Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English

< Wiktionary:Requests for verification

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.

Go here to edit this header

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 “brown leaf”



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged RFVs

March 2016Edit


French section. Needs cleanup and formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's remarkably hard to cite because of the number of hits for the English word 'average'. But if you follow the links (copy and paste as they are unformatted links) there are two citations for the word 'average' already in the entry. provides adequate information to cite it in Old and Middle French. confirms it just refers to our definition #7 of average. Personally I'd just detag it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Except it's a French entry, not Old French or Middle French. Two cites won't do for modern French, especially since only one is a use, as far as I can tell. There's also the issue of whether any usage that could be construed as modern French might be construed instead as Norman. This can all be cleared up, but the entry as currently written appears to be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
English definition 7 must belong to a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I've split the English entry into two etymologies based on the Middle English Dictionary and on the Bosworth/Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. You may notice that it's the result of Norman Old French derivational morphology used on a word of Old English origin, so it's a bit hard to pin down exactly what the language was (which is normal for that time and place, I guess). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked the SOED (1993) which links that sense to Medieval Latin averagium and the other senses to what we have in the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You'll notice in the MED entry I linked to that it gives the origin as both "AF and AL". I suspect the Anglo-Latin has pretty much the same origin as the Anglo-Norman, or is from the Anglo-Norman. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

This is too damn easy. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but that can be remedied: those are all cites of an arithmetic sense, equivalent to what's now Etymology 1 of the English. It looks like that should be added. The rfved sense is equivalent to what was definition #7 and is now Etymology 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And it gets even more complicated: see the footnote on the last cite. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In ... statuts et coustumes..., suggestion 1 by Romanophile, the section title includes "Des pasturage ..." and in Annales du Midi, suggestion 6 by Romanophile, "de donner à mégerie et cantal de l'average des boeufs, juments, asnesses et autres bestiaux" both seem to describe types of rent from tenants to seigneurs.
In Droit anglais..., suggestion 3 by Romanophile, the section title is "De Le Moyenne (average)" and looks to me like a French explanation of the English term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Romanophile (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The footnote I referred to earlier: "on entend par averagi les brebis en général et le droit de pâture en certains lieux". Since the word footnoted is average, I think "averagi" is an error for that word. At any rate, it looks like the uses in Provence, at least, refer to grazing animals and some sort of right to pasturage for those animals. That means the first and last of your first batch (the rest are the arithmetic sense), and all of your second batch.
It looks like there really is a French word, but all the original cites which use the rfved sense are mostly something to the effect of "this is what they used to call it in England", which look like mentions to me, and all of your cites are for other senses not found in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

April 2016Edit

Niger and other Latin countriesEdit

In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
  • Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
  • Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
    In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
  • Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
  • Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
  • Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
  • Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
  • Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
  • Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
  • Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
  • Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
  • Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
  • Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
  • Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
  • Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
  • Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This is total nitpickery... Second-declension placenames in Latin are virtually always -um and not -us. I've added a more obviously nominative Iracum cite. So as far as I can see, these are all cited now -- can we close this and move on? — Kleio (t · c) 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not "total nitpickery". There are second-declension placenames in -us, as for example Aegyptus, and there are reasons why one could assume a nominative *Iracus. -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I'll amend that to mostly nitpickery. Besides, have a look at Category:la:Place names or Category:la:Countries. The placenames in -us are often loans from Greek (Aegyptus, Monoecus, Epirus, etc.), and New Latin coinages seem to pretty much always be -um. Anyway, since New Latin isn't considered a WDL yet (as it really shouldn't be), it's attested now with certainty with a nominative singular -um. — Kleio (t · c) 17:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've split off Irania (after broadening the definition) so it can be archived, since it is citable per this discussion. Some of the others may fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The brackets around it, likely already meant that the RFV is resolved (cp. your "since it is citable per this discussion") or at least somewhat resolved (cp. your "after broadening the definition"). - 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The two votes on treatment of post-1500 Latin threaten to bring more confusion than clarity; normally, if a proposal does not gain enough consensus to pass the status quo remains, and the status quo has been to require three citations for modern Latin, but the vote (which is close to the line between consensus and no consensus) is for, in effect, one mechanism of that.
It has also been pointed out that modern Latin were only required to have one citation, "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries". Would there be consensus to consider a modern source like "The Scientific Journal of the American Orchid Society" sufficient, or would we prefer to continue regarding modern sources as insufficient?
(Some might even argue that single texts from 2016 should be allowed because the continuing use of Latin into the modern day demonstrates that it is an extinct language, which would get really interesting, but I doubt that change would gain consensus...)
21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talkcontribs).
The line you were quoting is about mentionings: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". And from my experience "citation" refers to usages as a short form of citation with or of a usage and not as citation with or of a mentioning. So with Latin being an LDL a single usage in the journal would be fine, while with Latin being a WDL it wouldn't be fine.
Technically, with Latin being an LDL, even a single usenet/google groups citation from whenever would be fine. (I wouldn't like it either, but Latin isn't a WDL, and that's why there were some suggestions of making New Latin an in-between language neither LDL nor WDL.)
Also, as pointed out before, some people (seem to) interpret WT:CFI's "should" as a recommendation not as a must. For example, there are some living* LDL entries based on a single usage or mentioning but without the {{LDL}} template or without its sources in it. So you could interpret the cited line "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list ..." as a recommendation too, and use that journal as a single source. (I wouldn't like that either, but that's not just a matter of Latin, and that's why I made some suggestions regarding the shoulds and (New) Latin.)
* I'm not sure what WT:CFI#Number of citations states regarding "extinct languages". Maybe it's saying that entries based on a single usage or mention in an extint language should have the {{LDL}} template in them too; or maybe it's stating that the template is only required for living and not for extinct languages. Some entries in Category:Latin hapax legomena do have the template in them (e.g. amosio), while some don't (e.g. neuroides). -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Since the main thread above does not discuss this particular entry (the overall thread's titular entry), I'm adding a specific subsection for it. Is Niger attested, as the name of an area (not just a river)? - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be unattested from my searches. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Papua Nova GuineaEdit

I've added two citations; we need a third. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I tracked down a third citation of this exact form, which makes this cited. Some more citations exist that use hyphens, and I also find George Shaw's Vivarium naturæ or the naturalist's miscellany saying "Papuam seu novam Guineam incolit, ..." and Giovanni Battista de Toni's 1987 Sylloge algarum omnium hucusque cognitarum: Sylloge floridearum saying "Hab. in oceano Pacifico ab oris Peruviae meridionalis usque ad «Concepcion» [...]; ad Novam Guineam seu Papuam", and various instances of "Papuae sive novae Guineae". "Nova Guinea" by itself also appears to be citable. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Has only one citation, and I can find no others. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
One citation is sufficient, but that's another or just one Djibouti. "in urbem Dzibutum" refers to a city, not to a country. Furthermore it could be an accusative Dzibutum for *Dzibutus m. or f. and not necessarily for *Dzibutum n. A neuter *Dzibutum might be more likely (for that younger NL), but that doesn't attest any nominative, and as the Arabic term is m. or f. according to wiktionary (m. in Djibouti, f. in the Arabic entry) one could also argue for *Dzibutus. - 23:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
One citation is sufficient for classical Latin, but not for modern Latin. (This is not explicitly written in policy anywhere as far as I know, but it is how Latin is typically treated in RFV discussions.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK that's neither a rule (Latin is a WT:LDL as it's not a WT:WDL), nor common practice. There sometimes where comments that some users sometimes would like that 3 cites for NL would be required, but expressing that wish means that it is not required. Also, before having such a rule, it could make sense to split NL: From 1500 till 1800 Latin wasn't rare, but in the 19th century it declined and in the 21st century it's rare, almost an extinct language (some people even do leave out the "almost"). So while 3 cites for 1500-1800 NL might be a good idea, for 21st century NL it's less good. (Many terms from Harrius Potter would still be excluded by WT:CFI#Fictional universes.) Compared with other LDLs it could even be some kind of discrimination to require 3 cites for 21st century NL. Of course, one could still try to find three cites, but sometimes that's not possible, also because Latin is a LDL. - 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Requiring three citations for modern Latin is common practice. Here are two examples: Talk:birotula, Talk:Hogvartensis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's standard practice, to the extent that I can't think of a case where a modern Latin word has been passed with only one citation. To that extent, it's as if modern Latin is treated like the conlangs we include (and for similar reasons; new coinages in it are like conlang words). - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
One book suggests the form Dzibuti (indeclinable), and la.WP for its part uses Gibutum, citing some sources; there is enough chaff (homographic words, scannos) to make searching difficult, but Gibutum may well be citable, in which case perhaps this entry should be moved. (Well, the RFV should be left open until this and this are closed.) - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


I can only find one citation where it's clearly a place. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I can find these instances, but it's not entirely obvious whether they mean a place, or are taxonomic names:
  • 1970, Excerpta Botanica: Taxonomica et chorologica. Sectio A.:
    Pyxidanthera 385
    Quadripollis 68
    Quassia 3, 60
    Quataria 92
    Quercoxylon 107, 117, 120
    Quercus 7, 12, 15, 19, 25, 53, 54, []
  • 1966, Sheffield Airey Neave, ‎Marcia A. Edwards, Nomenclator Zoologicus: A List of the Names of Genera and Subgenera:
    Col. Quasitermes Emerson 1950, Amer. Mus. Novit., no. 1444, 10. — Isopt. Quataria
It does get mentioned in the context of "Saudia", "Broeckinella", "et Dohia". - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

May 2016Edit


This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with Eirikr: it's not at all common, but it is legitimate (especially, as suzukaze-c notes, in children's books). I don't see any harm in keeping it more or less as is, perhaps noting that it is uncommon. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあEdit

suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Lasch gives this word as ewi, which is proved correct by the reflexes later recorded. This form on the other hand is not clearly reflected in later reflexes, nor do I see how it would come into existence. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCat 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two observations:
  1. The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
  2. Philippa's dictionary at (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if euwi is a typo for 'ouwi' on etymologiebank. For one, I think 'euwi' violates Old Saxon phonotactics (lack of umlaut) and for the other Old Saxon 'euwi' would become Middle Low German 'uwe', which isn't recorded. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed (a reference mentions the word, but there is concern that it is a typo), moved to ewi. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

June 2016Edit


Needs verification. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In clearly widespread use. Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more like a candidate for RFD, why don't you try that? Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I would personally much prefer if people only claimed that clause when citing is for some reason impossible or difficult. @KoreanQuoter, perhaps you would determine whether this is "in clearly widespread use"?__Gamren (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It is only used in North Korean political context and we are not sure if these groups do exist in North Korean political organs. It's a proper noun with unsure meaning, I would say. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well we do include words that denote non-existing things, like English unicorn or telekinesis.__Gamren (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

September 2016Edit


To start, I'm not exactly sure what a "mayberry" is (though I can guess "strawberry" based on the descendants). Secondly, while Franco‐Provençal mayossa could plausibly be a descendant, I fail to see how Occitan majofa (-s- > -f-?) and Welsh meddus, mefus could derive from it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Trees of the genus Crataegus are often called may trees, and they bear berries, so I suspect a "mayberry" is the berry of the may tree. The ones native to the southeastern United States (thus presumably not the one the Vulgar Latin word refers to) are called mayhaws. I'm equally at a loss as to how to derive the Occitan and Welsh words from *majusa (which ought to be moved to *maiusa, surely). The Welsh words ought to go back to something like *medūsa/*medōsa and *mebūsa/*mebōsa/*memūsa/*memōsa respectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the source for this? We've never written a specific CFI for the Reconstructions namespace have we? Obviously WT:CFI only applies to the main namespace (nb this is not explicit and it is something I'd like to add explicitly). FEW doesn't list it and before you say anything it does include Occitan and Franco-Provençal. I'd be happy with one reputable source listing it as a reconstruction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile, do you remember where you got this? The big Welsh dictionary ({{R:cy:GPC}}) doesn't venture any etymology of meddus/mefus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, that would be a question for @Torvalu4. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? AFAICT you started the page and he's never edited it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr:, --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Torvalu had some questionable ideas about etymologies. If the extant descendants support some other reconstructed form, would anyone like to move or remove this page? - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


An Old English entry created by User:Leasnam in 2009. I can't find any usage in Books, Scholar, News, or Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

stæfleahter is certainly attested. —JohnC5 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, You might need to search on stæfleahtres (e.g. Swylce betwyx stánhricgum gruttes and stæfleahtres swelgend), as that is the form that is glossed/attested. The nominative could be either stæfleahtor or stæfleahter, as the second element was leahtor/leahter (moral defect; crime; sin; fault) which had multiple forms. Leasnam (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
How does Bosworth-Toller attest "stæfleahter"? According to the entry for leahter (genitive leahtres, m.) there are the alternative forms lehter, lahter, leahtor, and according to the entry stæfleahter the attested form is stæfleahtres (and similary synleahter is attested as synleahtras). The nominative singular could be both *stæfleahter or *stæfleahtor (similary *synleahter or *synleahtor). So there should be the following possibilities:
  • Only have an entry stæfleahtres where both possible nominative singulars and their inflection could be mentioned.
  • Have both stæfleahtor and stæfleahter, at best with a usage note. stæfleahtor could be {{alternative form of|stæfleahter|lang=ang}}, or vice versa.
- 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

October 2016Edit


Rfv-sense "Cantonese: stool". Possibly a quirk of the Unihan database: google:䍇 粵語 does not immediately support the existence of this sense. —suzukaze (tc) 06:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This website suggests that 䍇 does exist in Cantonese but is only used by people who believe in 本字, and the meaning is not "stool". —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Unicode most likely got the definition “stool” from “The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters” by Cheung Kwan-hin and Robert S. Bauer, which cites 《实用广州话分类词典》 and gives the example 屎䍇 (google:"屎䍇" gives 9 results only), defined as “primitive toilet stool”. It seems to be written more often as 屎塔 (google:"屎塔" gives 81 400 results only).
䍇 is also found in 《廣州方言詞典》:
[䍇] t‘ap˧˧ ❶大口的罎子:金~盛骸骨的罎子 | 屎~ | 尿~ | 米~ | 瓦~ | 菜脯~盛鹹蘿蔔條的罎子 | 餅~ | 腐乳~ ❷專指屎桶:四眼佬師爺倒~,不成睇桶(體統)歇後語 ‖ 玉篇他盍切:“下平缶也,瓶也“
《广州话本字考》 by 白宛如 (the editor of 《廣州方言詞典》) has something similar:
[䍇] t‘ap˧˧ 通常写作“塔”
大口的坛子:瓦~ | 金~盛骨殖的坛子 | 屎~马桶 | 尿~尿罐
Based on the above, it seems like “stool” is just a bad translation. As @Suzukaze-c has mentioned, it is a 本字 that most people are unaware of, so it is rare and not easily attestable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin coccothraustēs, which is currently defined as a New Latin adjective meaning "kernel-crushing". It wouldn't surprise me if this existed as a noun, but I don't think it's an adjective. Its Ancient Greek etymon, κοκκοθραύστης (kokkothraústēs, grosbeak), is a noun, and its derived binominal species name, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, could easily have its epithet explained as a reduplication of the generic name used in apposition (cf. Vulpes vulpes, Perdix perdix, etc.). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, coccothraustes began its taxonomic life as a specific epithet in Loxia coccothraustes at AnimalBase. Following are other taxa that use it: Fringilla coccothraustes (L.), Pyrgita coccothraustes (L.), Sycoryctes coccothraustes, Syringophiloidus coccothraustes Skoracki 2011, Torotrogla coccothraustes Bochkov, Flannery & Spicer 2009. All are from the online database Index to Organism Names (ION)], which includes unaccepted names.
My excuse for not providing explicit citations is that the existence of a name is evidence that the taxon was used at least once. If necessary I could probably find actual citations. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: It goes all the way back to Linnæus? Goodness! Citations for the species' names will not be necessary. I'll try to look for uses of coccothraustēs (preferably as an adjective) outside binominal nomenclature. BTW, I love Coccothraustes coccothraustes coccothraustes; I've never seen that kind of re…&nsbp;triplication in taxonomy before. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I found two uses of Coccothraustus — does that mean anything to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a genus in Cardinalidae called Caryothraustes (κάρυον (káruon, nut)), 2 species of New World grosbeaks. I don't see anything in w:Cardinalidae that has capensis as epithet. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Any animal name prior to 1758 isn't part of the current system of taxonomic nomenclature, but it looks like it's the cardinal. I notice that the first work treats Coccothraustes as distinct from Coccothraustus, cross-referencing the first to Kirschbeisser- whatever that is. Linnaeus does give synonyms from older works, but in the case of Loxia coccothraustes, they they all seem to be for just plain coccothraustes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the German name ("cherry-biter") indicates a diet, fruit, for Coccothraustus, that differs from that of the hawfinch (Coccothraustes), nuts and seeds, though the New Latin name indicates nuts and seeds are the diet. I suppose the German vernacular name is based on ignorance of the North American bird's actual diet and may be influenced by the bird's color.
I see no principled lexicographic reason to exclude pre-Linnean "Scientific Latin" names, but, as a practical matter, I see no great return on the extra effort required to document them. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Other projects extensively document modern taxonomic names. I don't know any that do the same for pre-Linnean names. For that reason it seems worthwhile to me. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Pre-Linnaean names are legitimate, but there's less of a system to them, and their continuity with Linnaean names can't be assumed. In a way, they tend to be SOP: quite often they're just a short, descriptive Latin phrase. In this case, it seems to be a calque of an apparently obsolete German term (Kirschbeisser) for the hawfinch, which is now known as the Kernbeisser. All of these names refer to its habit of biting through cherries to get to the pits, which it cracks with its massive beak so it can eat the kernel inside. Another generic name, Carpodacus, has a similar meaning: from καρπός (karpós, fruit) + δάκος (dákos, biter). Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@ I.S.M.E.T.A., 22:29, 20 October 2016: That are two mentionings and not usages of "Coccothraustus Capensis ruber" which is said to be a bird.
By the entry and its version history, it's quite obvious that coccothraustes is about a Translingual taxonomic word as in "Coccothraustes coccothraustes" and "Loxia coccothraustes". "Loxia Coccothraustes" (genitive "Loxiae Coccothraustis", abbreviation "Lox. Coccothraustes") and *"Loxia coccothraustes" (accusative "Loxiam coccothraustem", ablative "Loxia coccothrauste") do also appear in Latin, but it's likely better just Translingual Loxia Coccothraustes and Loxia coccothraustes and Translingual Coccothraustes and coccothraustes. As for the POS, Translingual Coccothraustes and coccothraustes could indeed be a noun instead of adjective.
If one argues for having Latin entries based on the attestion in Latin texts and the inflection, then likely Loxia and Vulpes deserve to have Latin entries too and then an informative label and/or gloss has to be added as (ATM) it's not just "New Latin" but "New Latin, taxonomy [or taxonomics], in taxonomic names [or as part of taxonomic names]". - 12:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


I can't think of any way nix could be an adverb in English or Italian. I'd guess the meaning is the same as English nisba and that this is just a copypaste error. KarikaSlayer (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • It is in my Italian dictionary - I have adjusted the definition and added an etymology accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @SemperBlotto Thanks for clarifying that. Do you know where the b comes from? Is the scn.wikt entry the same word? KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • It certainly looks like the word in Sicilian Wiktionary is the same word. I've no idea where the "b" came from. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • It looks oddly similar to n'est-ce pas, but nothing else about it matches up very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


@Embryomystic (which I believe is trustworthy?) gives the plural as ydhyn instead. Cornish Wiktionary apparently lists both. —CodeCat 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be in a variety other than the SWF. Not sure at this distance. embryomystic (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe "edhyn" is SWF/RLC and "ydhyn" is KK. That said, I'm still interested how well this form is attested. Google Books gives one source here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
There are also quotations for edhyn in the Cornish dictionary by Williams and he also uses it in a translation in the appendix. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. is trustworthy in that its spellings will be correctly Standard Written Form wordforms, but that is its only real purpose. I think its creators would admit it is intentionally fairly simplistic as not to confuse any beginners. For example, for pronunciation, under the label 'Middle Cornish' it offers only Ken George's sometimes controversial prescriptions (e.g. [ɪ:], lots of geminate nasals, and many unstressed word-final voiced fricatives which are even included in the Late Cornish entries). It is IMO likely that 'birds' has variant spellings hidden to avoid clutter. I know that Standard Cornish offers the singular <edhen> with the plural <ëdhyn>~<ÿdhyn>. The diaeresis is how they represent words that seem to have /e:/~/i:/ variants ([ɪ:] in George's system), which the Standard Written Form handles by giving unmarked <e>~<y> options, for example <dedh>~<dydh> ('day'), <bes>~<bys> ('world'). This suggests that Lingo Bingo Dingo is right, that <edhyn>~<ydhyn> is to be expected in the SWF. I'm afraid I have no books in the SWF I can check -- however, the blog 'Te ha Tesednow' regularly uses plural <edhyn> in their SWF posts. Some examples of this plural noun in the Traditional texts are <idhen> (Lhuyd's Archaeologia Cornu-Britannica, available on, <edhyn> (Origo Mundi,, <ethyn> (Gwreans an Bys and Origo Mundi, both, and <an neȝyn> (that should be a yogh) (Pascon agan Arluth, which I can only find publicly on Wikisource). TywysogMelyn (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2016Edit


An anon removed this saying "hilik o higik ang tagalog. walang research?", which roughly translates to "hilik or higik in Tagalog. Was no research done?". I have restored it so it can be RFV'ed. We currently lack entries for both hilik and higik. @Mar vin kaiser, Andrew SheedyΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "hilik" is more common in Tagalog for "snoring", but the word "hagok" is a less known synonym, which is attested in all major dictionaries, such as Leo English Dictionary, Vicassan's Dictionary, Panganiban's Diksyunasyo-Tesauro, and UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser. Thank you. For RFV, we need to demonstrate that the word passes WT:ATTEST. I think the only relevant cite I see at google books:"hagok" is in Cebuano, right? Can you find uses in print newspapers or magazines? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Given the current state of the language where the large majority (greater than 50%) of the words in unabridged dictionaries are no longer in common use, due to the current education system and prioritization of English, I won't be able to find an attestation. And also due to the fact that most old Tagalog publications and literature are not digitalized, it's not easy to find. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried myself after my comment above and I failed to find anything durably archived besides dictionaries. I think this means we should probably take Tagalog off WT:WDL. What other editors should we check with before doing that? @Mar vin kaiser, Atitarev, Stephen G. BrownΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Despite being the national language (given the unification of Filipino and Tagalog), usage of the language in written form is very limited, since most written documents in the Philippines are in English, such as in the government, in business, and in the academe, and in literature. That is why most people are unfamiliar with more literary vocabulary found in the language, which are only privy to those who study Tagalog literature written more than a century ago, which not a lot of Filipinos get to read. Unlike in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or Vietnam, where their national language is the default language in all cases. My point is that removing Tagalog from WT:WDL has a basis to it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think hagok, a noun, is good and should be kept. Finding written attestations of Tagalog words ranges from difficult to virtually impossible. —Stephen (Talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue of making Tagalog an LDL has been brought up here, with no conclusion. @TagaSanPedroAko, if you can find one more citation, we can definitively close this RFV. Also, consider whether part of the quotations may be trimmed; is it necessary/helpful in understanding the word?__Gamren (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added the 3rd attestation, and, we can close this now. I added "ang" to force Tagalog entries to appear. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gamren Maybe find a replacement for the second citation as it is not snoring itself but rather giving tubig (water) the ability to snore.


Tagged but not listed; creator no longer active at Wiktionary. Not in the main Irish-English dictionary ({{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}) but maybe somewhere else. There's an ailse, but it means "cancer" (same as the Scottish Gaelic aillse), not "fairy" or "heedlessness". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about "heedlessness", but Armstrong's 1825 (Scottish) Gaelic Dictionary has
Aillse, s.f. A fairy; a ghost; a diminutive creature; rarely a cancer; delay. Ir. aillse. In some parts of the Highlands this word is pronounced taillse.
Take that with as many grains of salt as you might need. Especially as aillsiu goes back to Wb, and no sign of a "fairy" sense --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, "heedlessness" is probably from O'Brien's 1768 Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-bhéarla:
Aillis, a Canker, an Eating or spreading sore, hence braon aillse a drop observed to fall upon the tombs of certain Tyrants so Called from it's Cankerous corroding what it falls upon.
Aillse of or belonging to a Cancer vid. aillis
Aillse delay, neglect, heedlessness.
Again, I have no idea how he found the second sense. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've refactored the entry a bit, it could probably stand someone else having a look. I've put the two mystery definitions in the same etymology block for lack of anything better to do with them. I mean, they're attested, but they come out of nowhere, seem to vanish afterwards, and have no immediately obvious etymologies. I have also added {{R:ga:O'Brien}} and {{R:gd:Armstrong}}. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Could the mystery definitions be fictitious entries? - 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


This Turkish entry passed RFV last year and has three citations; however, 123snake45 believes that those citations were fabricated. I can see the source of the 2013 citation here; however, the 1990 and 1998 citations do not show up for me, so I can't independently confirm their existence. If they are indeed there, could someone upload the screenshots, so that this issue can be put to bed?
Pinging @Chuck Entz, Renard Migrant, Atitarev, Prosfilaes, -sche, Curious, Dan Polansky, who contributed to the first RFV discussion (IPs omitted). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been suggested that citations may have been fabricated. In any case, they can't be reproduced, so might as well fail the term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I could see these quotations back then. In an unrelated search, it seemed to me I could no longer access Google Books pages that were previously accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing to try would be which domain you're using for Google. Sometimes it behaves differently if you use and, say,, especially if you're not accessing the version of Google for your country. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Google Books has been relisting a large quantity of books from page view or snippet view to no preview over the past few months. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The link of the first citation was added by Dan Polansky: [20] --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) in Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang It's "Vietnamese bra" which is clearly a rough translation because there's that word "Vietnamese". You can call yếm the Vietnamese equivalent of a Western bra in a way. ばかFumikotalk 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(RFV failed?suzukaze (tc) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC))
@Fumiko Take Not quite sure what you mean - the rfv was added to Etymology 2, not 1. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang My concern was the rfv on the sense of "bra" which I've already removed. But the rfv under the Etymology 2 section should be dealt with too. ばかFumikotalk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with Etymology 2? Wyang (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fumiko TakeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang It seems obscure. I got nothing on it from [21]. Could you give citations? ばかFumikotalk 04:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Added. Wyang (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This second etymology appears to not be Vietnamese at all. All the quotations given are no more than Classical Chinese text transcribed using the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation. For example, the Việt Nam Sử Lược quotation is (in the original) first given as "遂令宣德之狡童,黷兵無厭" (original Chinese), then on a further page transliterated as "Toại lệnh Tuyên Đức chi giảo đồng, độc binh vô yếm" (transliterated Chinese) and finally translated into actual Vietnamese as "Đến nỗi đứa trẻ ranh như Tuyên-đức, nhàm võ không thôi" (actual Vietnamese). MuDavid (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I am ignorant of the situation, so I cannot respond to MuDavid's concerns. Note that regardless of that, two of the quotations are from the same author and therefore are not independent, so one more quotation would be needed anyway to pass RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course Hán-Việt is Vietnamese. I don't understand why it is so hard to keep Sino-Vietnamese information (it is found in compounds such as yếm thế), when Korean Hangul entries do it routinely () and yếm functions exactly like Korean (yeom). Feel free to delete. The time of finding citations would be better spent elsewhere. Wyang (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Sino-vietnamese vocabulary may be a part of Vietnamese, Chinese transcribed with the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation (as the three quotations given) is not. The best that can be done in this case is to delete the quotations (which are not Vietnamese) and replace that part of the entry with something like in the case of minh here (which appears to be essentially what the state of affairs was before the request for verification was launched). The thing is that yếm with the Etymology 2 meaning is not an independent word in Vietnamese (making it impossible to "verify"), but it is used in compounds as Wyang notes (and many people not familiar with Vietnamese might encounter such compounds, think they are independent words and start looking up the parts; for them a note that yếm might be part of a compound as in the case of minh is certainly useful). MuDavid (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2016Edit

Forms of the Latin synaeresisEdit

RFV for some of the declined forms of synaeresis. I know for sure that the dative plural *synaeresibus is unattested, I'll be very surprised if the vocatives exist, and I have my doubts about the isomorphic genitive singular and the dative singular. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally do RFVs for specific inflected forms, do we? I thought we accepted terms if any form was attested, and in the lemma form if it's unambiguous. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't afaik -- not for Latin anyway. Don't really see why these should be RFV'd. (though I don't doubt that the vocative plural of synaeresis is unattested) — Kleio (t · c) 19:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it depends on the language. We only have entries for attested inflections in Gothic, though we do include unattested inflections in inflection tables. —CodeCat 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, KIeio, CodeCat: As I've argued before, inflected forms should always be subject to attestation requirements, though with a presumption in favour of inclusion unless challenged (that is, it's perfectly fine to bot-create entries for all such non-lemmata, but if they're challenged, they still need to be cited). See synaeresis#Declension for the way I've handled the unattested and probably-unattested forms of this lexeme (which is probably similar in effect to what CodeCat et al. envision for Gothic). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As User:-sche, User:Ruakh, I, and others have argued before, we should include inflected forms even when unattested (unless there is some reason to think they don't exist, such as the possibility of a verb being intransitive or a noun being uncountable). See Talk:dulcamini for a past discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Thanks for the link to that discussion, and I'm sorry I neglected to contribute further to it at the time. From further reading, I note discussions from October 2011–June 2012, June 2012, November 2013, and the aforementioned one from September 2015–February 2016. The points raised make me a little less confident in my general position. In the specific case of synaeresis, however, I think its declension is sufficiently uncertain as to warrant RFVing particular forms (per Ruakh in this post); why might the dative singular not be *synaereseï or the dative plural not be *synaeresesin? And which vocative singular should we list, *synaeresi or *synaeresis? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, CodeCat, KIeio, Mx. Granger: Compare the way amaurōsis, diaeresis, dioecēsis, haeresis, and syntaxis decline. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. If I understand correctly, then, the concern is that the challenged forms can't be confidently predicted from the attested forms. In that case, I think RFV is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Yes, that is my lingering concern. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
But some of them can. If the ablative plural synaeresibus is attested, there's really nothing else the dative plural could be. Likewise if the nominative plural synaeresēs is attested, there's really nothing else the vocative plural could be, however unlikely it is that one would be addressing two or more synaereses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: Dative and ablative plurals nearly always match, but they very occasionally differ in Greek borrowings (presumably because Ancient Greek has the dative case, but not the ablative case), so the dative plural could be *synaeresesin or something. I accept your point with regard to the vocative plural, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: When dative and ablative plural differ, then it's most likely just a matter of attestation, and not a matter of any dative-ablative difference. Sometimes just a dative in -sin is attested, sometimes just an ablative, sometimes both. Examples (according to dictionaries, not according to grammar books which might include invented forms): Adryas has dative plural Adryasin, herois has dative heroisin, ethos has ablative ethesin, schema has dative and ablative schemasin. -Ko·mine (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ko·mine: Actually, I have seen dative–ablative differences in the plural, but only in New Latin texts; I am inclined to believe that Classical scriptores would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative and ablative (in both the singular and the plural), whereas some Modern authors would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative only — believing that since Greek has no ablative it can supply no ablative — and that this is hypercorrection. There are more of these Greek-type dative and ablative plurals beside Ādryasin, ēthesin, hērōisin, and schēmasin; examples include Dryasin (Dryas), Hamādryasin (Hamādryas), Metamorphōsesin (Metamorphōsēs), Thȳniasin (Thȳnias), and probably many others. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It has been my position that inflected forms should be subject to attestation, but I have not seen consensus on this. Unattested inflected forms could carry the label "hypothetical" or "unattested" and be kept if that would be the preference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd personally favour a small disclaimer indicating that the form is predicted to exist, but has not yet been verified. Either way it seems obvious to me that the inflected forms should stay, even when not manually cited or otherwise verified yet. Many people use Wiktionary to quickly look up how a given form could be analyzed; for 99.9% of Latin words which follow very predictable inflections, it's an excellent resource in that regard, on par with something like Perseus. It'd be a great and needless loss to get rid of all those non-lemma entries by unleashing CFI on them all. — Kleio (t · c) 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresis (genitive)Edit

RFV for the isomorphic genitive singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresis (vocative)Edit

RFV for the isomorphic vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresī (dative)Edit

RFV for the dative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresi (vocative)Edit

RFV for the Greek-type vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the vocative plural form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


This is Sichuanese romanisation, as used in dictionaries, what should be done? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by {{zh-pron}}, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No progress on this discussion. I don't want to act as a destroyer of Wuhan dialect terms but what should we do? The term is obviously unattestable, only used in special dictionaries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If Wuhan dialect is considered to be part of Chinese, then it would need three cites with usages, and then it might fail RFV. If Wuhan dialect would be treated like a separate language just like it's done with German dialects here (cp. Category:Alemannic German lemmas, Category:Bavarian lemmas, Category:Luxembourgish lemmas, Category:Central Franconian lemmas, Category:Rhine Franconian lemmas), then it could be different. - 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


アムブロシア (amuburoshia) seems to be used much more often in reference to the mythical Greek foodstuff. —suzukaze (tc) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @sukukaze-c: Google Books has a lot of hits. I assume at least three of them fit the meaning, so that this can be marked as an alt-form. Can you confirm that? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    When I change search settings from "Sorted by relevance" to "Sorted by date", "157 results" changes to "8 results".
    1. Transcription of a restaurant's name
    2. Used as someone's name(?) in a translation of an English work of fiction (w:Maria_V._Snyder#Study_series)
    3. Used as someone's name in a work of fiction
    4. Used in the place name(?) "Ambrosia Estate" in a translation of an English work of fiction
    5. Used as a simile for champagne?
    6. Same as #3
    7. Used as a simile for an omelette; its usage is glossed as "foodstuff of the gods that grants immortality" and it's a translation of a 1942 English book
    8. Transcription of a restaurant's name
    suzukaze (tc) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

January 2017Edit


English Bank of England has extended senses. It's not guaranteed that Japanese shares these senses. —suzukaze (tc) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I can only confirm the literal sense, not the "building" nor "controlling organization" senses. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The “central bank of the UK” sense is well attested. I think the “organisation” sense is also OK, but I'm not as certain about that. As far as I know, though, the Japanese term does not refer to the building. Cnilep (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms (except accusative singular gelum). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending inflected forms and inflection table. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms with stem genor- (genoris, genorī etc.). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When searching at Google Books for genoris one often finds OCR errors for generis and sometimes for Agenoris. Exceptions:
  • (German text relating to Medieval Latin which also mentions Vulgar Latin and Romance languages): "die Gen. sg.-Form genoris zu genu [= knee]" : "In einem inschriftlichen Gedicht der Antike erscheint die Gen.-Form genoris zu genu566 [...]" and "566 CE 1253 (= CIL VI 9604), 5 (vgl. ThLL 6, 2, Sp. 1875, 32). That is: "In an inscriptive poem of the Antiquity the genitive form genoris for genu appears".
  • (English and Latin, might have a medical context): "In volnus genoris quot subito occidimus: genoris esse τοῦ γόνατος [Greek for of the knee or the knee's] (the knee) viderat Mommsen"
  • (about Vulgar Latin inscriptions): "ín volnus genoris quot || subito occidimus." í should indicate an ancient I longa, and the text resembles the one above.
Thus, genoris should be attestable as a Vulgar Latin genitive for genu meaning of the knee or the knee's. But this is different from genus meaning kind, sort. - 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Does not appear to be use in credible Japanese(-language) sources [22]. ばかFumikotalk 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be rare and dated. It appears in the table of contents of at least two books (1934 and 1953): google:鴯鶓 (click on 詳細レコード表示にする to show) —suzukaze (tc)
In case the links die:
suzukaze (tc) 04:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

February 2017Edit


Apparently descendants are not real. I don't see reason why this entry should exist. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably to explain prefixed forms in daughter languages, no idea how to handle it properly though. Crom daba (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Author could create entry with prefix (for example *orzmysljati, *otъmysljati). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as i understand, *mysliti is imperfective, so what is *mysljati? —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Useigor, CodeCat, Benwing2: What ought we to do with this? Edit: Sorry if that ping directed you to the wrong section; there was an edit conflict. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If *mysljati has no direct descendants, then we have to ask where the derived verbs that have it as a base came from. Could these derived verbs themselves be of Proto-Slavic origin? If so, then there should be a Proto-Slavic page for those, and the existence of *mysljati is only guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, not Proto-Slavic. If they can't be posited for PS, then is it possible/feasible that the languages created these -mysljati verbs independently? If so, then there's no merit for a PS page, but if not, then reconstructing *mysljati for Proto-Slavic seems warranted. —CodeCat 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the above are the case. -jati, producing Russian -я́ть (-játʹ), is a common imperfectivizing prefix that is added to prefixed perfective verbs to form imperfectives. Hence *orzmysljati was formed directly from orzmysl(iti) + -jati, and similarly with *otъmysljati. This means there was never a *mysljati, and the entry should be deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat, i don't see reason why it's guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, unless *mysliti originally was perfective (so *mysljati is imperf.) but it's just assumption. At this moment, it's better to delete. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


As it now stands, 病癥 is clearly a wrong traditional form of 病症. Is there a separate word from 病症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably is. It is now cited, but lacks a definition. @Wyang, Tooironic, any ideas? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a variant traditional form of 病症, isn't it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't think so. 癥 is only read as zhēng, never as zhèng. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is the case, 古代汉语词典 and CEDICT are wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic My 古代汉语词典 (第二版) only gives zhēng for 癥 and only gives zhèng for 症. Dokurrat (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As I understand it:
zheng1, zing1
"(strictly) disease signs; (loosely) signs and symptoms"
among other non-medical meanings and the music zhi3, zi2 pronunciation
zheng4, zing3
"symptoms of disease; disease"
zheng1, zing1
"abdominal tumour; (fig.) sticking point"
(alt. form of 徵/征 - "signs and symptoms of disease")
(alt. form of 症/症 - "disease")
Wyang (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I agree, with one exception. If 癥/症 is read as zhēng, would it really be an alt. form of 症/症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Alt. term would be more appropriate (for example, at 病癥). Wyang (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The sense “signs and symptoms of disease” (alt. form of 病徵) is cited. We still need two more citations for “disease; illness”. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

punctus (genitive punctus, sense point)Edit

From dictionaries:

  • L&S: "punctus, ūs [...] II. A point: mundi, Plin. 2, 68, 68, § 174; cf. Isid. Orig. 11, 1."
  • Georges: "Spät. Nbf. pūnctus, ī, m., Gromat. vet. 360, 29 u. 374, 11 13. Boëth. inst. arithm. 2, 30. Isid. orig. 1, 19, 3; 3, 12. no. 1 u. 6."
  • Gaffiot: "punctus, i, m. c. punctum: Isid. 1, 19, 3"

Pliny the Elder's Natural History (e.g. here) contains "mundi puncto", Isidore's of Seville The Etymologies (or Origins) (e.g. here) contains "punctus oculi", and in New Latin it's also sometimes punctus, -i, m. in mathematics while other authors use punctum, -i, n.
Thus, it looks like L&S contains an error which was copied into the English wiktionary. - 22:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

In Plinius' work it is puncto. However, in old texts it is sometimes cited as mundi punctus or rarely mundi punctûs and in old editions it sometimes appears as mundi punctus (old is usually before 1850). I added citations for boths, so it's somewhat cited. - 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

All words in Category:Cia-Cia lemmas in hangeulEdit

According to the Wikipedia article Cia-Cia language, writing Cia-Cia with hangeul has never been official and seems to have been already abandoned. Isn’t it just a linguistic experiment rather than actual use? I’m afraid they don’t meet our criteria. Japanese Wikipedia has decided to delete them. @Visviva : do you have a source of Cia-Cia words in real use, not a word list? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a linguistic experiment. I do not believe that Cia-Cia was ever written in Korean Hangeul. I read somewhere that there were 190 students (out of 79,000 speakers) recruited to try to learn it. I believe that the individual who originally proposed the idea wrote some sample transliterations in Hangeul. Supposedly there is a little Cia-Cia book that used Hangeul, but I could never locate a copy of it. Perhaps the original proponent of the idea wrote an example text, transliterated it into Hangeul, and printed a few copies on his inkjet printer. That would explain why I was never able to obtain a copy of the book. That would mean that the Hangeul examples are simply protologisms. The specific booklet that I was searching for was a story called 뼁겜발라 돔바 마이 스리갈라 (penggembala domba mai surigala, "the shepherd and the wolf"). I can’t find the book. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is in the book “바하사 찌아찌아 1” but I can only find Korean translations: [23], [24]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, we only need one citation, and many of these entries are cited. I'm really not sure what the best course of action is here. @-sche, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
If the citations are valid, i.e. the book in question contains Cia-Cia text written in hanguel, then AFAICT it is fine to have these entries, but according to what has been said above, they should all be alternative forms of Latin-script entries, rather than main entries. (If the issue is the categorization of the entries into the "lemmas" category, that seems unavoidable without a shift in what we consider lemmas for the purpose of categorization, not just in this language but also with regard to e.g. Arabic-script Afrikaans, which is currently in the Afrikaans lemma category.) - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Inflections seem wrong. Should be übler, übles, ... --Bruno413 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Boths forms exist and are easily attested, e.g. simply doing a google books search for "übler Geruch" and "übeler Geruch". Also's search has enough results for both forms ("üble Laune", "übler Nachrede", "übles Nachreden" - "eine übele Gewonheit", "übele Bedeutung", "in übelem Rufe", "eine übele Vorbedeutung"). -Wilhelm-231 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Are these forms archaic then and should be described as such? --Bruno413 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


Is this actually used with the pronunciation chò/chòe for 做? This could be a variant of 作穡, but that would mean it should only be read as choh. chò-/chòe-sit is only found in a database that seems to have some errors. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

做穡人, 做田, 做田人Edit

Same with these ones. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently 做 chòe could be used with 穡 according to a dialectal table, and 闽南方言大词典 lists 做~ | 做两工~ (做两天活) as examples under 穡. However, the evidence for 做田(人) is still lacking. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

March 2017Edit


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. - 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. - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

and 𫢙Edit

RFV for Chinese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For 働, see the talk page.
For 𫢙, I wonder if the evidence for inclusion in Unicode can be located... —suzukaze (tc) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Unicode got 𫢙 from 中國大百科全書, according to its G source (GBK-1000.40). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I know about that part; I meant specifically within the patchwork PDFs they assemble and dump into —suzukaze (tc) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I see. That will take some fishing. As for 働, why don't we just have a {{zh-see}}? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I've traced 𫢙 back to the extension D submission by the PRC (IRGN1262), which lists it under characters used in personal names. I don't see evidence from the original source, though. (It might be there, but I can't find it at the moment.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it a good idea to verify ALL kokuji and Japanese shinjitai, which are different from Chinese simp. forms for their existence in Chinese and Korean? Unihan just does a misservice by providing reading for characters that are not used in these languages, IMO.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

chrȳsocarpus (adjective)Edit

RFV for the adjective chrȳsocarpus (alternative form chrȳsocarpos, from Greek χρυσόκαρπος (khrusókarpos)).

  • L&S: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., I a kind of ivy which bears gold-colored berries, App. Herb. 119; called in Plin. 16, 34, 62, § 147, chrȳ-sŏcarpus, = χρυσόκαρπος."
  • Gaffiot: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., Apul. Herb. 119 ou chrȳsŏcarpus, i, f. Plin. 16, 147 [...]"
  • OLD: "chrȳsocarpus ~um, a. ~os ~on [Gk. χρυσόκαρπος] Having golden berries.
    duo genera huius (sc. hederae) faciunt a colore acinorum erythranum et ~um Plin.Nat.16.147; hedera quam ~on appellauimus 24.77.
  • Georges: "chrȳsocanthos u. chrȳsocarpus, ī, f. [...] Ps. Apul. herb. 119. Plin. 16, 147"

Latin texts:

  • Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius: That work contains pictures. BL mentions "Chrysocantis (or Crisocantis)" and on f.40r and f.40v it has: "Herba hedera chrisocantos · ideo q; g^na [page turn] fert coloris au[line break]rei · Hec g^na ·xx· ĩ uini sextario c̃t'ta, ex eo uino t̃ni ciati bibantv q' p^ urinã exinaniuntv." (I can't type most of the special characters and diacritics, especially where I put ^), and "Crisocantos" next to a picture. CML IV contains in CXX on p. 206: "Herba hedera crisocantes, ideo quia grana fert coloris aurei, haec grana XX in uini sextario contrita, ex eo uino terni ciati bibantur per dies VII, qui per urinam exinaniuntur.   A Graecis dicitur cissos crisocantes."
  • Pliny's Natural History book 16, 147: "alicui et semen nigrum, alii crocatum, cuius coronis poetae utuntur, foliis minus nigris, quam quidam Nysiam, alii Bacchicam vocant, maximis inter nigras corymbis. quidam apud Graecos etiamnum duo genera huius faciunt a colore acinorum, erythranum et chrysocarpum." In book 24, 77: "hedera, quam chrysocarpon appellavimus, bacis aurei coloris XX in vini sextario tritis, ita ut terni cyathi potetur, aquam, quae cutem subierit, urina educit; Erasistratus eiusdem acinos V tritos in rosaceo oleo calefactosque in cortice punici instillavit dentium dolori a contraria aure."

Pseudo-Apuleius' Herbarius contains chrȳsocanthos and thus is irrelevant for this. Pliny has "chrysocarpum" once in book 16 and "chrysocarpon" once in book 24. That would only attest 2 words and not 4 (2 parts of speech and 2 forms make 4 words). Compared with dictionary entries, Pliny's book 16 should attest chrȳsocarpus f. and his book 24 chrȳsocarpos, on.
So the adjective with unusual and questionable nominative, chrȳsocarpus, us, um, isn't attested by this. - 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • It is in use as a specific epithet (chrysocarpus, -a, -um), ie, in New Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • chrysocarpus, -a, -um is not chrysocarpus, -us, -um.
  • Specific epithets are not necessarily Latin. It could very well be non-Latin, e.g. English or Translingual. Google books had no result for "Rhachidosorus chrysocarpus", several English and one German and one French result for "Rumex chrysocarpus", some English and one German result for "Juncus chrysocarpus", some French results for "Diospyros chrysocarpa", and some English results for "Archidendron chrysocarpum". I haven't searched for Rubus chrysocarpus, Styrax chrysocarpus, Crataegus chrysocarpa, Diospyros chrysocarpa, Duguetia chrysocarpa, Hedera chrysocarpa, Pyrausta chrysocarpa, Rollinia chrysocarpa, Myrceugenia chrysocarpa, Senna chrysocarpa, Geronema chrysocarpum as that are several terms and as I expect similar results. One can't attest a Latin term with non-Latin usages in non-Latin text, but just attest a Latin term with Latin texts. That's like one can't attest English terms with non-English texts (cf. anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms), but just attest an English term with English usages in English texts.
- 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've placed a number of citations of running Latin text at Citations:chrysocarpus, on Citations:chrysocarpo (one of which refers to R. chrysocarpus) and on Citations:chrysocarpa. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that the cites use the Translingual taxonomic term, namely in O. chrysocarpa (= Oxytropis chrysocarpa?; in Latin with ablative singular O. chrysocarpa), R. chrysocarpus (= Rubus chrysocarpus?; in Latin with dat. and abl. R. chrysocarpo), Juncus chrysocarpus (in Latin with dat. and abl. Junco supino), Hedera chrysocarpa (spelled edera chrysocarpus with abl. edera chrysocarpo).
"edera chrysocarpo" would show that there is a feminine chrysocarpus. Google also has some results for "hedera chrysocarpus" (once in a Latin index) and "Hedera chrysocarpus" (once in English and once in German), but compared with the number of results for "hedera chrysocarpa" and "Hedera chrysocarpa" the feminine in -us seems like an error.
If these taxonomic results are accepted as cites for the Latin term and the doubtful feminine in -us, then Citations:chrysocarpa shows that the entry missed the feminine in -a. Moreover, a label like {{label|la|New Latin|botanical taxonomy}} should be added. In case of Translingual taxonomics, chrysocarpa is the common feminine while the feminine chrysocarpus is very rare (and seems like an error). For Latin there could be so few results for both forms that one can't add such a note for it - but IMHO the Translingual situation could be mentioned. - 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


The Nguni languages (and perhaps most Bantu languages?) don't have a "numeral" part of speech. Instead, words for numbers are grammatically adjectives or nouns. Which one is this? —CodeCat 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


It only gets 19 webhits, of which one is Wiktionary. Nibiko (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr, NibikoFrom "漢字◆漢字「刃形魚」。参考文献/『新釈 魚名考』(栄川省造 青銅企画出版)". A description of this book can be found here: 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr Does this count as an attestation? (Asaka-ku Chorus Group News letter): 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That appears to be a mention, not a use ("this term is also spelled as `XXX`") -- and only uses are acceptable as attestation. One of the distinct challenges with Japanese and alternative spellings is verifiably nailing down when a given spelling is used in running text with a given reading. Finding a spelling isn't so bad; Google helps. Finding a spelling with a particular reading is much harder, and is often limited to those cases where 1) the reading is rare and readers are unlikely to know it, and 2) the author is kind enough to include the reading somewhere. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr I see what you're saying. I only found one web site ( ) where 刃形魚 was called 別名, and I don't think that is correct based upon the following. Atエツ it says, "漢字 「刃形魚」...由来・語源 漢字は形から、音の意味、由来は不明" which is stated directly in reference to the headword エツ. Some of the web sites I found have "エツ(刃形魚)" which to me makes it look like 刃形魚 is the kanji spelling for えつ and they also provide an alternate name for the fish which is a transliterated Chinese word, フォンウェイイ which diretly relates to the Chinese Spelling (風尾魚), but neither フォンウェイイ or 風尾魚 are ever given in parenthesis next to the kana spelling エツ the way 刃形魚 is. One other web site, has, "「斉魚/鱭(魚扁に齊)/刃形魚/比魚/鰽(魚偏に曹)/鮆(「紫」の糸の部分が魚)のエツ」" and this seems to be the most clearly defined usage that I can find, but other Japanese writers have clearly taken 刃形魚 to be a spelling of エツ. See the blog site where えつ appears as furigana next to 刃形魚.馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) By the way... a little about myself (which I may or may not put on my user page some day)... I am a Fisheries major with a minor degree in Food Science, and a major interest in Japanese language/culture, hence the interest in the various spellings of Japanese fish names. I find it facinating how fish like Etsu and so many seemingly insignificant little fish are so valued by the Japanese and I have had the pleasure of eating some of the dishes which use them. Note: If this entry is deleted it will then also need to be removed the other wiktionary pages where I have provided 刃形魚 as an alternate spelling (see えつ and 斉魚).馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure it's only used as a component of a character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a variant of 𬊇 (U+2C287, ⿱炏乂): [25]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: any evidence though? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean 𤇾 was from 𬊇. 𤇾 is used only as a component, as you say. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji: Then I think we should just have something like {{n-g|Only used as a character component.}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

illic and isticEdit

For the inflection, as sometimes the templates in Wiktionary create incorrect forms.

  • Dictionaries seem not to mention a genitive or dative singular or most of the plural forms.
  • Allen and Greenough's grammar has only nom. sg., acc. sg., abl. sg. and neuter nom. and acc. pl., which might mean other forms are unattested.
  • Imman. Joh. Gerh. Scheller's grammar has similar forms as Allen and Greenough, without genitive and dative singular and without many plural forms too.
    BTW: He mentions alternative forms with h for istic, as isthic, isthaec, isthoc which might be Medieval or New Latin alternative forms. L&S has "istic (not isthic), aec, oc, and uc" (bolding added).
  • T. Hewitt Key's grammar has illic with gen. illiusce (ilius + -ce), and dat. illic but as "D*. illic, illic, illic." with the note "* The dative illic is only used as an adverb.". In the plural he has different forms than Wiktionary. Wiktionary's plural of illic resembles the plural of ille, except of some neuter forms. Key's forms often resembles the plural of ille + -ce, with some exceptions. He has dat. and abl. of all genders illisce (illis + -ce), nom. illice (illi + -ce) / illaec / illaec, acc. illosce (illos + -ce) / illasce (illas + -ce) / illaec, gen. illorunc / illarunc / illorunc (-or- and -ar- as in -orum and -arum but with -unc from acc. sg. instead of -um?). In an addition he says, that to the forms ending with c an e might be added as illunce.
    Some forms with -ce are also mentioned by others, e.g. by Allen and Greenough who give illiusce, isce as examples, but not as forms of illic.
  • Wiktionary's forms in the singular could be formed in analogy with hic, but that doesn't attest forms for illic and istic. In the plural many forms should come from bare ille/iste without the -ce or -c part, which doesn't attest forms for illic and istic too.

So it might be that Allen and Greenough and Scheller are correct. Forms of ille and iste are forms of illeand iste and not of illic and istic. Forms of ille with -ce could be mentioned in a usage note, as related terms or as see also in illic. - 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC) -- as far as I can tell, the templates are just applying the basic inflectional pattern for "hic" to these words (except the non-oblique neuter singular of illic is given as illuc instead of illoc). The most obviously fishy-looking one is illūc for neuter ablative, since the neuter is normally the same as the masculine in cases other than nominative, accusative, and vocative -- but I don't know what is and isn't actually attested in ancient texts for these words... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That does better explain Wiktionary's forms, but doesn't change much:
  • illī as plural of illic looks like illī from ille.
  • many forms should be unattested, namely genitive and dative singular and most plural forms except the neuter forms illaec and istaec. An Allen & Greenough: (p. 67) - which BTW has neuter abl. illōc and istōc.
- 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then neuter ablative illūc on the illic page is most definitely an error. The others are merely extrapolations -- and such templates do a lot of extrapolating all the time (whenever there's some combination of verb person/number/tense/voice/mood or noun number/case or adjective gender/number/case which doesn't happen to be attested in ancient texts). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In case of nouns and verbs one often can 'extrapolate' forms, but even for that there are exceptions, and extrapolating forms of 'normal' nouns and verbs is different from extrapolating pronoun forms. In case of nouns and verbs, one can compare words: For example one can compare laudare and amare, so one can assume a form laudat if one finds amat. But what word could be used to compare it with illic and istic? illic and istic come from -ce - but hic? The c in hic might be related to -ce, but that doesn't mean that it's obviously related or that hic is considered to have -ce in it. As Allen and Greenough mention terms like "hûiusce" (hujus + ce) and "hunce", hic maybe wasn't seen to be formed as some term suffixed with -ce. Also illī is already the plural of ille and istī is already the plural of iste, while for hīc with plural hī there's no *he with plural *hī. So hic is different from illic and istic. - 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A reference for the inflection with three cases got added, and more older ones could easily be added:
  • 1861, Lewis Marcus, A Latin grammar, London, page 26 - it explains the etymology as is + hic and ille + hic
  • 1854, Peter Bullions, The Principles of Latin Grammar, New York, page 77 - explains it as ille and iste + hic
  • 1790, Imman. Joh. Gerh. Schellers ausführliche lateinische Sprachlehre oder sogenannte Grammatik, 3rd edition, Leipzig, page 122 - also explains it as ille and iste + hic, and mentions isthic
  • 1862, T. Hewitt Key, A Latin Grammar, London, page 50 and 51 - gives full inflection but has different forms than wiktionary and suppletively adds forms with complete -ce like illiusce for genitive
By google book search it seems that 21st century grammars do not mention these pronouns - which underlines the fact that 21st century grammars are incomplete. - 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "male prostitute". ContraVentum cited it with section 216 of Skånske Lov, where it may as well mean the same as in Modern Danish. §215 begins with "hittær man annær man i siangu mæþ aþulkunu sinni . ok drepær bondæn horkarl i siangu...", which I interpret as "If (one)/(a man)(?) finds another man in bed with his (noble? lawfully wedded?) wife, and if the (peasant? farmer? husband?) kills the adulterer in the bed...". However, our def of adultery indicates that the person not involved in the marriage is not engaging in adultery, so maybe the translation needs to be changed.__Gamren (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017Edit


Is this actually attested in Classical Latin? And if not, is it in Old Latin? —CodeCat 00:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313". The edition at however has "Stlatta" for p. 313. So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init". - 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
On Google Books, all Latin-language books I found that contained the word were either mentioning it, or didn't really contain it but were the result of OCR software misinterpreting & lat-, strat-, etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Recovered from abuse filter log:

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313".
The edition at however has "Stlatta" for p. 313: "Stlat-ta ..... latum mag ..... appellatum ..... consuetudin ..... tem antiqui ....." and "Stlatta genus navigii latum magis, quam altum, et a latitudine sic appellatum, sed ea consuetudine, qua stlocum pro locum et stlitem pro litem dicebant.". So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init".
The edition at has "Stlata": "Stlat-a genus erat navigii latum mag-is quam altum, sic appellatum a latitudine, sed ea consuetudin-e, qua stlocum pro locum, et stlitem antiq-ui pro litem dicebant."
The French translation at has "STLATA, sorte de navire plus large que profond, et ainsi appelé de sa largeur. On disait stlata par une modification semblable à celle que l'on trouve dans les mots stlocus pour locus et stlis pour lis."
Looks like Paul. ex Fest. doesn't use the word.

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

sophos, sophusEdit

Most of the references have it as masculine only, which would mean that feminine sophē or sopha, neuter sophon and sophum either don't exist or are ML or NL. Furthermore: Wiktionary has it as adjective which can be used substantively, while most references have it as substantive which can be used adjectively. This could explain the lack of feminine and neuter forms. The "A new Latin-English school-lexicon" (Philadelphia, 1867) by G. R. Crooks and A. J. Schem exceptionally has "SŎPHOS, or SŎPHUS, a, um, adj. [= σοφός]. (Lat.) Wise (pure Latin, sapiens)".
Additional RFC matters for sophos:

  • The entry has feminine sopha in the header but feminine sophē in the declension table. This is contradicting.
  • It has the meaning "(substantive) A wise man, a sage." which lacks the gender of the substantive. Well, it's masculine and it might be quite obvious, but it's not mentioned.

- 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries give the following sources:
For the noun: Mart. 7, 32, 4 with sophos. It's nominative singular (see sophos), that is, the given reference {{Q|la|Martial}} once in sophus doesn't attest it.
DMLBS gives some other cites, but "sophorum" could belong to both sophos or sophus, and sophos could be nominative singular or accusative plural [ie. sophōs] of sophos or sophus (similary with sofos). Except from a mentioning, DMLBS doesn't have a cite which undoubtly would belong to sophus and not sophos. With the mentioning, an inflected form like sophōrum or sophōs, and a note as now in sophus there could be an entry for the noun - or not?
For the adjective: Phaedr. 3, 14, 9 and 4, 15 or 17 (it's 18 at TLL), 8 with sophus. At TLL both places have "sophus" in it, so the dictionaries did not change the case (which they sometimes do).
DMLBS only cites Ælfric Bata for the adjective. In Early Scholastic Colloquies which DMLBS mentions as a source it is: "Consultius est uobis esse sophos quam stolidos et <h>ebetes uel inertes et ignaros." For the text in Anglo-Saxon Conversations see sophus. With vobis, inertes, hebetes and stolidos (from Latin stolidus and not from Greek) it's accusative plural sophos [ie. sophōs] which could belong to both sophus and *sophos. As there is the adjective sophus and ATM no source for sophos, it is better placed in sophus. As for the feminine and neuter I've added a note in sophus, and in this way the forms could stay - or not?
To sum it up: A noun sophos is attested, and a noun sophus is kinda attested in medieval Latin. For the feminine and the neuter forms of the adjective sophus there now is a note. The adjective sophos with it's contradicting feminines is unattested for more than a month, and should go.
The entries should be ok now. - 03:05-04:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC) and 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

vyhodíte ho dveřmi, vrátí se oknemEdit

@User:Jan.Kamenicek: Do you know of any attesting quotations for the phrase, that is, quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? I cannot find any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:Dan Polansky: Here are some: [26]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. I wonder whether these are "permanently recorded media"; they are neither from Google Books or printed media, nor from Usenet. They are from online periodicals such as --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I hear the proverb often and so I did not really think somebody might feel it needs verification. I believe the above mentioned periodicals are OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Anyway, here are some printed quotations from Google Books that come close to the phrase:
  • Blaník by Smoljak, Svěrák, 2001: Podle něho tu zřejmě zapůsobila letitá zkušenost pregnantně vyjádřená příslovím „Vyhodíš-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se ti oknem."
  • Královský nach tě neochrání by Vaňková, 2003: Darmo by vypukly spory. A Habsburk je dotěra. Vyhodíš ho dveřmi, vleze ti oknem.
  • Démon z jiného světa: Pátrání po tajemství Adolfa Hitlera by Duffack, Jensen (I am too lazy to find the translator), 1997: Mohli bychom ho charakterizovat slovy „vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vleze zpět oknem!"
  • title:Jurist, Volume 146, Issues 7-12, 2007: Vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vrátí se oknem. Jestliže je naše běžné chápání charakterových rysů jen iluze, pak je to iluze neobyčejně hluboce zakořeněná a dokonale rezistentní proti jakýmkoli „lékům" z laboratoře Racionalita.
  • Projevy a stati by Antonín Novotný, 1964: Situace je taková, že ho z jednoho místa vyhodíme a on vleze jinam. Jak se říká, vyhodíme ho dveřmi a on leze oknem.
  • Odvrácená tvář moci: zločiny českých králů by Antonín Polách, 2008: Prostě vyhodíte-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se vám oknem. A defenestraci, abychom trochu parafrázovali Járu Cimrmana, měly Cechy vynalézt až o více než dvě stě let později.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

nero / LatinEdit

Seems to be a misspelling of Nero. - 19:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In which language do you think it is a misspelling? In Finnish it isn't [27]. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I checked the edit log. The anon contributor has tagged the Latin section. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Really? Nothing obvious in a quick Google search. Not on de.wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be very rare, about as rare as its English gloss, but there are a few hits on Google Books, most of which are in scare quotes. You can find a few more usages by searching for inflected forms like werdbare and werdbaren. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
becomable failed RFV in 2011, by the way. Equinox 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Google Books results often are mentionings or OCR errors.
Usages: "erst eine werdbare Beziehung", Aber diese Realität hat es »in sich«, werdbar zu sein"
Doubtful usages: "habhaft werdbaren Selbstverständlichkeiten" which could be strange formation from "habhaft werden", and "Das »Werdbare«, das Sinnmögliche" which would be a noun Werdbares/Werdbare
OCR errors: "gleich ans werdbar ist" for "gleich an- | werdbar ist" = "gleich anwerdbar ist" and "dahin ver, werdbar behauptet" for "dahin ver- | werdbar behauptet = "dahin verwerdbar behauptet", "inne werdbare Gegenwart" for "innewerdbare Gegenwart", and "drehbar, werdbar" for "drehbar, wendbar"
Mentionings: "so bedeutet [Greek: genhto/n] hier so viel wie »werdbar«, »zum Entstehen befähigt«" and "Denn [Greek: genhto/s )estin] bedeutet ja nicht nur „er ist geworden“, sondern auch „er ist ‚werdbar‘, unterliegt den Bedingungen des Werdens, birgt in sich die Möglichkeit zu Werden und Veränderung“"
- 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Compounds with quisEdit


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. 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.". and the text at have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; 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")
(cuiusquam etc.)
dat. cuiquam cuiquam
acc. quemquam
quidquam/quicquam quemquam
[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?
- 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


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.


  • 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 does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at 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 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 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

- 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


This entry was not created yet, but maybe it should, if we can find a few citations for it.

Searching citations for symbols is inherently hard, but apparently this is a very common symbol so maybe there's some hope. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is what I've understood the CFI clause about "in common use" to refer to. Words that are hard to cite, but everyone is familiar with. I know the more common consensus is that it just refers to words that are easily citable, but I kind of wish that wasn't the case, as it keeps out a lot of informal language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm one of the people that understand the CFI clause about "in common use" as "words that are easily citable in three independent durably-archived sources". As you said, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But, naturally, feel free to disagree with me on the interpretation of the rule if you want. If the consensus about the "in common use" rule is unclear, it probably should be discussed further, eventually. Apparently, that rule was never even voted in the first place.
I believe probably all emojis fail that criterion, the way I see it. I oppose creating entries for emojis on the basis of the "in common use" rule without the need for citations.
Here are two existing emoji entries, with one citation each: 😀 and 😉.
Apparently, emojis are "internet slang". They may be used a lot on the internet, but if we created entries for some or all emoji just because they presumably exist online, without the need to check for attestation, then on the same basis we would have a precedent for creating entries for some or all internet abbreviations and informal internet speech with the same lack of standards. For a list of these items, see Appendix:English internet slang and Appendix:Portuguese internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Carrero -- I kind of wonder why you're even bothering to ask this, since your similar request on ⚤ eight months ago turned up plenty of information, but somehow none of it was acceptable to you... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean, plenty of information? In the discussion about ⚤, you just linked to one Wikimedia Commons category and one Wikipedia article, and I linked to a non-durably-archived SMBC comic, right? As I pointed out in that discussion, just linking to other Wikimedia projects doesn't count, and the article had three sources which, apart from being on the internet and thus being non-durably-archived too, are mentions (lists of symbols and their meanings) instead of actual uses.
By contrast, and have a number of CFI-compliant citations for certain senses.
I intend to create a few more RFVs for symbols at some point, not only to see if they are actually attestable, but also to see to what extent our current CFI rules work for them.
I'm not saying I personally agree with all our current CFI rules (I agree with some rules, others I would rather propose to be changed). This is not simply a matter of I, personally, considering some information acceptable or not. Even if I really wanted to say "RFV passed, the symbol already appears in some internet lists!", that is not proper procedure to close an RFV.
Actually, I'd rather propose a few changes to our CFI rules to relax our criteria for symbol entries. But that's a matter for the BP. (I created this RFV as a result of this ongoing BP discussion: link) Also, hopefully past and future RFV results can be used as a precedent to be discussed there too, to revise the rules if needed.
For now, my question is naturally whether 😊 passes CFI under our current rules. That is an important question, whether the answer is yes or no. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (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).

  • 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.


  • 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.

- 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


See A&G cited above.


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.


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.


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


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?)


  • 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).


  • 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.?


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.


@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter Another creation by User:D1gggg. Is this real? If so, can this entry be fixed up? Thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's vertical lines, not slashes and more hyphens. I doubt I've seen it in print, it's usually handwritten.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I generally agree with Anatoli that it is much more common in handwriting. However, I believe I have seen it reproduced with a typewriter (!) in the form -"-. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess there are various ways to write this: --!!--, ==||==, --//--, ==="===. Not sure how to go about this RFV. I don't care either way, to be honest, whether it is kept or deleted. This set of symbols seems similar to the way character substitution works, you can use *** or ####, any number of them, with no particular rules. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I am leaning towards delete. I suppose this nomination is different from the one archived at "Talk:---" because that discussion was about line patterns that were not regarded as language, whereas in this case we are talking about a symbol that represents the word ditto. However, I think the fact that there is no consistent way of representing this symbol in print (unlike, for example, the @ symbol) means that it may not be verifiable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed this was translingual; in any case, it is quite common in Danish, although I've only seen it in handwriting. As Atitarev says, the lines are vertical, nor slanted. When I see it, it is written just below what it replicates, as in
The cat has a velocity of 3 m/s.
The dog ------||--------  5 m/s.

where the length of the (solid, not dashed) horizontal lines are appropriately adjusted. I have never heard anyone regard this as nonstandard.__Gamren (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about Russian but in German something like " should be attestable. But I can't think of any good way to search for it on Google. Maybe one could attest Unterführungszeichen (compare de:w:Unterführungszeichen) and find reference works, and then claim that " is in "clearly widespread use" (WT:CFI). Maybe the same can be done for Russian?
" and do already exist and are Translingual. Maybe Russian uses one of these? - 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here (14:40) is an example of what I was talking about that I happened to stumble upon (searching for it is obviously impractical).__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


The Chinese usage needs to be verified in durable sources. The image here was used to show that the Japanese character is used in Hong Kong. The superscript not only suggests the meaning "station" but also the reading "zaam6" (Cantonese).

Usage of in Hong Kong along with a superscript gloss of (zhàn).

Please refer to (de) and previous discussions on the inclusion of the character as a Chinese term as opposed to Japanese.

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  2. 陳詩慧Eva Chan - 東角駅【Official Lyric Video】 - YouTube
  3. w:zh:都會駅與城中駅
suzukaze (tc) 22:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Character Variants says that it is a variant of 驛 (referencing 角川漢和辞典). I'm not sure if this should be separate from the Hong Kong usage. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should be. Modern HK usage seems to be a sort of "Japanese is cool" phemonemon independent of classical usage. —suzukaze (tc) 01:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The entry has turned from a mere soft redirect (as a variant) with {{zh-see|驛|v}} into a half entry with an image and usage notes. This already violates the previous agreement among Chinese editors that simplified and (some) variant entries are only soft redirects. If it's NOT a redirect but a full entry, it should have pronunciation sections with a PoS parameter, context and geographical labels and should be cited (that's why it's in RFV). Despite the links above, I think it may only be used for visual effects, not in a running Chinese text, and mostly limited to Hong Kong. If it fails RFV, it should probably remain just a soft redirect (minus the image and usage notes), I think. It would be hard to verify the pronunciation but if the usage in the Chinese context is attested, we could add some notes for both "jik6" and "zaam6". What do you all think? Also @Wyang, Tooironic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't really have any a strong opinion on this. Soft-redirects to both 驛 and 站 seem like a good solution, with usage notes to explain its uses. Wyang (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I think there are two distinct 駅s to consider:
  1. Variant of 驛 (as described in the Dictionary of Character Variants). This may not pass RFV because it's citing a Chinese-Japanese dictionary, which really implies that it's Japanese.
  2. 駅 as used in Hong Kong. From what I've watched and read, this can be read variously as 驛 (jik6, the "etymologically correct" way), 站 (zaam6, semantic reading), 尺 (cek3, youbian dubian), 澤 (zaak6, youbian dubian), and 馬尺 (maa5 cek3, reading the components); the first two are probably most common. It's not quite a replacement of the ancient 驛, nor is it really 站. This could most likely pass RFV since the locations (usually stores/shopping centres) have been mentioned in the news before. It's also used in the song that Suzukaze-c mentioned. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings. I am not particularly sure how Wiktionary defines the term variant character (異體字), but I was taught by my teachers that a variant character is a character written in a non-standard form but has the same meaning and pronunciation with its original form (正體字). The statement "A is a variant character of B" and its converse statement "B is a variant character of A" are not equivalent statements as one character has to be the true form and the other, a variant form. Can "駅" be attested as being a variant form of both “站" and "驛", ie. having the same meaning and pronunciation as that of "站" and "驛"? It has come to my attention that 東角駅 is not only the title of a song, but also the name of a mall in Hong Kong while 都會駅與城中駅 is a residential complex. I am unsure but in my opinion, "東角駅 站" refers to a station next to 東角駅 mall. Perhaps 駅 is just a character used for names of places. To the best of my knowledge, the Mandarin pronunciation yì and Cantonese pronunciation jik6 was provided by the Unicode Consortium in Unihan 8.0. Is this adequate enough for 駅 to be classified as a variant character of 驛? Note that Unihan provides Mandarin and Cantonese readings for shinjitai characters. Kevinup (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kevinup, KevinUp: You're pretty much on the same track as what we generally consider to be a variant. Since Wiktionary is aiming to be descriptive, there is no actual "orthodox" character, but the "most common" character used in traditional Chinese, which usually (but not always) overlaps with the Taiwanese standard. I don't really think 駅 in the Hong Kong context is actually equivalent to 站 or 驛. It's kind of special and should have its own full entry.
While encoding systems (like Unicode and HKSCS) are useful for determining whether a character is used in a particular language, it is not strong evidence on Wiktionary; we need to have durably-archived attestation. In fact, the Unihan database is riddled with errors, especially with definitions. If we don't find any use of 駅 as an equivalent to 站 or 驛, I don't think we can call it a variant of either character. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


@Atitarev To verify:

  1. The word itself.
  2. The position of the stress. It was created by User:D1gggg with final stress, i.e. лута́ть (lutátʹ), but Anatoli says it's more likely to be лу́тать (lútatʹ). Can we find a video source with the word pronounced? Benwing2 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I was wrong. This video uses отлута́ть (otlutátʹ), лута́ть (lutátʹ), also лут (lut) and лу́ты (lúty) several times. I only checked one video, though but I'm satisfied. I'm not familiar with gamers' slang. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like a mistake, if Japanese people follow the western custom and refer to a ship as "kanojo", that would be pronoun sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
彼女 is used in this sense in Japanese. Japanese also has the expression, 処女航海 (maiden voyage). See where you will find "彼女の処女航海". See also, . I also agree that this sense should be listed under Pronoun. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Move it to the pronoun section and mark it as rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If the sense is real, the definition should also change from "Western custom" to "English custom" (re treating ships as females). English is not the only "Western" language, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Nor is English the only language that does this.__Gamren (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


“Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names of plants to mean ‘having five leaves’.” — Latin or Translingual? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It exist translingually in taxonomic names like "Botryosicyos pentaphyllus", "Hibiscus pentaphyllus", "Phyllanthus pentaphyllus", "Pileus pentaphyllus", "Fragaria pentaphylla", "Manihot pentaphylla".
In Fragmenta phytographiae australiae, contulit Ferdinandus Mueller. Vol. II. (Melborne, 1860-1861, page 13) "Hibiscus pentaphyllus." is the title of a section and the text is in Latin. So one could argue that it appears in a Latin text. But as it is in italics and as it is just a section title and no sentence, it could be a mentioning and no usage. Anyway, "Hibiscus pentaphyllus" is a translingual and Translingual* taxonomic term and so is pentaphyllus.
pentaphyllam (fem. acc. sg.) does occur in Latin texts. Often it could be in Latin texts and yet be Translingual taxonomics (unlike English, Latin might decline taxonomic terms in a Latin way). It seems that there are also real Latin non-Translingual usages:
  • Ernsti H. F. Meyer commentariorum de plantis africae australioris [...] Vol. I. Fascic. I, Leipzig, 1835, page 193: "Celeberrimus hujus ordinis conditor coronam stamineam non solum modo monophyllam modo pentaphyllam dixit, sed hoc discrimine quoque in generibus disponendis usus est. [...] Quae discriminis illius ambiguitas nec ipsum Brownium fugisse exinde colligo, quod Xysmalobio suo in conspectu generum coronam pentaphyllam, in generis ipsius charactere monophyllam seu partitam tribuit, et vice cersa Metaplexidi suae coronam hic pentaphyllam, ibi quinquepartitam." "coronam stamineam" could be a species name spelled differently than in modern taxonomics (w:Corona (gastropod)) or it could be a corona consisting of threads (w:Perianth). By the spelling it could be that genera are spelled with a capital letter, so corona could be a normal noun and pentaphyllus could be a normal adjective.
  • Joannes or Joannis Raius [abl. sg. Joanne Raio], Historia plantarum [...] Tomus primus.", London, 1686, page 468: "Caulis bipedalis est, alis divisus, rotundus, striatus ut angulosis videatur, asper albâ hirsutie, umbellas edens, ut in penultima trifidas, sed breviori petiolo & crassiori impositas, basin habentes trifoliam, sed juxta flores pentaphyllam."
But by the version history, it was created as a Translingual entry (on 21 September 2014 someone changed Translingual into Latin), and by the meaning it is about the meaning used in translingual and Translingual taxonomic names ("Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names"). So the easiest and safest way would be to change it back into Translingual and maybe add some derived terms (like Botryosicyos pentaphyllus etc.). If a non-Translingual Latin word can undoubtly be attested, it could still be added later.
* translingual and Translingual isn't the same: By attestation some Translingual terms could at the moment be monolingual (e.g. only English), although hypothetically they could be used in other languages as well. pentaphyllus is used in more than one language, so it's used translingually and is Translangual (WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "taxonomic names").
- 13:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin adjective / Translingual taxonomic epithet. It's defined as “Used as a specific epithet; shining, gleaming.”, but I don't see on what usage that definition is based. The etymology given reads “From Ancient Greek αἴγλη (aíglē, sunlight, gleam), possibly from an Epic Greek genitive and dative form, or possibly via Latin Aegle (any of three mythological figures)”, but that doesn't explain the -fīnus element. Compare Aeglefinus, which I think derives from the French églefin (haddock), which appears to be attested since circa 1300 as the Middle French egreffin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find what source I might have used for the etymology. I fear there may not have been one. The derivation that Robert shows for églefin does not include any Greek or Latin. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The meaning is likely based on the presumed etymology, and the "usage" likely is the one in taxonomic names.
  • David H. McNicoll, Dictionary of Natural History Terms with their derivations, including the various orders, genera, and species, London, 1863, page 9 gives this etymology: "Ægle'finus (Ichth.) αἰγλοφανής [aiglophanḗs], brilliant, lustrous". It contains a change of ο to e and of a to e - and the only explanation for that that I can think of is English mispronunciation or French or English deformation. Alternatively, the given etymology could be incorrect.
  • Dictionaries and other books mention French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (by Frenchies) or eglefin (by non-Frenchies or in caps as EGLEFIN) and English eglefinus as names for haddock. The origin is once said to be Dutch (14th century, so likely Middle Dutch) eschlevis which is said to literally mean shell-fish (from Why is an Apple a Pomme? A Journey with Words by Denis Dunstone, 2014, e-books version at, which also mentions Spanish eglefino, Portuguese eglefim, Italian eglefino). A German book mentioned a Dutch schelvis (which looks more like Schellfisch) and says there was a "Umbildung". In another context a French aigle fin with the meaning "clever person" (schlauer Mensch) and the literal meaning "fine eagle" (feiner Adler) was mentioned.
    So maybe the etymology is like this: some Dutch word, likely for the haddock -> French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (French caps, maybe in older typography, EGLEFIN), maybe by folketymological deforming of the Dutch to resemble aigle fin and then maybe to deform it as it's no eagle (aigle) -> maybe English or some other European language -> Translingual aeglefinus. Maybe one can find more and better references for this.
BTW: The long e (Wiktionary: "aeglēfīnus") is likely from one of the two presumed etymologies. So if the etymology is a guess, the length likely is too, and if it is a guess, then it shouldn't be "aeglēfīnus" without any note.
BTW 2: By connecting aeglefinus with the French noun aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin, aeglefinus could be a noun too (in taxonomics used in apposition), so it's almost like an alternative form of Aeglefinus except that modern taxonomic uses capitalisation in a special way.
- 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Shinjitai form of 謳歌. —suzukaze (tc) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Character 𧦅 is part of Extended shinjitai, "unofficial characters". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017Edit


RFV-sense "expertise". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • In British Medieval Latin it could mean "competence" which is similar to "expertise", cp. eg. Engl. sentence (also ending in ce) and Lat. sententia (also ending in tia) and cp. DMLBS: "competentia , a appropriate matter. b opportunity. c competency, (adequate) supply, resource. d competence, qualifying capacity. e competence (leg.)." - 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "Rerum britannicarum medii aevi scriptores: Monumenta franciscana" has "Super litteraturae competentia vestra sufficiunt experimenta." which in DMLBS is cited as "super litterature [...]" and given as a source for the meaning "competence, qualifying capacity." - 08:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


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". - 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Perh." means perhaps in L&S.
  • 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
    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.
- 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. - 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Latin: vocative singular of vir. Really? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's likely not just a matter of vir, but a matter of Wiktionary's templates, in this case of Template:la-decl-2nd-er. According to dictionaries, there is the vocative puere from which one might derive a voative in -e for such terms -- but there is also the nominative puerus to which this vocative belongs. L&S only has "old voc. puere", but Gaffiot has "arch. puerus Prisc. 6, 41 || voc. puere Caecil. Com. 100" and Georges has "Archaist. Nomin. puerus, Augustin. serm. 57, 6 Mai; vgl. Prisc. 6, 42: Vokat. puere, Caecil. com. 100. Afran. com. 193. Plaut. asin. 382 u.a.". Maybe some users or grammars did derive this voc. -e from puere like it's mentioned in L&S without puerus. In ML and maybe in (British) NL this voc. -e might occur more often, but then it should be marked and then it should only be added if attested (like it's done with the verb form in -ier by the parameter "|p3inf=1" which gives this text: "The present passive infinitive in -ier is a rare poetic form which is attested for this verb."). According to common grammars, the voc. of such terms like puer and vir only is the same as the nom.
BTW into the template this voc. form was added in diff without any reference or explanation. In diff it was moved from the note into the table. Luckily, someone later moved it back into a note. - 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "smelt". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's right. In my dictionary I find: плав (plav) (melt), related to: плавень (plavenʹ) (flux, fusing agent), плавильник (plavilʹnik) (crucible, melting pot), плавильный тигель (plavilʹnyj tigelʹ) (crucible, melting pot), плавильный (plavilʹnyj) (melting, smelting), плавильщик (plavilʹščik) (founder, smelter), плавить (plavitʹ) (melt, fuse, smelt), плавкий (plavkij) (fusible, meltable), плавление (plavlenije) (fusion, melting), плавленый (plavlenyj) (fused, melted, smelted). —Stephen (Talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Wrong. Created in April 2016 by an IPv6 anon, possibly our supernatural-obsessed UK anon. Appears to be a Buddhist term referring either to one of the five types of seeing (human sight via eyeballs, heavenly sight by heavenly beings, true sight by sages of what is really there, just sight of the bodhisattva, or the view of the world of the Buddha), or to one of the six heavenly or supernatural powers (a.k.a. Abhijñā or "knowing", described in Japanese as teleportation or manifestation, heavenly sight, heavenly hearing, knowledge of one's karmic fate, the ability to know the minds of others, and an end to mental "intoxicants" or karmic debt that might necessitate rebirth). I'm happy to rework as time allows. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr: so, can the entry be cleaned up or should it just be deleted, in which case, would you care to do the honors / dirty work? - -sche (discuss) 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not very up on Buddhism, especially the more esoteric Japanese varieties, but I'll have a go at it based on sources to hand. Probably later today or tomorrow. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:07, 15 January 2018 (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)

  • has many mentionings of "ad perpetuam rei memoriam" or "ad perpetuam memoriam". 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. (said to be a bull from 2011 by wikipedia) has "Benedictus Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam." and (said to be a bull) has "Pius Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei ad perpetuam rei memoriam" at the top.,+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"? - 19:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

deinde scriptumEdit

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

  • "in place of a signature", "the same" (referring to a signature written above on the page, typically following a P.S.)

I haven’t been able to find it in L&S, du Cange, Elementary Lewis, Niermeyer, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It could be NL and not CL, so it would be missing in L&S and OLD. w:de:Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen, w:de:DS and w:de:Postskriptum mention it, but that's not a reliable source and could be a German abbreviation. Talk:deinde scriptum gives another etymology, but in English, German, Latin that would be unlikely. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "bathroom". --WikiTiki89 16:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's in Morfix. Perhaps the definition needs to be clarified to "room with a bath". --WikiTiki89 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, a Google Image search turns up pictures of both bathtubs and bathrooms, usually with a bathtub in the frame (so perhaps those are still pictures of "bathtub"), but sometimes with only a shower, or only a toilet and sink, which suggests that the word sometimes refers to the room. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I see from those results that "חדר אמבטיה" is one of the terms for a home bathroom, and that the word "חדר" ("room") is omitted in most expressions such as "ריהוט אמבטיה" ("bath [room] furniture") and "ארונות אמבטיה" ("bath [room] cabinets"). I wonder if anyone ever says "באמבטיה" to mean "in the bathroom" rather than "in the bath". --WikiTiki89 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Is this Latin, or just the second part of the Translingual taxonomic Solanum lycopersicum added as a Latin noun?
In Latin taxonomy one can find "Solanum Lycopersicum" and "Lycopersicum Humboldtii" but that's not the same as just lycopersicum. - 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Sense 1: "False plane tree".
By the version history I get the impression that probably there is just the second sense and this first sense is a misplaced literal translation.
In Latin Acer pseudoplatanum and Acer Pseudoplatanum (the latter in Carolus Linnaeus') do exist, but that would have the 2nd sense in it.

  • If sense 1 doesn't exist, this likely better is a Translingual than a Latin entry.
  • In modern non-Latin taxonomics pseudoplatanus could be an adjective as there is Anomalocentra pseudoplatana (in a English taxonomic book from 2002). But well, ATM this might be the only source for the feminine and this taxonomic name.

- 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "favorite, concubine" definition. I couldn't find it in any online Chinese-English dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's included in the Chinese-Chinese Yedict as "妾", citing the word 纳宠. —suzukaze (tc) 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be cited now (with the help of Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian). Someone could help to improve the translations of the quotations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
(Is this sense invariably found along with the word 纳? —suzukaze (tc) 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC))
Of all the examples I've seen, when it means "concubine", it always has 納 around it somewhere. Also, I think "favourite" might need to be separated. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be included as such in CC-CEDICT (not that it means much for our purposes). Taiwan's Ministry of Education dictionary seems to describe something more specific. —suzukaze (tc) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
(google:"青鮫的" has a really feeble amount of hits...) —suzukaze (tc) 22:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


For the doubtful feminine forms heptaphyllus, heptaphylli, heptaphyllo etc.
BTW 1: In Translingual taxonomics the feminine is the more logical "heptaphylla".
BTW 2: this is the only Latin adjective ending in -us and using "la-adecl-2nd" besides the doubtful chrysocarpus. - 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Design by contractEdit

For the spelling, the gender and the inflection.
"Design by Contract" with neuter gender and genitive "Design by Contract" are attestable, but that's not "Design by contract" with masculine gender and strange genitive "Design by contracts".
IMO it could simply be moved and changed... - 12:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It's not a proper noun either. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The source for "Design by contract" could be de:w:Design by contract, but German Wiki uses "Design by contract", "Design by Contract" and "Design By Contract". The masculine gender could come from the given German translation in "Design by contract (kurz DbC, englisch für Entwurf gemäß Vertrag)" as Entwurf is masculine. But Design is neuter. The strange genitive "Design by contracts" could come from en.Wikt's template.
      German Design by Contract n does now exist (which also means that Design by contract can't be moved anymore to the correct place...). - 11:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. The anon who tagged it said "There is only one result on Google Books that doesn't represent this meaning!". @Crom daba was the creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain myself if this word should be included, see my exchange with G Purevdorj about it. It certainly 'exists', but perhaps it's more of a protologism. Crom daba (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a doctor's degree in optometry". Seems to me like it's probably just English, or possibly Translingual, but I suppose it could be New Latin. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In Latin it could abbreviate a New Latin *"optometriae doctor". But for the full form, I only saw a few mentionings or non-Latin usages like English "[...] give the degree of O.D.--Optometriae Doctor, or Doctor of Optometry." The degree could be from the 20th century, hence it's more likely that it's not Latin but just English or at best Translingual. - 23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Seems to be restricted to 陸若漢 (João Rodrigues Tçuzu). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Which still leaves it as a rare transcription of the name. I'm fine with adding a tag, but there's no reason to remove the entry or to force the Wikipedia article to link to the meaningless separate characters. — LlywelynII 08:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's only used in one person's name, I'm not sure if it would pass the "independence" criterion under attestation. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, that's a thorny question. Books by three different authors all referring to "Saint-Brieuc" would attest that placename, even though they would all be referring to the same town. But of course "Saint-Brieuc" should not be defined as "any town" but rather as the specific commune in Côtes-d'Armor in Brittany, so if "若漢" is only used to translate one specific João, then maybe it should not be defined as "Alternative form of 約翰: John, Johan, João, &c.", but rather as a transcription of the name of that specific João ... if it is sometimes used (even to refer to that particular João) without being next to "陸".
However, if it is common for different Johns to have different transcriptions of their names (if there are a large number of transcriptions), then I would want more input from Chinese speakers on whether it is sensible to regard the ones that are used of only one particular John or another as independent and includable.
And if "若漢" only occurs in the compound "陸若漢", then it could be argued that the individual parts of the compound don't deserve an entry because they are not attested (with any relevant meaning) outside of it, and the compound as a whole is excluded by the rule that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic".
Would we include an English first name if only one person had it? I suppose we probably wouldn't, and so shouldn't include this, either... - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: formerly used sometimes as a transcription of Rodriguez or Rodrigues. Seems to be restricted to 陸若漢. (I'm only requesting for verification of the connection to Rodriguez/Rodrigues. If RFV fails, the surname sense should still be kept.) — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, you've provided your own verification and its commonality is aside the point. Just add a rare or obsolete tag. — LlywelynII 08:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Commonality is not an issue if it could be found independently of one particular person. This type of phono-semantic matching of names is common even to this day, e.g. 定康 (Chris Patten), 家平 (Frank Scarpitti), but if it's only used for one person, I don't think it merits inclusion at Wiktionary. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
If I name my child Wiktionary, do I get to add {{given name}} to Wiktionary, using public records as citations? —suzukaze (tc) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like something Wonderfool would do —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


After the last rfv process, there are new citations: two printed sources and some results from the GG. -- 08:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC

I found the first cited book, where the term is bolded in the original, and capitalized and immediately glossed "televizyon". I couldn't find a copy of the second work. One of the citations (from özgür milliyetçiler) is not actually from Usenet, but a less durably-archived Google Group. The term seems to be rare, possibly nonstandard, and would need labels to that effect. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anylai, Djkcel, could you look over the citations at Citations:sınalgı and translate them? Does "sınalgı" seem to mean "television" in them? (Maybe you are already familiar with this, but) Wiktionary has a long-running issue where some people promote "more Turkic" neologisms for things that are normally referred to using loanwords. Sometimes, the neologisms are not attested; sometimes, they are but they're rare; sometimes, the citations offered turn out to be written in dialects (which would merit a {{label}}) or even not in Turkish but in Azeri. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, the March 25 2014 citation is apparently copied from, here, (March 24), it is obvious looking at the title and citation dates. But the original article does not contain "sınalgı". Plus, the sentence is broken, honestly I am not sure if it is written by a Turkish person, he did a bad job. One thing to note, we again see çınca in the sense of electrics, electronics or whatever. This word which i noticed in the failed rfv process of çıngı is an interesting one and it can not be a coincidence.
I cannot understand a lot of words in 2014 September 23 citation, namely "arna", "bağdarlama". (from "soc.culture.turkish")
2014 March 5 citation is again from "soc.culture.turkish", i dont know what this source is.
2016-7, Hani Astolin, Tanrı'nın Göksel Çocukları ISBN 6053235717 is very poorly written, I found the page in googlebooks indeed, but lots of made up terms there. Let me write down those: tak, soykök, alaf, ünalgı, ışıksun, efil, efilem, kam, tol, tap, kızıklan-. There are 11 words, 12 with sınalgı, that i do not understand, some have explanation within paranthesis. This is not usual, as a non native speaker of english, i dont even find such unheard words in a page of a book written in english. The page is saying something but i can not get it, sorry.
The word overall looks to be a recent attempt to replace televizyon, but the citations are poor and attested in controversial media. We could accept it as a loan from Kyrgyz сыналгы (sınalgı, television) if attested legitly, but as i said citations are very poor which again seems to be arranged by a group of people with little to almost no impact at all. --Anylai (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Anylai Thank you, that was a very helpful, informative comment!
"soc.culture.turkish" is a Usenet group. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The 2014/03/25 citation is not copied from elsewhere. It is a reply to the copied news. -- 20:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response; I can't say that I've ever heard a TV referred to as a sınalgı. We just say televizyon or TV. I agree that the passages are poor, they look like they were run through Google Translator. Djkcel (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • [G]örüntü, ses ve konuşmalarını aktarabilecekleri bir Sınalgı (televizyon) ve ünalgı(radyo) bir arada diyelim.

TDK GTS (Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary) doesn't contain the words sınalgı and ünalgı in this sentence. Except the words sınalgı and ünalgı (which you may not know), the other words are in Turkish, so this sentence is certainly in Turkish. Since the writer used paranthesis in order to explain the meanings of both words, there is no doubt about their meanings.

  • Bir tane bile Türk Okulu, Türk Bilimyurdu, Türk Ekin Ortayı, Türk Araştırma Ortayı, Ulusal Sınalgı ve Ünalgı Yayını olmayan topluma ne denir?

TDK GTS doesn't contain another more word bilimyurdu (university) in this sentence but you may find many citations by searching books (with different spellings such as "bilimyurdu", "bilim-yurdu" and "bilim yurdu"). There is no doubt this sentence is completely in Turkish, and sınalgı means 'television' and ünalgı means 'radio' in this sentence.

  • Ayrıca sınalgı dizilerinde bizim toplumumuza uymayan şeylerin gösterildiğini de görebiliyoruz.

There is nothing strange in this sentence, TDK GTS contains all other words than the word sınalgı. --2001:A98:C060:80:70C6:D0C5:7891:C71C 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Theere's no such word called as "sınalgı" in Turkish language. You can't find this unusual word in any remarkable dictionary. It should be deleted.-- 16:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. There are cites. -- 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sǫʼ Naalgeedí GohwééhEdit

First of all, this is all wrong. It should just be Sǫʼ Naalgeedí (I think, as adding gohwééh would just make it SOP). Second, this is not attested at all. No references on the Internet except for us, the Navajo Wikipedia, and sources linked to those two. I have a lot of respect for User:Stephen G. Brown, but this entry is all wrong. Very good translation ability, but this translation is not attested. I was skeptical about the word "Starbucks" even being transferable into a language like Navajo at all, and when I checked, I was like, knew it. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Come on man it's Navajo you're talking about here, of course there's going to be a dearth of online appearances. —suzukaze (tc) 03:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
But then prove it. What source(s) do you have of anyone using "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí" in reference to "Starbucks" the coffee shop chain? I'm not sure exactly of the verification rules of Navajo specifically, but I think if we can't find one source of its usage in Navajo, the entry will be deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, Suzukaze-c, Stephen G. Brown: I just called Jordan at Starbucks corporate and she confirmed it is "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh". She is emailing me now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Here: (koavf)TCM 04:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Lol. I don't think that'll cut it. Plus they probably just copied that from the Navajo Wikipedia article or from here, once again. We need book, scholar, Usenet, etc. sources that use this term to mean "Starbucks", and as far as I can see, those don't exist. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. All I can say is that's what they call themselves. She confirmed that they don't have any paperwork or literature using that phrase--just an internal database. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(also, "this is all wrong" is quite a bold claim for someone so uncertain ["I think"] and who doesn't speak Navajo, no? —suzukaze (tc) 04:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC))
Well, Wiktionary itself is intended to be a resource, so hypothetically, if Wiktionary has every word in X language, someone doesn't have to know X language in order to find out what word in X language means and how it's used via Wiktionary. According to the entry given, this is a compound of Sǫʼ Naalgeedí (an alleged name for Starbucks) + gohwééh (coffee). Therefore, it may be SOP. Anyway, that doesn't even have anything to do with this RFV. Since I have no sources of the usage of Sǫʼ Naalgeedí or Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh, then we will never know how it's used, because it's not used. Therefore, this RFV will be failed and the entry will be deleted, unless someone finds some spot that I seriously failed to see. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Navajo is an WT:LDL, so a single mention (not even a use) is sufficient, but "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". Those sources are not required to be online. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
First, PseudoSkull, why do you think that Sǫʼ Naalgeedí is the correct term? And why do you think that Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh is wrong? Sǫʼ Naalgeedí is almost meaningless in Navajo. It means "the star that bucks" (which is meaningless, since there is no star that bucks). Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh is the correct term. It is the term that Navajos use. I don't want to repeat myself with a long explanation about how things are with written Navajo, but very little written Navajo can be found online, in spite of the fact that some 130,000 people speak it daily. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. Government tried for at least two centuries to stamp the Navajo culture and language out; and that, although the Navajo alphabet was designed some 75 years ago, no Navajo schools taught Navajo (including reading and writing), until about 2002. Today, only a small handful of Navajos have managed to teach themselves the Navajo alphabet (which is complicated and difficult to use), and even when these few write it, hardly any Navajo speakers can read it. Only since 2002 have a few Navajo schools begun to teach the language and how to read and write it. We started a facebook group to teach Navajo reading and writing, but almost all of the 17,000 participants are adults and it is difficult for them to learn an alphabet that is so different from English.
Even for the few who can write it, the diacritics and the glottal stop are a problem. The glottal stop is best written as we do here, with ʼ, but for those who don't have a Navajo keyboard (i.e., most people), it is easier to use '. If you search for "Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh", you are unlikely to find anything (because of the glottal stop). However, if you search for "Sǫ' Naalgeedí Gohwééh", you will find this video about Sǫʼ Naalgeedí Gohwééh. The other Navajo diacritics can be written in various ways, too. Áéíóń ąęįǫ can be written as we do here, or they can write aeion aeio and add combining accents ́ ̨ ̀ to them (there are also other choices). So even when a text exists, it is often misspelled, and even if spelled correctly, the Unicode glyphs chosen are unpredictable.
This is precisely why I add virtually no new Navajo entries anymore (or entries in Lakota or other Native American languages). Most editors here do not comprehend how the situation with Native American languages is so different from that of most other languages in the world, which results in uninformed editors deleting perfectly good entries. Rather than waste my time entering Native American terms that someone is likely to delete eventually, I don't add words in these languages anymore. —Stephen (Talk) 09:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As regards SOP, Navajo is a transparent language. Virtually every polysyllabic Navajo word is SOP to a native Navajo speaker. That's why Navajos do not need a Navajo dictionary for Navajo words. Every Navajo word is understandable to every Navajo speaker, including every word that nobody has used yet (Navajo is polysynthetic, so the lexicon is virtually infinite). They don't know how to spell the words, or how to access the diacritics and special letters needed to write them, but they know the meaning of every spoken word and phrase. The language is completely transparent. The words are not transparent or SOP for foreigners like us, but they are for the native speakers. So if you don't want to include any Navajo words that every Navajo already understands perfectly, then you need to delete every Navajo entry except for the monosyllabic words such as and the roots and stems such as -GEED. No one who is not a native speaker of Navajo will ever be able to use such a monosyllabic Navajo dictionary to read or write so much as a single polysyllabic word in Navajo, but if you don't accept anything in Navajo that is SOP, that's what you're left with. —Stephen (Talk) 10:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A solution could be to create requirements even weaker than LDL, and invent an appropriate badge of shame for that degree of verification. For LDL, the badge of shame is {{LDL}} template, used e.g. in xéireagrafaíocht. The question is, what would the requirements be? Entry confirmed to be accurate by an experienced and trustworthy editor? Or at least one item of evidence supplied, without necessarily being durably archived? (The video linked above would fit the bill.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I told you, if you don't like them, delete them. Use whatever requirements you wish and delete everything that does not fit. It makes no difference to me. —Stephen (Talk) 10:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you are objecting to this being driven by CFI's WT:ATTEST? It's not about what I like or dislike; I have never nominated a Navajo entry for RFV, but someone will, as you see, and then what? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've said on numerous occasions ... eventually someone will delete many, most, or all of the entries. That's why I don't add Navajo entries anymore. I'm tired of repeating this. As far as I'm concerned, whenever anyone thinks a Navajo entry is not worth keeping, or does not meet their interpretation of CFI, they should just speedy-delete them. Note also, a significant proportion of durably archived Navajo words (as most editors would judge them to be) are incorrect and misspelled and should not have entries. A great deal of experience with Navajo is required to make correct entries, and simply being found durably archived is not proof of correctness. There is only one other editor (User:Julien Daux) at the moment who is capable of recognizing correct spellings, and other editors should not be adding Navajo entries. —Stephen (Talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's, published in 1958. Consistent with WT:CFI#Number of citations, this can be used to source Navajo words even via mentions as long as the Navajo editing community accepts the dictionary for mentions. Therefore, a complete removal of Navajo from the English Wiktionary via current CFI is unlikely. If you have specific CFI modification proposals, they can be discussed in Beer parlour and a vote can be created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I know that dictionary. It is useful to a native speaker, but it contains misspellings and typos. Besides the misspellings, most of the words are not lemmas. That dictionary cannot be used except by editors who are experienced with the language. —Stephen (Talk) 12:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
None of which changes the fact that a complete removal of Navajo via current CFI is unlikely, and that policy change proposals can be discussed and enacted. Furthermore, if that dictionary contains flaws, futher similar works can be used for double checking, including perhaps A Navajo/English Bilingual Dictionary by Alyse Neundorf, 1983, found at google books:"navajo dictionary". Perhaps published grammars can be used for double checking as well. It seems to follow that the current CFI's approach to Navajo is not entirely hopeless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Have those misspellings been propagated in the literature? If so, these alternative spellings/misspellings could merit inclusion too, wouldn't you say? Even if just as misspellings. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, not propagated. The Navajos do not use dictionaries, since Navajo is a completely transparent language. Every fluent speaker knows the meaning of every Navajo word, including words that have never before been spoken. The dictionaries are only for people who want to try to learn the language. If we tried to include misspellings, it would be a project of immense size, because most Navajos invent all their spellings on the fly, and the spelling of every person is different from that of every other person. The Republicans who hold sway over the Navajo lands have never allowed their schools to teach them how to read and write their language, so their individual "misspellings" number in the billions at the very least. —Stephen (Talk) 17:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Alyse's dictionary, like all other Navajo dictionaries, contains misspellings and typos. Even the greatest and most important dictionaries, those of Young & Morgan, contain misspellings, typos, and other mistakes. All of those dictionaries were written before the age of computers. When they were written, there were no spellcheckers, no computerized sorting, no true Navajo fonts, and no one who knew how to typeset, knew Navajo, and knew the Navajo alphabet all at once. The written language was too complex for the state-of-the-art typesetting technology of the time, and errors were unavoidable. CFI may not be hopeless, but no one who has not studied the language in depth should attempt to enter Navajo words based on what they find in existing dictionaries and books. Well, I see that this discussion is going around in circles. I have explained to the best of my ability. I have nothing more to add. —Stephen (Talk) 13:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
"Virtually every polysyllabic Navajo word is SOP to a native Navajo speaker" — maybe transparent, but our convention seems to be that WT:SOP only applies to compounds and phrases. All derivatives or inflected forms are fair game, as long as they're marked as such. (Also, being familiar with a few heavily derivational languages including my native one, I suspect that you probably underestimate the amount of non-productive derivation that exists in Navajo.) --Tropylium (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Stephen G. Brown, I am extremely sorry for the lack of Navajo attestation out there, regardless of the amount of spoken language. To me, this is incredibly sad, and I wish that the Navajo language could have been better documented. Perhaps I am just entirely too bureaucratic. However, I have another suggestion. Perhaps we could use literal videos of people speaking Navajo to attest the words? Screenshots as Koavf has presented? According to you, this term is correct, but if CFI could be modified it can be kept. You seem very knowledgable in the language, as I've said above, so I'd say you can be trusted with creating Navajo entries, but unfortunately, Wiktionary has to have some sort of verification in order to provide an entry. I would support any efforts to modify CFI to let Navajo terms be attested easier in Wiktionary. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid you won't get much cooperation from most Native Americans. The Navajos were almost exterminated, with both Americans and Mexican raiding their towns to use them as target practice and to steal a few survivors to sell as slaves. At the low point, they were reduced to only 2000 mating pairs, which caused a genetic bottleneck in their population. They have recovered to about 300,000 people, but the genetic bottleneck means that all surviving Navajos carry genes for several genetic disorders, including Athabaskan severe combined immunodeficiency, Navajo neuropathy, Navajo poikiloderma, and Athabaskan brainstem dysgenesis. Republican predators push them out of their homes to steal their land for mineral rights, and mine uranium in their midst, leaving the uranium dust to float in the wind and on the rivers, causing a lot of rare cancers among them (Navajos were previously almost cancer-free). Since the days of "Indian-Killer" Andrew Jackson, the Navajo children have been forcibly removed from their homes at the age of 6 or 7 and taken far away to Government boarding schools. These boarding schools held the children prisoner throughout their school years, where they were punished for speaking Navajo and for following their native religion. They were forced to speak only English and to become Christians. For speaking a Navajo word, they were punished by slapping, kicks to the rear or the genitals, starvation, forced to stand naked in the freezing cold, sleep deprivation, water deprivation, forced to suck on bars of soap, beatings with cudgels or paddles. I know a woman who was kicked so hard in her genitals that she cannot bear children. Only in the past 15 years or so have the boarding schools begun to close, and there are even now 4,000 Navajo children still in distant boarding schools. The Republicans are very strong in the Navajo area, and the Republicans still want them gone. Since WW II, linguists have been fascinated with their language, and the linguists go among them and pick their brains and learn about their language. Then they take the information and write books and make money, but not a cent is paid to the Navajo (data mining). They will not be helping us.
Because of the situation with most Native American languages, and certainly Navajo, there is no way for a non-speaker of the language to look somewhere and verify any but a very few simple words. The biggest, most expensive Navajo dictionaries list only a smattering of common Navajo words. If you take a Navajo book and try to look up the words in every dictionary you can lay your hands on, you probably won't find more than about one word per sentence in all the dictionaries combined. There is nothing in Navajo similar to the Oxford English Dictionary, which attempts to list every English word. The Navajo language is horribly complex, and in most cases, inflected word forms often do not even look related to their lemmas, and most speakers of the language would be hard put to identify the lemma of a given word. That's why I have said repeatedly that, because of our requirements that editors who don't know the language must nevertheless be able to verify words, it means that we cannot host more than a few basic words on Wiktionary, and that most of the words that we already have should just be deleted. Native American languages are simply not compatible with en.wiktionary. —Stephen (Talk) 17:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@koavf No, it didn't propagate to the literature because the literature is almost inexistant. When some literature exists, those misspellings and typos are real misspellings and typos, of that kind that comes once and never again, and takes various form within the same document. The only productive source of documents written in Navajo is (sadly) articles from the Church of Latter Days Saints, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and other Christian stuffs of the sort. LDS write-ups are pretty much riddled in typos: The very well known nominalizing and unmistakably high-tone suffix -ígíí can appear as *-igii, bibee appears in the same document as *bibéé also, some nazalized vowels arbitrarily fail to denazalize before suffixes (*-ʼą́nii instead of -ʼáanii), some short closed syllables receive a random high tone when the Navajo tonotactics totally disallows it (*-nísh instead of -nish or -níísh), etc... They of course remain extremely valuable sources for the learner and the lexicographer, but as Stephen explained, they can't be used as is without prior in-depth knowledge of the language. —Julien D. (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

haltica, alticaEdit

  • As for the noun: By the version history and the given ref (compare this revision of haltica and this revision of altica) it's very likely just Haltica and Altica put into wrong entries.
  • As for the adjectives: There are haltica and altica without any gender and they don't have a nominative entry halticus or alticus, and so they don't have any definition. Very likely it's just the word used in Translingual taxonomic names like "Phalaena altica" and "Oeonistis altica" (these both names are rare) which instead of being an adjective could be the noun used in apposition (comparable to Vulpes vulpes).

- 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but presumably not listed. Worth comparing with Translingual Altica. DonnanZ (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The redirect to here from the entry doesn't work, so it may have been listed before. Works now. DonnanZ (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 has a thread entitled "haltica, altica". - 02:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved this section so the discussion is in one place. - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense I wouldn't add it for Castellano (native speaker) --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be easily attestable ([28] [29] [30]). —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


An initialism for a German noun that we haven't got. Nothing obvious on a quick Google search. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a [wiki article] on that subject. 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


For the inflection. The genitive could be *iūrisiurandi, cp. respublica and Talk:iusiurandum#Inflection. In New Latin texts iurisiurandi and jurisjurandi do occur as well as iusiurandi, but are not necessarily inflected forms of iusiurandum. If they are forms of iusiurandum, iusiurandi could be incorrect or less correct. - 03:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

L&S gives some references for inflection with "jurisjurandi" etc. In not-so-good editions which use i for the consonant j it does appear as "iurisiurandi" etc. (eg. The institutio oratoria of Quintilian with an English translation by H. E. Butler, vol. II, 1921, in V, VI). So this form is attested.
In Seyfert's grammar (from 1800) "jusjurandi" and "jusjurando" are mentioned with refs. However, he says that it were changed in some editions and in the texts at thelatinlibrary none of the given refs has "jusjurandi" or "iusiurandi" etc. He furthermore explains the etymology like this: jusjurandum isn't derived from jus (law, right) but is related to Jovis (the god Jupiter, or the genitive thereof) and would be the same as Jovisjurandum (dictionaries have this word but it might be doubtful, and BTW, jurandum in Plautus' Cistellaria is doubtful).
BTW: rosmarinus has a later declension with genitive rosmarini and olusatrum (from olus) has genitive olusatri. - 01:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's now cited as a medieval declension. As a Classical or Late Latin declension, other cites would be needed.
By the way, P. Stotz states that ancient Latin had "iusiurandi" and "iusiurando": "... ius iurandum ,Eid` ist allmählich zu einem kompakten Ausdruck zusammengerückt. Vom Rhetor Seneca an sind Flexionsformen iusiurandi und iusiurando belegt. Im MA ... erscheint ein Verbum iusiurare ,schwören`." (Peter Stotz, Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Zweiter Band: Bedeutungswandel und Wortbildung, p. 482). But he doesn't give any source or ref. The texts of Seneca at thelatinlibrary don't have these forms, and google books hadn't any either when searching for e.g. "nemo iusiurando" (changed from "nemo iure iurando") or "cum iusiurandi vim" (changed from "cum iuris iurandi vim") or the same but with j. Maybe Stotz meant "Since the time of Seneca the rhetor" (i.e. 'since 1st century BC-AD') instead of "Since Seneca the rhetor" (meaning 'Seneca himself and later people used the forms'), or maybe he he meant the type of inflection in general which could be attested by another word like rosmarinus. - 19:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Torrent file. A torrent file is normally called a 種子文件 or 種子檔案. Is 種子 used for the file, or is it just a seed, just like in English (BTW, missing sense?)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can verify- I think it is a pretty common usage. GB 下載 種子 returns sufficient results. Wyang (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: This book defines 種子 as "提供下載的用戶", which is similar to the definition of seed ("a machine possessing some part of the data") from the Glossary of BitTorrent terms. Is this a different sense? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a different sense, and should be placed above the "torrent file" sense, which is an extension of it. Wyang (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017Edit


RFV Spanish etymology - bandol doesn't appear to be a Spanish word. -WF

This was in the time of Old Spanish (1500s), which I am not an expert in. I think bandol was an Old Catalan word (modern bàndol), which includes the Catalan diminutive suffix -ol (Modern Spanish -uelo). That in turn from Old Spanish bando. I would change the etymology to something like this:
From earlier form bandollier, from Middle French bandoulliere, from Old French bandouliere, from Old Spanish bandolera, bandolero "guerrilla", from Catalan bandolera (feminine derivative of bandoler, “member of a band of men”), from bàndol "faction, party" (diminutive suffix -ol), from Old Spanish bando (faction, party). —Stephen (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: hoisin sauce. A quick Google search shows that it's absolutely not hoisin sauce. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be some sort of seafood sauce used in Western cuisine. In this menu, it is translated as crustacean sauce (salsa di crostacei). I did find some uses meaning hoisin sauce, like this (English version) and this. I'm just unsure if these uses are influenced by Wiktionary and/or sites that use Wiktionary info. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic, Atitarev, Wyang, any input? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it can refer to hoisin sauce or any sauce made from 海鮮, but it's a bit awkward (and pretentious)-sounding in Mandarin. I have never used or heard this term before. Wyang (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


AFAIK, we mostly use ดรัมเมเยอร์ for drum major. --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"คทากร" is in wide use, as in "จุฬาฯ คทากร"; see further results from Google also. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


The word "стяг" originates from russian poetic "стяг", which is currently subsitute for "флаг". In belarusian "сцяг" is used. However I found three references:

    • 2006, Сяргей Макей
      З намі бог і стяг над намі. [31]
    • 2012,
      Ужо ў першай пяцігодцы былі пабудаваны швейная фабрыка “Стяг індустрыялізацы” і панчошна – трыкатажная фабрыка “КІМ” у Віцебску. [32]
    • 2016,
      У складзе аб'яднанага войска ВКЛ і Кароны Польскай мужна змагалася і Ваўкавыская харугва пад сваiм стягам з галвою ваўка пасярэдзiне палотнiшча. [33]

At the same time this word is not present in any dictionary. So I think that this word doesn't meet the attestation criteria. --Jarash (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right. The term shouldn't be included as Belarusian. The citations 2 and 3 have other misspellings - індустрыялізацы (індустрыялізацыі) and галвою (галавою). BTW, "Russian" and "Belarusian" should be capitalised. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


JMdict-only term. Nibiko (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Eirikr Thanks for verifying it. I'm sorry, Google OCR didn't pick up the second character in Daijiten, and I've noticed that Google has trouble with rare characters in Japanese (see Talk:擂茶#Google_Books_OCR_failing_to_pick_up_the_alternative_forms). Nibiko (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Nibiko, just to be sure, it's 乾芻, not 乾蒭, right? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for belated reply, just saw the question... @justin(r)leung, google books:"乾芻" "は" does return what appear to be valid instances. Notably, none of the hits show proper preview -- only Google's broken "snippet view", which only shows Google's sometimes-faulty OCR results. So theoretically all of these hits for 乾芻 could actually be misrecognized hits for 乾蒭 instead, and we have no way of knowing, short of tracking down physical copies of the books.
I was incorrect earlier, thank you for confirming -- Shogakukan lists 乾蒭 with the radical, and has no listing for the 乾芻 spelling. That said, Shogakukan has other entries like 芻言, 蒭言 (sūgen, the words of a hay-cutting laborer; humble reference to one's own words) showing what appears to be free variation in spelling between and .
Meanwhile, Nelson's Japanese-English Character Dictionary lists 乾芻, but not the 乾蒭 spelling. Nelson's has no entry at all for the character, only for the character.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2017Edit


RFV for all inflected forms (except nominative).
Maybe note:

  • It has been pointed before elsewhere that the declension is wrong (e.g. WT:RFDO#Template:la-decl-4th-argo).
  • Dictionaries do give a genitive "Pȳthūs", but this could be unattested too.
  • If - is used for unattested forms like for example in Dīdō, then head and declension could look like this:

Pȳthō f
Third declension, Greek type

Number Singular
nominative Pȳthō
If other words are used for making up forms - which is common practice at wiktionary for "normal" Latin words -, it could look like this:

Pȳthō f (genitive Pȳthūs); third declension
Third declension, Greek type

Number Singular
nominative Pȳthō
genitive Pȳthūs
dative Pȳthō
accusative Pȳthō
ablative Pȳthō
vocative Pȳthō

- 21:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Would be RFV failed already, and the entry is improved now.
Luc./Lucan. 5, 134 and Tib./Tibull. 2, 3, 27 (older addition: Python, Müll.) are the only sources given by common dics, and Lucanus has "Python". That proofs that the old inflection was wrong or at least incomplete. Sappho from the same declension and with attested abl. "Sappho" shows that WT's "Pȳthuī" was more than doubtful. - 01:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Aello, Clio, Enyo, MantoEdit

For dative, ablative and vocative in -oe. The forms likely were made up by wiktionary based on the Greek (changing Greek οι to Latin oe). But in Latin words, these cases have -o. E.g. for accusative and ablative this can be seen in Sappho which ablative is attested in Plinius' "ob hoc et Phaonem Lesbium dilectum a Sappho; multa circa hoc non Magorum solum vanitate, sed etiam Pythagoricorum.". - 21:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The Slavic Latin contributions of

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

Also everything under Special:Contributions/ —JohnC5 04:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
These all seem to be medieval Latin renderings of Serbo-Croatian names, and particularly of medieval Croatian/Pannonian rulers. Many of them could definitely be attested (at least from quotes in secondary sources), but some are plainly erroneous (“Muucimir” is just a misreading of Muncimir). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Google Nibiko (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "field, meadow (assumed from 뫼 (moe))". "Assumed"?? —suzukaze (tc) 05:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Only needs one citation as Luxembourgish is not a WDL but I couldn't find anything online. BigDom 08:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


Request verification for this specific variant beginning with αἵ, i.e. with the "short" diphthong /hai̯/. The only forms listed in {{R:LSJ}} are ᾍδης (Hā́idēs) (with the "long" diphthong /haːi̯/) as Attic, Ἀΐδης (Aḯdēs) (with two syllables /a.i/) as Epic, and Αΐδας (Aḯdas) (also with two syllables) as Doric. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Only finding it in modern misquotations of earlier texts and in like 3 isolated mentions in modern texts, doesn't seem to actually exist. — Kleio (t · c) 17:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


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)



じゅうえん, えんじゅう, jūen, enjūEdit

suzukaze (tc) 23:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

All entries created by anon user 2A02:C7D:BC42:0:804D:AD7C:B36:57F5 (talk), and these are the only entries created by this IP address. All entries look like bogus rubbish. The gloss is at least consistent, given as smokescreen -- however, the Japanese word for that is 煙幕 (enmaku), not either of these terms.
I'm tempted to rip these out entirely as purely bogus. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Sky UK + Japanese = nonsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Is this our periodically returning oddball anon, with obsessive tendencies and dubious Japanese abilities? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It's been more than long enough, and these entries were implicated again in consistently-incompetent-UK-anon-edits, as noted at Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:BC42:0:8000:0:0:0/65.
Ripping these out as garbage.
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Dialect word, barely used nowadays. ганарэя is common. Comes from dictionaries from 1995 [34] and 2001 [35], but I think that it is not widespread. --Jarash (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be widespread, and it doesn't matter if it's dialect, but Belarusian is a WT:WDL, so it does need three uses (not dictionary mentions) from different authors over the space of more than a year. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


Spanish. Or Portuguese? -WF

Our translations-section under adjective says that "adjectivo" is used in Portugal and "adjetivo" in Brazil. Spanish section looks more dubious. I could not find evidence of "adjectivo" meaning "procedural" in Spanish. Instead, a search for "regulaciones adjetivas" gives more than 300 hits. However, we don't have this sense listed under the Spanish entry for "adjetivo". --Hekaheka (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Portuguese entry is perfectly clear; "adjetivo" is now the proper term, and the historical explanation is spot-on. --Luisftd (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


According to De Vaan, this is not attested as an independent verb, but only in compounds. —CodeCat 13:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see WT:Tea room/2017/June#Latin clino and Talk:clino. According to that
  • it's attested as adjective/participle - which could attest the verb "via an inflected form"
  • it does appear in old editions - and some other words or forms which appear in old editions are also included in wiktionary like punctus (4th declension, sense point).
Of course both would require a note which ATM is missing. - 04:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

Analbesamer Edit

I User:Hyperhero created this entry because the word "Analbesamer" is occasionally used on websites. Now I realized that under WT:ATTEST a word can only be included in Wiktionary if it has been mentioned in three permanently recorded media. I was only able to find one or two uses of this word in permanently recorded media, as shown in Citations:Analbesamer. Therefore I think this page should be deleted.--Hyperhero (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gamren, if you close an RFV as failed, it is imperative that you follow through and delete the entry. I have now done that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.__Gamren (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaauEdit

Proto-Southwestern Tai is revised by Pittayawat Pittayaporn (page 125-149 of the PDF), same author of Proto-Tai. But it does not include any word list. I believe *khaau (rice) should exist in new spelling. I also have some words here but the rice is not stated. However, this is only one word in PSWT right now. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Kapitein Overduidelijk / Dutch Captain ObviousEdit

This is a bit unusual as this article doesn't (yet) exist, but this is listed as a Dutch translation with red link for Captain Obvious. Search engine results:

And a bunch of lists of words and some (non-reputable) dictionary sites. So usage is rather poor. (I mean, these are not just some samples from the search results - these ARE the search results) One of the dictionary sites cites Wikipedia as a source, even though there's nothing there. The truth is I don't think we translate "Captain Obvious" at all, although we will often write it in lowercase. A search on two large Dutch forums:
  • "Kapitein Overduidelijk": 9 topics
  • "Captain Obvious": 448 topics for "Kapitein Overduidelijk" / for "Captain Obvious"
  • "Kapitein Overduidelijk": 7 topics
  • "Captain Obvious": 348 topics

Even with some of those results being some quoted English text, it seems clear that we typically just borrow this without translation. I'm not sure how to verify the Dutch existence of "Captain Obvious" as search results get clouded by the use in English. W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Z-grilles Edit

Any takers? If you find any, how is it translated into English? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Z-grid or z-grid, a 12-column grid system for web applications. For use in web pages. —Stephen (Talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

男武芸者 Edit

A Japanese entry made by a very beloved anon. 女武芸者 seems to exist, but ... seems to be much rarer according to Google. —suzukaze (tc) 01:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


When I looked into Yevanic perhaps a year ago, I was completely unable to find any suitable sources. "Judeo-Greek" is properly written in the Hebrew script, but there are few examples of that, and I actually could not find any that were not almost entirely standard Greek with some Hebrew borrowings for terminology relating to Judaism (which is what naturally happens when Jews discuss Judaism in Greek regardless). This is in the Greek script, so I not only request verification of it, but specifically verification in a text that can be reasonably called Yevanic and not Greek. @יבריב, Wikitiki89Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: source source source source source source source. Hop off my ass. יבריב (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

None of these sources appear to cite this unless you are claiming it is in one of the Glottolog references, which I cannot check. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yevanic was the vernacular of Jews in Greece up until the mid-nineteenth century, when standard Greek gained prominence and began to influence and/or replace all Greek dialects in Greece. So if there are any written examples of true Yevanic, they would have to be from before the mid-nineteenth century. Normally the term "Judeo-Greek" refers to Ancient Greek (or Jewish dialects thereof) written in Hebrew script, while the Jewish dialects of Modern Greek are known as Yevanic. --WikiTiki89 14:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

hvis og hvis min røv er spids og fyldt med marmeladeEdit

I have heard it around, but attestation is unclear. One instance even refers back to us.

The short form hvis og hvis min røv er spids is citable, although of course less common than hvis og hvis min røv var spids (in Danish as in English, the past-tense form also serves as subjunctive). Both forms are sometimes followed by something that rhymes with -ade (while researching this just now, I have encountered limonade, marmelade, chokolade and remoulade).__Gamren (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

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

September 2017Edit


@Mulder1982 Where did you encounter this?__Gamren (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember where I got it from originally but to confirm I googled it and found that it is the word for one hundred. A website called LearnGreenlandic even has hundredi as a synonym. Mulder1982 (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Links please? I agree that hundredi exists ([36], [37]), but I cannot find untriti, in its bare form, in the Atuagagdliutit archives, nor in Katersat gives untritilik ([38]), but that, I can also not find. However, there are lots of words like untritilinni, untritilippassuarni, untritilikkaat, untritilinnik etc. in the archive, so it cannot be complete rubbish. When supplied with some of these words, the Oqaasileriffik word analyser suggests untriteq as root, but that word gives no useful results at all.__Gamren (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's one link: untriti I'm trying to find more but I'm having the same "issue" that you do: that seems to be mainly found in compounds. It makes me wonder if it's possibly an from an older batch of loanwords, but this is just me speculating. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

biili attartorallagaqEdit

__Gamren (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Turkish word kodak, rfv-sense: family:

  • 2014, soc.culture.turkish
Erdoğan kodağı ticaretle uğraşıyor.
  • 1999, Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Sarıkamış'ta köy gezileri: halk kültürü alanında araştırma ve incelemeler
Kafile tarlanın sonuna vardığı zaman durdu; kodaklar yere atladı,
  • 1999, Bakış Basın Yayın Organizasyon Limited Şti., Haftaya bakış, 7. cilt, 32-43. sayılar
Yapılan şerinin başını kocaları açtığında mutlu olan kodakları var. -- 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled. Do these quotes support the sense "family"? @Sae1962, Shiro1998 Perhaps you two would verify that that is the meaning it takes, or even better, translate the quotes?__Gamren (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I never used kodak and read about this word here the first time. According to TDK, it means among others house, but never family.--Sae1962 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find any mention of the sense "family" in the turkish dictionary, and as for translating the quotes, my turkish is not that good yet. shiro1998 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


Volapük for homing pigeon. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

ōþer Edit


Can we verify the Conjunction ? I am familiar with the following variants: ofþe, eþþa, oþþer, oþþon, oþþe, oþþa, but not ōþer for "or" Leasnam (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


RFV of the reading of えうま. @Fumiko Takesuzukaze (tc) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Euma and enma are listed in Daijirin as independent entries.

え-うま ヱ― 【絵馬】


え-んま ヱ― 【絵馬】



→えま(絵馬) ばかFumikotalk 08:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What version of Daijirin are you using? I don't see euma at [39] (Daijirin + others) nor [40] (Daijirin 3 + Digital Daijisen + others).
Also, I kind of want to see citations of euma in real life, as per WT:ATTEST. —suzukaze (tc) 08:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "make (tea)" and "drown" definitions Bumm13 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a little cleaning up, and I think they are verifiable. Sense "drown" is seen in Hanyu Da Cidian, and "make (tea)" is seen in Hanyu Fangyan Da Cidian. Dokurrat (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If no opposition, I now pronunce that Rfv closed. Both senses kept as verifiable. Dokurrat (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


It might be a generic noun. In this one, it is translated as Rigsfællesskabet, i.e. DK+KL+FO. In [this one], there is naalagaaffeqatigiit ataatsimiinneranni "during the [Danish] realm meeting". Oqaatsit has naalagaaffeqatigiinneq (rigsfællesskab), which could be analyzed as naalagaaffeqatigiit + -neq (presuming the former exists); rigsfællesskab is not used exclusively about the Danish realm. Similar words in Oqaatsit are:

__Gamren (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, -neq is nominalizing, and hence takes a verbal argument, like naalagaaffeqatigiipput (the singular form probably doesn't exist), which has one hit in
Danmark Kalaallillu Nunaat - aammami Savalimmiut ilanngullugit - ataatsimut naalagaaffeqatigiipput, tamatuminngalu apeqqusiisut amerlaneq ajorput.
__Gamren (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


George Low and Joseph Anderson (1879) as well as Barry & Headrick (1808) citing George Low (1774) have "fy vor" which probably is translated as "our father" in Chimeri. So it seems more likely that fy is father and that fyvor is a misspelling of fy vor. George Low's word list doesn't have the word, and his ballad or song doesn't seem to have it too. - 03:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it means "our father" and not just "father", but I don't think it's a misspelling. Certainly the Orcadian Our Father spells favor as one word, so it's quite plausible that the Shetlandic Our Father would spell fyvor as one word too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you perhaps mean Our Father? Or does it mean "the person who sired me and at least one other person"?__Gamren (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's only attested in the Our Father, but it does seem to mean simply "our father". To be fair, the other possessive determiners in the Lord's Prayer are written separately: nam thite (thy name), gilla cosdum thite (thy kingdom), veya thine (thy will), dalight brow vora (our daily bread), sinna vora (our sins). I don't know why they're written together here; maybe just because fy is such a short word? Incidentally, fy is attested by itself as "father" in "Hildina". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The pater-noster preserved by George Low and printed in books by Barry (1805 GB), Barry & Headrick (1808 GB), Torfæus & Pope (1866 GB), Low & Anderson (1879 GB), Jakobsen (1897 GB), Hægstad (1900), probably also in the manuscript by Low (17XX), has "fy vor". If "fyvor" does appear in any print, then it's probably a misprint and misspelling.
BTW: The 1808 print has a misprint inside, but that's another term: "Halagt" instead of "Halaght". This does also show that Hægstad's "Barry" is in fact Barry & Headrick as he mentions "Halagt" which Barry & Headrick have but not Barry. Torfæus & Pope (1866) seem to copy Barry (1805) but have one difference: "gem do sinda" instead of "gem ao sinda". In the other Norn pater-noster Torfæus & Pope have more differences compared to Northern Antiquities (1770; 1809) and Barry and Barry & Headrick, and maybe Torfæus & Pope thought to correct some errors, cp. with the statement in Northern Antiquities: "I suspect the above Copy [1770; 1809: copy] to be incorrectly printed by Wallace: that "Helleur" should be "Helleut," &c. &c.". However the other pater-noster with "Favor" is irrelevant for this. - 10:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If every place where the Shetlandic Lord's Prayer is cited spells fy vor as two words, then yes, fyvor should be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't now about every place, just about the ones above. There might be a print somewhere which misprints or (hyper)corrects it to "fyvor". But if there is such a print, then it should be named and then the form fy vor should be mentioned too.
Searching for "Fyvor o er i" with google, the only results I get were a wrong OCR by google of Barry (1805) which has "Fy vor o er i", and this page: (not durably archived, unreliable). en:w:Norn language has "Fyvor" too, but is unreliable. The source given is a website, so it's not durably archived, but is somewhat reliable as it mentions reliable and also durably archived sources. But the website has "Fy vor" too: . My assumption is that wikipedia contains an error or (hyper)correction which was copied to the other website and into wiktionary. - 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
There's this "Fyvor or er i" but printed after Wikipedia had fy vor changed to fyvor for some reason, so you might be right.
But why are these words treated as nouns to begin with? Isn't favor just a contraction of fa and vor, just like he's or don't? — Knyȝt 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Syntactically, our father is still a noun: it's a syntactic constituent that can function as the subject of a sentence, the direct object of a verb, etc., while he's isn't a constituent at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
By that definition "the big dog" is also a noun that deserves its own article, isn't it? — Knyȝt 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, because that's written as three separate words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just like state of being. Is there any actual grammatical reason to consider favor something different from fa vor? Is it found in different positions? Does it decline differently? Does it have any different meaning whatsoever? — Knyȝt 19:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
state of being is an idiom that means more than the sum of its parts. We always include things that are written together, no matter how SOPpy. A birdhouse is a house for birds, but it's written together, so we include it. And goats is just goat + -s, but it's written together, so we include it. And Norn is a very sparsely attested language anyway, so it's not as if including favor is going to open the door for an entry for every Norn noun with -vor encliticized onto it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't care whether it's included or not. What I care about is how contractions of two or more words belonging to different lexical categories are treated. In English, a contraction is called a contraction and refers to its parts; you don't call he's a pronoun or a verb, you call it a contraction. You could argue that he's "he is" is a verb form just like Elfdalian irum "we are" is, but you don't, because it's just a contraction of he and is, not an actual inflexion. In Norn, you on the other hand call favor a noun even though it is not a noun or an inflexion of a noun but a contraction of fa and vor, a noun and a pronoun. So different reasoning is used for Norn. Why? — Knyȝt 11:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As for the RFV and the given reference (Lost Britain. An A-Z of Forgotten Landmarks and Lost Traditions from 2015 with link to google books): According to the book version at google books it appeared in print and has an ISBN which should be sufficient for WT:RFV (usage, durably archived). So all that would be missing would be to give the source in the entry. Personally however I don't think that it is a reliable source and that it should be used to attest anything Norn. In case anybody does add it, the only solutions I could think of would be to add the good sources, so everybody could judge for his own what's more correct, or trying to use WT:RFD with the reason that the given source isn't reliable (which is no criterium of WT:CFI).
As for the PoS matter: Contraction seems better than Noun. 'twas (= it was) or German nimms (= nimm's, nimm es) isn't verb or pronoun either, and nunya isn't pronoun or for syntactical reasons determiner either. Well, maybe it could argued that terms with -vor are similar to Latin terms with -que or -ve, that is, there should only be entries fy and ?-vor (uncommon form of vor) but no entries like ?fyvor. Then the PoS problem shouldn't arise: fy is a noun, -vor an enclitic pronoun. - 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


I am not convinced.__Gamren (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This rings a bell, as if we had already discussed this topic as an rfv or rfd issue. See also Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän and Wikipedia article on Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän which give contradicting information on correct spelling. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
We did discuss it; see Talk:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. @Gamren, you have to say something more than "I am not convinced" when you do something as bizarre as RFVing a term that you have just cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
German Wikipedia says: "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän bezeichnet als Eigennamenkompositum (und damit unberührt von der Rechtschreibreform)" (Donau...kapitän is considered a proper noun compound (and is threfore exempt from the spelling reform)). This would make "Donau...fff...kapitän" hypercorrect. Should we mark it as misspelling of "Donau...ff..kapitän" and rewrite the latter definition? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As for this RFV, isn't it cited by the cites in Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän and hence RFV passed? Wouldn't everything else be a matter of WT:RFC? As for a probable RFC:
People both at wikipedia and wiktionary probably often do not differ properly or check the official rules properly...
As for the official rules of 2017: They sometimes mention proper nouns, while they also mention that proper nouns might be exceptions of the rules. E.g. § 59: "Eigennamen schreibt man groß." This would probably prescribe "Ebay" and proscribe eBay, ebay, e-Bay, e-bay (Duden: "eBay®, E-Bay"). However because of "0 Vorbemerkungen" (3.2) {"Für Eigennamen (Vornamen, Familiennamen, geografische Eigennamen und dergleichen) gelten im Allgemeinen amtliche Schreibungen. Diese entsprechen nicht immer den folgenden Regeln."} and other things {like official names of cities being official through something else, and as company and product names could be official through an official registration, maybe supported by laws like § 5 MarkenG (of FGR, who knows about Austria, Swiss, and all the other countries)}, "eBay" could be correct nontheless. As for Duden, Duden is not the official rules and Duden-Monopol or Duden-Privileg doesn't exist anymore (it ended 1996). So Duden online's "eBay®, E-Bay" is not the official rules and rather Duden's opinion.
Unless someone finds better sources, like maybe official registers of officially registered names, it should all be a matter of opinion. Some might argue that "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" is an unaffected proper noun, and some might argue that "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft" is affected by the reform(s), maybe because it's a converted or unreal proper noun (like God coming from god but unlike Peter not coming from *peter) or for whatever reason. People could even argue that "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft" is affected by the reform(s) while the proper company name "Erste Donau-Dampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" (or "Erste Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" or "Erste Donau-Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft") according to 20th/21st century sources is unaffected by the reform(s).
As for the contradiction mentioned above ("contradicting information on correct spelling"), it could be a result of a different interpretation or view, which could be POV. It could also be a matter of some kind of incorrectness or prescriptivism, especially in case of wiktionary...
The best could be to put a usage note in both entries explaining the situation: Official 1996 reform rules, now as of 2017, prescribing the common noun spelling "Schifffahrt" and proscribing "Schiffahrt", but only partially covering proper nouns, hence leaving it open which spelling is official. Official is not the same as standard, but it too should be open whether or not any of the spellings is standard or not.
( Just BTW as it might be unclear for some: One has to differ between "standard" (cp. Appendix:Glossary#nonstandard: "Not conforming to the language as accepted by the majority of its speakers."), and "official" or "ministerial" (in German: amtlich). While the official rules from ca. 1900-1996 where pretty much standard, that's not true for the 1996 rules, especially for the real 1996 rules of 1996 (with spellings like "Eis laufen", which now as of 2017 is "eislaufen"). If the rules of 1996 would have been accepted by the people or "the majority of its speakers" and would have been standard, there wouldn't be so much criticism against it and no need for the rereforms of 2004 and 2006. But there was much criticism and there were the rereforms. And even nowadays where criticisms probably still exists (RP-Online: Mehrheit lehnt die Rechtschreibreform weiter ab (1. August 2011), LVZ: Umfrage: Mehrheit lehnt Rechtschreibreform noch immer ab (31.07.2011)) but isn't so loud or strong anymore, not all official rules and spellings are probably standard or not all unofficial spellings are probably nonstandard. An example which could show that there is a difference between standard and official could be the nowadays unofficial spelling "belemmert": When the FAZ changed to the spelling "dass" instead of "daß" around 2006/2007, it stated that "belemmert" and some other unofficial spellings stay, cp. FAZ: In eigener Sache: F.A.Z. paßt Rechtschreibung an (02.12.2006). Another example could be "Majonäse" which is unofficial and hence proscribed since 2017, but probably is still in use and might be so in the years to come. Further examples could exist with f and ph spellings. For example according to Duden online as of 2017 it's only "Foto" (not "Photo"), only "Fotografie" or "Photographie" (and of course not "Fotographie" or "Photografie") and only "Alphabet" (not "Alfabet"). Note however that that might be Duden's opinion or interpretation of the official rules and not what the official rules state. Some people might ignore such prescriptivism and proscriptivism, or might interprete the official rules differently, and might write it "Photo" (just like "Photographie", "Delphin" and some other terms) or "Alfabet" (just like "Fotografie", "Delfin", and some other terms) anyway. Depending on the term, some unofficial or proscribed spellings could be standard too, especially as the majority of speakers might not know which forms are presribed or proscribed and which arent. ("Alfabet" however probably is nonstandard.) )- 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Japanese person" This is clearly used with this meaning online, but I'm not sure it can be cited. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"clearly used ... online" - then how about usenet or google groups (!overview)? It's online too but treated as durably archived. - 11:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Belorusio, Belorusujo, Belarusio, Belarusujo, Bjelorusio, BjelorusujoEdit

This country has a lot of names in Esperanto with diverse etymologies, but none of them is sourced. We should only keep those that can be properly sourced. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Belorusio has three cites that need cleanup.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Belorusujo has only three cites come up in QQ at all, and two are dictionaries. I've added the third.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added two cites from soc.culture.esperanto.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Belarusio has only one non-dictionary cite in QQ; it supports Belarus (the modern country), not Belarussia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
What is QQ and why does it produce such awful results? DTLHS (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Quiet Quentin, a gadget. The results are bad because they're supposed to be edited, but nobody seems to realise that. Also, it's Kephir's creation, and nobody has worked on upkeep or improvement since he left. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added two cites from soc.culture.esperanto.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Belarusujo has zero Google Books hits, and only one in Google at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Bjelorusio has two cites, both from the 1950s. I've added dated; I don't know if we should distinguish the name for the Soviet republic from the name for the nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Bjelorusujo has one cite from the 1950s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

akanmál Edit

Nothing in Google Books. BigDom 11:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

armsveiflun Edit

No Google Books hits, and most regular ghits seem to link back here. BigDom 14:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

kebab Edit

Rfv-sense: (slang) a Muslim person (Portuguese) — Ungoliant (falai) 18:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

mendacieux Edit

Modern French? -- 21:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look much like it. FEW gives it with the dates 1536 and 1541. All the hits in more recently published books seem to be editions of older manuscripts from that era. You might scrape three that aren't if you try really hard and double-check that they aren't merely quotations from older works. 22:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed.__ —This unsigned comment was added by Gamren (talkcontribs) at 12 January 2018.


"Ahura Mazda". Is this really ever used alone and not as "アフラ・マツダ (Afura Matsuda)"? —suzukaze (tc) 00:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted. Never used in that way. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. —suzukaze (tc) 08:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Only hit on Google books is a mention in a Norwegian book - can't find any actual usage. BigDom 08:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Cantonese: to cut". Seems to come from the Unihan Database < Cheng-Bauer (which also seems to indicate that it should be read as leoi3'). —suzukaze (tc) 02:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It comes from an unpublished glossary by the Hong Kong Judiciary. The example sentence given in Cheng-Bauer is 鑢唔開個橙 ("can't cut up the orange"). I can't find it anywhere else, and personally, I've never heard of this word. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

numéron (and numérons)Edit

Can't seem to find the existence of this term in French (nothing on Google, and Gbooks just confuses it with "numero n" which appears in maths texts in many languages). The definition given was simply "numbern", which definitely isn't a word in English, and the etymology said "see numero and n". This entry was created by an IP address who has no other contributions, and a bot has since created an entry for the plural numérons. 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • There are quite a few Google hits. But I think they are all misspellings or typos for numéro or numéros. I have deleted the plural for the time being. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • However, "Les langages du cerveau" edited by Emmanuel Dupoux uses the term several times (as well as versions without the n) and, if my French is good enough, uses it to mean the symbol(s) that represent numbers - so that would be numeral - I'll add that translation for the time being. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely seems citeable, although I can't quite figure out the meaning (I think you are on the right lines though, SemperBlotto, that it is some form of number representation). BigDom 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added a few quotations at Citations:numéron. BigDom 13:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


Never seen this with long (ī). —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I found one durable citation, but it's in Marathi. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 22:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Created by @TheDaveRoss, who knows no Hindi. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yikes, no idea why I made that. Perhaps it is time to revisit my earliest work... - TheDaveRoss 13:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

davíðshjörtur Edit

One hit on Timarit (Icelandic newspaper archive), nothing at all in Google Books. BigDom 06:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

aaffanniutaavoq Edit

In Katersat, which refers to Ordbogeraq.__Gamren (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

ge- Edit

Rfv-sense "(slang, wordplay) used with a verb to indicate heterosexual activity".__Gamren (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no results on Google, Google Groups or Google Books for the forms "gefiki" and "geamori". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I can find some results for the form "gedormi". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Has an unreferenced Icelandic Wikipedia article, but a Google Books search gives nothing apart from our entry, and Timarit (Icelandic newspaper/journal archive) has no hits whatsoever. BigDom 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


Back-formation of the word "feminismo", never seen this word in actual use, but I did find it in PIV. Is this actually in use or is this invented by PIV? Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added three quotations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


Back-formation of the word "femino", I have never seen this word before, just like "femino", which I also added to RFV. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added two quotations, but I think a third one is going to be hard to find. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


The creator is notorious for his carelessness. I couldn't find it (under the given spelling at least) in The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, but it could be that they don't give proper names. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who has enough interest in Assyrian to try hunting this down. @Mnemosientje? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Seems to be a misspelling of eldhús. Couldn't find anything on Timarit or Google books. BigDom 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit


Can only find this as part of the the word fimbulfambi and its inflected forms. Fambi by itself I cannot find in Google Books, or the Tímarit newspaper archive, and it doesn't appear in the Íslensk orðsifjabók or any of the other dictionaries. BigDom 06:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


Can’t find any attestations of or references to this word. It’s not in Faulkner, not in the Wörterbuch, not in Lesko, not in the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae. The variant ꜣꜥꜥ given in the entry is apparently a variant of ꜥꜥw rather than ꜣꜣꜥ (per Lesko). A search for attestations turns up some variants of ꜥꜥw that are similar to the entry, but none with that exact form or that would be transliterated ꜣꜣꜥ. I suspect the entry is some sort of error for a variant of ꜥꜥw. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau? nvm, I see you responded on your talk page. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 00:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Ραμσής, ΡαμέσηςEdit

Ancient Greek Ραμσής (Ramsḗs), Ραμέσης (Ramésēs) in Ramesses#Translations (where it was added together with some other translations in August 2015) and rꜥ-ms-sw (where it was added in May 2013‎).
I wouldn't doubt it if it were given as young Modern Greek (el:w:Ραμσής), and maybe it's just the language needing to be fixed.

By these sources the name seems to be, in a porly transcription ignoring accents and somewhat ignoring the correct spiritus, R[h]amessēs with three s, which doesn't fit together with Ραμσής (Ramsḗs), Ραμέσης (Ramésēs). - 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Flavius Josephus (edited by Benedictus Niese, Latin title De judaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem libri II.) indeed has Ῥαμέσσης (with acc. Ῥαμέσσην from 1st declension), and also τὸν Ῥαμεσσῆ (nom. *Ῥαμεσσῆς?) and "Ῥαμεσσήν," (nom. *Ῥαμεσσής?). Flavius Josephus (edited by Guilelmus Dindorfius = Wilhelm Dindorf, Latin title De antiquitate judaeorum, contra Apionem, 1847) has Ῥαμέσσης too, and Ῥαμέσσην instead of Ῥαμεσσῆ and Ῥαμεσσήν - and at one place it has Σέθωσις, Latin Sethosis, instead of Σέθως.
  • Georgius Syncellus (edited by Guilielmus Dindorfius = Wilhelm Dindorf, Latin title Chronographiae, 1829, p. 134 & 136), which is also based on Eusebius and Africanus, has Ῥαμεσσῆς (in the Latin text: Ammeses, Rammeses, Rameses). On p. 180 he also has Ῥαμεσές but this might be Middle Greek. Jacobus Goar's old edition from 1729 has Ραμεσῆς, Αμμεσῆς (defective without spiritus for capitals), but is quite old anyway.
  • Ammianus Marcellinus (rerum gestarum [...], lib. XVII, cap. IV.) has Ῥαμέστης (Rhaméstēs) (or "Ῥαμέϛης" with stigma ς for στ, or defective "Ραμέϛης" without spiritus for capitals). Sources/Editions: Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum [...] ab Jacobo Gronovio (1693, p. 176-178), ''Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum [...] ex recensione Valesio_Gronoviana. [...] adiecit Augustus Guil. Ernesti (1773, p. 108f.) and Ammianus Marcellinus with an English translation by John C. Rolfe (vol. I, 1935, p. 326-331 and 568). For easyness, not for correctness, there is: TLL and English translation at Gutenberg.
The name seems to be Ῥαμέσσης (Rhaméssēs), also Ῥαμέστης (Rhaméstēs), and maybe also Ῥαμεσσῆς (Rhamessês) and maybe Middle Greek Ῥαμεσές (Rhamesés); but it doesn't seem like Ραμσής, Ραμέσης are Greek or even Middle Greek. Anyhow, the doubtful names are long enough unattested. - 02:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

det er ikke alt guld, som skinnerEdit

I apparently forgot to list it here back then. Anyway, I easily find two nondurably-archived uses: [43], [44], which makes me wonder whether those writers were using Wiktionary or some of those lists that are everywhere.__Gamren (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that this proverbe exists and is used. At least in the form of the synonym I found in DDO (but there with verb glimre) and which I put on the article, B Lemeukx (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that exists.__Gamren (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


No hits this particular usage in Google Books or Tímarit, not even as an Italian word in the middle of Icelandic text. The only hits are stock photo credits to a company called Fermata. BigDom 07:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


Is it really a variant of 急需? Dokurrat (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

And the second etymology as well looks... interesting. Can we attest this meaning? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat, Tooironic -- Re: etym 2 for the Chinese term, I find that JA sources agree with the following from Daijirin as the source of the JA term of the same spelling:

(Apparently, originally a container used in China to warm alcoholic beverages, brought to Japan and used as a container for tea)

Perhaps etym 2 for the Chinese is for a term that is now obsolete? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Suicidal. DTLHS (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


Can't find any real-world usage, nor presence in any reliable dictionaries (which would be enough as Irish is an LDL), just (of unknown provenance) and (renowned for coining neologisms). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

éadach cultachaEdit

Does not seem attested. By Embryomystic from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if attested, I'd say it's SOP. It's just éadach (cloth) cultacha ((of) suits). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

anairt seoilEdit

Irish looking unattested. Created in 2010‎ by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

As above, attested or not, it's SOP: anairt (canvas) + seoil ((of a) sail). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


Irish by Embryomystic, from 2010‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Listed in The New English–Irish Dictionary, which I consider sufficient as Irish is an LDL. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It's only sufficient if "should" at WT:CFI#Number of citations is a suggestion and not a requirement as there is no "list of materials [...]". But well, as of WT:About Irish#Sources's statement "[...] entries are considered sufficiently verified if a single mention (not necessarily use) is found", it's just a suggestion...
At least it makes Wiktionary talk:About Norn, Wiktionary talk:About Old High German, Wiktionary talk:About Burgundian unnecessary, and makes sildin (which likely was created based on a mentioning without having a list) and some OHG terms clearly atteststable. - 14:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, there is "a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention" for Irish, it's just not written down anywhere; it's in my head. (Not very useful for other people there, I admit, but it's better than nothing at all.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That link lists "seolbhrat" rather than seoléadach, as far as I can see. If you mean this[45], it lists "sailcloth, s.Éadach m seoil.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Sorry, I have the wrong link above. The one I meant is [46]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you wrote that list down in WT:AGA#Sources. Keeping it in one's head seems to signal "I don't want anyone else to help", though I am sure that is not your intent.__Gamren (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, of course it isn't. I keep it in my head partially because I haven't gotten around to writing it down yet and partially because I worry that writing it down will lead other people to think it's exhaustive, which it probably won't be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


Tbot entry, so it can be speedied if it is obviously wrong. I cannot judge that, merely that it seems unattested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Would be RFV failed. By the way, as for the cite provided: Could it mean something like interlingua, interlanguage? - 09:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hindi Wikipedia has अंतरभाषा (antarbhāṣā) (Interlingua). Hindi Wiktionary shows hi:अन्तरभाषा. The Hindi Wikipedia page starts off with w:hi:अंतरभाषा (इंटरलिंगुआ (iṇṭarliṅguā) / Interlingua), where इंटरलिंगुआ (iṇṭarliṅguā) is the word in question. It seems to suggest that इंटरलिंगुआ (iṇṭarliṅguā) is a possible alternate spelling. —Stephen (Talk) 23:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


The word genitoro does not accept this suffix, the standard word for this is patro. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No results found on Google Books or Google Groups, and even straight Google lacks anything of interest in Esperanto.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not an Esperanto word, but an Ido word. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

hlaupa á glæEdit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#hlaupa á glæ.

Same as above. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WT:SOP might be what you are looking for68.151.25.115 01:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a phrase from the Bible: Philippians 2:16. I'm not sure it merits inclusion, though. — Eru·tuon 16:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of the many unidiomatic, seemingly random Icelandic phrases we have had stick around until somebody notices them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to RFV, literally means "run into the sea" so probably not SOP. Can't find as a set phrase in any of the is/en dictionaries though. BigDom 09:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Can't find anything on Google Books, and there's one mention (wouldn't count as usage) on Timarít: [47] (Note that the other idiom mentioned there, kasta á glæ, is easily citeable. BigDom 08:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Italian for "rabbit, coney". Not in the Italian Wiktionary and several online dictionaries, nor easily attested on Google Books. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


No hits on Google Books or Timarít. BigDom 18:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Nothing on Tímarit and the only Google Books hit is our entry. BigDom 15:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: DVD player
Rfv-sense: sieve, colander

Not found in a tiny sample of online Spanish-English dictionaries/translators. - Amgine/ t·e 04:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Sieve, colander is found in loads of dictionaries, so I removed the RFV form that. The sense for DVD player is something I couldn't find, but I did find "Pasador De Vhs A Dvd" for a kind of VHS-DVD converter. And added some more meanings while I was at it. I didn't realise Blotto was doing Spanish now. I see no reason why he shouldn't, but there was some minor cleanup to do afterward. --P5Nd2 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


The very few webpages in which tipofaz is used as a Spanish word appear to have copied it from the Spanish-language Wikipedia, where an article was created a few years ago with this alleged word in its title, as a translation of Typeface. Such article was recently deleted because its content was already present in older and more in-depth articles like Tipo de letra, using well-established Spanish terms rather than ones which looked every bit newly calqued from English on the spot.

Most occurrences of tipofaz actually refer to Trauma Intervention Programs of Arizona, Inc. (most of these, surely enough, are in English) or are two words accidentally run together (mostly in Portuguese, the words being tipo and faz), often belonging to different sentences, with the intervening period missing.Splibubay (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


This form was the main entry while fabúla was given as an alternative form. However, the evidence suggests that this is not representative of real life so I have now made the latter the main entry. I couldn't find any usage of fábúla, while fabúla is easily citeable. The only mention of fábúla I can see is an alternative form of fabúla in the Íslensk orðsifjabók. Other dictionaries only have the form fabúla. Looking for usage reveals that fabúla has several pages of hits while fábúla gets zero. BigDom 09:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Similar to above, this was the main entry with fabúlera as an alternative. I've now made that one the main entry and brought the version with no accent here. I've only been able to find one cite on Tímarit in the first paragraph of this article (there are a couple more hits in the Tímarit archives but these are in Faroese, not Icelandic). Nothing at all on Google Books from what I can see. BigDom 09:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


Found one hit on Tímarit [48] but nothing on Google Books other than an Icelandic-Danish dictionary. BigDom 06:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


Nothing in Tímarit or Google Books. BigDom 11:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


I suspect this is an old form of Norwegian Bokmål tåke, from before "aa" spellings were changed to "å". DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It pretty clearly exists:
    • 1922, Johannes Jantzen, Nordiske domme i sjøfartsanliggender
      Det maa erindres at der var tyk taake og at man efter bestikket skulde ha befundet sig langt fra land.
    • 1920, Nils Russeltyvedt, Meteorologi og Instrumentlære for Flyvere
      Stratusskyer som ligger lavere end 500 meter kaldes taake.
    • 1910, Norway. Kgl. Utenriksdepartement, Konsulatberetninger: Indberetninger fra de norske legationer og konsulater ...
      Lawrencekanalen viste sig angivelig meget nyttig i høstsæsonen 1908, da røk og taake for flere uker ...

though I can't say for certain that this is Bokmål. For Danish, I decided not to include aa-variants (and capitalized nouns), which noone seems to have a problem with.__Gamren (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Danish place names such as Aalborg and Aarhus, apparently Aarhus was changed to Århus for many years, but reverted to the old spelling. DonnanZ (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be a {{dated spelling of}}, {{obsolete spelling of}}, or {{superseded spelling of}}? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably {{superseded spelling of}}. I'm not sure of the exact date when it was decided to replace "aa" with "å", which is used in Swedish too, it must be approximately a century ago. DonnanZ (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Apparently changed in 1948, I was a bit wrong. DonnanZ (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Place names, and proper nouns in general, are an exception in WT:ADA because aa- and å-forms may be found alongside each other. For other words, one can immediately predict how a word is spelled post-reform (so including both forms adds nothing of value), whereas names do not follow the same rules as stringently. But I think editors of Norwegian should decide among themselves whether to include the aa-forms.__Gamren (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally I don't want to include aa-forms apart from proper nouns. There are a few aa-form entries lurking in Category:Norwegian lemmas though. DonnanZ (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As for aa vs. å and the addition of something of value: Adding both forms adds something of value, especially for non-Danish-speaking people and Danish-learners. If someone finds on old Danish text or word and doesn't know anything about any Danish reform, the someone might try to look up a word spelled with aa instead of å. If forms with aa aren't included, the someone wouldn't find anything. Additionally, the exclusion would seem prescriptive and not descriptive. - 13:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


Rfv for senses "(Cantonese) to get wet by rain" and "(Cantonese) to drip" and pronunciation dap6. Dokurrat (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

dap6 is used for both these senses. The problem might be whether 溚 is used for dap6. The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters cites Parker Po-fei Huang's Cantonese Dictionary: Cantonese-English, English-Cantonese for this. I also found it in 陈慧英's 广州话的“噉”和“咁”. Also see this discussion. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


West Frisian for "Danelaw", may be an ad hoc calque. Outside the Wikipedia article I can't find anything but surnames (mostly in Dutch) on Google, Google Books and DBNL. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


Can't find anything in Google Books or Tímarit. BigDom 08:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a spot that has been accidentally left blank while painting a surface" - can only find the usual sense of "holiday" in Google Books and Tímarit. BigDom 12:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


Nothing in Google Books or the Tímarit archives. BigDom 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "automobile". It's certainly not a usual modern word for a car (for which German has plenty of terms, Auto, Wagen, Pkw, etc.), nor is it listed as having that meaning in Duden. The Deutsches Wörterbuch glosses it as "automobile" ([49]), but who knows what 19th-century Germans understood by that. If it exists at all outside of the dictionary (and German is a WDL, so a mention in a dictionary is not sufficient) I strongly suspect it needs to be tagged {{lb|de|obsolete}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC) could already attest it, and by the German lexica it seems to usually mean "automobile, car". In case of e.g. "Cabcart [..], zweiräderiger einspänniger Selbstfahrer" "Selbstfahrer" could mean more than car, but still could mean the same as "automobile" as "automobile" could have (had) a wider sense. - 03:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "win, defeat, vanquish".__Gamren (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017Edit


Rfv for Cantonese. Dokurrat (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: "The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters" cites 簡明粵英詞典, noting, "The author has created a number of Cantonese characters". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: So it has passed rfv? Dokurrat (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Not really... see WT:ATTEST. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is to say that I replaced the definition in the Translingual section with {rfdef|lang=mul}, not sure what to do about these characters.__Gamren (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —suzukaze (tc) 05:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang, can you shed any light on if this character is used, and if so, what it means? - -sche (discuss) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche :/ Not much luck unfortunately. I only found this in Từ điển Viện Hán Nôm, as a Nôm character for Vietnamese lờn. It seems the character was definitely used in history, but I'm not sure where else it has been used. Wyang (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv for Cantonese. Dokurrat (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: The definitions come from the Unihan Database, which got their definitions from "The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters". Here are the sources cited in the article:
  • lan2 (variant of 𨶙): 洪興仔 #21 殺入筲箕灣
  • lang1 (used in 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4; 粵語書寫問題研究項目
  • lang3 (used in 半𠹌𠼰): Hong Kong Judiciary unpublished glossary #4 (I would pronounce this as lang1.)
  • nang3 (join, link, connect): A Study of Cantonese Words (Zeng Zifan), 粵語書寫問題研究項目
— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: So, If my understanding is right, all pronunciations have passed rfv; sense "variant of 𨶙" has passed rfv. And sense "uncommon, rare" is not verified (yet). Dokurrat (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
RFV is generally not used for pronunciations. "Variant of 𨶙" doesn't pass RFV technically; see WT:ATTEST. "Uncommon, rare" is the definition for 𠮩𠹌/溜𠹌; it's not used by itself, so there should be a {{zh-only}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


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 [50]. 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)


Kurdish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


Nothing in Google Books (apart from our entry) and likewise in the Tímarit archive. BigDom 12:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


google books:"繃床" -"棕绷床" -"棕繃床" yields very few results. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 84,000 hits on Baidu for simplified 绷床. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we should mark it as a misspelling of 蹦床. The latter is found in the basic dictionaries, such as 《现代汉语规范词典》, 《汉语大词典》, 《汉语大辞典》, 《现代汉语词典》, etc., and agrees with the colloquial synonym 蹦蹦床 (bèngbèngchuáng), whereas I can't find this in any Chinese-Chinese or reliable Chinese-English dictionary. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Have you checked the searching results of 绷床 in Baidu? It seems to me that many of them are not used in sense trampoline. Dokurrat (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, some refer to trampoline, others seem to be referring to a type of bed. Not sure about this one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Although in its current form this is an obvious bot error, there seems to be usage out there under some other definition (for instance, here, here and here), so I changed this from a speedy delete to an rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[Edit: See erint#Further reading | Lachmann which should refer to Karl Lachmann would be missing.]
Dictionaries like L&S or Georges however do not seem to have this form. Maybe they rejected it as misspelling?
With more searching "erint" as some form of "erunt" should be attestable (cp. the refs given by the mentionings) and may it be only in a few inscriptions or manuscripts.
As for the sources given in OP's post: "sint et erint" in a Latin text from 1606 in an English book could mean "are and will be". The Latin text in the Romance dictionary has "... erint .. erunt ..." which looks somewhat strange, but maybe it's explainable by time (in older times spelling varied more often).
  • CIL 4, 7989
     [Notes:   1. Published in the part Supplementi pars III: Inscriptiones Pompeianae Herculanenses parietariae et vasorum fictilium from 1952-1970?   2. Maybe also cp.: [51] ([52] has ERUNT)]
    • [Edit: For cites based on it see erint]
  • CIL 5, 6693, line 12 (Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae editum. Voluminis quinti pars posterior. Adiectae sunt tabulae geographicae duae – Inscriptiones Galliae cisalpinae latinae. Consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae edidit Theodorus Mommsen. Pars posterior inscriptiones regionum Italiae undecimae et nonae comprehendens, Berlin, 1877, p. 740):
"POTERINT" (cp. poterint which isn't mentioned in possum) is cited and with the proper CIL 4 text "ERINT" should be cited too. Without the proper CIL 4 text, the texts based on it could be used and should attest "erint". As for the note "Sabbatini Tumolesi observes that erint is likely simply a misreading for erunt": Instead of misreading (which would mean the CIL editors made an error), it could be correct representation of the inscription but be a misspelling (which would mean some ancient guy made an error) or - maybe less likely - be a non-common alt form. - - 21:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC), 05:49-06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Czech, Rfv-sense: (mildly vulgar) to rape

It does mean "to fuck", but not "to rape", AFAIK. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


I see ample attestation of russisut, on the other hand.__Gamren (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


hebræerisut looks fine, though.__Gamren (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


-- Dokurrat (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dokurrat -- Wow, just realized you were RFV-ing the entire page, not just the ZH. It pretty clearly exists in Japanese, and is the second half of the name of a prefecture: Niigata is spelled 新潟 (Nīgata) in Japanese. C.f. also various entries at Weblio and Kotobank for Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr: 澙 seems to be an 異体字 of 潟. —suzukaze (tc) 02:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC))
Thank you! At the standard font size on my screen, I completely didn't see the extra horizontal stroke.
For clarity, the character Dokurrat listed is , which I initially mistook for . Note the additional horizontal stroke at the center of the first character, lacking in the second.
This variant does have some online presence: google:"新澙" produces about 21K ostensible hits, and the first page at least appears to be all Chinese. Adding particle (ha) to select just for Japanese and looking at Google Books, google books:"新澙" "は" gives us 10K ostensible hits. Some still appear to be Chinese, but for the Japanese, it's hard to tell how many of these are scannos, since Google only shows "snippet view" based on their sometimes-faulty OCR results. Notably, WWWJDIC doesn't list this character, and it's not in Nelson or Shogakukan's 国語大辞典 either, though all three include the variant without the extra stroke.
I suspect we might be able to ferret out enough CFI-worthy citations to retain the JA entry as a rare alternative form. As it is, this form is so rare that I'm not sure I care enough to put in the legwork... but at least some of that could be the flu talking.  :‑P ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay... I think I do have seen Chinese usage in the internet. By far under our investigation ablility, I think a "notes" section is needed explaining that the Chinese usage is no earlier than internet era. @Wyang, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Tooironic, Zcreator Any opinions? Dokurrat (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)




Both created by the same user. Caucă is mentioned in DEX as a variant of cauc: 1) a type of headwear used mainly by monks (from Turkish kavuk); or, 2) (archaic and regional) a wooden cup (from Latin *cau < cavus). Nowhere is the sense of "skull" mentioned. Scaucă is found only once on a nationalistic site trying to link the word scoică (< Slavic), through a regional form scaucă, to Dacian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat delayed discovery, but scălan is also incorrectly defined. I'm starting to smell the nationalistic linguistics oozing from these entries. Am I wrong @Redboywild, @Word dewd544? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're not wrong. I'm not even familiar with some of these to be honest. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
scaucă is definitely not citable. The other two get a few hits on Google Books, but I'm not sure if the definitions are correct. The etymologies are pretty fishy too, only mentioning PIE and Albanian. The words seem legitimate, but they're a bit too rare to be included by our standards. (To be fair, there are some other archaic/regional words on Wiktionary that don't seem citable, for example vierșun.) Redboywild (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I suspected. I'll take a look and see what I can do to correct the definitions that exist. I'm considering deleting scaucă, though. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


This Scots entry was the subject of a long thread at RFD, but no cites have been produced. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Scots really a WDL? - 09:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
No, but so far not even the verification required for an LDL entry has been provided. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@ User:Donnanz and everyone else, I missed the long, drawn-out RFV debate, despite being the creator of this entry. I feel bad that I missed it. I'm surprised that I wasn't pinged.
Not having anything to do with the RFV debate, my opinion is, as said by others, that, since current rules treat Scots as a completely separate language on Wiktionary from English, then if pornography is attestable in a Scots context it should be included, regardless of the "clutter" it would cause. I think I was the one who created at least most of the "English-borrowing entries" in Scots (at one point, I created a lot of them, like electromagnetic). I had a discussion with someone else about how to treat Scots words that could be found in English at some point even before this RFD debate. I think it was Angr, who is now User:Mahagaja, and User:Leasnam that I discussed this with. They said it was okay at that time too.
Regardless of the linguistic debate that comes with it (and it is quite huge, and it happens outside of Wiktionary too, even), Wiktionary currently classifies it as a separate language and not a dialect. It might be a good idea, actually, to bring this up in BP, since the discussion sure did explode in just one single RFD discussion of one single word. But for words like pornography though, it's probably best to delete them, regardless, on the completely different note that they aren't attestable anyway. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

matenmanĝa cerealaĵoEdit

Must be extremely rare. All I've found so far is this: "Infanoj kaj junuloj estas viktimoj de industrio: sukero estas malmultekosta kaj donas agrablan guston, kaj sekve, industriistoj enmetas sukeron eĉ en produktojn kiel ŝinkoj, matenmanĝaj cerealoj kaj trinkaĵoj kiel malvarma teo!" (Renée Triolle, "Sukero: ĉu amiko aŭ malamiko?", Juna Amiko, issue 3 of 2016, page 10) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

bouônne mainEdit

Norman for "green thumb, green fingers", but literally it simply means "good hand". I'd like to see it used. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


The usual, nothing in Google Books or Tímarit. BigDom 15:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"reps" and "(lachen heraus loud) lal"Edit

RFV for the German translations "reps" (added in June 2009) and "(lachen heraus loud) lal" (added in October 2010, moved from lol where it was added in March 2007) at LOL#Translations.

  • lal: "lachen heraus loud" is no proper German and the abbreviation "lal" for "lachen heraus loud" makes no sense. ( has "lal" together with "Lacht Aus Laut", but that's not a reliable source and comes with an un-German example.)
  • reps: What should "reps" even stand for or mean? (Shall it be the Finnish reps?)

- 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


I found only this, which I suspect is a mistake. Language names are usually the equative of the demo- or ethnonym with which the language is associated, so the expected (and easily attestable) form is savalimmiormiutut (like a Faroe Islander).__Gamren (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


_Gamren (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


I'm not sure it makes sense, either; -mioq means "inhabitant of", and I don't think you can attach it to the name of a people.__Gamren (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


This one makes no sense; it's just the allative of Tjekkia. The expected word would be tjekkiamiusut, which gets one timarit hit: [53], which is enough.__Gamren (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


I found urdutut here and here.__Gamren (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. The given reference doesn't have it (or doesn't have it anymore, or for some reason doesn't display it to me): {{R:Strong's|G|2455}} leads to "Ἰούδας" (title, "Strong's Definitions", "Thayer's Greek Lexicon", "Concordance Results" text)
  2. "Strong's Concordance" is a mentioning which doesn't attest anything (WT:CFI, WT:About Ancient Greek)
  3. The entry itself claims "not found in any version of the Greek New Testament".
    • The statement is lacking information and is almost somewhat misleading as persons named Judah/Judas do not only appear in the NT but also in the OT. An open question would be: Does Ἰουδάς appear in the OT?
    • The statement might be wrong as there might be an old or bad edition having Ἰουδάς in the NT. Is there?

An edition, be it old or bad, having Ἰουδάς anywhere, be it in NT or OT, could attest the mispelling.
BTW: Maybe Ἰουδά (Ioudá) needs to be checked too as {{R:Strong's|G|2448}} has "Ἰούδα" (title) but "Ἰουδά" ("Strong’s Definitions"). Greek New Testaments at have "Ἰούδα" in Mat. 2:6 and Luc. 1:39. -- 08:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)



-- 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)


Does not exist in Bashkir: none of the available dictionaries have it. Borovi4ok (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move to RfV. BigDom 06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Moved from RFD accordingly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


Very few results in Google. —suzukaze (tc) 06:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


No Google Books hits. —suzukaze (tc) 06:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Should be ヤムルカ (yamuruka) instead. C.f. Weblio J-E, and 64 ostensible hits at google books:"ヤムルカ". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 03:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Romanian. Created by an anon without a language header, then changed to Romanian by a non-native speaker. The only citation I can find on Google Books uses the word as an adjective, not a noun. Redboywild (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Romanian. As above, created by an anon who doesn't edit in the language. No Google Books hits in Romanian. Redboywild (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: dried meat. Is the current definition proper? Dokurrat (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Rfv closed. replaced this line with Template:defn. Dokurrat (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (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)

f-o, f-loEdit

f-ino is already falling out of use, but those male abbreviations have never really been used... I doubt they can be properly sourced. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


For inflection/gender.
"Ex Bibliopolio Hafniensi" doesn't indicate inflection or gender, and the etymology would rather imply a neuter bibliopōlīon or bibliopōlīum (long i for Greek ει) instead of masculine bibliopōlius. Also it seems that in Classical Latin -εῖον (-eîon) more often becomes -ēum than -īum.

  • bibliopolium does exist, and does also occur in a few older dictionaries (just search with GB for "bibliopolium, i, n.") although dictionaries aren't sufficient for en.wt.
  • bibliopolion, though not sufficient for en.wt, is mentioned in Verba barbara Ex Calepini, Passeratii, Stephani, & Fabri Lexicis expulsa: "Bibliopolion, [Greek], locus ubi libi venduntur, [Romance]". It does also appear in other books, but rarely.
  • bibliopoleum does occur in dictionaries and rarely elsewhere too.

- 14:25, 21 November 2017

bibliopolium does now exist. - 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Nonexistent. --iudexvivorum (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. This is misspelling of สุกรี (person's name) or สกุณี (mistyping). --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Short story shorter: The source (for which see talk) is (Middle) French and not Latin.
Short story more complete: The author, François Rabelais, was a French French author (he was from France and wrote in French, more precisely Middle French), and the source given at talk is from Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel (livre II, chapitre VII), which is a French work (maybe see w:François Rabelais, w:Gargantua and Pantagruel for more). So "antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes" in it is either (Middle) French or just a mentioning and no usage. Both is not sufficient for attesting a Latin term even for Latin being a LDL (WT:CFI, WT:About Latin#Attestation). By the context, it should be the title of a fictious book (context: "... libraire ... livres ... desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire", in a Germanic translation by Gottlob Regis: "Die Liberey ... mit etlichen Büchern ..., von denen hie das Befundregister folget ..."). Thus the requirements of WT:CFI#Fictional universes could apply.
Additionally, the cite in entry could be incorrect - at least in later editions it is "Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium" (2nd word's beginning with a lower-case m). - 12:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's long enough unattested and discussion has set long enough to get RFV failed. Now the language is changed and citations are properly given.
Some further editions and cites:
  • 16th century, François Rabelais.
    • In: Les œuures de M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine, contenans la vie, faicts & dicts Heroiques de Gargantua, & de sonfilz Panurge: Auecla Prognostication Pantagrueline, 1553, page 248 & 253 & 255 (in chapter VII of Le second livre des faicts et dicts Heroiques du bon Pantagruel, compose par M. Francois Rabelais Docteur en Medicine. Reueu & corrigé pour la seconde edition):
      Et touua la librairie de sainct Victor fort magnificque, mesmement d'aucuns liures qu'il y trouua, desquelz sensuit le repertoire, & primo. [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ia impriméz, & les autres l'on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.
    • In: Œuvres de Rabelais collationnées pour la première fois sur les éditions originales accompagnées d'n commentaire nouveau par MM. Burgaud des Marets et Rathery. Seconde édition. Tome premier, Paris, 1870, page 342 & 349 & 352 (in Le Gargantua et le Pantagruel, livre II, chapitre VII):
      Et touva la librairie de Saint Victor fort magnifique, mesmement d'aucuns livres qu'il y trouva, desquelz s'ensuit le repertoire, et primo : [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes merdicantium. [...] Desquelz aucuns sont ja imprimés, et les autres on imprime maintenant en cestle noble ville de Tubine.
    • The Works of Francis Rabelais, M. D. In Five Books. Vol. II. Now carefully revised, and compared throughout with the late new Edition of M. Le du Chat, By Mr. Ozell. Who has likewise added at the Bottom of the Pages, a Translation of the Notes, Historical, Critical, and Explanatory, of the said M. du Chat, and Others: In which Notes, never before printed in English, the Text is not only explained, but, in Multitudes of Places, amended, and made conformable to the first and best Editions of this learned and facetious Athor, Dublin, 1738, page 7337 & 55 & 67 (2nd book, chapter VII):
      In his Abode there he went to see the Library of St. Victor, very magnificent, especially in Books which were there, of which followeth the Catalogue. Et primò. [...] (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium. [...] Of which Library some Books are already printed and the rest are now at the Press, in this noble City of Tubinge.
      (93.) Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes Mendicantium.] It is in some Editions Merdicantium, which inclines M. D. C. to think our Author designates the Physicians by the barbarous Terms of their Profession.
    • Rabelais Gargantua and Pantagruel Translated into English by Sir Thomas Urquhart and Peter le Motteux annis 1653–1694 With an Introduction by Charles Whibley. Volume I, London, 1900, page 222 & 225 & 227 (2nd book, chapter VII):
      In his abode there he found the Library of St. Victor, a very stately and magnifick one, especially in some books which were there, of which followeth the Repertory and Catalogue, Et primò, [...] Antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribationes toordicantium. [...] Of which library some books are already printed and the rest are now at the presse, in this noble city of Tubinge.
    • Meister Franz Rabelais Gargantua und Pantagruel aus dem Französischen verdeutscht, mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen, den Variaten des zweyten Buchs von 1533, auch einem noch unbekannten Gargantua herausgegeben durch Gottlog Regis. Erster Theil, Leipzig, 1832, page 208 & 212 & 214 (2nd book, 7th chapter):
      Die Liberey zu Sanct Victor fand er sehr herrlich versehen, insonderheit mit etlichen Büchern so er da vorfand, von denen hie das Befundregister folget, et primo: [...] Antipericatametanaparbuzidiamphicribrationes mendicantium. [...] Von denen etliche bereits gedruckt sind, und die übrigen soeben unter der Preß befindlich zu Tübingen der guten Stadt.
Other older french editions are (16th ct.), (late 16th ct.), (17th ct.) and (18th ct.).
- 09:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


(Ido) Tagged (with {{dubious}}) but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Added a couple of quotations. — Algentem (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The rationale was pretty silly though: "same verb as in Latin? I doubt it". There are cases aplenty where an Ido form corresponds to a Latin form. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Couldn't find anything for this in Google Books or Tímarit. Even a normal Google Search only brings up translations (presumably originally from us). BigDom 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


Spanish. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


French verb - not in fr.wiktionary - incomprehensible "translation". SemperBlotto (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80, do you think this is our problematic anon from Bangkok? —suzukaze (tc) 18:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. Some wandering IPs sometimes made fault edits, but not always. However, I don't know any French loanword. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Needs quotations. IMO, "sauren" is simply an inflected form of "sauer" and all the inflected forms of "sauren" are nonsense. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, you could verify the inflection table at sauer. The inflected forms are "saure", "saurer", ... But "sauere", "sauerer", ..., are probably simply wrong, maybe non-standard. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

sauren now has an inflected form entry. The RFVed sauren indeed seems to be an error.
Both forms, saur- and sauer-, do exist and are easily attested. As for the positive and the comparative the contacted forms might be more common nowadays, and as for the superlative there should only be the uncontracted form (sauerst-, not saurst-). -Wilhelm-231 (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If this is the case, shouldn't the inflection table at "sauer" use the forms that are more common nowadays? --Bruno413 (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I have deleted the inflected form of sauren and removed the erroneous definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: condom. Google seems to be giving something else. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


The conjugation tables make no sense: if it's only found in Late Latin, then why are we labelling one of the conjugations "Classical"? The fourth conjugation paradigm probably never existed anyway; the only one for which there is some limited evidence is the first conjugation one (chiefly indirect evidence, i.e. the Romance descendants). {{R:Gaffiot}} only has the form inodiatus; Du Cange doesn't have anything. Should we move it in the Reconstructed name space? --Barytonesis (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

L&S too only have "ĭnŏdĭātus, a, um, adj. [...] Not. Tir. p. 77." Georges however has "in-odio, ātus, āre [...], Vulg. exod. 5, 21 cod. Lugd. Carm. epigr. 1606, 14 Buecheler. Not Tir. 46, 89 (inodiatus). Vgl. Landgraf in Wölfflins Archiv 12, 150."
  • The "cod." (codex, manuscript) isn't a good source, but it is a source and the reading might also appear in some (old) printed editions. But of course this source would require a usage note.
  • Buecheler (Anthologia latina sive poesis latinae supplementum ediderunt Franciscus Buecheler et Alexander Riese. Pars posterior. Carmia epigraphica conlegit Franciscus Buecheler. Fasciculus II Lipsia, 1897, p. 772f., IA) has "inodiari". It could depend on reading or edition though, in which case a usage note would have to be added. In any case it should be sufficient to attest more than just the participle/adjective.
    PS: Buecheler gives "CIL. VIII suppl. 13134" as source and states "14 inodiari nooum, adduci in odium". CIL. VIII suppl. I, 13134 (1891, p. 1330) has "inodiari" too. Hence it should be attested (well, at least when giving the source and the text in the entry).
As for the CL/LL stuff: If the CL forms don't get attested, they should be removed. If the forms get attested as ML/NL, then the entry has to get changed. - 10:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: are you sure about the original conjugation you put there, and which is now labelled as "Classical Latin" since this edit? I think that's the most dubious part of the entry. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs, and that it didn’t matter how old or new a Latin term had to be to demand the classical conjugation. Remove whatever you want. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: "I thought that the original conjugation tables applied to all Latin verbs": they do (maybe they shouldn't, but that's another issue). It's just that it has to be the right conjugation! And to be fair, it's not you but Aearthrise would added the qualifier "Classical"; thus it's his edit which doesn't make sense–even though he added the right conjugation table in the process. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Is this an erroneous entry created by a non-native speaker who simply made a a back-formation of the plural "Wünsche" of the noun "Wunsch"? Or is it some archaic form of "Wunsch"? In this case, please add quotations to prove that it exists. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe automation gone wrong. – Jberkel (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
By version history it wasn't bot-created, but it appears to be created in error (wrong back-formation). However, it could also be an alternative form, be it an old singular *Wünsch or an apocopated plural *Wünsch (in which case the entry would have to be changed).
  • [54]: "[...] zeigen genugsam deine Klagen, deine Lästerungen, deine Wünsch, und Fluchreden, so du so gar [...]" --- 1. title of the work (as it can't be properly seen on google and as title iven by google aren't always correct)?; 2. is it an apocopated plural (and if so, of Wunsch or Wünsch?) or an old form for "Wünsch-" (like as short form for "Wünschreden" similar to "Sonn- und Feiertage" = "Sonntage und Feiertage")?
  • [55]: "Auf daß aber deine Wünsch nicht leer abgehen" (apocopated plural)
  • [56]: "Denn ich auch ehre ja deine Wünsch' alle." (apocopated plural, but with apostrophe to denote apocope)
  • [57]: "Also ist der Wünsch, den Herodes gehabt, [...] Und diese Wünsche [...] Nach dem Wünsch der unmöglichen Sachen [...]" (old singular Wünsch with plural Wünsche)
Note that there is also a proper noun "Wünsch" (maybe cp. wp). Attestation (WT:CFI) requires three cites for each form and maybe they can be found. In any case this is WT:RFVN (maybe cp. the intro) and not vote-based WT:RFDN. - 10:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Entries can get created automatically without bots. I think in this case it's quite obvious that it was created in error. – Jberkel (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I too think it was created in error, but I wouldn't think it was created automatically. And the least that should be done when deleting an RFVed term out of process should be (a) to do a (short) google book search and (b) to not close the RFV until the required time has passed. Thus, if the term gets attested at the RFV page, the entry has to be restored and the citations added.
Anyhow, the entry Wünsch now has two cites for Wünsch with plural Wünsche and two cites for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch. That should be enough to have an ordinary RFV to find a third cite. (Wünsch' would be another term.)
  • [58] page 207 [Note besides the singular Wünsch the text elsewhere also has singular wunsch (p. 108, p. 250b)]: "Wie laut die bitte und der Wünsch?" --- this could be a third cite for singular Wünsch but title of the work?
  • [59] --- another 3rd cite with singular Wünsch and plural Wünsch; but text is Italian and German while title at google books is only Italian, which could mean that google misses a second title page or misplaced it
  • [60] --- a 3rd 3rd cite, but might be doubtful
  • [61] and [62] --- further cites
Entry now has 3 cites for singular Wünsch, thus this word is attested. The three cites are related to Cöllen, which could be by accident or be older 'Kölsch'.
- 14:41-16:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I guess anything can be cited if you search long enough in old texts, if it's still a useful entry is another question. It should get labeled as obsolete / rare, otherwise will be misleading. – Jberkel 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that anything can.
I was just about to add something related to that as I was going to add this:
  Entry now also has 3 cites for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch, thus it's attested too. So it could be discrimination time. Wünsch (as plural of Wunsch) could now be archaic or poetic, colloquial, dialectal. Wünsch as singular could be archaic or maybe dialectal.
Wünsch as singular could also be rare, but I don't think that Wünsch as plural of Wunsch is, though "now rare" or maybe "now rare in writting" could apply. - 16:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If the newest citation you can come up with is more than 250 years old, then it is not "now rare" but rather "now not used at all" --Bruno413 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There could be younger usages for Wünsch as plural of Wunsch, and I did assume there are. I restricted the google results and didn't bother to look for younger usages. With different restrictions, I found Wünsch (as plural of Wunsch) once in the late 19th century. However it seems that Wünsch (plural of Wunsch) was uncommon in the 19th century with Wünsch' being commonly used. As for 20th century usages: dunno. As for 21st century usages: I found it once in an e-book text at gb, once in a gb preview of which I can't see the actual text, and once in a dialectal quote (which also has "Dass") of which I can't really see the context. - 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I know that there is usage of "Wünsch" as a contraction of "Wünsche" (plural of "Wunsch"), but this is about the word "Wünsch" in singular, which is, as far as the citations attest, obsolete or archaic, and should be labeled and categorized as such. --Bruno413 (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
My posts where about both, and the passage quoted was about Wünsch (plural of Wunsch).
As for Wünsch (singular): I tried to find the Kölsch word for Wunsch or wish but didn't have any luck. (Kölsch examples with the plural aren't helpful; at best has "Klevld wønts"; Höning's Wörterbuch der Kölner Mundart doesn't have a term like WVn* (V for vowel, * as wildcard) meaning Wunsch or wish.) Feel free to assume that Wünsch (singular) isn't used anymore, not even in dialects. - 10:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


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


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)


Any takers? "Definition" needs to be translated into English. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like total nonsense. The three Google Books hits are clearly for something else. 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Probably as nonsensical as the goidre above. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


This doesn't appear to be used anywhere, not even in any on-line Bible translation for the "chief of the bakers"/chief baker in the Joseph story, the most logical place to look for an attestation. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)





If this fails, it could be moved to ĉefministreco ("prime-ministership") which seems attestable. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)



I have doubts that these terms can be durably attested. A few may be borderline citable, but not all. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, in case you want to try saving these. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I can't find enough cites to save any of them. There's one for ĉefkurento (which seems to be quoting La Ondo de Esperanto), one for ĉefnavo, and one for ĉefeparĥio. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


No hits in a regular Google search, Google Books or the Tímarit archive. BigDom 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of phobia entry I'd delete on sight, but native speaker @BiT created it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


This passed in 2008 without a single citation being added. Per the entry itself, it seems that jousent is a deliberately nonstandard form of jouent (ils/elles jousent) but that it's from the verb jouer not jouser. Google Books does seem to find two dictionaries that have it, but no uses (and they should be putting it under jouer too). Though there does seem to be an English word jouser, possibly too rare to work out the meaning. 21:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to come from this :, but is there permission to use it? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There are very few results for this (~20), and even out of the ones that exist, the first ones seem to be from a group for Tajik speakers to learn the written style of Iranian Persian which would explain the use of 'невиштан' rather than 'навиштан'. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding a speedy deletion template as the user was blocked and it was considered that they were copying entries and working with languages about which they knew little. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


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)


I'd like to see proof that "beruht" exists as an adjective. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I certainly can't find any evidence. I think someone got confused by the fact that the verb form beruht (auf) can mean "is based (on)". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just found out about this now. It does not exist. There exists “beruhend auf” in this sense “based on”. I strike this now and delete the concerned part. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 10:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


google:"高頂絲製禮帽" only gives 2 results. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedied by deletion of the new version of the original spelling and moving this new spelling back to the original spelling. Otherwise, the revision history of the original spelling (necessary for the attribution part of our Creative Commons license) would have been at the new spelling, and any further edits to either entry would have complicated the task of restoring the revision history to where it belongs.
If you want to recreate the entry for the new spelling so you can continue the rfv, feel free, but I wasted more than an hour failing to come up with an explanation for the technical issues involved that wouldn't cause your head to explode- and I can normally explain almost anything.
At any rate, I didn't touch the entry for the new simplified spelling, so that still needs to be dealt with. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Alright, I think I kinda get it. Anyway, I've recreated the entry to continue the rfv. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Really, I don't think you need to recreate the entry to continue the rfv session. Dokurrat (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dokurrat: Well, I think it should be recreated so that 高頂絲製禮帽 (and its simplified form) can be deleted through the right process. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I see. Dokurrat (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung I think you can pronounce rfv failed now. Dokurrat (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


(not the "pond turtle" sense)

@Fumiko Take's edit on プリン (Purin) gave me some frustration.

The only reliable source for Squirtle (as in the Pokémon) is Daijisen Plus, in my opinion. The CFI says it is considered a person (the character sense), but this is another language, does it still apply and need the citations? --POKéTalker (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Is this really a noun, not an adjective? Does it really have the meaning emydid (zoology: Any member of the Emydidae)? --Bruno413 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can find, there are 4 uppercase uses in all of Google, and they all read "Das Dithyrosternon valdense der schweizerischen Bohnerze scheint mehr Emydisch als Testudinisch zu sein". I tried all the plausible inflected forms I could think of: Emydische, Emydischen, Emydischer, and Emydisches, and they were all lowercase. Even in this sentence, the context is consistent with that of an adjective, though not enough to rule out its being a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If it was a noun in your citation, shouldn't it be "… scheint mehr ein Emydisch als ein Testudinisch zu sein"? --Bruno413 (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The citation could have a noun in it ('mehr ... als ...' can occur with nouns and without article), or could have an adjective (which for whatever reason was capitalised - maybe in analogy to some adjectives derived from personal names?).
German translation of noun Emydidae or emydids could be Emydiden, which exists and is regulary formed by Latin -ae > German -en. Backformed singular might be Emydide. - 06:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


As with Emydisch. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hà NamEdit

Rfv-sense: Henan (area in Guangzhou south of the Pearl River). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


see e.g.

simply entering 'bibliopolio' in google books will yield many examples of prints

@Luitist: Please see WT:RFVN#bibliopolius above. As it was pointed out there, dative or ablative bibliopolio alone doesn't attest a masculine bibliopolius. Maybe the entry should simple be moved (for which WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits might be helptful). - 10:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Volapük words for frogsEdit

hifrog, jifrog, frogül, frogalarvat. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


This reconstruction needs to be verified. See talk page. Wyang (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Same as with sauren above: IMO, oxygen is the base form, oxygenen is one of the inflected forms, and the inflected forms of oxygenen are nonsense. --Bruno413 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • But oxygen is English. It can't be an inflected form of Oxygen because of the capitalisation. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a basic German adjective entry for oxygen - don't know how it inflects. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


It seems to be only used as a prefix derived from German schwieger-, see sviger- (Bokmål) and sviger- (Nynorsk). DonnanZ (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sviger isn't listed as a separate word in the DDO either, but looking at “svigerbarn” in Den Danske Ordbog it can be seen that it is effectively a prefix in Danish too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not familiar with sviger being used as a stand-alone word in Danish. DDO not listing Danish sviger- is an error of omission; it's still being expanded, and as of the November 10 update they have less than 100 K lemmas (still way ahead of us, though).__Gamren (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
@Gamren: Would svigerfamilie be used instead for in-laws? DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I don't know a word for a single relative by marriage, though, except maybe indgift.__Gamren (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought so, svigerfamilie is exactly the same in Norwegian, which is no great surprise. As for indgift, it also seems to mean intermarried (within the same family); that's how I interpret the verb indgifte too. DonnanZ (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


"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)


Rfv-sense "light (color)". Dokurrat (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

And Rfv for Mandarin. Dokurrat (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Struck. See .--Zcreator (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The sense "light (color)" comes from the discussion board at, but I can't find anything that supports this. However, since one month hasn't passed, I'm unstriking this for now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: yam (with synonyms 山藥 and 薯蕷). I think this is due to confusion with sweet potato. @Tooironic, any evidence? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


Dinka. I have major doubts that this was ever mentioned in an attestable source in this obscure language. It might have its own Wikipedia article, but that doesn't count. I know LDL might apply, but I'm asking for some proof of even one attestable source. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


झ़ (ža) is a totally artificial letter that is never used. I doubt this can be cited. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 17:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: saga, the Scandinavian term. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is for English, then should it then be moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English ? Leasnam (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
See the link, rfv'ing the Latin sense. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It does say it's New Latin. DonnanZ (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: sagae Islandicae, sagas Islandicas --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it to the entry. That makes this one cited. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)



"home page". —suzukaze (tc) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

ホームページ often connotes something different than "home page" as it can mean "web page" or "website", but 主ページ is not such a word. SoP at best, delete both as far as Japanese is concerned. Nardog (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)



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)


炖煌 seems to be the wrong simplified form of 燉煌, where 燉 should not be simplified to 炖. 炖 is reserved for the cooking sense "to stew". — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I've checked 简化字总表, 第一批异体字整理表 and 通用规范汉字表, I think there is no rules that officially simplifies 燉 as 炖. Dokurrat (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Dutch, RFV-sense of: (slang) use of the word to say someone is hot in an attractive way 1. Is this attested? 2. Is this really used as a noun? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

( Might be something like de:porno (adj., colloquial youth slang). - 20:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC) )
If it's attested, it probably wouldn't be a noun. But I've never heard of this, so it's likely not used in Randstad slang. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I've retracted the RFV, it seems attestable as an adjective in phrases like "echt porno" and "helemaal porno". Perhaps it's mostly internet slang? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Only one non-durable use on Google. Still funny enough for BJAODN. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It looks like a good-faith edit. Googling, I find usages of zelotoj referring to football fans, but perhaps that has connotations of ferventness that fan lost?__Gamren (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was probably in good faith, but it's still amusing. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "pharmacy". —suzukaze (tc) 10:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Not a French word; always found italicised in historical discourse, as far as I can tell. A few examples: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. I'm looking for non-italicised instances. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük: "Of or relating to a mole cricket or mole crickets." —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for female tiger cub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for male tiger cub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for female mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Volapük for male mole cricket. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one has ever used Volapük to write about mole crickets, but it was deemed necessary to have things like this that spell out in detail exactly how many angels can dance on that specific pin. With a modular, completely regular constructed language like this, it almost seems like we should treat the derived forms as SOP, since anyone who knows one form can construct all the others by purely mechanical application of a known set of morphemes to a transparently-derived root. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Roots aren't completely transparently derivable in Esperanto, and I doubt so in Volapük. kolego is one example of a root word and another affixed root colliding. Jokes about financo(finance) being fi-(shameful) and *nanco abound, as well. I think Lojban and company are about the only languages that desired and achieved purity in that sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't completely transparent in Volapük either; compare jipul (girl, ji- + pul) and jipül (lamb, jip + -ül). And I think that the fact that a word with a gender prefix is attestable is noteworthy and useful lexical information for Volapük. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


trường quốc tế and trường thọ seem to be set phrases on their own. I can't think of another instance in which trường qualifies for these senses. ばかFumikotalk 23:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): “(Internet, Brazil) Abbreviation of o que.” — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

般遷, 般迁Edit

Dokurrat (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


Unpronounceable word in Russian; cannot be in wide use as result. 17:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "unpronounceable", but I'd say delete, along with several other brand entries from (talk). --2A02:2788:A4:F44:A99F:AFD6:2D3D:98C4 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Those words are correct Russian words and transliterations of foreign trademarks used in Russian texts in its Cyrillic form, just google them in "quotation marks" 01:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If we keep the English trademark entries, we can keep the Russian. The entry is created by a clueless anon, going to fix it. I have nuked their creations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have actually nuked it with the rest of entries made by Special:Contributions/ No hard feelings. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The correct Russian word is "ниндендо". Сладкій хлѣбъ (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Out of personal curiosity, and as a possible sanity check, I just ran various searches:
TL;DR: it looks like the spelling with the т is overwhelmingly more common in online sources, and it also looks like there are enough Books hits to meet CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 06:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Galician for sea. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


Tagged but not listed. --Gente como tú (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Is it really a word?--Jusjih (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody uses huloganan, it's hulganan.


Should this be сүю not cүю ?? - Amgine/ t·e 18:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I'm moving it now. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for “multi-medal-winning”. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Spanish for “stand-up; stand-up comedian”. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's good - not quite a hot word, a tepid work perhaps. From 2016 and 2017. --Gente como tú (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "variety of artemisia seek". It comes from the Unihan database, but what does it even mean? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The "variety of artemisia" part is easy: the genus Artemisia includes a number of medicinal/aromatic herbs such as wormwood, mugwort, sagebrush, sweet Annie etc., as well as tarragon. Judging by some of the Google hits (none of which I can read), there may be another species involved, Crossostephium chinense, which was originally classified as Artemisia chinensis. The "seek" part looks like stray text- perhaps a note to look for more information. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's likely that the definition is referring to 蘄艾蕲艾 then, which is Crossostephium chinense, as you have suggested. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(noun) Cyrillic". Dokurrat (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


All Google hits point here or to Wikipedia (or mirrors). The correct form should be 廟島庙岛 (Miàodǎo). Pinging @LlywelynII, who made the entry here and added this to Wikipedia. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I didn't make it up wholecloth but that's been a while and I can't think of any way to find the original source besides Googling, which you say doesn't work. In any case, (a) You're absolutely right that the main entry should be at the common form of the characters and (b) the variant should just have an {{altform}} template or, if it's really too rare to bother with, be nixed. I'll fix the Wiki links if they aren't already. Apologies for the trouble. — LlywelynII 06:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: I'm going to leave it as is for now, and if it doesn't get cited in a month, it will get delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (1)"Pekingese; pug" (2)a surname that is pronounced with a level-tone. Dokurrat (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Surname is given in 中華語文大辭典 (Chinese Linguipedia). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Surname is also found in 教育部重編國語辭典修訂本, with 哈銘 as an example. However, it seems like 哈銘's surname should be read as instead. Now, there's also a surname 哈 used in the Song dynasty, as seen in 百家姓, but I'm not sure if it should be read as or . — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

cordon d'un nouvieau-néEdit

"umbilical cord" in Norman; literally "cord of a newborn", SOP. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's correct I'd keep it, in the same way as umbilical cord. DonnanZ (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Another thing: if French is anything to go by, this doesn't look/sound natural at all. It just looks like a clumsy neologism. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. All I can find is a mention here. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to quarrel". Dokurrat (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Ido. Is it really used, based on a misspelling? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Barely, I could only find one use here, page 5. Note that in most cases the word appears in quotation marks. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "service". Dokurrat (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv for Chinese. Dokurrat (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

, Edit

Rfv-sense: "the number 10–5". Dokurrat (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dokurrat: Not sure if it's a number, but it's a measurement of that value relative to the base unit of length. See Chinese numerals and Hanyu Da Zidian sense 8. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: And the measurement of that value or Hanyu Da Zidian sense 8 is still not the number 10–5. And Wikipedia itself is not a source. Dokurrat (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


If it exists, it it surely an alt-form of -nnaaq. I found two occurrences of ikinngutinnaara "my best friend", one in an Atuagagdliutit article and one in a Jørn Riel poem, but not with the -nnar- form. I also tried searching for "favourite musician/cake/town/country/cocktail", to no avail. What are some other words that people are likely to use in connection herewith?__Gamren (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


@DCDuring, you seem to be relying very heavily on Ruggiero for your entries — so much so that you have failed to notice that this is a protologism that they seemingly came up with and that nobody else has ever used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "personal name". Dokurrat (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(slang) cocaine". Can someone vouch for this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


__Gamren (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm legitimately unsure of this one. I found it in the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, but I am unsure what their sources for it were. Finsternish (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

kvira 2Edit

I have recreated kvira and added durably archived citations; if I did not misunderstand __Gamren then this should suffice; otherwise I apologize for the hassle. Finsternish (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC) corrected formatting Finsternish (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Of the citations currently in the entry, the 2014 one is clearly a mention. I am not sure if the Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda and Somera Esperanto Studo ones are durably archived, but I'm guessing they're probably not. Moreover, as Gamren said in the previous RFV, it's possible that "kvira teorio" shouldn't be counted. We only have three valid quotations if we count "kvira teorio" and if the other two are durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
They've been saved on and the links point to this; isn't that durably archived? Finsternish (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No. This has been discussed multiple times in the past, and I think there might even have been a vote on it. The Wayback Machine is not durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
WT:Votes/pl-2012-10/Quality_of_sources. It failed, but seemingly not because anyone contested that the Wayback Machine is not durable, in fact it looks like noone cared about that bit.__Gamren (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added an unquestionably durably archived source, "Queer Warsaw. Historical and cultural guide to Warsaw," as well as apparently the first mention from 1996, in soc.culture.esperanto, though that one is in quotes. Finsternish (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
And another durably archived source, the publication Kontakto. Finsternish (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I am re-adding the two citations from Ligo de Samseksemaj Geesperantistoj, because it turns out they are archived at the Austrian National Library. Finsternish (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Impressive; I had made a search of publications through Issuu and saw the guide to Warsaw, but assumed it would be in English or Polish (searching for "kvira" turned up a lot of chaff, mostly in the form of Georgian-language hits and hits about the Georgian mountain Kvira). Magazines and the like are generally archived by (some) libraries, so the 2010 Warsaw and 2017 Kontakto citations look good. The 2014 Camacho citation is only mentioning the term (or does it go on to use the term later in the work, in running text?). But it also appears that the two Forumo / Ligo citations are indeed archived publications, so this would appear to me to be adequately cited. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Being familiar with Esperanto history and culture, I had a good hunch that a Warsaw publication might include Esperanto. It was a long shot, but it paid off. Finsternish (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gamren, is this satisfactory? Can the RFV tag be removed? Finsternish (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I think that the translation given is incorrect. I think it must mean Summer Olympics. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Lojban. @FinsternishΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Lojban is listed as a language well-documented on the Internet at all. In the absence of a large number of durably archived sources for the language of any sort, I am not going to do this, but I imagine 90% of Lojban words would fail a RFV, and question why this word in particular, out of all words, is being subjected to this. Finsternish (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My reason for including it was simply that it is found here: ku'irni at jbovlaste. I'm honestly stunned that a RFV is being submitted for it, due to the reasons I already gave. The language is not well-documented in durably archived sources. Finsternish (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I chose this word in particular because you created it after learning about the rules, yet it did not seem to be inclusible. All constructed languages are listed as well documented because of the way they are spread (documentation occurs prior to use, rather than the other way around in natural languages). Lojban has never had a vibrant user community like Esperanto, so it is possible we should not even have it in mainspace at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Either way, be consistent. And ask yourself, "why did ku'irni not seem to be inclusible, but I never tag other Lojban words? Why is Lojban in mainspace at all? And why did only the translation of queer bother me? Why did I never have a problem with Lojban's inclusion until this was added?" I'm not the one who decided Lojban should be in Wiktionary. You should be aware of why it's in Wiktionary; I'm not. Certainly there has to be a good reason. In the meantime, it just seems that you're tagging words that marginalized people use to find one another, build community, and find common purpose, and ignoring all others. I'm sure you're doing so in good faith, but we all have unconscious biases. Finsternish (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Your response seems to be largely concerned with your agenda. A large proportion of active editors here are part of the LBGT community and therefore have personal reasons to sympathise, but my identification with your editing agenda has nothing to do with the dictionary and the rules we have agreed upon. I will take this opportunity to review whether we should hold a vote on Lojban, and you can take this opportunity to consider how you can assume good faith instead of pointing fingers. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I literally said "I am sure you are doing this in good faith," and I literally meant it. Having unconscious biases doesn't mean you're not acting in good faith, by definition of "unconscious." Since you have a genuine desire to improve Wiktionary, you might want to look at your unconscious biases so they aren't reflected in the project.
Now you, on the other hand, you assumed I had an agenda, just now, and I am curious about your motivation for making such a bold claim. Above all, the use of the word "agenda" is itself heavily coded for queerphobia. Finsternish (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
It is difficult to tell that you are assuming good faith when you say that my use of words is heavily coded for queerphobia, and thus imply that I am queerphobic. I used the word "agenda" as inspired by Equinox, who used to have on his user page the following wording (under things he dislikes): "any editing "agenda" (Islam, Anglo-Saxonism, gender studies, etc., to the exclusion of actual real-world usage)". The last 50+ edits of yours have been mostly on queer terminology in constructed languages, and you have been creating terms regardless of whether they have real-world usage, thus constituting an editing agenda as described above. Anyway, I will not be responding here any more, because I have no further interest in discussing something that has little to do with this RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the words "bad faith" and "agenda" at all. Finsternish (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Like, your claim that I am saying you are acting in bad faith simply does not follow from the premise that I believe you have unconscious biases. Do you even understand anything I'm saying? Finsternish (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
If I have arachnophobia, does that mean I have a conscious desire to hurt spiders? Does that mean I made the active, bad-faith decision to hurt them? Finsternish (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
IMO Lojban is not well-attested enough to belong in the main namespace. Suspicion of others' good/bad faith seem inappropriate here; it is common that when someone (especially a new-ish user) adds one or more terms that fail RFV and then adds another term that doesn't seem to meet CFI, the later term gets noticed and RFVed, without regard to subject matter. Some users are more sceptical of "newer" or "niche" terminology because it is less likely to be used often enough meet CFI, and the same users are usually also sceptical of "old" Anglish-esque words for the same reason that they are sometimes added without regard to citability, and anyway in this case it seems like what happened is the more general phenomenon that you've added some terms that proved hard to cite, so other terms that an editor has a hard time finding evidence of also get RFVed. This explains why someone RFVed the newly-added ku'irni rather than plucking a random word out of CAT:Lojban lemmas, like, say, braxamsi (which has gone untouched and unnoticed by humans for 6+ years). - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed here. Rfv for the urinating sense. Dokurrat (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "acrylic". Dokurrat (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It was I who added the sense, because I was looking for the Chinese for acrylic and found this one in CEDICT. That's all I know about it though (-: — hippietrail (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Turkish. —Rua (mew) 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)