Ux30CC) crept in where some graphical variant of (Ux53C8) might have been the glyph actually used in the dead-tree texts.
An idea, anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I don't think Vietnamese texts can be digitized using OCR because many Nôm characters are still unencoded in Unicode. I think the Katakana character was chosen because no other character is available to represent that glyph (the links contain actual images of the text). For now, we could just keep the entry under ヌ#Vietnamese until it is encoded by Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@KevinUp: interesting re: digitizing.
For completeness' sake, I see that there is also (U+3121), visually identical to Japanese (Ux30CC) in some fonts, and more explicitly derived from (U+53C8). However, the Nôm lookup tool doesn't have U+3121 either, only U+53C8. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Suzukaze-c: I checked the images at chunom.org and noticed that there is another variation of this character where the dot does not extend beyond the bottom stroke of . Since this character is not a katakana or Zhuyin letter, it shouldn't be using any of these two codepoints. I think it would be better to move this entry to ⿻㇇丶 which can also represent the second variation of this glyph. KevinUp (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp, thank you for the additional research. I wonder how much of this variation is due to differences in scribal handwriting? On the page for the ngày ngày example, for instance, I note several irregularities in other characters as well.
Agreed that our Vietnamese entry for this should probably be moved. One concern, however, is how would users find ⿻㇇丶 when searching? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

平仮名Edit

Rfv-sense "(as opposed to complex kanji) simple". —Suzukaze-c 21:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of such a sense, nor are Obunsha, Kenkyusha, or Shogakukan dictionaries. Possibly a misunderstanding of (something like) this from 大辞泉: 「ひらがな(平仮名)。仮名の一。漢字の草体から作られた草仮名(そうがな)をさらに簡略化したもの。」 (Hiragana. A type of kana. Derived from sōgana cursive-style kanji and further simplified.) Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The strange thing is that it was added here by @Bendono, who seems to have made a lot of great edits. —Suzukaze-c 04:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I wrote that. No offense intended, but you need better dictionaries. Those single volume dictionaries are aimed at everyday life and leave out far more than they actually include. You can confirm this sense in 日本国語大辞典--which even includes citations--that I will quote:
②(漢字のむずかしいことに対して)わかりやすいこと。率直な、または、平易な表現。
*洒落本・古今三通伝(1782)「魯国のやぢおの曰く(の給ひ)しを平がなにかけば」
*洒落本・金錦三調伝(1783)「いやならいやとひらかなで」 Bendono (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the quotes and usage, I might suggest an edit to the gloss given of just “simple”: perhaps “simple terms” would better convey the sense? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr So does this pass RFV? I can't judge if the citations are valid; if they are, they should be at the entry. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje, I'll be honest and say I haven't done a thorough survey of historical works to double-check. However, cursorily, I'd judge that this passes RFV, albeit as a rare sense that may be archaic or obsolete in modern usage. The entry excerpted by Bendono above is partially viewable online here (I say "partially" as the second quote in the entry dated to 1783 isn't included in the Kotobank version, probably due to Bendono having a later edition of the dictionary). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c, Eirikr, Bendono This has been sitting here for a long time. Can one of you add the relevant quotes to the entry? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

ウィークリーEdit

Rfv-sense "adverb: weekly" —Suzukaze-c 19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm stuck on the opposite thought -- how is this a "noun"? Same for マンスリー (mansurī). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a noun, it often refers to a periodical published once a week: 朝日ウィークリー, 日経ウィークリー, 毎日ウィークリー (oxymoron notwithstanding) etc. I think it's also used as a truncated form of ウィークリー・マンション, a room rented by the week.
"Adverb" is such a heterodox category that I'm having trouble thinking of a clear test for Japanese adverb-ness. Some sources that use standard European labels (e.g. Breen) call ウィークリー an adverb, but I'm not sure if that's because it's borrowed from an English adverb, or based on some analysis of Japanese.
I did find this, which feels adverb-y:
ウィークリーにするという前提(ぜんてい)でスタートせよと。
Wīkurī ni suru toiu zentei de sutāto seyo to.
We should start with the assumption that it is weekly.
I'm not 100% convinced it's an adverb, but neither am I convinced it is not. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't an adverb in Japanese mean that it's used independently without a particle, like 結局? Nardog (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Clearly it is only a noun in Japanese. You can say ウィークリー行う but never *ウィークリー行う. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I see some usage as a -na adjective. It looks like the grammar for this term may currently be in flux. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

gisterjaarEdit

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

@Morgengave, who made the entry. I can find some use on one Belgian blog, but otherwise only scannos. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
While not common, there seems to be a slowly increasing use of the word:
  • (1998, NRC Handelsblad): Nu vier regels uit de Ballade van de dames uit vroeger tijd met de bekende slotregel, die trouwens bij Chaucer al te lezen viel over de sneeuwen van gisterjaar. [18]
  • (2015, Nieuwpoort Nieuws): Foto’s Van gisterjaar: Marktstraat in Nieuwpoort en het trieste waargebeurde verhaal van Peter ‘ Petje de Kortn’ Provoost. [19]
  • (2018, Autofans press release): Aan de éne kant heb je het Opel van gisterjaar met GM-invloeden, aan de andere kant het Opel van morgen onder Franse PSA-vleugels. [20] Morgengave (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

aagiaqEdit

It's in Katersat (which refers to Erik Fleischer and Ordbogeraq), and in this, but not in DAKA, and I can't find usages. However, DAKA has nassuk, which I can attest here (DAKA defines it as gevir, which means "pair of antlers" as well as tak, but the news article clearly uses it in the "single antler" sense). I have refrained from relying on the first two sources exclusively, because there seem to be many unattested words, like these words for different variants of red. I'm not confident they're reliable, even though they come from respectable sources.__Gamren (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this probably doesn't matter, but this book talks of an Inupiaq word aaġiaq (valley, pass), and this book refers to someone named Aagiaq.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe mentions are enough to attest LDLs, no? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Rfv-sense: "a just or proper reason".

Apparently this rfv tag was added by User:Poketalker in May 2018, but discussion was not started here. (Apologies if I missed the discussion or misread the history.) I'm not familiar with such a sense, and couldn't readily find it in a quick skim of my dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this up; it's exclusive to Daijirin:
正しい筋道。正しい道理。
Roughly "the correct/right method or reason". Do you or anyone else have a better translation? ~ POKéTalker) 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The KDJ has the following two senses under the kyō reading, from which I could see the development of the sense in Daijirin:

3 一般的に、教訓、教化など教えを記した書。また、単に書物。

Generally, a text describing a moral, enlightenment, or teaching. Or, any document.

4 (経文を読む意から)仏事を行なうこと。経供養をすること。

(From the sense of reading the sutras) Holding a Buddhist service. Performing Buddhist rites.

Under the kei reading then, the KDJ lists a very similar sense to the one in Daijirin:

1 正しいすじみち。正しい道理。のり。つね。

Correct logic. Correct reasoning. Rule. Custom.

Sense 4.1 at Chinese isn't too far off. And considering the underlying original sense of this character, warp threads, as in something that runs consistently and regularly through, the "correct reason" sense is not unreasonable (ha!). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

ᡩᠣᡵᡤᡳ ᠪᠠᡳᡨᠠ ᠪᡝ ᡠᡥᡝᡵᡳ ᡴᠠᡩᠠᠯᠠᡵᠠ ᠶᠠᠮᡠᠨEdit

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

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

August 2018Edit

नोटबंदीEdit

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

  • This word was seen in the category Hot words older than a year, so I removed that template from the word's page, as it was written on the Category's page that this category should be empty.
    • Also, this word came into common usage when Indian PM announced demonetization of 500 & 1000 rupee currency notes, on 8th Nov 2016. So, yes, it has been over a year.
    • Nonetheless, the word was always in existence, as earlier too demonetization had taken place in 1970s.
    • Entire news is filled with this word. You just have to Google नोटबंदी, and you'll thousands and thousands of news articles on this word, both in domestic and international media. Most recent example I can quote now is this BBC Hindi report here dated 30th August 2018.
    • Also on there is Hindi Wikipedia [page] on that incident, in which this word comes frequently.
  • —⁠This unsigned comment was added by JainismWikipedian (talkcontribs) at 00:46, 1 September 2018.

September 2018Edit

CimbriceEdit

While Citations:Cimbrice & Talk:Cimbrice#meaning show that the term has a 2nd sense, I don't see any evidence that it refers to Cimbrians as modern German people.
On the contrary, I see reasons why it should be something else:

  • de:w:Zimbrisch#Dokumentation: "1602 [...] ältestes Buch in zimbrischer Sprache" & "machte der deutsche Kosmograph Anton Friedrich Büsching 1769 die Zimbern im deutschen Sprachraum bekannt" (Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz from 1644 is older than the latter)
  • Abraham Peter Cronholm's Forn-nordiska minnen has: "Francico mich, mik, mih, vel Cimbrico mig [...] Cambrico þig, vel Franco-Theotisco thich, thigh, thih" & "sumus, estis, sunt, Cimbrice erum, erud, eru". "Francico mich, mik, mih" looks like it refers to German (OHG, OLG, maybe including OD) - and mig and þig as well es erum, erud, eru (also cp. eruð and vera) could refer to Icelandic or some other Norse German language.
    PS: Cronholm's is based on Georgius Hickesius' older work ([21]).
  • "Danis Cymbrisq; [Danis Cymbrisque] est Blydemanet [...]" and -maanet (from Der Teutschen Sprach Ehren-Krantz) could refer to some Norse German language (cp. måned: "From Old Danish .. ma(a)net ..."), LG (Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/mēnōþs#Descendants: "Middle Low German: mānet"), Low or South Low Franconian ("Middle Dutch: mānet, maent").

-84.161.26.64 21:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, as long as we're having an RFV, it'd be good/necessary to have some examples of the first sense (relating to the Cimbri) in use as opposed to mentions in dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Aha, with the help of Antiquitatum Danicarum sermones XVL, which seems to use Cimbrica and Cimbria, etc, in senses that refers to the same group as the 1620, 1705 and other citations of Cimbrice, I may have worked it out: the book has sections on Cimbria & Scandinavia populosissime terra and other things and contains such lines as "Omnibus notissimum est totum Germanica faecundissimae tractum praecipue geminas illas aqvilonis, maximasq.; peninsulas, Cimbriam & Scandinaviam innumeris & fortissimis hominibus, omni exuberasse tempore." This suggests that it may be referring to the people who inhabit the Cimbric/Cimbrian Peninsula (Jutland), i.e. the Jutes or the Danes. (Although the Cimbri are said to be from Jutland, the 1620 and 1705 uses are providing clearly Germanic words not ascribable to the Cimbri.) - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, google books:"Cimbrians" "Jutland" and related searches suggest that Cimbrian may be citable with this sense in English. - -sche (discuss) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Georges: "Adv. Cimbricē, zimbrisch, loqui, Ps. Quint. decl. 3, 13."
L&S: "Adv.: Cimbrĭcē, in the manner of the Cimbrians: loqui, Quint. Decl. 3, 13."
Similar in many other dictionaries (e.g. Scheller-Lünemann-Georges, Dutch Georges-Schneither, Freund, Frenchy Freund, English Freund-Riddle, English Freund-Andrews, Leverett, White). For the source ([Pseudo-]Quintilianus, Declamationes) compare w:Declamation#History and w:Quintilian#Works.
In an older edition from 1549 and in an edition from 1905 (US): "... an Cimbrice loquendum sit."
Here it's quoted without caps.
Another usage with should refer to the ancient German people: [22].
BTW: Some other usages of Cimbrica, Cimbricae, Cimbrici (Cimbricus): by Paul Fleming -84.161.26.64 08:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the original second sense, "in the manner or language of the Cimbrians, a Germanic people who inhabit northern Italy and speak a Bavarian language", and added a sense for the Cimbrian-Peninsula-related citations above. It's possible that if there aren't more citations, the senses should be merged, although if there were enough citations to keep them separate that would been useful. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Antique Latin sense is now properly cited: Citations:Cimbrice#pertaining to the Cimbri.
  • [23]: "JÓTSKR, adj., Cimbricus, Danicus (Jótar): jótskir menn Cimbri, Ý. 35. [cp. jyde and it's etymology]. The source also has "Cimbr. = Cimbrice." and uses it at least once (mis-OCR-ed as "Сітbr": [24]). It does at least hint that Cimbric- could refer the people of Jutland.
    That could also fit with the 1705 source (Hickesius). While gnog might be non-Norse-German in origin, it could be a borrowing from German (be it High or Low German), or alternatively Cimbric could be more northern Low German (as spoken in Northern Schleswig) or some unprecise umbrella-term. The 1620 source has Cimbric Tormaanet [= March], Faremaanet [= April], Schlachtemaanet [= November]. Other sources for the name for April: [25]: "alt Dänisch, Faremaanet", [26] "die Dänen Faremaanet", [27] which gives 2 sources for it, "Hadr. jurii nomenclator" and "Halthauss, in Cal." (Christianus Gottlob Haltausius, Calendarium medii aevi praecipue germanicum in quo [...], "Aprilis ... Cymbrice Faremaanet ... Dns Fabricius in Menolog. p. 144 ait: Faremanet ..." [28] ~> Jo. Albertus Fabricius, Menologium, sive Libellus de Mensibus, [...], "Danorum. ... 4. Aprilis Faremanet ..." [29]). So it could be from a language of the people of Jutland too.
  • Younger senses, if there are multiple senses (like maybe Jutlandish, Danish, Northern Low German), maybe should be merged, but it shouldn't be merged with the older sense.
-84.161.38.239 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

ウォールフラワーEdit

Suzukaze-c 06:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this suffice? google books:"ウォールフラワー"
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. This seems much more commonly to refer to Erysimum sp. (at least before the film came out). The "awkward person" usages I found were almost all in reference to the Stephen Chbosky young adult novel or the film adapted from it. Cnilep (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

実相 -- Jitsusō readingEdit

An anon has apparently been going through ENAMDICT and adding entries here. ENAMDICT is available via Jim Breen's WWWJDIC, which is a decent source, but I'm not sure of the data provenance.

Can anyone confirm that this reading Jitsusō actually exists in the wild? Outside of ENAMDICT and one other online JA-JA name dictionary, I can only find the expected Jissō. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are four online dictionaries giving the romanization Jitsusou (next to Jissou): [30], [31], [32], [33]. Not exactly in the wild, though.  --Lambiam 00:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the legwork. It looks like this might be a dictionary-only reading. Going through the links,
  1. Jisho.org is notable for its unreliability, and lists JMnedict among its sources, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
  2. The entry at Weblio for the Jitsusō reading is also from JMnedict, which I understand sources from ENAMDICT, the same as Breen's website.
  3. Kanshūdō doesn't have any source information.
  4. Oriental Outpost sources from EDICT, whence also ENAMDICT.
Curious if anyone bumps into someone with this name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I get several Californian hits for different but apparently related people with the middle name “Jitsuso” combined with the surname “Yamada”.  --Lambiam 08:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that's useful suggestive evidence, but we're lacking any kanji in these cases, so it's hard to confirm if this reading matches this spelling. Unfortunately, expanding the search to include the kanji results in zero hits. :(
An interesting possibility is that this is an instance of "Ellis Island-ic", where a name has undergone transformation during the process of immigration to the US. In older kana orthographies, the small "tsu" character used to indicate geminate consonants (as in the expected kana spelling じっそう (jissō) for this kanji compound) was not always written smaller. I wonder if it was reinterpreted as regular (tsu) instead, but perhaps only outside of Japan? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a blogger with the handle "真如実相", but that seems more likely to be Shinyo Jissō (roughly, Mr. True Nature). Cnilep (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

xochih-Edit

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

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

October 2018Edit

Italian contributions by 79.32.129.152Edit

I'm just going to put it out there – a large portion of these contributions and translations look like SoP to me and many don't even seem to be idiomatic. Can anyone chime in cause 79.32.129.152 (talk) is currently flooding Wiktionary with new but sketchy entries. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It concerns an IP range, actually: Special:Contributions/79.32.128.0/21. Many of the added entries surely seem SOP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

mecinEdit

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

Some web pages in Malay using the term in their titles: [34], [35], [36]. I don’t know if these pages are specifically in Indonesian Malay.  --Lambiam 09:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those first two links are written in Indonesian. The first link use Indonesian cyber guidance. The second link is a online mass media in Cirebon, Indonesia. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This article using the term is from CNN Indonesia. And this FAQ in Indonesian also mentions mecin / micin as alternative names for MSG.  --Lambiam 10:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Those links are written in Indonesian. --Xbypass (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Attested in Indonesian books: [37], [38], [39], [40]. Attested in Indonesian websites: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. ―Rex AurōrumDisputātiō 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

jouer avec ses armesEdit

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

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

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

November 2018Edit

德川Edit

Rfv-sense "(~幕府) (historical) Tokugawa shogunate". Can 德川 really be used by itself in this way? —Suzukaze-c 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a quote where I suppose you could say 德川 is short for 德川幕府:
德川的和平盛世與儒學的興起,大大改變軍事思想及其運用。[47] In fact, that quote is from a book titled 易學對德川日本的影響, and you could argue that 德川 in the title is also short for "Tokugawa shogunate". It certainly doesn't refer to a Korean city or the generic surname Tokugawa. Richwarm88 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
See [48] for more examples, like in the sentence 第一阶段是德川初期(1603—1691)。 The time period makes it clear that 德川 refers to the shogunate, not any specific person.  --Lambiam 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

konstrui kastelojn en aeroEdit

Esperanto. I can only find one attestation for this. In Zamenhof's Proverbaro, but seldom used. @Mx. Granger ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't find anything besides the Proverbaro and the citation in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I found two examples with the definite article, but not sure if they count for the same entry. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@פֿינצטערניש Opinions differ, but I prefer slightly inconsistent citations over no entry at all. So I'm inclined to say this passes, though perhaps the entry should be moved. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

homlupoEdit

Esperanto for "werewolf", it seems like it is mostly used figuratively for certain players in the game Werewolves. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find a Usenet cite and a book cite. Hathitrust has a hit on page 173 of Esperanto. v.1. Nederlandse Esperantisten-Vereniging La Estonto Estas Nia, but doesn't show context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

GscheidwaschlEdit

Only 1 result at google books (which might be a mentioning), 1 in google groups (dialectal, for example with i = I, di = you (sg., obj.)). --Brown*Toad (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is one in de.sci.philosophie. The same one? I don’t get the intention of the “dialectal” parenthesis.  --Lambiam 19:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
google groups gave me this by opa2013 from 05.12.13: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett?s G?schenk hab i f?r di!" (maybe this link works...). My guess would be that it's supposed to be: "Schau Gscheidwaschl, a nett's G'schenk hab i für di!". Anyway, i (= ich, I) and di (= dich, you [singular, object]) show that it's not normal High German but dialectal (Bavarian?). The parenthesis after you specifiy which you it is. --Brown*Toad (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
It is the same message I saw. Nominative i and accusative di fit with Bavarian.  --Lambiam 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the encoding of that text: on my computer (Mac: both Firefox 64 and Safari 11.1.2), I'm seeing placeholders for umlauted vowels, apostrophes, and other "non-ASCII" characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously a difference of interpretation as to what language this is- Wiktionary doesn't require languages to have an army and a navy...
Move to Bavarian and look for references that meet CFI for that Limited-documented language. Pinging @-sche as the one who understands best how Wiktionary treats "German dialects". Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz (1): I've the same problem - it looks like an error on google's/usenet's part and not on our part.
@Chuck Entz (3): google groups or usenet is an accepted source as for wt's LDL requirements. Thus the single quote could be enough to attest a Bavarian term. However, the text encoding problem could be an attestation problem. Is malformatted text acceptable? Can someone restore the text (there's a suggestion above, can someone verify or correct it)? Can someone translate it (suggestion: "Look #, a nice present have I for you" or "Look #, I have a nice present for you")? --84.161.18.20 23:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It may have been entered in German by someone who genuinely saw it in German — I can find non-durable websites where it occurs in German [de] text — but if that's the only citation, then it seems it only meets CFI as Bavarian (although deciding between Bavarian-regional de and bar from only a very short text can be, well, like trying to decide if a single sentence is Scottish English or Scots). Since the malformatting isn't in the specific word we're trying to attest, and doesn't render the citation ambiguous or unintelligible as to meaning or language, it's tolerable, though obviously suboptimal. I would quote it with the errors intact, but we could provide a 'normalization' afterwards in brackets or something. Providing a translation is fine. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it should be quoted with the errors, as only that would give a correct quote. Bavarian i, di, für, hab, á, schau, Gschenk can be attested by other sources. [49] & [50] are dialectal (Bavarian?) and have nett's. -84.161.23.193 10:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

明星Edit

Can we verify the specific sense Antares? While Antares is a bright star (the literal meaning of 明星), I see no evidence this is used in Japanese to designate specifically that star.  --Lambiam 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed by @Eirikr in diff. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to be moved to あかぼし. Is this verification still needed? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If it helps any, Daijirin and the KDJ both list the "Antares" sense as seen here in Kotobank. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

aganchadoEdit

Spanish, "hamiform, hooklike". Ultimateria (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

aganchado, aganchar are pretty rare in Spanish. I think enganchar, enganchado are synonyms. I think hooked is a good translation of aganchado, in addition to installed and, figuratively, "caused to be interested". I was not familiar with the English word hamiform and I could not find an example of aganchado online with that sense, but I think it makes sense. —Stephen (Talk) 00:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems to get a fair amount of Google Books results. Should it be marked as "rare"? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Esperanto text messaging slangEdit

Proposed in 2009 on this blog. Everything in this category seems to me like uncitable, except for "sal", "bv", "dk", "kvf" and "mdr". I highly doubt that we can cite pa3no, 4talo, -J, -L, -N, -X, G-, K-, M-, X-, L, M, N, V, X and Ŝ. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything for "pa3no" and its inflected forms on Usenet or Google. That someone would use a letter like "Ŝ" in text messaging slang is also implausible. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

Esperanto 'ali-' correlativesEdit

alial, aliam, aliel, alies, aliom, aliu

Aliu and alies can probably be cited; alies already seems to have two citations. The rest I'm not sure of. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC) wikified פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Esperanto. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit

I couldn't find the reading of (geum) on the dictionaries. Found two webcites mentioned,[51][52] it seems not to be a part of Modern Korean but Idu (吏讀) of the ancient times. I don't know how to describe this reading. --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@荒巻モロゾフ: There are many kind of theory, and it can largely divided into "금" (geum) and "곰" (gom) depending on reading ways of Idu. #1, #2 p.s. I don't suggest to see Namuwiki, because it is probably inaccurate. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

amenenEdit

Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A small contribution on this newspaper page (see the top right corner) suggests that this form existed in Middle Dutch.  --Lambiam 21:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That text returns verbatim in the book van Aalmoes tot Zwijntjesjager by P[ieter] H[endrik] Schröder (Erven Thomas Rap, 1980) (on p. 31; see this pdf), a selection from his (anonymous) contributions on etymology to the Haarlems Dagblad, written while Schröder was secretary-general of the Maatschappij tot Nut van 't Algemeen.  --Lambiam 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ロリEdit

RFV of all the definitions under ロリ#Etymology 2. —Suzukaze-c 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sense "person with the Lolita complex" removed by User:UhhMaybe. —Suzukaze-c 02:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this etymology circular? That is, ロリ1 is a clipping of ロリータ, while ロリ2 is said to be a clipping of ロリコン. But ロリコン is a clipping of ロリータ・コンプレックス. Therefore, both come from the same source. And the meanings are certainly related (1: an attractive young girl; 2: attraction to young girls; one attracted to young girls; manga depicting attraction to young girls). This is a case of polysemy, not separate lexemes with separate etymologies. [Also – キモい! sexualized orientalist nonsense] Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we can call that two separate etymologies, even if the two are related to each other. Roriitarori and Roriita konpurekkusurorikonrori are different etymological paths, not a case of polysemy of a term with a single etymology. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me that the path you suggest is indeed the etymology. It could be, or the three senses listed could come directly from ロリータ. (Even if that is the path, I'm not entirely convinced that those are sufficiently separate, but of course it is not unreasonable for you or others to think that they are sufficiently separate.) At this point, we have neither attestation of the three senses defined, nor verification of the etymology. Cnilep (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

ballenlikkerEdit

Dutch, defined as "an ass-kisser; a suck-up". I think that a meaning "testicle licker" or "homosexual" might be citable, but this probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is used in the contested sense in this article. In general, finding attestations in durably archived media is not easy for vulgar terms.  --Lambiam 22:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that in this case it is an indication that the sense is simply uncommon. Dozens if not hundreds of Dutch vulgarities are very easy to cite in print media (google books:kankerhoer google books:paardenlul google books:kutjebef), though it is true some terms are avoided. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

bebiĉoEdit

There's one citation from Egalecen, but unfortunately, I don't think that blog is durably archived (though some of its authors appear in durably archived works like Beletra Almanako). פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

beluliĉoEdit

Only one citation, apparently from a Wikitrans article about a manga. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

boviĉoEdit

Uncited. I'm only really familiar with virbovo. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BärEdit

"only used in compounds" sounds like Bär = boar doesn't (and didn't) exist.
Note: boar and Eber have "obsolete dialectal German Bär (“boar”)" which would imply a word Bär = boar does exist,.. but with many German dialects being treated like languages at en.WT (e.g. Bavarian) it's not necessarily "German" in en.WT's strict sence... --Brown*Toad (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the formally correct thing to do is to replace the current non-gloss definition with {{only used in}} and link all the compounds that way. I've done that now. If others come to our attention and the list grows excessively long, we could consider going back to the old format and listing the compounds as derived terms. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:only used in is for whole words only occuring in phrases, e.g. Laufenden in auf dem Laufenden. --Brown*Toad (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Chinese compound words use it, and I suspect also entries in spaced languages, though I'm not sure how to search for examples short of just paging through all the entries it's used on. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Cited as a standalone word. Most of the citations are of the "jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail)" type because it's otherwise difficult to find and be sure of instances where Bär means boar rather than bear, since they're homographic and used in the same contexts. I also found some books discussing inspections of pork which included inspections of various breeds, wild pigs, and Bären; even there, it could mean bear meat instead of wild boar meat, but given the other citations and the compound words, I think it's clear this sense existed. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

beeld (Scots)Edit

Meaning "image, picture", this is more often mentioned (with a different etymology) as the term for a temporary shelter. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That definition can be found here [[53]] Leasnam (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Scots is however a WDL, so a dictionary citation wouldn't suffice. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

HjEdit

Entry states a Translingual abbreviation for hajji. There's no Translingual entry for hajji, so perhaps this should be moved to English. How do you go about citing Translingual entries, anyway? --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a Malay (including Bahasa Indonesia) abbreviation for Haji. It is definitely not translingual.  --Lambiam 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

chó sa-canEdit

RFV for Vietnamese. Unable to find any Vietnamese sources on the Internet, and I have never seen the term attested in Vietnamese books published in the 21st century. The term is currently labelled "obsolete" (I added the label). But was it ever in use in the first place? (The commonly accepted name for jackal in Vietnamese is chó rừng.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take Do you remember where you found this word? Asking for a response since none has been given in nearly six months. QQ gives nothing. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, the creator of the entry is no longer active, but @Atitarev added sa-can as a translation of jackal. (Per this.) @PhanAnh123 removed it almost 3 years later (probably due to doubting its veracity, per this). Atitarev, where did you find this term? (Note that the debated entry was created in September 2014, before Atitarev added the translation.) Anyone can contribute? (Yes, I speak Vietnamese but I'm not so well-skilled on searching for sources.) --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

melkiEdit

Rfv-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate". Can this slang use be attested? I don't remember hearing this word before. Most of the results found in Testaro are about actual cows. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it is very uncommon, but there are some results for it. [54] [55] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

AvukonthorpEdit

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (there are several others by the same editor)

Altniederdeutsche Eigennamen aus dem neunten bis elften Jahrhundert. Zusammengestellt von Dr. Mortiz Heyne. Als Gruss an die germanistische Section der 25. deutschen Philologen-Versammlung, Halle, 1867, p. 1: "Avukon-thorp n. loc.: dat. in Aucon-|thorpe Cr. 22" with "Cr. = Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. Elberfeldae 1864." → Collectae ad augendam nominum propriorum Saxonicorum et Frisiorum scientiam spectantes. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr. I. Index bonorum et redituum monasteriorum Werdinensis et Helmonstadensis saeculo decimo vel undecimo conscriptus. Edidit Wilh. Crecelius, Dr., Elberfelda, 1864, p. 22: "[...] In Frilingothorpe iij dimidia uirga. In Aucon thorpe xum uirge. In UUilinghem i uirga. In UUestar husun undecimus dimidius pes. In Aldonthorpe xxx. ui peđ. [...]"
Thus:
  • It's "[in] Aucon thorpe", not "Avukonthorp".
  • It's Latin.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

окEdit

Allegedly an interjection ‘expressing fear, caution or disapproval’. Guldrelokk (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird. The corresponding entry on the Russian Wiktionary suggests no such sense. It seems to me that the sense can simply be given as “OK”. By the way, in the senses listed for the English interjection OK, I miss the function of process control interruption in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter. I don’t know how to phrase this concisely yet comprehensibly.  --Lambiam 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Used in turn-taking, serving as a request to the speaker to grant the turn to the interrupter? DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope that, in conjunction with the usex, that is sufficiently clear.  --Lambiam 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Korean: Need to find usages, not mentions, some dictionaries bulk-insert all variant Chinese characters, mixing simplified (Chinese or Japanese), even if they are not used in those languages. @KevinUp: Sorry, I don't need to be mean, I just don't think it's right. A dictionary mention is not enough. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I found something on Google Books: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The two quotations are obviously mentions and the third is Chinese, no? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I added the Korean entry based on the Table of Hanja for Personal Names (인명용한자표), which listed this glyph as a variant form of .
Yes, the first one is obviously a mention of the glyph as an alternative form of . The remaining citations indicate that this glyph may be used as a proper noun for various placenames. KevinUp (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Chinese: as above (Korean). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Hanyu Da Zidian (2nd edition, page 2897) has the following citation:
[Classical Chinese, trad.]
[Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: 597 AD, 楊秀 美人董氏墓誌銘
Hán huá tù yàn, lóng zhāng fèng cǎi. [Pinyin]
(please add an English translation of this example)
(2) Kangxi dictionary has the following citation:
字彙雲南 [Classical Chinese, trad.]
字汇云南 [Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: 1666 AD, 吳任臣 字彙補
【 Zìhuì bǔ 】 Yúnnán yǒu èr gé lóng dì, yǒu jiǔ shān zuì xiǎn. [Pinyin]
Transcription of a placename in Yunnan.
(3) More search results at Wikisource Chinese: [61]

For Chinese characters, many tend to be archaic or obsolete and lack proper citations. Fortunately this character has some. KevinUp (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I will check these, thanks --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@KevinUp: IKR? Johnny Shiz (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @KevinUp: It seems like for the first quotation from 美人董氏墓誌銘, the character is actually 𥪖 if we look at scans of the inscription like this, so I don't know if it'd be a valid citation even if it's written as 竜 in Hanyu Da Zidian. Of course, there should be more citations out there, so I'll fish for more. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sočitiEdit

I believe that translation listed as Polish should be included as Old Polish.

I have been reading the dictionary by Derksen cited as a source. I am also a native speaker (and a linguist) and I noticed that that particular dictionary has not been proof checked by someone with better background in Polish. Thus, I checked both wsjp.pl, that is a dictionary by Polish Academia of Science (our highest authority in ant type of science and humanities), and haven't found it. Then I went to sjp.pwn, which is the biggest commercial ditionary, and none information was there, in Doroszewski's dictionary neither (that is a standard for modern Polish before 1990). Google search linked me to Old Polish dictionary https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/M._Arcta_S%C5%82ownik_Staropolski/Soczy%C4%87, where the word is still used.

evergladensisEdit

It seems that this was added on the basis of some taxonomic names. But we don't consider taxonomic names to be Latin, do we? I'm not sure if this can be considered Latin either if that's the case. —Rua (mew) 17:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Then move it. All we lose is the declension tables. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not pretending to know all the relevant policies and practices. I'm asking for clarification, and for action to be taken depending on what is needed. —Rua (mew) 19:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There's never been any consensus. I don't really care. DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The more common treatment seems to be to list such names as Latin, as seen for example for carolinensis. Like is done for that lemma, I think names for which the use is confined to taxonomy should be labelled “(botany, zoology, New Latin)” (with appropriate adjustments to the list of branches of biology – for evergladensis including mycology). Personally, I feel that including a declension table is over the top, though.  --Lambiam 21:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
My own thoughts is that they should be listed as Latin (without macrons &c), labelled as "New Latin", and that declension tables should be include only if any of the feminine and/or neuter, plural &c forms are also used (they're not in this case). SemperBlotto (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Talk:iroquoianus, Talk:albifrons + WT:CFI are quite clear: The term has to be attested in Latin to be Latin.
@Lambiam: 1. carolinensis or Carolinensis can be found and possibly attested in Latin ([62], [63], [64]), though its sense might be different (compare karolinisch, carolinisch, Karl, Carl, and also see [65]: "acus Carolinensis, Karlsbader Insektennadel"). 2. People ignoring WT:CFI and (other) vandals don't change the rules because they ignore them.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not immediately see which clause from CFI applies here, but I have no problem with the L2 being changed to “Translingual”. I just reported on what appeared to be a commonly taken approach, based on inspecting a small sample of the most common epithets. If Carolinensis can be attested in Latin, it probably has a different etymology, being from Carolus without a detour through the Carolinas.  --Lambiam 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The most plausible ways to get Latin attestation for specific epithets like this are through Catholic Church Latin (many placename adjectives) or from scientific Latin taxonomic descriptions (mostly 19th century and earlier). This term, unlike caroliniensis or carolinianus, is not likely to be found in such sources. DCDuring (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam: "including a term if it is attested" and "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning" - of course a Latin term has to be attested in Latin, with a use in a Latin media.
Trying to attest Latin with random non-Latin usages is the same as trying to attest English *handy (mobile phone) with usages of Handy or *footing (jogging) with footing.
And that doesn't work out.
@DCDuring: Church Latin doesn't attest taxonomic terms regarding labels and biological stuff like "Discovered in or native to [region]" as in magellanicus,
and Church Latin more often capitalises adjectives while in non-Latin biological texts it's more often uncapitalised.
--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Rfv-sense: Sentence-final particle softening the request. @Geographyinitiative — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sure have seen it discussed in fluff news articles this way, used in WeChat this way many times, and was also taught that it was used this way at least twice in Wuhan. Not as a real laugh, but kind of like a "ha" qingsheng at the end. Signals a flavor of authoritativeness. But this usage is apparently unknown in Taiwan. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
https://baike.baidu.com/item/语气词 单音节吧、罢、呗、啵、的、价、家、啦、来、唻、了、嘞、哩、咧、咯、啰、喽、吗、嘛、嚜、么(麽)、哪、呢、呐、否、呵、哈、不、兮、般、则、连、罗、给、噻、哉、呸、
http://www.doc88.com/p-785476701486.html <--- https://wenku.baidu.com/view/b3b4f3ae31b765ce04081479.html https://www.wjx.cn/jq/30654194.aspx --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

小女Edit

Rfv-sense: "little girl" — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn’t “little woman/girl” be a literal sense (and thus SOP)?  --Lambiam 06:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Possibly. If it is a verifiable sense, I'd say we should still keep it since 女 is kind of a bound morpheme in Mandarin. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung I disagree that 女 being a "bound morpheme" affects the outcome of this verification discussion in any way. Here we have articles for phrases such as 小刀, 大桥/大橋, and 小孩子, and the latter parts of each of them make sense in independent contexts. This whole discussion does not make sense. If anything, we should be nominating the types of phrases I've listed instead of phrases like 小女. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@WikiWarrior9919: The "bound morpheme" thing is addressing Lambiam's concern of whether the entry should exist (which would be dealt with at WT:RFDN). That is not an issue, which means the verification process should continue for the definition "little girl". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱh₂d-Edit

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

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

Old Norse emi ? (1st person sg. copula)Edit

this wiki page as well as online etymology dictionary mention emi as an alternative form of em, preserving the final -i of PIE verb endings. Can we get an academic source for this?

RubixLang (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

caelus as Vulgar Latin form in caelumEdit

I'm challenging the Vulgar Latin form as [66] sounds like the added form should be Vulgar Latin *caelus. --Waikaistai (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is just an alternative form of caelum, not an entirely separate word. —Rua (mew) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I really can't tell what's being challenged here. The entry is referenced, with several cites listed in Gaffiot. As the anon notes, this being the colloquial term explains the Old French well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess that the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such. I don’t understand the argument, though, why this is supposed to be Vulgar Latin in the first place. Old French ciel is thought to come from Latin caelum. What is with this Old French ciels? Is that another word than the plural of ciel? The authors cited in Gaffiot are all strictly classical – the latest is Servius, who wrote in Classical Latin – so I don’t understand why this {{alter}} of caelum is labelled old either.  --Lambiam 19:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Old French still had two cases, but lost the neuter gender already. The nominative singular form ciels is a direct reflection of caelus. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So does this mean that in the section Etymology of Old French ciel From {{inh|fro|la|caelum}} should be changed to From {{inh|fro|la|caelus}}?  --Lambiam 21:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Metaknowledge: Does Gaffiot give cites for a Vulgar Latin term? Enn[ius] is Old Latin and Lucr[etius], Vitr[uvius] and Cic[ero] aren't Vulgar Latin either.
Quoting Lambian: "the question is, is there evidence that Latin caelus survived into the period of Vulgar Latin? If not, and this is a reconstruction, it should be marked as such." Indeed. And even if it survived into Vulgar Latin times: Is it attested as Vulgar Latin, or only as Late Latin in which case the Vulgar Latin would still be a reconstruction or a mislabelling of Late Latin? --Waikaistai (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought that Vulgar Latin was an umbrella term for Latin spoken by ordinary folk wherever Roman influence was strong and was contemporaneous with both Classical Latin and Late Latin, and may be considered to have lasted beyond, even to the end of the first millennium. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So Vulgar Latin survived Classical Latin and even Late Latin. But I still see no reasonable argument for labelling the alternative form caelus as specifically Vulgar Latin (or old, or anything).  --Lambiam 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's so easy to make a distinction, as they were just two different registers of the same language. Elements of vulgar Latin occasionally crept into written Latin from time to time, but I don't think there is a point in distinguishing VL as an entirely separate dialect or even language. It was just the informal-everyday spoken form of Latin, whereas the written standard was more formal and archaic. What can be said about caelus, if it is indeed attested, is that it fits the general trend in most of the Romance languages of eliminating the neuter gender in favour of the masculine. But that alone does not make caelus vulgar, necessarily, just that it has one particular trait associated with vulgar Latin. —Rua (mew) 16:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems as if it could treated here as something like a reconstructed language, based on occasional intrusions into written Latins and backward inference from Christian Latin, Late Latin, and early forms of Romance languages. Some older sources support it. It's hard for me to see why we should extirpate it from Wiktionary. DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Absurd challenge. Added quotes from the early Empire. Fay Freak (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak – The way I interpret the request does not involve the lemma caelus, but only the section Alternative forms of etymology 1 for caelum, and specifically the dialect indicated there in the line “ caelus (old, Vulgar Latin)”.
Indeed, caelus itself wasn't challenged. caelus (Vulgar Latin) is and there still aren't any Vulgar Latin quotes, like old graffiti, or mentionings, as in the Appendix Probi. --Waikaistai (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/buþlijanąEdit

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

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

ReferencesEdit

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

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bōþląEdit

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

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

Gender-neutral usage of male Esperanto words Edit

The following words are male in traditional Esperanto according to PMEG: avo, edzo, fianĉo, filo, frato, kuzo, nepo, nevo, onklo, patro, princo, reĝo, vidvo. In Wiktionary they have a second sense, a gender-neutral sense. I don't think this can be properly cited. Some people use words like patriĉo and edziĉo, which are cited, but those people never really use the base words gender-neutrally, but use words like gepatro and geedzo instead. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FuppesEdit

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

I don’t think it is spurious. See the following article on the website of Welt (not Die Welt): “Über Fuppes, beömmeln und den Muckefuck”. The tentative etymologies given in the article have nothing in common with the one in our entry, but the sense and regional identification agree.  --Lambiam 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

PalestinujoEdit

The word Palestinujo is formed wrong. The root "Palestin-" indicates a country, so adding -ujo to it is wrong. When I search this term online, I mostly find it in grammar discussions about country names. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This might be citable, a quick search already yielded two attestations: [67] [68] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/akuEdit

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 16:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Atayalic/suwaiʔEdit

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/akoEdit

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Rukai/səpatəEdit

No descendants. —Rua (mew) 17:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Currently the article states that the meaning is "dwarf". That is not correct. The meaning is: "submissive, docile, obedient", "bowing; bent over" or “distant” and or was used as the early name of Japanese (Yamato?). This needs to be corrected. I wanted to correct that, but was reverted and it was explained that I have to do a request for verification first. The "dwarf" or "short" meaning is this: —⁠This unsigned comment was added by AsadalEditor (talkcontribs).

@AsadalEditor: FWIW, The MDBG entry gives a meaning of dwarf for . Meanwhile, the MDBG entry for 矮 gives a meaning of short, but not dwarf. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

wárhitiEdit

I don't think this is a standard spelling. The same goes for 'warhi. --Lvovmauro (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

wikiEdit

@Justinrleung sent this to RFD, where multiple editors encouraged putting it in RFV instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Rfv-sense for "fumigate" and "bleach with burning sulfur" definitions. Sourced from the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

EpañaEdit

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

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

drone (Dutch)Edit

Rfv-sense of "male bee or wasp". The Middle Dutch is in the MNW (lemma: dorne), but no luck with the modern Dutch term. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands Dutch dar comes from Middle Dutch drone by an interesting development: drone → (by metathesis) dorne, darn(e), whose s-plural darns was displace by the en-plural darnen, and then → (by assimilation) darren, reanalyzed as the plural of dar. Parallel survival of Middle Dutch drone into present-day Dutch appears extremely implausible to me.  --Lambiam 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
In several Limburgish dialects, it is droon/drone: [69], [70]. It's a bit tricky to find non-dictionary references seen the scarcity of dialectal usage online and seen the now-prevalent use of drone in the machine sense. Morgengave (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Morgengave I think this can be resolved by changing the language header to Limburgish and adding a reference to that Limburgish dictionary (the preview doesn't show for me), as Limburgish is a LDL. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
It exists in Limburgish as draen (Bakkes 2007 p. 107)/droon/dreen, depending on the dialect. The form on -e is always plural however. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

豺狼Edit

Rfv-sense: dhole. @Atitarev added it per Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (2002), but a newer (the newest?) version of the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (Chinese edition) does not have such a sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I won't cry if the sense is removed, it's from the old dictionary. BTW, I have pinged you on 猱犬 (náoquǎn, “dhole”), which I found in Pleco but you may have missed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: In the Dungan-Russian dictionary there is an entry for цэлон (celon) (tones III-I) with a translation шака́л (šakál, jackal) (for the lack of the more correct word for "dhole"). I'm pretty sure it's the equivalent of Mandarin 豺狼 (cháiláng). Dungan цэгу (cegu) = 豺狗 (cháigǒu) and цэгузы (ceguzɨ) are listed as synonyms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

プーマEdit

  1. the animal
  2. the brand (WT:BRAND)

Suzukaze-c 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It refers only to the brand Puma. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Die GrünenEdit

The first sense. This doesn't count:

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

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

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

庳哩Edit

The word exists, but the characters seem questionable. I can only find this orthography in a wikibook (b:zh:福州語/數字). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

福州方言研究 writes the monosyllabic form (recorded in 福州方言詞典 1998 as ) as . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

escuelearEdit

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

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

June 2019Edit

opsEdit

An IP editor insists on removing it as "unattestable". — surjection?⟩ 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

According to L&S the nominative singular is unattested. It's not in my Later Latin (to AD600) glossary either. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The IP may know Latin (just FYI the IP address belongs is a US school district), but they don't know how Wiktionary Latin entries are organized: the lemma is supposed to be at the nominative singular, and the other forms are soft redirects to the lemma. If we delete the lemma, the definitions, etymology and inflection tables go with it, just leaving redlinks to a non-existent lemma in the form-of entries. IIRC, we deal with this by saying somewhere in the lemma entry that the nominative singular itself isn't attested. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Curiously enough, the term is also the name of the earth goddess Ops, and also when used as her name it is unattested in the nominative or vocative; even where you would expect this according to the standard grammatical rules, the oblique case “Opis” is substituted. This is rather peculiar. Was there a tabu on the term “ops”? And how can we be sure that the nominative is not actually “opis” (cf. “apis” – “apis” – “apī” – ...)?  --Lambiam 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There's inops, possibly virops, Ops (besides Opis). But correctly it would still be *ops or opis (genitive, nominative not attested) with a "--" for the nominative in the inflection table. --Pitza Guy (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Should terms like these be moved to the Reconstruction namespace? That way we could keep the information, and still link to it from other entries, but we avoid potential errors of speculation about lemmata. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Is the entire term unattested, or just the nominative singular? What form(s) are attested? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
From what I gathered, some non-lemma forms are attested. I meant that the lemma should be moved to a Reconstruction namespace, not the attested forms. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

matEdit

Doesn't Gaulish normally preserve endings, like in *matis? —Rua (mew) 12:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's conceivable this was found in an inscription where the ending is missing (e.g. the stone is broken), which a scholarly edition would probably render as mat[is]. I never know what we should do with cases like that, or with scribal errors in manuscripts. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

fpEdit

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

tizzoneEdit

Rfv-sense "(normally considered offensive, often considered vulgar, ethnic slur) A dark-skinned person, especially a person of, or primarily of, black African descent", removed by an IP as "I am italian and I have never once heard the word "tizzone" used in that way. There's no trace of it anywhere on the internet that I could find of, and the italian page doesn't mention it either". — surjection?⟩ 10:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Not in my paper dictionaries. Delete SemperBlotto (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's not how this works. Have you even considered that maybe your paper dictionaries don't cover racist slurs? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah. The arguments become stranger and stranger. It’s one of the most valuable parts of Wiktionary that we have words that fall under the radar, that aren’t covered and aren’t known by those people who else curate dictionaries. If you haven’t heard certain words, it also comes from a state of privilege. “I am Italian”, “I am German” ends up to be like “I have been brought up in the polite society”.
    That being said, if one listens to Italian rap music oftener one will probably stumble upon this word, as Metaknowledge’s quote has shown. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is RFV driven by WT:ATTEST, and for Italian, paper dictionaries do not even count toward attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak: I know this is real, at least in Sicilian (as used in the US), but I don't know how to search rap lyrics or sift through all the uses of the literal meaning, so I think it's up to you to save this one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge Yeah but I have never learned Italian, let alone listened to raps in it, i.e. I am no active user of it yet, so I don’t know to search certain words or constructions to find certain things. (You might also create a Sicilian entry with a quote which will have a similar value.) Where are the Italians anyhow? None on Wiktionary apparently? (Oh, the last one was Angelucci, you know what happened. No Italians in the recent changes to Italian lemmas.) Fay Freak (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @GianWiki is a frequent contributor; maybe he can be of help. Canonicalization (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I have to say that – while I can see the word being used in such a sense – I've never heard (or read) it used in a similar sense. -- GianWiki (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

sentarEdit

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

اختبرEdit

Rfv-sense (Arabic): “to research; to explore, to search; to know well, to know by experience“--51.223.99.17 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to reorganize the senses to describe what you think the word means. The concepts (which are also scrammed together from Hans Wehr and co.) are very close together and in many contexts replaceable. If one has tried and experienced one also knows by experience etc., and knows well if one has done it enough. Fay Freak (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

kôiôtyEdit

Malagasy. Not found in kôiôty in Malagasy dictionaries at malagasyword.org and even google:kôiôty finds almost nothing. Pinging Corsicanwarrah to help us find citations or sources to support WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky I just came across it on the Malagasy Wiktionary entry for 郊狼. Here. It's also on the other Malagasy Wiktionary entries for other foreign words for 'coyote' (but the word kôiôty itself is not an entry on the Malagasy Wiktionary.) Back then I wasn't aware of the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I find on the History page of the MG WT kôiôty entry that there have only been three edits, all apparently by bot user Bot-Jagwar. So I'm not sure anything there should be taken without a grain of salt, as it were. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Corsicanwarrah: Thank you. Other Wiktionaries are not reliable sources for the purpose of the English Wiktionary. Terms only found in other Wiktionaries are liable to be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have also fallen foul of this, seen below on this list. However, the only link on Google for kôiôty that doesn’t relate to Wiktionary is Mitarika ireo fanahy, which uses the word once. After using Google Translate, the section where it is used seems to talk about how sheep are 'killed by wild animals such as lions or coyotes'. Obviously, this is not a reputable source or translation, but it does show an example of its use. -- DPUH (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

gen pl vicumEdit

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

Same goes for dative singular vicī and maybe vocative plural vicēs. Benwing2 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

k, m, qEdit

Should be K., M., Q. (cp. Category:Latin praenominal abbreviations). --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

ibidEdit

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

magroEdit

Possibly should be mag̃ro, cp. [71], [72], [73]. BTW: Similary ptate (properly ptãte as in [74], [75]?), hmoi might be wrong... --Brown*Toad (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

True, but the same can be said for a full stop to denote an abbreviation; yet, the latter is conventionally applied all over the place. Note that we also have n.-Tir. I believe the corresponding versions without hyphens (not. Tir., n. Tir.) are in use but unoccupied here, and so it appears safe to move them to that spelling.  --Lambiam 10:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
German and Latin not. Tir., Not. Tir., not. Tiron., Not. Tiron. (also with capital in Latin) can easily be found (Latin: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]).
[84], [85] have not. tiron..
I had no luck finding n./N. tiron./Tiron., n./N. tir./Tir. (in any combination regarding capitalisation) or any hyphenated form.
not. Tiron. had, for whatever reason, "|head=not.-Tīrōn." with hyphen. Based on that, I too would assume that "-" was incorrectly added (in a hypercorrectly Frenchy way?). --Brown*Toad (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess I was fooled by occurrences of n. Tir. as seen here, but examination reveals that the juxtaposition of n. and Tir. is incidental and that Tir. stands for Tirocinium.  --Lambiam 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin albicillaEdit

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

A taxonomist would say that the species was moved to a new genus, not that the genus was renamed (Falco is still the correct genus for most falcons). The specific epithet is supposed to agree with the generic name when it's an adjective, but in this case it may be a noun "in apposition" as the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature puts it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Here] is the original publication. If Linnaeus had thought that Falco was feminine, you would think that some of the other specific epithets would be feminine, but none of them seem to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Thanks, that's very helpful. Benwing2 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin manuculus: Attested or not?Edit

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

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

越王頭Edit

Chinese. Has the term been used outside the Nanfang Caomu Zhuang and sources which quote it? I requested its creation but back then I was a bit shaky on the CFI rules. --Corsicanwarrah (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There are mentions in other sources, most notably in Bencao Gangmu. That should be enough now since this term is not Standard Written Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Latin vetātus "forbidden"Edit

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Classical participle is vetitus. The progression to vetātus would be logical but Du Cange only lists a different meaning "striped, made of twigs". Did this ever mean "forbidden" and if so, when? Benwing2 (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

”Transeuntes autem Phrygiam et Galatiae regionem, vetati sunt a Spiritu Sancto loqui verbum Dei in Asia.“ (Actus Apostolorum 16:6, Biblia Sacra Vulgata). This seems to be the only locus.  --Lambiam 08:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “The ending -ĭtus, in the first conjugation, generally fell into disuse: [...] vetitus > vetatus”.  --Lambiam 13:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Georges: "Vulg. Perf. vetavit, Pers. 5, 90. Serv. Verg. Aen. 2, 201. Past. Herm. 3, 9, 6 Pal., vetastis, Itala Luc. 11, 52 Cant., vetassent, Epit. Iliad. 250, vetatus est, Itala act. apost. 17, 15, vetati sunt, Vulg. act. apost. 16, 6: vetati sulci, Chalcid. Tim. 153." 3 places for vetatus/vetati. --Trangomaron (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Latin persecātus "dissected"Edit

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): Similar to above. The proper past passive participle is persectus. Does persecātus exist and if so when did it come into existence? Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Quote from An Introduction to Vulgar Latin: “In the first conjugation -ātus was preserved and was extended to all verbs: [...] sectus > secatus”.  --Lambiam 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Sure; you can see this in the Romance languages. But this doesn't mean that such words are necessarily attested in *Latin* texts, and even if they are, I'd like to indicate what era to make clear this isn't Classical. Benwing2 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the quoted source puts asterisks in front of some forms, but not secatus, strongly suggests that the latter is attested in Vulgar Latin. This does not imply that this extends to persecātus, of course. All we know is that any attestations are unlikely to be Classical Latin.  --Lambiam 08:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Georges: "Perf. im Vulgärlat. auch secavi, wov. secarunt, Corp. inscr. Lat. 6, 30112: secarit, Serv. Verg. Aen. 5, 2: Partiz. Fut. Akt. secaturus, Colum. 5, 9, 2.: Partiz. Perf. Pass. secatus, Corp. inscr. Lat. 5, 5049, 12. de Rosci inscr. Christ. Vol. I. p. 265. Vulg. 4. Esdr. 4, 32. Commodian. apol. 514 (510)." But that's secare and secatus, not persecatus.

auctoricōEdit

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

[86]. I would not describe this as “attested by”. The following two sources state that French octroi comes from auctoricare, auctorare: [87], [88]; the latter calls this Late Latin. (Our entry derives octroi from Late Latin auctorizare.)  --Lambiam 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Thanks. I think the derivation from auctorizare is more likely via *auctoridiare > *aut(o)reiar > *otroier. The form auctoricare is undoubtedly at the origin of Spanish otorgar but might well have produced OF *otorgier instead (compare carricare > chargier). Benwing2 (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW I don't consider the fact that the above source says "Late Latin auctoricare, auctorare" as an attestation. Benwing2 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

妈々Edit

Verifying entry {{zh-see|媽媽|ss}}: the second-round simplified form of 媽媽妈妈 (māma). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it is second-round simplified, but 媽々 may be attestable in older publications, like this(?). However, it seems to be difficult to find examples. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
More cases here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also here and here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

吞々吐々Edit

Made by the same contributor. —Suzukaze-c 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Latin balnea singularEdit

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam We have an entry for balnea singular genitive balneae that says it's an uncommon synonym of balneum, and the page on balneum likewise says balnea (singular) is an occasional variant. Is this true? It's not mentioned in LS or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It is used in the singular in a letter by Marcus Aurelius quoted here. The Medieval Latin term balneum Mariae (bain-marie) occurs as balnea Mariae e.g. here.  --Lambiam 13:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

MEdit

Rfv-sense in Esperanto. This should be fun to search for... a texting abbreviation of mi (me, I). --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

also, V should mean vi (you). I hope we can find a cute text message saying "I love you" in Esperanto. --Gibraltar Rocks (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I have already added all those abbreviations to RFV before, here they are. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

Latin Aunes = AuniosEdit

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

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

Latin farsEdit

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam I don't think this is a word. It was added Feb 2019 and isn't found in L+S or Gaffiot. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but in parentheses because the nominative is not attested. It lists the following attestations:
<com>esa farte -- Plautus, fragmenta incerta 143;
(facetiously) non uestem amatores amant mulieri', sed uestis fartim -- Mostellaria 169
(figuratively) fartem (conjecture) facere ex hostibus -- Miles Gloriosus 8
Since these are all from Plautus, it should be categorized as Old Latin. --Lvovmauro (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro Plautus isn't exactly considered Old Latin normally, but these attestations seem questionable, given their labeling as "conjecture" and "fragmenta incerta". fartim is a potentially separate adverb. Benwing2 (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Plautus is Old Latin. [89] by the way mentions distinctions and different senses of "Old Latin". --Pitza Guy (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Stop this. As I have mentioned for example on Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/July § Vocative of nouns in -ēius and -ius Plautus is Old Latin in some sense, but what that “Old Latin” on Wiktionary is referring to is Latin even older than that. “Inscriptional Latin” that is old enough that you cannot easily understand it. Fay Freak (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Plautus is Old Latin. That Wiktionary might misuse the term "Old Latin" in an arbitrary and self-defined way to mean something else doesn't change this fact. --Pitza Guy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin oogenesisEdit

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam This is undoubtedly a word in English and various other modern languages, but I see no evidence that this is a Latin word. Benwing2 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have found an example of its use in Latin (unsurprisingly, the source is modern, not ancient). The dissertation "De spermatosomatum evolutione in plagiostomis," August 1878, by Adolph von La Valette-St. George, contains the quote "Itaque spermatogenesin ab oogenesi gradu solum, non re, differre existimo..." (p. 6). Perhaps he coined the term, as his Wikipedia article says he was the first known user of various terms related related to gamete generation.--Urszag (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Latin escaioEdit

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Yes, Niermeyer lists escaire as a byform of excadere (along with escadere, eschadere, excidere). But do we really want to include every random misspelling by a semi-illiterate Medieval writer in Wiktionary? Can it even pass CFI? I would rather remove this and if we want to include it at all, just list it as an alternative form of excadō. Benwing2 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Can pass WT:CFI, if there's a durably archived usage. Or why shouldn't it? --Trangomaron (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

servileEdit

Adverbs derived from second-class adjectives normally end in -iter (as in serviliter), not . Canonicalization (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

L&S: "Hence, adv., like a slave, slavishly, servilely. a servile: gemens, Claud. B. Gild. 364.", Georges: "Acc. neutr. poet. st. des Adv., servile gemens, Claud. b. Gild. 364." --Trangomaron (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Acc. neutr. poet.": so that would be servīlĕ with a short , not with the adverbial suffix . Also, L&S states that "Comp. and sup. of the adj. and adv. do not occur", yet Latisc added them. Canonicalization (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the one adverbial use by Claudian, in De Bello Gildonico: servile gemens. The pitiful moans come from a captured lion, called a monstrum by the Emperor’s father-in-law relating a prophetic dream. Might it be that the neuter form servile is in agreement with the neuter noun monstrum?  --Lambiam 09:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Not answering your question, but having scanned the dactylic hexameter, I can confirm it's a short . Canonicalization (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

antialunizajeEdit

Spanish. I see tons of products with this word in the name but no usable cites. Ultimateria (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

[90], [91], [92], [93], [94].  --Lambiam 10:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaauEdit

Request added by @Octahedron80. Pinging @Alifshinobi (the creator of the entry) as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This should be *qawᶜ (comparing to PT *C̬.qawᶜ) according to Pittayaporn's revised system (this word is not mentioned in the document however.) By the way, "kh" can be interpreted as *kʰ-, *x-, *q-, or *χ-. Thai ข้าว is only one that prolongs vowel.--Octahedron80 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to see the document, I have it here: [95] --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

quaterEdit

Rfv-sense quăter , adv. num. quattuor, I.four times: “quater in anno pariunt,” Varr. R. R. 3, 10; Verg. A. 2, 242; Hor. S. 2, 3, 1.—With other numerals: “quater quinis minis,” Plaut. Ps. 1, 3, 111: “quater deni,” forty, Ov. M. 7, 293: “quater decies,” fourteen times, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 39, § 100: “quater centies,” Vitr. 10, 14. —Freq. in phrase: ter et quater, ter aut quater, or terque quaterque, three and (or) four times, i. e. over and over again, often, extremely: “ter et quater Anno revisens aequor,” Hor. C. 1, 31, 13: “corvi presso ter gutture voces Aut quater ingeminant,” Verg. G. 1, 410: “terque quaterque solum scindendum,” id. ib. 2, 399: “terque quaterque beati,” id. A. 1, 94: “o mihi felicem terque quaterque diem,” Tib. 3, 3, 26. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 87.11.204.161 (talk) at 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

The gloss “often” seems to derive from idioms like the phrases you have mentioned. It can be used liberally in poetry as numbers often, and while it can be appropriate to translate such things with “dreimal und öfter” and the like, it is not appropriate to gloss it like that. quater means “four times” and not “many times”, period. “Four” does not mean “often”, nothing to argue here, I will delete that gloss it right away, well following it having RFV-sense tag since 1 June 2019‎, anyway. If somebody goes over to adding senses “many” to English numbers like “twenty” or “several” to “six” based on poetical expressions or contexts where the exact value is not relevant we would declare him insane. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We had an entry 77 times defined as “An unlimited number”, but the entry has been deleted, together with the history record revealing its insane creator.  --Lambiam 12:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it was an IP from Quincy College.  --Lambiam 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin odeō, odīre; podeōEdit

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

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

Latin ratihabeōEdit

(Notifying Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, JohnC5): @Lambiam Appears to exist only as a noun ratihabitiō. Benwing2 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Again you forget that Latin was used after antiquity. In this case it exists in legal writing of the Modern Age. Fay Freak (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Medieval, many instances in googelbooks. Brutal Russian (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

dɑnauEdit

Supposedly a Bavarian noun - but not defined as one. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Part of speech was incorrect, but entry is properly attest. Bavarian is a WT:LDL and hence a single quote is enough to attest it and there is a quote. --Apauge (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The article Boarische Schreibweis (Bavarian Orthography) on the Bavarian Wikipedia does not show any uses of the symbol “ɑ”. It does state that there is no standard orthography and that in literary use no special symbols are used, but that “ɑ̃” is used – as one might expect for a nasalized vowel – in an orthography used in dictionaries and grammar books. (There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.)  --Lambiam 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. You misunderstood that article. "It does state ... that in literary use no special symbols are used" is not correct. bar.WP: "Fia d Boarische Schreibweis gibd's no koa Konvenzion. Af da oan Seitn gibd's de Schreibweisn fia de Dichtung und fian Oidog .., wo nua weng oda goa koane Sondazeichn vawendd wean, af da ondan Seitn Weatabiachl, Grammatikn und Sprochatlantn, wo moasd a Lautschreibung mid Sondazeichn gnuzd wead." That's: "... On the one side there are spellings used in poetry and for every day .., which use few or none special characters, ...". (Few or none is more than no special characters.)
  2. Even if the article would state that no special characters are used in literary use, it wouldn't matter as it's only WP and as it's obviously not correct. One example is given in dɑnau and there are many others.
  3. As for "There is no hint that parentheses may have entered any orthography.": That's obviously not correct. Krauß' and Dümml's orthography uses it and is an orthography. It's not a standard orthography, but that doesn't matter as there is no Bavarian standard orthography and not a single Bavarian dialect, but many different subdialects.
And again: Bavarian is a WT:LDL, hence a single quote is enough (WT:CFI, WT:LDL), hence both terms (dɑnau & Aɑ(n)schei(n)) are properly attested. --Agaupe (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

𒄿𒄿Edit

This is the one to be deleted; it is mostly attested as 𒄿𒋾 i-ti, however it can theoretically be written 𒄿𒄿𒋾 i-i-ti, perhaps this was the original intention of this entry. It is often common practice in Luwian to write out all long vowels with additional signs, such as a-an-ta for ānta meaning to go into, doubled even in the front of words as is seen here. -Profes.I. (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

estanceleEdit

Not in Le Trésor, which only has estencele as ancestor of French étincelle. Godefroy has estancele, but with a completely different sense.  --Lambiam 01:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

殿Edit

Rfv-sense: Alternative form of 臀 (tún, “buttocks”). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In Japanese 中殿筋 is a synonym of 中臀筋. I don’t know if a similar equivalence can be found in Chinese, although I see Google hits for 殿中肌 (e.g. here, where it appears to refer to the gluteus medius).  --Lambiam 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

កូនក្អុកEdit

Request for verification: "tadpole". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I found ក្អុក (kʼok) that already means tadpole (and also a kind of fish). Does it need to prepend កូន (koun)? If not, the entry should be renamed to ក្អុក. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

آب‌راهEdit

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

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

Edit

Rfv-sense

厼 (eumhun 금) It is the borrowed notation(借字表記 / 차자표기), which was veryfied in some references. (1984, P. Nam, “차자표기법 연구”(借字表記法 硏究), Dankook University Publish, published 1984.)Reference

是去有良。이거이신아。 attested in the Jeonyul Tongbo (典律通補 / 전율통보), 1786. Reference

--Meoru00 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Rfv-sense "A meaningless participle." What on earth is this supposed to mean? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I think the IP meant to write "a meaningless particle", but it probably isn't right. It's more like a prefix used in pronouns for emphasis, e.g. 兀那, 兀誰. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

ハ行転呼Edit

See also Talk:ハ行転呼音

The basis was probably only a single Wikipedia article. There are no entries in the Kotobank search results for 転呼 (tenko) or ハ行転呼 (ha-gyō tenko) themselves; but the longer form 転呼音 (tenkoon) and ハ行転呼音 (ha-gyō tenkoon) do have their own entries. ~ POKéTalker) 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is an important Japanese linguistic term to which WT:SOP may not apply. Similar cases in English include Great Vowel Shift. The existence of this term can be verified in Google search results and should not be judged by any other online dictionary. However, I do find that its definition was inaccurate and tried improving it, but it is still far from being perfect. --H2NCH2COOH (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What you describe sounds much more encyclopedic than lexicographic. As a term, this is clearly ハ行 (ha-gyō, literally “'ha' row”, in reference to the kana in that row, or to the sounds so represented) + 転呼 (tenko, sound shift). There are various kinds of 転呼 (tenko), of which this specific ハ行 (ha-gyō) shift is only one. See also the JA WP article at ja:w:転呼. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
To clarify my position: delete as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I might notify that ハ行転呼 refers to the historical shift of ハ行 from /f/ to /w/, not just an unspecified one. ᾨδή (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή: Apologies if I was unclear. I'm aware of what ハ行転呼 is. My point is that there are multiple kinds of 転呼, such as the ゑふ (ancient wepu) → よう (modern you) historical shift seen in the verb 酔う (you, to become intoxicated; to feel sick), and the ハ行転呼 is one specific variety of 転呼. My argument is not that ハ行転呼 does not exist. My argument is that, while ハ行転呼 does exist as a concept, it is a subject for an encyclopedia article, rather than an integral lexical item that belongs in a dictionary.
I am open to being convinced otherwise. At present, no one has sufficiently addressed the apparent WT:SOP-ness of "ハ行転呼". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this word is basically as WT:SOP as Hundred Years' War = hundred + year + war or 仮定形 = 仮定 + 形. ᾨδή (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή: The SOP test is, is it idiomatic?
I posit that we can tell most of what ハ行転呼 is simply from the constituent parts: it is a 転呼 that has to do with the ハ行. If we know what a 転呼 is, and what a ハ行 is, then we know the basics of this combination: there isn't any additional idiomatically derived meaning that is not obvious from its constituent terms.
Meanwhile, although there is only one unambiguous sense for ハ行, "hundred years" is an ambiguous reference to any hundred years. If we look at Hundred Years' War, we recognize that this is idiomatically used to refer to a specific thing, and that specific meaning is not derivable from its constituent terms.
Also, both ハ行 and 転呼 are independent terms, unlike the 形 suffix in 仮定形.
Ultimately, I cannot see anything in this combined ハ行転呼 that isn't SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
An even older sound shift of ハ行 from /p/ to /f/ is not included in ハ行転呼 but called 唇音退化, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼.
As for the encyclopedia stuff, I think this is the real question deserving notice. In fact many Japanese linguistic term entries have more or less become entries of a linguistic encyclopedia. Japanese inflection templates have links directed to entries like 未然形, which means the template writer had expected the entries to explain "what 未然形 is" (encyclopedia), rather than "how the term 未然形 is used" (dictionary). Even User:H2NCH2COOH above wanted to furthur improve the entry, by which I believe he meant more encyclopedic contents. With all this kind of practice around, I may have mistaken this as the norm here. ᾨδή (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή:
Re: the /p//f/ shift, that is not 転呼. 転呼 is a specific kind of sound shift, where a given kana takes on an irregular reading. Since the /p//f/ shift was regular, where all the /p/ sounds simply lenited into /f/ sounds, none of the relevant ハ行 kana underwent any irregular changes, so it's not 転呼. Meanwhile, as seen in the 1603 Nippo Jisho entries and still recorded as historical kana usage, spellings like たう that were sometimes read as /tɔː/ in 1603 or as /toː/ in the modern language, instead of the expected /tau/, would be examples of 転呼: literally, a kind of 転 "shifted" 呼 "calling" or "reading", where the reading is shifted from what would normally be expected. Another case is the modern practice of reading (ha) as /ha/ in most cases, but as /wa/ when used as the topic particle. Likewise for (he) read as /he/ in most cases, but as /e/ when used as the directional particle. These two are examples of an irregular shift that is both 転呼 in general and ハ行転呼 in specific (since these kana are two of the ハ行 kana). See also w:ja:転呼 for additional examples.
Re: 未然形 (mizenkei, the irrealis or incomplete form, a conjugation form for Japanese verb stems), the 形 portion is a suffix and not an independent word, so 未然形 cannot be SOP. There's also a difference between saying "what 未然形 is" in lexicographic terms -- supplying a definition -- and saying "what 未然形 is" in encyclopedic terms -- going into the history of the concept, presenting different academic views, analyzing how the form has evolved over time. Wiktionary entries should provide definitions. Sometimes a word expresses concept that is complicated enough that a complicated definition is required. However, going much beyond that definition would indeed be material for an encyclopedic entry, and, arguably, some of the usage notes content currently in the 未然形 entry should be moved. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As you have stated, the modern and is not included in ハ行転呼, which can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. ᾨδή (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Also "可能動詞 = 可能 + 動詞", thematic vowel = thematic + vowel. ᾨδή (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Also, not all ハ行-involved 転呼 are ハ行転呼. ()() (hafuhafu) is not, or at least not entirely ハ行転呼, although all of はふはふ are ハ行. (へう) (heu), ハ行-involved, but not ハ行転呼. These also can not be deduced from the SOP of ハ行転呼. Also ᾨδή (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@ᾨδή, re: ハ行転呼, apologies, I'd gotten my wires crossed and lost sight of the forest for the trees. I revise my view, and recognize the specificity of ハ行転呼 in reference not just to any 転呼 of the ハ行, but to the specific Heian-era shift in word-medial ハ行 sounds from /f/ to /w/. This is therefore idiomatic in a manner similar to Hundred Years' War, and not SOP, and I hereby strike my "delete" comment above, and instead say keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your understanding. But... perhaps I think apologizing for a mere difference of ideas might sound a bit too serious... ᾨδή (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Being misunderstood is seldom a fun experience, and I recognize too that this thread represents a commitment in terms of time and energy. :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

baidefeisEdit

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

It is used here as the title of a news category; I am not certain that enredando.info counts as permanently recorded media. A book use: [96]. Another one: [97], but there it seems used as part of a proper noun (Baidefeis card), which may not count.  --Lambiam 05:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Old French plaigne and descendantsEdit

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

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

October 2019Edit

三枚目Edit

Does this word have the sense "antagonist; villain"? Such a usage is not found on Google. ᾨδή (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr ᾨδή (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@ᾨδή: I based that on my local copy of the KDJ, which is the most in-depth dictionary that I'm aware of and that I have access to. That 三枚目 entry has the following definition (emphasis mine):

演劇、映画などで道化役や敵役(かたきやく)をする者。

Checking elsewhere, I see that the Sekai Dai Hyakka Jiten entry over here on Kotobank adds a little more detail:

... 滑稽な敵役を〈三枚目敵(さんまいめがたき)〉と呼ぶ。

So not just an antagonist, but specifically a comic antagonist. That said, the Zokugo Dai Jiten entry here on Weblio keeps the "comic" and "antagonist" role senses separate:

① 第(だい)三流所(りうどころ)の意から転じて、敵役(かたきやく)とか道化役者(だうけやくしや)のことをいふ。〔歌舞伎〕

...

③〔演〕敵役、又は道化役者のこと。

The "antagonist" sense might be dated or historical rather than current, I have no particular data on that. @TAKASUGI Shinji might have more insight. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: I can see the second link give its source as 隠語大辞典, wherein interestingly it even has a meaning "屋根を破る窃盗犯". It sounds like an argot or something, as means 隠語. I guess this sense must have been of very limited usage and even native Japanese people may not have ever heard of it. I suggest leaving this sense out when writing a short definition in sections like "See also". ᾨδή (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I personally didn’t know the “antagonist” sense. That must be obsolete and probably rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji:, that sense already has labels for "dated" and "uncommon". Should that be changed? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen it and it may be rather “rare” than “uncommon”. We need some citations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

poster (Dutch)Edit

Etymology 1, "one who sets out posts, such as sentinels". I'm not sure what it means, so I reckon that makes the definition a shitpost. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a Dutch word wachtpost, which according to the Dutch Wiktionary can mean “person keeping watch”. I guess post can be used in Dutch as a shortening of wachtpost. I suspect that the editor who added this was Dutch-speaking. See sense 2 of the verb posten, added by the same editor. If that sense 2 exists, poster would be the standard corresponding agent noun – which does not imply the term is in actual use in this sense. (If used, the pronunciation will not be the same as for the homographs borrowed from English.)  --Lambiam 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Verbo is a Dutch speaker. There seems to be a specific sense, included by the WNT, for a trade union member who tries to deter strikebreakers. [98] [99] [100] I doubt that a more broad sense ever existed, there doesn't seem to have been any word poster in Dutch until the trade union movement coined that one. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

解放Edit

Rfv-sense of the three Mainland proper noun historiographic senses. Are they really all used on their own, and as proper nouns? @Tooironic, Justinrleung. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Could you, erm, provide some evidence? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Tooironic Really late reply. Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian only mention 1949 and treat it as a verb:
 

[动] ... ❷ 推翻反动统治,特指我国1949年推翻国民党统治:~前 | ~那年我才15岁。

Xiandai Hanyu Cidian
 
 

❷ [动] 推翻反动统治,摆脱压迫和剥削;在我国特指1949年推翻国民党反动派的统治,建立中华人民共和国 ▷~被压迫民族 | ~那年我刚上小学。

Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian
 
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Igbo third-person pronoun, but capitalized. Seems dubious. There's a fuller entry at . — Eru·tuon 08:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see a few uses that are not sentence-initial (only in search snippets; web pages fail to display), but they are in Bible texts and seem to refer to the Judeo-Christian God. We do have He as an {{honor alt case|en|he|nocap=1}} Capitalized “ọ” may be attestable with the analogous sense in Igbo. The current definition is obviously inconsistent with the headword line.  --Lambiam 09:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

adstutiaEdit

I'm not sure what's going on with this entry. In Latin, the consonant cluster dst only occurs in morphologically complex words that contain the prepositional prefix ad-. However, there is no base word stutia or stutus for a prefixed word "ad-stutia" to be built on. A prefixed word like "adstutia" would be expected to have the alternative form astutia, with elision of the d; compare astrictiō and adstrictiō. There is a Latin word astūtia, but it does not seem to contain the prefix ad-: it is from the adjective astūtus, from astus, whose etymology is a little unclear. The spelling adstutia could have arisen by analogy with words that did start with the prefix ad-, but I can't find that form actually listed in any reliable dictionary entry for astutia. The meaning is also slightly different ("adstutia" supposedly means "diplomacy", while "astūtia" is more like "cunning"). Can anyone confirm whether "adstutia" exists as anything other than a misspelling of astūtia?--Urszag (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A few occurrences in Late Latin: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. I am not sure how to place this, but it seems to arise from a false splitting. But why the effort to throw in an extra d? A pedantic way of showing off? I have not looked at the senses of these uses.  --Lambiam 21:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All terms in Category:Latin first declension adjectivesEdit

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

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

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

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

melasEdit

  1. Entry is wrong (WT:ELE: "Derived terms   [...] in the same language [...]")
  2. The note seems to be nonsense like the one once in ruderalis (diff) as it doesn't seem to apply to Latin, but to translingual nonsense.
  3. The Late Latin is a mentioning (of a Greek term although in transliteration) and no usage

--Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously used in taxonomic names, four of which appear as derived terms. DCDuring (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We have had repeated inconclusive discussions about whether such terms should appear under Translingual or Latin L2 headers. Some of them have been used in scientific Latin running text, but attestation is difficult. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
As a Latin term, it needs Latin usages. If not used in Latin, it isn't Latin, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

dendrobatidisEdit

The term looks like a noun in the genitive and not like an adjective, and the note hints that this term doesn't exist in Latin. --Marontyan (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not even the term acrobates exists in Latin, except in Neo-Latin as Acrobates, a genus name, like Dendrobates. It is anybody’s guess how acrobates would have been declined, had the Ancient Romans known the word and not declined to decline it, but acrobatidis is most unlikely, as there is no d in the stem; analogously, dendrobatidis does not look like a Latin case form of dendrobates. The Ancient Greek genitive of the etymon of acrobat was ἀκροβάτου (akrobátou), but Latin loans from Greek did not in general copy the Greek declension paradigm (e.g. Ancient Greek ἀθλητής (athlētḗs)ἀθλητοῦ (athlētoû) was borrowed as āthlētaāthlētae). To me “Dendrobatidis” sounds like a Modern Greek family name, like Apostolidis or Tsakalidis.  --Lambiam 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The -id- in dendrobatidis is presumably related to the Greek patronymic suffix that is the source of the taxonomic termination -idae. However, I don't know why or how the -is got there. If if is a genitive singular form, as Marontyan speculated, it would be consistent with a third-declension d-stem dendrobatis, but the ending -is -idis (Greek -ις -ιδος) seems to be used specifically for feminine patronymics.--Urszag (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, one of the authors uploaded the article where the name Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis was first used to academia.edu ("Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians"), but it doesn't have any helpful explanation of the formation. It simply says that dendrobatidis is "from 'Dendrobates'".--Urszag (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The genitive of the name of a host organism is commonly used for the specific epithet for a small organism that lives on or in the host for at least some part of its life cycle. I guess that the 'idis' ending might be based of treating the '-bates' ending as if it were '-batis': βατίς ("skate"), βατίδος. In any event, mistake or not, we would need just one more taxonomic name to pass RfV. DCDuring (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I found a third species with the epithet. Result, one fungus species, two chromists. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No, as a Latin term it does not need 3 species names, but 1 Latin usage, see WT:CFI, Talk:albifrons. --Marontyan (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

virginibus puerisqueEdit

As Citations:virginibus puerisque is not Latin but English. --Marontyan (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides the language issue, I think the definition is wrong. In the citation there and others I can find, it seems to be used in the literal sense of "to/for girls and boys". It seems more like code-switching than an English phrase, albeit a form of code-switching conventionalized among English speakers? --Lvovmauro (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As a Latin entry, it's clearly SOP, so if it's to be kept at all, it can only be kept as an English entry. I think "suitable for children" would be a good definition, but we do need more cites than just the one that's there. Some people don't like it when foreign terms are italicized as that indicates that the term hasn't really been assimilated into English yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Old Prussian lemmasEdit

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

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

RFV for the following:

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

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

@Trothmuse: Most of the RFV pressed forthward don't match with the given phonetic reconstruction, so I would say delete. I cound't access the TLP so I can't check those; I have my doubts about WBdSG since it gives a diferent picture from EGPV, two examples are TLP Old Prussian maiʃta (town) and EGPV Old Prussian mēstan (town), and TLP Old Prussian kayme (village) and EGPV (Caymis) Old Prussian *kaimis (village).
If salts isn't attested then it should be deleted; yet an adjective ending with "-a" isn't normal, if the word occurs in a text then it could be the nominative feminine singular, if not then it's either a noun, a adjective given in the feminine nominative or something I'm not quite seeing.
I guess the real intetion of "masculine singular" was "singular nominative". The EGPV (v)undan maybe be because of the different forms attested in different sources, so we have Old Prussian wunda (water) in TLP, while the Enchiridion has Old Prussian unds (water).
One major thing, that I forget to mention, is that Old Prussian, in the Enchiridion, had stress vowels marked by a macron. Therefore if Old Prussian Dēiwas/Dēiws are from the Enchiridion then it's possible that the correct form is Old Prussian Déiwas/Déiws, as in diphthongs the macron served to represented the stressed vowel instead of a real long vowel. Another rule, altough not entirely agreed upon, is that vowels after conants are themselves stressed. 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
EGPV has wundan (Wasser), caymis (Dorf), mestan (Stat). (v)undan, mēstan are not in EGPV but reconstructions (by V. Mažiulis, added in that online version of EPGV).
Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.) quotes Grunau too (and adds some remarks in brackets and sometimes mentions Hartknoch's forms), but has another text than the WBdSG. Nesselmann's Grunau has Dewus (Goth), Maysta (Stadt), Cayme (Dorff), Wunda (wassere), Songos (hundt) and not Dewes, Maiʃta [= Maiſta, Maista], kayme, Songos, Wunda as in the WBdSG (or Devus, Maiſta, Caymo, Sangor, Wunda as in Hartknoch's). Nesselmann's TLP (here at another source) has "deywis Voc. 1., dewus Gr." and no Dewes/dewes (or Devus/devus). [106] mentions the existence of at least two manuscript versions of Grunau's ("Göttinger Handschrift", "Königsberger Handschrift") - the Göttinger version probably being unknown to Nesselmann.
Enchiridion (original, Nesselmann's Die Sprache der alten Preußen (etc.), Die drei catechismen in altpreussischer Sprache (etc.), Trautmann's Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler (etc.)) has tilde in original Fraktur, macron in Antiqua editions. In it, it is (ignoring long s): Deiws/Deiwas (Deiwan, Deiwans) without diacritic, piēncts (other numerals are: pirmois, antars, tīrts, kettwirts, uschts,septmas, asmus, newīnts, dessīmts). That makes the original RFV for all terms with macron obsolete, as for example piēncts is properly attested.
Also RFV for the following terms with macron:
--Trothmuse (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I normally use the reconstruction by V. Mažiulis instead of the original wording.
Sorry I mistaken the TLP with WBdSG, in my comment above where it say "TLP" I meant "WBdSG". In any case, from what I can tell they share similar roots, but not the endings, which IMO can be verified by checking them with the other Baltic languages.
If that’s the case then they should be deleted.
I haven't been able to verify all of them but for now I haven't found Mārts; kams is probably a reconstruction of "camus". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

vēnusEdit

According to dictionaries it isn't attested:

  • L&S: "vēnus, ūs, m., or vēnum (vaen-), i, n. (occurring only in the forms venui, veno, and venum) [...]"
  • Georges: "vēnus, ūs u. ī, m. [...] nur im Dat. u. Acc. vorkommend [...]"

Hence it's *vēnus, or vēnum (defective). --Marontyan (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford Latin Dictionary says it's documented only in the accusative and dative, but venus is still the lemma form used in that source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Some Latin adjectivesEdit

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

iudaeogermanicusEdit

I've moved the content to iudaeo-germanicus, which seems to be attested. This spelling and all its inflected forms will have to be deleted later (if not cited) by someone with more time to do that than I have at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

iudaeohispanicusEdit

iudaeoromanicusEdit

meglenoromanicusEdit

foroiulicusEdit

Contemporary Ecclesiastical Latin? DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't find any of these at google books searching for several (not all) inflected forms. --Marontyan (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

గోపిEdit

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

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

مديونيرEdit

--95.186.143.168 01:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is used in the Okaz newspaper ([107], [108]) as well as elsewhere ([109], [110] – where the last one cites Okaz). There are also some GBS results ([111], [112]).  --Lambiam 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

分庭Edit

Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: It's in Hanyu Da Cidian, but the current definition doesn't seem to be right. I'm having trouble understanding the definition that is given: "分处庭中,以示平等". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. I guess 分处 could mean 分别安置, 分别居住, or something else. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

嚴謹Edit

Rfv-sense: "compact; well-knit; tight". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

妙處Edit

Rfv-sense: "ideal place; suitable location". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed here. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Atitarev, who added this sense when creating the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: This sense is in Pleco. —Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: The same can be found in a few other dictionaries. At https://www.moedict.tw/~妙處 or https://www.zdic.net/hans/妙处 finding this definition: 神奇美妙所在  ―  shénqí měimiào de suǒzài  ―  miraculous and wonderful location. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Atitarev: In Cross-Straits Dictionary, given the examples, 所在 in the context doesn't seem to mean "location" (as a physical place), but a figurative place - where good things are > merit; benefit. ZDIC's example is more obvious. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

節制Edit

Rfv-sense: "to command (an army)". Tagged but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: This sense is in all of the major dictionaries, like Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian, Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, Guoyu Cidian, Liang'an Cidian and Hanyu Da Cidian. Do you really need this verified? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, anyway, it should be cited. @Tooironic, please add translations if you can. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

咖啡Edit

Vietnamese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

學部Edit

Rfv-sense: "school club". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Suzukaze-c who added this sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

官員Edit

Rfv-sense: "administrator". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic It seems like you added this sense back in 2015 (diff). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no memory of this. It may be the case that "administrator" here is just a synonym in English for "official", and thus should only be included on the single definition line. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: It seems to be in CC-CEDICT, so maybe you got it from there. It's likely the same definition as "official". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

就此Edit

Rfv-sense: "because of this". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

後來Edit

Rfv-sense: "less advanced people". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I suspect this definition corresponds to 後進之人 in Guoyu Cidian or 指以后成长起来的人 in Hanyu Da Cidian. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

新居Edit

Rfv-sense: "current residence". Tagged by @Dine2016 but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's referring to something like the "刚刚迁入的住所" part of the definition in Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian or "新迁入的住所" in Hanyu Da Cidian. This definition isn't quite adequate though, and "new residence" (the other definition) would capture this better. Pinging @Kc kennylau, who added this definition (though not quite active anymore). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

新鮮Edit

Rfv-sense: "odd; strange". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

斷頭Edit

Rfv-sense: "to behead; to decapitate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This should be cited. @Tooironic, please check if these are good to go. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Great work. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

早期Edit

Rfv-sense: "earlier; previously". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

曲說Edit

Rfv-sense: "(literary) to convince; to argue one's case". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

機運Edit

Rfv-sense: "fate". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Mar vin kaiser who added the sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be from Pleco, but I don't know if it's a good definition. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Yup, just added it from Pleco, I also don't know if it's a good definition. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

PPCEdit

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

Here are two French sources, but the term is spelled “p.p.c.” or “P.P.C.”: [113], [114].  --Lambiam 22:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019Edit

zepto-ohmEdit

zeptoampèreEdit

zeptosteradiaalEdit

zetta-ampèreEdit

zettasecondeEdit

yoctoampèreEdit

yocto-ohmEdit

yoctosteradiaalEdit

yotta-ampèreEdit

yottaohmEdit

yottasecondeEdit

Dutch, these units appear to be very rare if not non-existent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t that hold even more strongly for the corresponding yoctos and yottas?  --Lambiam 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Mostly, though yoctoseconde is in fact attested, by a hair's breadth. I have added those that seem unattested to me. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/erþaburgzEdit

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

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

octavius, octariusEdit

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

zapalotlEdit

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

Reconstruction:Proto-Hellenic/təmnēmiEdit

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

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

Classical Nahuatl country-name neologismsEdit

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

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

  • García Escamilla, Enrique (1994); Historia de México narrada en náhuatl y español. [115], Mexico City.
That proves nothing. Anything written by a modern author is a simulation of Classical Nahuatl, not the real thing. In the 19th century, someone wrote a story in Proto-Indo-European, just to show that it could be done- but that's not attestation according to our standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
"Narrada en nahuatl y español" - but by time (1990s/2000s), it can't be Classical Nahuatl, but must be some other Nahuatl (and may it be some kind of Neo-Classical Nahuatl).
(That someone was August Schleicher and the text was a Fabel.) --Trothmuse (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Marrovi Can you confirm that you understand the problem with this source? That it is Wiktionary policy not to use "revivalist" modern texts in long-extinct languages as attestations for that language? Unless you do, it might be better not to work on Classical Nahuatl at all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This case is complicated, Classical Nahuatl is taught at many universisties and schools in Mexico, most like to be it a New-Classical Nahuatl mixing with life Nahuatl languages as Central Nahuatl or Morelos Nahuatl language, There's literature in Classical Nahuatl written in the XX century as the case of Enrique García Escamilla or Miguel-León Portilla. However, I understand that this case causes them problems with certain codes allowed here.--Marrovi (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New reference.

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

Edit

Rfv-sense "faeces; poo", added by an IP. — surjection?⟩ 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not fluent in Chinese but there's no way that character means poo, and the person who added that probably found it funny because of the similar pronunciation, but it's not appropriate for Wiktionary. Hkbusfan (talk)

阿拉巴麻Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 03:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,400 for アラバマ). Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

阿里蘇那Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 7,000 for アリゾナ). Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

伊倫諾爾Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Zero hits in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 2,600 for イリノイ). Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

倭塔瓦Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,200 for オタワ). Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

干賽斯Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google. —Suzukaze-c 04:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives (versus more than 1,700 for カンザス). Cnilep (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

英釐安納Edit

Nothing in Google Books or Google for Japanese (all historical Chinese documents). —Suzukaze-c 04:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in Tokyo Shimbun archives, either (versus more than 2,500 for インディアナ). Cnilep (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

zwaaldeEdit

Dutch. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Morgengave? This exists according to gtb.inl.nl, but I can't find 3 attestations for this, and unfortunately we still don't have a good policy for terms found in dialect dictionaries. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Dialectal usage is always more tricky. I do think we can give it the benefit of the doubt seen its many dictionary entries and as there was even a study in the 1950s on its use (vs "broodschieter" and "openpaal"): [116] Morgengave (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

zwart spechtjeEdit

Dutch. Nothing on BGC, only smoke and mirrors on regular Google. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean the bird "zwarte specht"? As that bird is easily attestable: [117]. Regular diminutives are implied to exist; diminutives don't need to be attested individually. Morgengave (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I meant to RFV only the diminutive. It is a matter of debate whether or to what extent there should be entries for unattested forms. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AchtEdit

"(obsolete, found in toponyms) field". Tagged by User:Bolaguun, but not listed. — surjection?⟩ 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

trekkenEdit

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to jerk off, masturbate", which could be either relatively rare, an error or vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a use here and perhaps here, so this is not simply an error or vandalism. This is not easy searching. However, there are many occurrences on the web (like here), so it may be less rare than a book search suggests. Also, apparently the agent noun trekker can be used as an invective, and I guess it is a synonym of rukker.  --Lambiam 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Another use.  --Lambiam 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a variant of aftrekken. Compare reddit.com/r/cirkeltrek vs. reddit.com/r/circlejerk, too. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The point is, how common is this usage? Has it entered slang or are these ad hoc formations or maybe misconstructions from aftrekken? I think three durable cites are a reasonable minimum threshold. Searching for google books:"trekken" masturberen or google books:"trekken" rukken doesn't seem promising for finding citations. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Japanese: CompoundsEdit

Is 港澳 really a valid Japanese kanji phrase? I don't really know Japanese, but not every Chinese word should be a Japanese word. Hkbusfan (talk)

"Should" is an interesting word. :) FWIW, the term appears much more common in Japanese as part of larger compounds, but google:"港澳は" shows enough valid, albeit rare, use as a standalone to meet our WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

鼓動Edit

Rfv-sense: "beating; pounding". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

蒟蒻Edit

Rfv-sense: "(originally) betel and bulrush". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cited with one cite (since it's not Standard Written Chinese). The commentary to the passage defines it as such:
 

蒟,蒟醬也。緣樹而生,其子如桑椹,熟時正青,長二三寸,以蜜藏而食之,辛香,溫調五臟。蒻,草也,其根名蒻,頭大者如斗,其肌正白,可以灰汁,煮則凝成,可以苦酒淹食之。蜀人珍焉。

 
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

階段Edit

Rfv-sense: "level". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, in Japanese at least, the reversed term 段階 (dankai) means level. Any chance that's relevant? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

平臺階段 level terrace —⁠This unsigned comment was added by 76.102.251.32 (talk).

That looks like 平臺 (= level) + 階段 (= terrace), which doesn't help. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

靈巧Edit

Rfv-sense: "cute; lovable". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

人心Edit

Rfv-sense: "popularity". Tagged by @Tooironic but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps in phrases like 聚拢人心, 收买人心 it can be translated to "popularity". 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

mantel (Dutch)Edit

RFV-sense of "surface (literal), lack of substance (figurative)". The literal sense is likely attestable in the meaning "the Earth's mantle", otherwise I'm not so sure. If it isn't attested with different meanings, a definition "mantle, Earth's mantle" may be a better option. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Dutch Wiktionary gives the sense “hull of a device”, as well as “a mollusc in the order Ostreida” without being more specific. (This source may be helpful.) The Dutch Wikipedia gives, furthermore, the senses “hull of an electric cable” and Mantle (mollusc) – not an animal but an anatomical structure, a muscular body wall. So “hull” would seem a better description than “surface”. I find no examples of a figurative sense “lack of substance”. There is a figurative use in the idiom “mantel der liefde”, which seems to be used rather differently (suggesting forgiveness) than English “cloak of love” (suggesting treacherous deceit). I think I see figurative uses here and here, where too the mantel is a deceitful cloak. This may be the same figurative sense as dekmantel. Perhaps the contested figurative sense is a very poor worded attempt to define the sense “guise, facade”. If the sense “lack of substance (figurative)” can somehow be attested, it should definitely get a line of its own, since it is completely different from “surface/hull (literal)”.  --Lambiam 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say hull and surface are synonyms; that a sense hull exists should be clear, but I don't really know what the appropriate level of splitting vs. lumping would be for that sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

pEdit

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

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

paschaEdit

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

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

ἅρπαEdit

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

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

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

[*] 214. The dialects show various forms.

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

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

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

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

Perseus Greek Word Study Tool:

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

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

Greek morphological index (Ελληνική μορφολογικούς δείκτες):

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

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

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

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

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

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

acutisquamosoEdit

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

دورEdit

Rfv-sense: to search —51.253.234.181 22:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Here : https://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=357,ll=973,ls=5,la=1450,sg=397,ha=233,br=342,pr=58,aan=195,mgf=311,vi=150,kz=757,mr=235,mn=430,uqw=555,umr=375,ums=309,umj=258,ulq=733,uqa=136,uqq=108,bdw=h327,amr=h230,asb=h300,auh=h582,dhq=h185,mht=h303,msb=h84,tla=h49,amj=h249,ens=h164,mis=h643 Fenakhay (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

小酒Edit

Rfv-sense: "quiet drink (of alcohol)" and "small bottle of wine". Pinging @Tooironic, who added these senses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why rfv these senses? They are in common usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: For "quiet drink", I'm not sure what it really means. Does it mean drinking a little bit? For "small bottle of wine", do you have any evidence for its common usage? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it means just a little drink of alcohol. As opposed to the usual way in Chinese culture where everyone toasts and gets drunk. I have no evidence for either usage. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: If it's in common usage, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find evidence (not in dictionaries, but in the wild) to support it. From a quick Google search, I think there's some evidence for the "quiet drink/little drink of alcohol" sense, but I'm not sure about the "small bottle of wine" sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The "wine" sense may not be attestable. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

Old English andwyrdan, andwirdan "to present"Edit

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

I found this [[118]] where the gloss for andweardiende says presentans (praesentans) and here [[119]] where andweardian is glossed as vorbringen/respondeo (click anywhere on line 1 to expand), and this [[120]], so that would suggest that andweardian (also andwyrdian) has the meaning of "render, offer up, proffer". I couldn't find anything tying andweardian to andwyrdan or andwirdan, which mean "to answer" Leasnam (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, andweardian definitely means "present". However, your third source (Clark Hall et al.) should not be interpreted to mean that andwyrdian means "present". What it says is (+andweardian also = andwyrdian); the + means "only when prefixed with ġe-" (+/- means "with or without a ġe- prefix"), so this notation means "ġeandweardian can also mean the same as andwyrdian" (namely "to answer"). Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Isn't andwyrdian (i.e. andwyrdian) different to andwyrdan though ? Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

ærgiestrandægEdit

RFV. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

劍橋春天Edit

Brought over from RFD. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

One possible use (with 社區) [121]. Not sure if durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

賣豆腐Edit

Rfv-sense: (vulgar, euphemistic) to be a prostitute — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

SchembeisEdit

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

I created Schembeis and I just wanted to mention that some Sondersprachen are not very well documented in general for obvious reasons as they function as secret languages. In the entry I have referenced the word with the “Illustrated Lexicon of German Colloquialisms/Slang” and quoted from a book about a distinct variety of Sondersprache. If this does not meet the attestation criteria then that’s the way it is. It’d be a pity though. I wonder how documenting these kind of cants should be done then? — Best regards, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 10:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
[122], [123], [124].  --Lambiam 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
That should count as one usage (WT:CFI#Independent) as the sources are: Klaus Siewert (editor), Textbuch Masematte & Textbuch Masematte II & Textbuch Masematte III. --B-Fahrer (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Siewert only selected these stories from the archives of the Masematte project group, which collects them to make sure this endangered lect is archived from original speakers before it dies out. The sources of these stories are independent people.  --Lambiam 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
What's the evidence for this: "The sources of these stories are independent people."? As far as I can see, the texts start with the title and end - there's no author given next to the title or at the end. The contents don't give an author either. As an additional note, the text of the 2nd book states that proper Masematte was never written and that written Masematte is younger, less authentic. --B-Fahrer (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

MoorhuhnEdit

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/wārúsEdit

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/sláidusEdit

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

chó hoang châu PhiEdit

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

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

Here are some uses on what look to me like news sites: [125], [126], [127], [128]. My Vietnamese does not suffice to verify if they are durably archived.  --Lambiam 15:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

白花Edit

Rfv-sense: "pekoe". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

여의자Edit

Defined as "(Japan) girl". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The entry has a reference. If you are looking for usage in a text, does such literature exist? —Suzukaze-c 03:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Google News Search gives several hits, also in articles that are not Japan-related. I cannot judge if any of this is durably archived.  --Lambiam 10:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What does this mean?? Do we know? Is this used by Koreans living in Japan? It looks like they just added a third character into the existing word for girl , 여자. Soap 20:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Soap: I'm confused by your question? Look at the entry. It explains right there what this means:

Calque of Japanese 女の子, from (, yeo, woman, female) +‎ (ui, -possessive particle) +‎ (, ja, child)

Was there something else that you wanted to know about? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean, is this a word used by Koreans living in Japan only? Or is it a term used by Koreans everywhere for girls living in Japan (presumably with a set of matching words for boys, men, and women)? Is the extra morpheme in the middle part of a wider trend? Soap 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Soap -- Thanks for clarifying. I'm not first-hand familiar with the Korean term, but "the extra morpheme in the middle", (ui), is the possessive particle, mirroring the Japanese (no) possessive particle in the source term that the Korean term is copying. It would be interesting and relevant, and arguably useful, to indicate if there are similar calques, perhaps standard Korean 남자 (namja, “boy”) shifting to 남의자 (namuija) to mirror the Japanese 男の子 (otoko no ko, boy), etc. I suspect the "Japan" label indicates that this is used primarily by speakers of Korean living in Japan, but I agree that this could be explained more clearly.
It might be useful to ping the editors who have worked on this entry: @Suzukaze-c, 幻光尘, Atitarev, do you all have any further information or insights? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The label is still not clear. The way I read it, it's the term used by Koreans living in Japan but I'm not certain. I asked for an RFV in hope it would clarify or at least, demonstrate that the term is actually used. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The book named in the references section is called Language of Koreans in Japan. —Suzukaze-c 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

配列Edit

Chinese, added by User:Atitarev in 2014. —Suzukaze-c 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in the 漢語詞典, which includes a quotation by Lu Xun. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Old English/nihtmareEdit

--Lvovmauro (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What does it mean to RFV a reconstructed term? By the definition of "reconstruction", there must not be any direct attestations.--Urszag (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Its existence must be establishable through other means, still. In this case, if there is one descendant and one ancestor, it can be inferred that the intermediate form must have existed. The ancestor has descendants in all West Germanic languages, which are unlikely to all be parallel formations. Therefore, I think the existence of the Old English term can be verified. —Rua (mew) 11:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I would question the "ancestor" too. The more likely explanation is that all of these are late coinages, or calques/adaptations from neighboring languages. --Lvovmauro (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The late coinages explanation seems unlikely. Some sort of link between the terms must be supposed; they seem too specific (the night- part is obvious, but the -mare part seems like a highly specific choice and unlikely to be arrived at independently by all languages involved) to be independent coinages all around the same time in the High Middle Ages. So the next option is that it's some sort of Wanderwort/was calqued all over the place. Wanderwörter however tend to fall in way different semantic fields (especially trade and technology), not a term like nightmare. Supposing inheritance from a common ancestor seems like me to be the most elegant solution, certainly less of a stretch than a calque or independent coinages around the same time. The lack of attestations before the High Middle Ages is explained easily by the genres of literature attested for the "Old" Germanic languages, which are unlikely to attest a term like "nightmare", and by the relatively small size of those corpora which further reduces the likelihood of attestation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lvovmauro: No. The history is just so that virtually nobody knew English on the continent until the middle of the 18th century. Every book that came from Britain was in Latin, one could not obtain anything in English if one sought it, and few people went over the sea, just names for some trading items like weaponry (→ Kartätsche) and fabrics could pass. There was no exposure that could let a word like this be calqued. Fay Freak (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Who said anything about calquing from English? It's not like the English were locked in a cellar for hundreds of years. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
He said, “calques from neighboring languages”, i.e. the neighbours of English would have calqued, also since he says “these” it would not be only English but the self-same continental languages. Fay Freak (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Since he says he is "question[ing] the 'ancestor'" of the Old English term, I took his comment to mean he thinks the various (non-Old English) Germanic languages in which this term is attested calqued it from one (non-Old English) Germanic language which formed the compound in its own day rather than inheriting it from an ancestor (Proto-West Germanic). - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried to find any outside reference that reconstructs this, and noticed that they all seem to instead say that Middle English ni(g)htmare is a compound where merely the latter element derives from OE. I'm also not sure I see the utility of having a page like this; what does it give that could not be given in the PWG and Middle English entries? The reconstructed OE pronunciation and declension? Meh. (I'm not saying it should be deleted, though.) - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

jachtgeweerEdit

Dutch, RFV-sense of "shotgun". Obviously some shotguns are hunting rifles, but I don't know of this as a distinct sense and neither do some dictionaries. Several gun or hunting websites don't seem to recognise this meaning either. The Dutch Wikipedia article has it as a synonym of hagelgeweer, so it may be a Wikipedianism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two types of jachtgeweer: the hagelgeweer and the kogelgeweer.[129][130][131]. They obviously differ by the type of munition: shot or bullets. I think listing a hyponym as a sense of the more general term is incorrect.  --Lambiam 20:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I forgot that a shotgun wouldn't necessarily be a rifle in English. However, a shotgun is definitely considered a geweer in Dutch. What do you think of a definition equivalent to "geweer used for hunting"? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
In case there should still be any doubt, here are three instances of a jachtgeweer firing bullets: [132], [133], [134].  --Lambiam 21:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Three translations of shotgun as "jachtgeweer" (amongst other translations): [135] Morgengave (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Are any of those translations durable? The ones from Xerox and store.origin.com certainly don't seem like it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Would the English term long gun help here? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam, Morgengave, Vox Sciurorum Would you agree with it if I replaced the two definitions by a single one: "long gun used for hunting, such as a hunting rifle or shotgun"? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No serious objections here. But are there other types of jachtgeweer than the two mentioned? The way it is formulated, it creates the impression that these two are just a small selection from a large variety of possibilities. Perhaps “long gun used for hunting, either a hunting rifle or shotgun“?  --Lambiam 14:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think shotgun and rifle exhaust the category of hunting long guns. A shotgun can fire a slug, essentially a non-rifled bullet, rather than shot (small metal balls used as ammunition) but we still call it a shotgun. "A long gun used for hunting; a rifle or shotgun" sounds correct. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lambiam, Vox Sciurorum Well, there are 18th-century results for jagtgeweer(en)/jachgeweeren, I strongly doubt these were shotguns and I'm not sure they were rifled; but I wouldn't mind a binary formulation as it would be accurate for the modern type of firearm and the first part of the definition would also encompass the ancient long-barrelled hunting guns anyway. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
A long gun used for hunting before the mid-19th century is probably a musket. Online translation of unknown reliability says either musket or geweer can be used for English musket. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

مكوىEdit

--37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

مقلىEdit

--37.124.137.40 10:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Edit

Rfv-sense: "poor". Pinging @Dine2016 who added it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I think we can safely remove this definition or at least put it as a subitem under the first, namely alt form of (, “to not have; to lack; to not be; no; none; etc.”). The gloss "poor" seems to be based on a single commentary in the 毛詩毛诗 (Máoshī), under the 4th verse of 《邶風·谷風》:

[Classical Chinese, trad.]
[Classical Chinese, simp.]
From: The Classic of Poetry, circa 11th – 7th centuries BCE, translated based on James Legge's version
Hé yǒu hé , mǐn miǎn qiú zhī. [Pinyin]
Whether we had plenty or not,
I exerted myself to be getting.

The Mao annotation (, pages 71–72, scanned copy) reads: 「有」謂富也;「亡」謂貧也。 I suspect this is where the spurious sense "poor" came from.

However I don't think the Mao annotation were meant to be definition-giving. It simply explains the words' connotation in the particular context of the poem rather than giving an alternative gloss of the words. The meaning "poor", etc. is not a separate sense; it is already covered under the first sense. Zheng Xuan's parallel annotation () did so in a slightly different manner, and so did the 正義 (sub-annotation) by Tang-era scholars. --Frigoris (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

袖口Edit

Rfv-sense "wristband". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/lauwuEdit

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

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

عبرEdit

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/laująEdit

Evidence? None of the descendants would ever point to a neuter noun. Also, it is impossible for Proto-Germanic *laują to give Gothic *𐌻𐌹𐍅𐌰 (*liwa). 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, our etymologies for the Germanic terms for 'lion' are truly all over the place. The Gothic term was attested 7 years ago as 𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍅𐌰 (laiwa), btw, which is what I moved the entry to. And I have removed it from that PGmc entry, as indeed it cannot possibly have yielded any such Gothic form. The PGmc should probably be deleted. Even the MHG is not neuter, it's a masculine weak noun. I think the creator misinterpreted an etymology mentioning "*laujan-" as a neuter a-stem instead of a masculine an-stem, I have no idea how else one would get to a neuter a-stem from these supposed descendants. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The WG forms appear to point to PG *laiwô, which would be consistent with the Gothic. See **laujan on Latin leō. --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

永安Edit

Rfv-sense "everlasting peace". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a translation of one of the literary senses in the 漢語詞典. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I think either sense there should be a verb, not a noun. What do you think? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would make sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

riolerenEdit

Dutch, RFV-sense of "to discharge through a sewer; to drain". I am only familiar with the other sense, same for the dictionaries I checked. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020Edit

衝涼Edit

Seems to be the wrong traditional form. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

婂媤Edit

Seems to be only used by Penang Hokkien Podcast (and probably the Hokkien Language Association of Penang). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is in regards to the character spelling of "婂媤"? —Suzukaze-c 01:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Yes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si? Is this from 新加坡闽南话词典? In the dictionary it is written as 密司 bit8 su(si) but any proof that bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si is actually used in Singapore? It's strange because "mî-si" is not recorded by that dictionary.

mî-si in Singapore Hokkien is citable at 06:22 of Happy Can Already! Episode 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIrZqUKGhYU
mî-si for Penang Hokkien is citable at 05:42 of Penang Hokkien Podcast #690 Kóo-tsá-láu-mî-si-kuí (古早婂媤鬼) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWH1MEx-nE
Why use 婂媤 as the main spelling for this entry? 婂 or its component 帛 is not related with "mî". Maybe 密司 is more suitable. https://baike.baidu.com/item/密司
One last thing, any citation for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese? Are there dictionaries for Singapore Teochew and Cantonese to support this? Why add labels but no pronunciation? User talk:iambluemon 08:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(re: 婂 or its component 帛 ...: (), probably —Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC))
As these Chinese varieties are no longer considered well-documented, we can probably keep 婂媤 for Penang Hokkien with the one attestation from Penang Hokkien Podcast. However, we should probably unify the entry at 密司 (even though it's kind of Mandarin-centric). Yes, bi̍t-su and bi̍t-si are from 新加坡闽南话词典. I have serious doubts about these pronunciations as well; perhaps they're just inaccurate transcriptions of mî-si. For Singaporean Teochew and Cantonese, we'd have to ask @The dog2 for evidence. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about the characters, but for the pronunciations, see [136] (39:51) for Singaporean Cantonese and [137] (17:37) for Singaporean Teochew. The dog2 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/dubbjanEdit

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/būtiEdit

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

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

Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/fellōEdit

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

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

nematodesEdit

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

centiampère (Dutch)Edit

centicandelaEdit

centisecondeEdit

centisteradiaalEdit

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

陰國Edit

Rfv-sense: "United Kingdom". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

乏國Edit

France. Some hits on Google, but may not be durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

怨難Edit

Rfv-sense: Vietnam. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a possible usage, but not durably archived. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

すんドめEdit

 
Japanese Wikipedia has an article on:
Wikipedia ja

specifically using katakana like this —Suzukaze-c 08:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

すんドめ (Sundome) is the name of a manga series. It is not a common noun.  --Lambiam 11:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

エスパニョールEdit

Appears in the Daijirin. I want to see quotations anyway. @Britannic124Suzukaze-c 03:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears as parts of names, but this is arguably transliterated Spanish.
  • Chunichi Shimbun, June 8, 2017:
    スペイン最大手(さいおおて)のサンタンデール銀行(ぎんこう)七日(なのか)同国(どうこく)大手(おおて)のポプラル・エスパニョール銀行(ぎんこう)買収(ばいしゅう)したと発表(はっぴょう)した。
    Supein saiōte no santandēru ginkō wa nanoka, dōkoku ōte no popuraru esupanyōru ginkō o baishū shita to happyō shita.
    Spain's largest bank, Banco Santander, announced on the 7th that it will acquire the major Banco Popular Español in the same country.
  • Tokyo Shimbun, June 15, 2020:
    欧州(おうしゅう)サッカー []  エスパニョール2-0アラベス
    Ōshū sakkā [] Esupanyōru 2-0 Arabesu
    European soccer [] Español 2-0 Alavés
I don't find it used productively in Japanese, though. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Rfv-sense for Chinese: Is (qià) a common misspelling of ()? -- 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/dьrvьňaEdit

On behalf of @Crom daba, who says that it "seems suspect, reconstructed for a single descendant and the reflex isn't regular". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is quite possible, though I am against this page as a single-descendant reconstruction that gives us no convenience (not always I am against single-descendant reconstructions for Proto-Slavic, since the reconstructed state is not more than half a millenium before the first writings of the individual languages, it depends on the other relations or we can say justification grounds, e.g. the derived terms make *lopъ (leaf) bulletproof though it is only present in Bulgarian and Macedonian (which latter is arguably an Ausbausprache of Bulgarian) and we even have some cases of alternative forms or reconstructions in Proto-Germanic with one ancient descendant where the form reflected less is preferred by some author(s); but this is all not here). One can find this, but it is too uncertain, so delete. But who taught you to put reconstructed terms to RFV, @Metaknowledge? I think it is a bad habit of Gnosandes, who infected Rua with it and now you do it too. I hereby disclaim its guise of acceptability. If no thread fits denying reconstructed terms we should create another category of requests, though it be that Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium and the requests for deletion could suffice. Perhaps we need a page “requests for substantiation of reconstructed terms” (you name it) because people are unsure where to put it, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English because it is not non-English in so far as it is about imagined languages, they don’t like Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others because it is not other, and requests for verification is asking for occurrence evidence, whereas Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium is too wishy-washy, so understandably you want to suggest more aggressively deletion under the condition that no evidence is proferred, which is however not the condition normally stipulated under the verification requests, therefore all the oddity. Fay Freak (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I considered sending it to RFD, which is what I believe I used to do, but considered that as I was seeking evidence rather than opinion-based votes, RFV might be the right place after all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is either a trick, expecting that the page can be deleted if nothing is done, as opposed to a RFD which would require a majority or something like that, or it neither works here because this kind of pages keeps clogging up the request threads (for the same reason, I think, as for minor languages, the fact that nothing is expected to be done if there are only few editors dealing with these languages only rarely, and everyone is absent doing more important things than trying to attest such trifles 😐, but also because one would not know what is “enough” to fulfill the request, it is always the greyzone when such an inquiry appears: some varyingly credulous or lightheaded fellow deemed the material enough and skeptics harangue it). I would be for deleting such pages right away because of being of little discernable use and uncertain, but this hope crushed at the vote against Proto-Albanian already. Wiktionary is doomed (and that is, I think, probably because not enough people are devoted). Fay Freak (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No need to be so gloomy. This is simple: if two regular, independent reflexes are found, the entry can be kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe we originally took these to RFDO, but I think the Etymology scriptorium is a better venue. After all, the reconstructions are an extension of the etymologies, and the criteria being weighed are of an etymological nature. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The ES is a terrible venue for this, because when discussions there grow old, nobody deals with them. I want a decisive outcome, and (in theory) everything that enters RFV or RFD leaves it having been dealt with one way or the other. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

دعشEdit

213.166.157.228 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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

homem sanctvmEdit

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

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