Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/December 2005

< Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive

Archived discussions from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

schemie edit

[rfv'ed 1 December. —Muke Tever 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Term used in Edinburgh to denote someone who lives in council house estate or "scheme". ?

Seems valid. A few cites, one in well-known work (Trainspotting) though most cites I ran across seem to be either more of Mr Welsh or references to him. —Muke Tever 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mamogram edit

[rfv'ed 1 Dec.]

Um... I think they mean mammogram. —Muke Tever 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites from books that didn't also have hits for "mammogram". —Muke Tever 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

slore edit

moved to rfv from rfd. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently deleted without comment, presumably for having a well-formed and accurate definition. Only contributor was an anon, who will now doubtless know better than to contribute further. Please reinstate. -dmh 17:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That may be the case, but it's no argument by our rules. Added Internet cites off Usenet going back to about 1997. I marked it as Internet slang — if anyone can provide evidence of offline use (print, TV) that tag can be removed. —Muke Tever 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

μητέρα edit

The first part could be correct. Is the second part just tosh? Needs formatting anyway. SemperBlotto 12:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Keep. —Stephen 08:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wahnfried edit

(German) Peace; freedom from delusion or madness ? Not in my dictionary. SemperBlotto 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the name of Richard Wagner’s villa in Bayreuth. Germans always name their villas and mansions, and the inhabitant of a villa is often referred to by the villa’s name rather than his own. Some people would have called Wagner 'Herr Wahnfried'. —Stephen 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites. —Muke Tever 08:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

zeedonk edit

(Also the entries that link to it.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article — Paul G 16:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I've removed the RFV tag. I'd wouldn't mind seeing citations though. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Who knows, someone could just have pumped the Wikipedia article full of made-up synonyms. — Paul G 15:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hits in Google Print:
  • deebra: 1, as "deebraLions", which turns out to be an OCR error for "declarations"
  • zebrass: 1, in a dictionary of abbreviations (even though this isn't one); I think I have seen this in other dictionaries
  • zebadonk: 0
  • zebradonk (GP's suggestion when I entered "zebadonk", so this could be a typo in the Wikipedia article): 0
  • zebronkey: 0
  • zenkey: 0
  • zeedonk: 0
  • zonkey: 3, of which 2 are not in this sense and the other I cannot view
So it is not looking too hopeful so far. I recommend looking in the OED and perhaps some zoological journals. — Paul G 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites. They all seem to be for the spelling zedonk though, which, while the spelling given by the AHD, gets about half the google web hits as 'zeedonk'. So whether to move it or not I leave up to y'all. —Muke Tever 07:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A cup edit

Current content is just "bra size". This is, of course, correct - but is it dictionary material? And, if so, how should we format it? Does anyone know how to define it (and all the others) ? SemperBlotto 16:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google print search shows only twelve cup sizes (A, B, C, D, DD, DDD, DDDD, FF, G, H, I, J.) Perhaps this entry definition could contrast the inches measurement? --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded cup size (!) - but it doesn't explain DD etc. SemperBlotto 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites to A cup, and an extra definition, i.e. that of a woman with A-sized breasts. Ideally (from a dictionary point of view) the definition should describe the dimensions of the A cup. This of course is not, however, my field :p —Muke Tever 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added a specific definition of what an A cup consists of and a link to an article for anyone who really wants to know more. --Dvortygirl 09:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ear edit

[rfv'd 5 December.]

'To plow' ? —Muke Tever 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... although I think this is an obsolete sense. We need to check a print dictionary on this one. — Paul G 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cite from Richard II and removed the RFV. (This assuming that anything by Shakespeare counts as a 'well-known work'.) —Muke Tever 02:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

radgie edit

[rfv'ed 1 December. —Muke Tever]

In Edinburgh working class slang radgie means to have a fit of temper "have a radgie". ?

Not finding print cites outside of glossaries. The better spelling may be radgy, though I'm not certain. —Muke Tever 03:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ug edit

Moved from rfd Supposed to mean loath. Not sure if it is the noun or verb as no part of speech is given. I would have deleted it on sight if it hadn't been loaded by a sysop. SemperBlotto 13:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the Official Scrabble Guide Book. I yoinked the defn from there. --Expurgator t(c) 00:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

brahmadanda edit

[rfv'ed on creation 2 December.]

Any Indicists around? —Muke Tever 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. No evidence for the sense being RFVed though: rather than eternal bliss, it appears to refer to the rod of Brahma. —Muke Tever 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shart edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added another cite in addition to the movie one (though this one has it in rather more of a 'generic expletive' kind of way). Still probably wants one more, if the movie cited doesn't count as a 'well-known work'. —Muke Tever 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vögeln edit

German for fuck but looks like birds to me. SemperBlotto 16:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See ficken. Jon Harald Søby 16:39, 8 December 2005

(UTC)

Correct as is. Ncik 03:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fellare edit

Claims to be the Latin for "fellate" and the source of that word. — Paul G 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course true (entry in Lewis & Short). The usual dictionary form is fello but Wiktionary, for some bizarre reason, has standardized on infinitives as the dictionary form for all languages and so fellare is where you'd expect it to be. Will hunt up cites when I get to it. —Muke Tever 19:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
fellare is only in my Latin dictionary as an adjective. I'm not an expert, but wouldn't fello mean "I suck" SemperBlotto 08:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would. The most usual citation form for Latin verbs is the first person singular, not the infinitive, which the usual citation form for all English verbs that actually have infinitives. The same is the case for Ancient Greek (not sure about modern, but I understand modern Greek goes without infinitives entirely, no?). Incidentally, shouldn't "fellare" be marked as the neuter gender form of fellaris ? —Muke Tever 20:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Modern Greek, too. Bulgarian is another one that doesn’t use infinitives, along with Albanian and Romanian (the Balkan sprachbund). Arabic uses infinitives only as verbal nouns ... the citation form in Arabic is the 3rd-person masculine preterite (the simplest form of any verb). Greek does have an infinitive (το απαρέμφατον, but it is almost never used for anything. The Greek infinitive is mainly used in English etymologies. The infinitive of παιδεύω (‘Ι instruct’) is παιδεύειν. On the rare occasion when an infinitive is used in Greek, it’s treated as a verbal noun. —Stephen 11:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries of modern Greek give the first-person singular form as a substitute for (non-existent? unused? little-used?) infinitive so "to be" is translated in the same way as "am". Greek etymons of verbs are almost always ancient Greek, as far as I know, and give the infinitive, which ends in -ειν. I've no idea whether modern Greek has these infinitives too. — Paul G 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cite from Martial. —Muke Tever 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

skipper edit

Could someone please verify whether I put the bird and fish definitions under the right etymology? Ncik 03:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's right; Webster 1913, m-w.com and the AHD agree. Removing RFV. Incidentally those defs look suspiciously like lightly-pruned versions of AHD's. . . —Muke Tever 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

real world edit

RL I can perhaps accept as idiomatic, but RW? I don't think so. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in the Jargon File, though I'm pretty sure that bastion of lexicography is inadmissible here. Hunted up some cites. While it may not be an idiom per se (sense is real "physical, not virtual" + world), technically this sense is a proper noun, albeit not of the kind that is usually capitalized. —Muke Tever 04:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ekstasis edit

Says that it is Greek, but doesn't use Greek alphabet. SemperBlotto 22:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is just taken from the Greek then. It is used several times in Being and Nothingness. Iamnotanorange 05:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "Being and Nothingness" might be, but the Greek is έκστασις ('ecstacy', 'rapture'). —Stephen 13:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a book by Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the principle texts of modern existentialism. He does not use it in the same way as ecstacy or rapture, but in the way posted. Iamnotanorange 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that it is French? SemperBlotto 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it is taken from the Greek and is present in an English translation. I would imagine that the word would be unchanged if it were found in a French text, and I would imagine that it is no more a French word than an English word. The most accurate way of cateloguing this word is that it is simply a Greek word, which has been adapted into an English/French alphabet. I think it would be easiest to just put both the english alphabet version alongside the greek version.
Then again This word is used almost exclusively in philosophy. Perhaps we need should just tag it as the language of Philosophy. Everything has a different meaning in philosophy, would it be alright to create a new classification? Iamnotanorange 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites. No, 'philosophy' is not a language, it is a field. This word is also used, with apparently the same sense, in mysticism, to apply to a different phenomenon. —Muke Tever 00:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thoil edit

To bear? SemperBlotto 15:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Variant of toil? "she couldn't thoil to part with her possessions" =

  • she couldn't (contend with) parting from her possessions"? GRYE
  • she couldn't (toil; work so hard & thus) part with her possessions"? GRYE
  • Added two cites. It seems to be a valid term, but apparently more common in Scottish. One book suggested it is the same word as thole which is used in regions closer to Ireland; from the examples I found, I am not sure if this is the case, but if it is, there are enough cites to keep this word. —Muke Tever 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deceptive edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The semantic seems to be genuine and not invented; however, all the GP cites I'm finding only use ‘deceptive’ as an adjective, chiefly in the construction ‘deceptive cadence’ (occasionally with deceptive in scare quotes or with a ‘so-called,’ indicating the expression is an idiom) and I am not finding any evidence of its being used as a noun on its own—perhaps it so exists in slang? —Muke Tever 07:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

put my name in it edit

Supposedly - -

1) a phrase to express a desire for a special relationship with a desired community member, acquaintance, or passer-by.

2) a phrase to declare one's intention to propose engagement to their lover.

SemperBlotto 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GBS hits all seem to be literal, not bearing this meaning. —Muke Tever 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "nonsense" means here, but at the very least it should move to "put one's name in it", per the usual rules.
BTW, if I came into Wiktionary cold, I'm not sure how I would run across RVF. It's currently not mentioned in CFI or PDG, and it's only mentioned in passing on RFD (unless I've once again missed the obvious) -dmh 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

foob edit

Leet - how much currency does this have? And which of the two given is its etymology? Are the senses really the same? — Paul G 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No cites of this word in GP (that I could find amid scannos of 'fool') at all, and none on Usenet within the past year (at least not in English — it seems to be spelled like a somewhat common Hmong word). I did, however, find a reference to the fact that it may have appeared, in March or earlier, in the (print) comic strip For Better or for Worse (where explained as fool + boob) though the online archives of this comic strip do not go far back enough to verify this. —Muke Tever 02:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

harvesting lentil edit

Can anyone verify the senses provided, especially the purported slang sense? And what does the rest of the entry mean? — Paul G 17:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wix edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USian edit

Looks like just a joke entry cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added one cite. (Lots of GP scannos for 'man' in there...) There were a couple of mentions-but-not-uses as well—I think this word is currently quoted more often than used. —Muke Tever 02:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iris edit

The note on the plural is questionable; also, for which sense(s) is "irides" a/the plural? — Paul G 10:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still an issue?
Lyte, Henry. 1578, Niewe herball or historie of plantes.
E. Cope. 1883, Knowledge. "...skin, hair, and irides."
"The Irides or flower Deluces ..."

--Looks like a lot of the plural reference is to the flower. Grye 08:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites for all plurals given. The cites for irides I found offhand were all for the optical sense. The use of iris singular seems to be genuine, but the cites for irises don't seem to support the rule given for that form. The distinction between irises and irides is merely the difference between a classical plural and an Anglicizing one; one wouldn't expect a distinction in meaning to be made (though it is likely that, in practice, one form or another is more common in different fields). —Muke Tever 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your mom edit

a slang term used as a riposte and often as a counter-riposte to an insulting statement (and recently, even to non-insulting statements ? SemperBlotto 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (your mother I know about, but seems different)[reply]

People say this all the time where I am. Yes, the sense is true. There's even an occurrence of this in Napoleon Dynamite where Kip says, "Your mom goes to college!" SnoopY 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard people use your mom in a sarcastic and joking manner before, often when discussing things unrelated to the matter at hand:

PERSON A: How about this weather?
PERSON B: Your mom the weather.

Your mom was so trite by even when I was in high school about six years ago that people were making fun of it. Primetime 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Your mom" is most certainly an entry that should be included in wikipedia. It is common slang today, especially amongst teenagers, and is most certainly a popular turn of phrase.

smelly freckle edit

Australian anus? SemperBlotto 16:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No GP hits. —Muke Tever 06:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Kevin "Bloody" Wilson lyrics. Not uncommon slang...

It seems to be in oral use, and it’s interesting. I would probably use it if I ever had occasion to speak of that body part. Keep. —Stephen 11:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare even online though. Can you find cites? —Muke Tever 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smelly Freckle edit

Lyrics used by Kevin "Bloody" Wilson. Not sure if this is the first use, but not uncommon slang in Australia.

plorp edit

leet. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proctosculocracy edit

If this can be attested, it should be lowercase. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cute compound, but ideally one shouldn't throw a Latin word in with the Greek. Though I suppose it's kind of necessary to carry the joke—the purer form proctophilocracy just wouldn't cut it thanks to the other, more common meaning of the -phil- root. —Muke Tever 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comproximate edit

Protologism? Ncik 20:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pwn edit

leet. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

leet with extreme usage--I challenge you to find an American teenager who doesn't know what pwn means. Also, 2.7 million website hits, one of them [1]. Citizen Premier 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<nod> Sure, but we don't allow leet entries unless they are in general usage. Are any of those print citations? If so, please enter the citations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, perhaps the whole Leet category has to go? It also says in CFI "Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n)." I think that pwn is one such term. Citizen Premier 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer; yes, I think I will review that category sometime soon. I don't think pwn is in general use like pwned is, that's why I nominated it. If you are adamant that it is, then please provide print citations for it (i.e. from http://print.google.com/.) Three reputable print citations (erm, maybe not even so reputable) and my objection would become moot. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How can one form of a leet word be acceptable while another is not? If we include owned in our dictionary then we should also include own, owns and so on... also, I very much doubt the word will be found in general print, and I don't think leet can be held firmly to that criteria. Internet usage should be the primary factor. Citizen Premier 06:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is challenging to find citations for this. As I understand it, the only leet terms that we allow on en.wikt: are those that have truly become a part of the language. If the root inflected form simply has not made it into general use, then it doesn't get an entry. It may be that pwned is syntactically recognizable, while pwn is not. As far as which types of citations are deemed valid, I will have to defer to Muke (et al) as to what qualifies these days. But given how hated leet entries are here, I would not be surprised if only the most reputable sources are deemed acceptable for this one. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lengthy debate about this before. I'm surprised it was deleted. As far as I remeber there were many people in favour of keeping it. The meaning is certainly correct. Therefore this whole debate should be moved to WT:RFD. Ncik 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites from ordinary (i.e. not otherwise uberly leet) language off usenet. Also one from the text of a recent videogame (where it appears to be rendered in semi-leet style). —Muke Tever 21:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mardy edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. —Muke Tever 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBEYR edit

Hardly any yahoo hits. Citizen Premier 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • About 1000 hits on Google, and another 300 or so on Google Groups. It does seem to have some limited legitimacy. --Dvortygirl 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually appears twice in Google Print (but even though the pages are restricted to viewing, it's clearly visible that they are appearing in glossaries, which are the majority of uses online as well). Added a few cites from a few years ago off Usenet. —Muke Tever 20:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy edit

Supposedly -

  • A spy that works for a governing body.
  • A nickname referring to people that work for the government

Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- hmm, updated entry, check again. Regards Govvy.

I am not Brit, but sounds to be a likely equivelant to G-Man. GRYE 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added cites. Not an invention of this 'Govvy' person, the first cite is from 1986, ten years before his 1996 date given. Also, moved to govvy. —Muke Tever 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-gay edit

[rfv'ed 14 December.]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Added cites. —Muke Tever 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shig edit

I can't find much on this. The urban dictionary has a bunch of seemingly random entries on shig, and yahoo search doesn't seem to find any uses in these contexts. Looks like a protologism to me. Citizen Premier 19:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought I point out that a "shig" is more a spoken word and not a written word, I have heard older European Jews referred to an unmarried man in a type of slag as "a shig" 90.192.31.101 11:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cameltext edit

moved from "Requests for deletion" where it has sat for some time. Eclecticology 20:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this term is standard enough or settled enough. There are many synonyms and case variations and different camps disagreeing over which is best and which ones may or may not have slightly different meanings. I don't think it's worth trying to define such fuzzy, changing, inconsistent terms at this point. Personally I use the term CamelCase but have the same reservations about it. See the Wikipedia article w:CamelCase for just how unsettled it all is. — Hippietrail 15:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think terms had to be standard in any way to be included — just attested. Right? —Muke Tever 00:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most establish, respected dictionaries, wait for a word to become part of the English lexicon. Which means the same thing. Is this another place where some want Wiktionary to make a radical departure from traditional dictionaries? — Hippietrail 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our WT:CFI have being "part of the English lexicon" (i.e., widespreadness) as only one of our criteria for inclusion. Most traditional dictionaries have as their goal to contain a selection of the language's most used and most useful words. Very few dictionaries have as their goal to define all words of a language; Wiktionary and the OED are examples. Such dictionaries are to include many such terms that never entered common use; in fact, given the historical scope of such an undertaking, we can only judge "being in common use" for modern terms: for older words we can only guess by their frequency in surviving texts. If a word itself is rare, we mark it as rare; if a word is not the usual, or standard term for a concept, it is glossed by the usual or standard term for a concept.
Wiktionary's scope is grand: It has to be handled with inclusive, big-dictionary thinking, not exclusive, small-dictionary thinking. —Muke Tever 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=camelcase&word2=cameltext --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that this should just be an alternative spelling of CamelCase - but what do I know? I never use it myself! SemperBlotto 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beefywchaos edit

Some form of oral sex? SemperBlotto 22:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. Deleted. — Paul G 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon edit

Appears to be a term used by opponents of Freemasonry, most likely has little or no basis in facts (perhaps should be marked as POV rather than rfv?) - Amgine/talk 06:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon is a compound ritual word York Rite Freemasons have historically used. Modern scholarship need not go into apologies for faulty etymological scholarship in the past. An entirely Hebrew interpretation is now encouraged were the compound is explained. The former speculative historical etymology is found in older, outdated and superseded works. The Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman is the current leading authority on the subject – and a high ranking English Freemason. Millennium Sentinel 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • FREEMASONRY TODAY - Autumn 2005 - Issue 32
  • Procedings of Grand Chapter, (of England), 13th November 1985

Millennium Sentinel 21:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, M.S. GRYE
I should add that I am not the quoted Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman. Millennium Sentinel 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine has repeatedly stated that this entry seems to be by an anti-Masonry POV. It is not, & for my part, includes Zero-POV. Grye
http://books.google.com/books?q=Jahbulon&btnG=Search+Books&hl=en - Amgine/talk 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
what are you citing?!? The appearance of Jahbulon where?
  • In a book of someone's recent translation of Genesis?
  • In a spanish-text book?
  • In some bible-thumper's book about bible-burners?

these are citations of the words existance. & in a 3rd language (Hebrew, English, Spanish). Thanks, Amgine.

Re above. "what are you citing?!?". What a nice turn of phrase you have. Highly POV, and offensive as well. I do not care if this word is here, or not - but if it is left, then the corrected etymology must be left in as well. 80.193.164.102 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still being debated?!? Grye

Added cites. Cleaned up the article, which was a mess (more of an encyclopedic discussion, and not even remotely like a dictionary entry). —Muke Tever 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good job Muke, thanks much. & Yeah, it was very much like a Wikipedia entry, because it was moved, ungracefully, from there to here. Grye 05:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE (6 to 1)

This word is historically a wholly Masonic compound word, and has no uses outside this old and redundent use. This use is no longer verifiable, and cited uses are now only in marginal occult propaganda. It should be deleted. Skull 'n' Femurs 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Concur, delete. Bolton TI 13:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Concur, delete. Darth Dalek 13:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Concur, delete. Hiram man 13:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is always going to be a focus for rv. wars. Delete Millennium Sentinel 13:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Concur, Delete Grye 08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) but AfD it![reply]
"No longer verifiable" is ridiculous. "Redundant" is impossible to apply in this case. (Just because a word is redundant doesn't deny the fact that it exists.) All words in all languages includes old and marginal propaganda uses as well. Revert wars are easily solved by locking a page, not by deletion. You have no ground to stand on. —Muke Tever 18:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The occult POV is ridiculous. Please state why you think your vote, Muke Tever, is worth more than five others? If you have the power to lock a page on your own, then do you need to be voted out of office? DeleteDarth Dalek 20:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a dictionary is? It is our job to determine whether a word has ever existed (which in this case is certain) and then to describe how anyone who has used the word has used it. In any case, I have not "voted" for anything. Neither do the votes of obvious sock puppets count for anything at all here, not least for the simple and ridiculously obvious reason that this is not a page for gathering votes, whether for deletion or for any other purpose. —Muke Tever 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the sock puppets? Is your occult fantacy comming apart, Muke Tever? Darth Dalek 10:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —Muke Tever 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the only contributions to Wiktionary by Darth Dalek, Hiram man, Bolton TI, and Skull 'n' Femurs are to this vote entry [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]. To puppet master: these votes almost certainly won't be counted. Primetime 20:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I am aware, and in my personal use of this page, the Requests for Verification are not requests for deletion, but a way to question the veracity of a word or sense of a word, and to gain attention so the word or definition may be further sourced. Looks like this has happened here, too. - Amgine/talk 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word’s existence and meaning have been duly verified. Keep. —Stephen 09:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Jahbulon entry ??? edit

heyheyheyheyhey what's the 2nd entry [catagory] doing here? I don't even know how to link to it... I'd move it into the other, but I have a bad history of mucking up pages like this.../... anyone? consolidate AfV discussions? anyone...? AfD...? Bueller...? Bueller...? Grye 08:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word itself is no longer an issue, it will be kept...so the two entries do not need to be consolidated. The question that remains is about the 2nd definition, a compound ritual word that York Rite Freemasons have historically used, and we would like to have some verification of this. —Stephen 11:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon edit

This word is historically a wholly Masonic compound word, and has no uses outside this old and redundent use. This use is no longer verifiable, and cited uses are now only in marginal occult propaganda. It should be deleted. Skull 'n' Femurs 13:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete words that occur in propaganda. Our rule is all words in all languages. —Muke Tever 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who are we above, Muke Tever? Are you saying that you are an occult sock, from some cabal? Wooooooooo. Darth Dalek 10:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. —Muke Tever 19:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"All words in all languages"? I thought this part of the wiki world was supposed to be for words in the English Language (which Jahbulon is not). Even if its Masonic use could be verified, it should be excluded as being a paralogism. It would be a word that was made up by the Masons. 38.112.47.92 20:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's all words in all languages, defined in English. See Main Page. —Muke Tever 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fa la la la la edit

I don't see why this is any more deserving of an entry than "la la la la" might be. It is, after all, only used to fill a line that happens to be five syllables long, and I doubt that it is used anywhere else other than in the carol "Deck the Halls".

I intend to have a word with Wonderfool about his tendency to create entries with initial capitals. — Paul G 12:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got too caught up reading Christmas carol lyrics, forgot what I was doing. I'm gonna go get some fresh air now --Wonderfool 12:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gone the way of last year's turkey. SemperBlotto 13:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GYOBFW edit

I've never heard of that before. I'm not exactly a blogger kind of guy, but it still seems like a protologism… Jon Harald Søby 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't broad internet slang; it appears to be slang limited to a particular website's community (albeit a notable one: w:MetaFilter). With such a narrow scope, is it inclusion-worthy? —Muke Tever 22:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

naner edit

Gone already. SemperBlotto 11:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normal spelling is nanner (IMO, anyway... web google turns up some naner as well). —Muke Tever 21:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LAMO edit

Supposed to be Spanish for nice. Google translates it as "I lick" - should be lowercase anyway. SemperBlotto 11:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, it seems to be trying to be English, with the bit about Spanish passing for etymology (possibly they thought they could say malo backwards?). Anyway. Spanish 'to lick' would be at lamer and I'm not finding anything about this word (though it is unfortunately reminiscent of the word more usually spelt lame-o). —Muke Tever 21:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. SemperBlotto 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skeef edit

To take by stealth? SemperBlotto 16:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might exist. Not in Google Print though. —Muke Tever 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Skeef" is an Afrikaans word meaning skew. I have added it again, before reading that I should have asked first. Sorry. But please keep the word. Andrew massyn

It's all right—only the English word was in question. —Muke Tever 20:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tookie edit

A quick google print search indicates this may be used. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't catch what it said before but recreated tookie off the evidence on GP. —Muke Tever 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

googolduplex edit

Zero p.g.c hits. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

googoltriplex edit

Same as previous. Note that a straight web search (not print.google.com) will return Wiki-mirrors only. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, this was deleted (presumably as nonsense) but the other two myrillion and googolduplex each having the same attestation (zero) didn't go? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

leave me in your mother edit

Urbandictionary is cited as the origin of this term. Therefore, it should be deleted immediately? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. This probably isn't one of those times, but let's let the cites (or lack) do the talking. -dmh 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meef edit

Obscure meanings and etymologies all over. Ncik 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grr. Random anons keep fiddling with this page. The sense under 'etymology 3' claims to be from a book, but though that book is in GP, 'meef' is not being returned in it. I added the only sense I was able to find evidence for (one I was incidentally already familiar with), and cites for it. Everything else probably is nonsense, or at least unverifiable in-group slang. —Muke Tever 20:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anglomania edit

[rfv'ed 15 December]

chode (fell through the cracks) edit

RFV for any sense referring to the membrum virile. The previous RFV was specifically for the sense of one wider than it is long, but another contributor, a few days later, extended the RFV to all senses without switching from the individual-sense rfv template or noting it in the relevant discussion. These senses were later deleted as having failed RFV, but I'm re-RFVing it so they can go through the process properly. —Muke Tever 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muke: +2 points for the most humorous topic title I've seen in a long time. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I went to quite a bit of trouble to hunt down the vulgar senses the first time around, and to confirm the Hindic origins. I think the material got scattered throughout several flame wars, but it was there. There might even have been evidence for the "wider than long" sense I had originally doubted. -dmh 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E.g., check the discussion page for Wiktionary:Verifiability for a cite for choda (also deleted), meaning "sex act". Let's get the attested senses in, at least. People seem to derive joy from re-adding the more doubtful sense anyway. -dmh 07:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, in GP I'm only finding one hit of 'chode' in use (with this spelling) that doesnt mean "chided". It does seem that choad is most the usual form for this pronunciation. —Muke Tever 19:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

purlicue edit

The only hits on Google seem to be definitions - and none of these are from proper dictionaries. I can see no instance of it being used. SemperBlotto 09:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 13:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear a couple of times in print glossaries as well (such as this one) and from the examples that occasionally go along a more apt definition may be the span of hand (not empty 'space') between the thumb and finger. Another source gives this spelling to a different word, the same as parle(y)cue, from French parler à queue, and basically meaning a synopsis of sermons, and to synopsize same; one of the sites that comes up in Google conflates these as the same word, which really seems like a semantic stretch. No Google web hits in the plural outside of random text and wordlists, if that indicates anything. —Muke Tever 19:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fifa edit

This seems to be a joke entry - lampooning FIFA. SemperBlotto 12:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to keep this, the inflections must be corrected. "Fifad" is wrong - verbs ending in -a take either -ed (in the same way that verbs ending in -o do, eg, "radioed") or -'d, but never just a plain "d" (examples: concertinaed, pyjama'd). — Paul G 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amit edit

Also amit. Cute. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amit edit

To emphatically address a team or group with respect to their misguided direction.? SemperBlotto 20:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that original contributor removed rfv tag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a common name (not suprising, as apparently the deleted page stated it was eponymous) but not running across much in the way of evidence of it as a word. If it were a natural word it'd mean something like 'lose' or 'send away', from the same root as omit, emit, admit, submit, etc. —Muke Tever 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

splade edit

Moved from RFD. Is this an Australianism? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to the spork and runcible spoon. It's an all-in one eating utensil. I did some research a while back and found that it's a trademark and correctly spelled Splayd or maybe Splayed or Splayde. It's not too hard to find info about in via Google images or normal google: A normal "Splayd", A weird "Splayde" or "Splayed" without a proper handle (sorry I closed the page before checking the exact spelling).
I'd assume it's in the Macquarie Dictionary but mine is packed up in a box in Australia somewhere now. — Hippietrail 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites for this spelling. One of the cites suggests the form in -ade (however [il]legitimate it may ultimately be) is by influence from blade. —Muke Tever 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tarot edit

Card game sense. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. For details one may presumably see w:tarot (game). —Muke Tever 22:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niamh Byrne edit

Please verify this bogus entry. Conn, Kit 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonism edit

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comeuppance edit

[rfv'ed 16 Dec.]

Whoever RFVed this will soon get his comeuppance :p —Muke Tever 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

volpe edit

Claims to be Spanish... Not in RAE, doesn't appear to show up in Spanish Wikipedia either. Italian, possibly ? —Muke Tever 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's Italian for vixen. Someone had adjusted the language before I got there, cleaned it up and removed RfV. SemperBlotto 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sapila edit

I want to verify that there is a reason sapila is used to link to Chickasaw.

I also found that the dictionary refers to Chickasaw as well.

I think it’s right. See our Chickasaw index. (It would be helpful to include a Category:Chickasaw language tag in all the words.) —Stephen 11:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

throwed edit

rfd was removed a while back unnoticed? Urbandictionary is the only citation, therefore delete? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ordinary senses of this word vastly outnumber the one asserted... I only ran across one example of it while GP hunting, and that in a glossary. Admittedly I did give up after about the first thousand hits or so. —Muke Tever 21:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sketchball edit

Any takers for this one? SemperBlotto 22:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense - Παρατηρητής 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colmania edit

And this one? SemperBlotto 22:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh. I emailed them once (on a day when all the results I got were for pages scanned and OCR'ed upside-down) and offered to proofread their OCR, but they didn't seem interested :p —Muke Tever 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rollatorium edit

[rfv'ed 16 Dec.]

Only one hit in GP, and that as a proper noun: the name of a particular roller rink. —Muke Tever 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oigh edit

Moved from rfd

  • oigh seems to have some sense in Scottish Gaelic. If anyone would like to help supply that or evidence of the English interjection, I'm all for keeping this entry.
Oigh seems to be used by Sir Walter Scott [6] here, I had no idea it was so regionalised, I'll check the translation tonight TheSimpleFool 14:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was on RfD, mixed in with two more easily deletable terms. Eclecticology 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish word, which means 'maiden' or 'virgin' generally, seems to be better òigh than oigh (unlike, apparently, [Scots] Gaelic, where it may be correct), and the interlocutor in Walter Scott's Rob Roy appears to be speaking not English, but Scots; not finding this use in plain English in GP. It could probably stand by changing 'English' to 'Scots' and 'Irish' to 'Scots Gaelic.' I also expect the proper noun sense of Gaelic 'oigh' would be capitalized. —Muke Tever 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something edit

I'd like to hear about the supposed verb and adjective senses that have been added to the article. — Hippietrail 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove verb & adjective - rest OK - Παρατηρητής 14:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. Furrfu. Incidentally there hasn't been any adjective sense on something for the whole duration of the RFV—presumably the (now second) noun sense was meant. —Muke Tever 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shack edit

Definitions 2-4 of the noun and verb need verification. SemperBlotto 22:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) right|300px|Shack definition[reply]

Here's a screen shot of the definition from M-W Unabridged verifying the definitions: Primetime 07:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. —Muke Tever 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are not familiar with M-W. M-W Unabridged is the most reliable next to the OED. M-W wouldn't put it in one of their dictionaries if it wasn't commonly used by people. It apparently is also in the OED: [7]. As far as I'm concerned, it's been verified. Removing tag. Primetime 22:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with M-W, it is one of the dictionaries I consult for reference. But please see the description of what RFV is for at the top of this page—the purpose is not fact-checking (though occasionally a fact-checking question is posted), but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion, of which "occurence in other dictionaries" is not one. Also see w:Nihilartikel for an example of why blindly copying from other dictionaries can be dangerous. —Muke Tever 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a couple of cites for the pasturage sense. Couldn't find any for vagabond or fallen stuff senses, but they'd be hard to find under all the ordinary 'shack' senses. —Muke Tever 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Dog edit

"Horn dog - a person who constantly thinks about sex." Decapitalization is needed in case we keep it. Ncik 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lockblocker edit

Carefully but anonymously added. I find it hard to believe that we have, or need, a word for this concept. Zero Google. Anybody? --Dvortygirl 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I’m well acquainted with this concept, and 'lockblocker' is not what we call it in English. The usual English term is idiot, and we already have a nice article for that. Apart from the fact that lockblocker is neither used nor useful, the contributor has included a convenient link to the Wikipedia article...however, there is no such article at Wikipedia. —Stephen 10:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Added to List of protologisms and deleted (even though my wife does it all the time!) SemperBlotto 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dhinki edit

A martial art in Orissa. Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a place name [8] but that's about all that turns up. —Muke Tever 03:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mactard edit

[RFV 22 December. —Muke Tever]

Reference added to entry, additional references exist on Google search, but many seem to be references to particular people.
Cleaned up, added cites. For what it's worth, Urban Dictionary is not considered a reliable reference—anybody can make stuff up there, and often do. —Muke Tever 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apres edit

Supposed to be English - but the reference given is for après SemperBlotto 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Redirected --Wonderfool 14
11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The reference given was for après, but English après, which got lost somewhere in the creation of après. Readded and added cites. —Muke Tever 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IVR edit

Currently appears to be advertisements, not sure if it is a reasonable initialism? - Amgine/talk 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added cites. —Muke Tever 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

word edit

[added to rfv by an anon, 26 December. May not be serious.—Muke Tever ]

Wikipedia sense edit

The article gives "wikipediaing" as the present participle when the term is used as a verb. Why not "wikipediing"? is there any evidence for either form? Eclecticology 04:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense. The correct form would be as has already been stated. Verbs ending in a (or any other vowel other than e) do not drop it in the way that (most) verbs ending in e do when a suffix is added. Some examples: "baaing", "skiing", "videoing", "shampooing" (I can't think of any for u). — Paul G 14:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added cites for 'Wikipediaing'. —Muke Tever 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

立志主義 edit

A questionable translation of "successism" with only 1 google hit (the quoted one). There seems to be no established Japanese word corresponding to it, and the literal translation will be 成功主義, that is with almost 200 hits. --Tohru 10:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Tohru doesn't think it's a word, that's good enough for me ^_^ Millie 11:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

videobook edit

A website containing training videos recorded by an expert instructor - any takers? SemperBlotto 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps you make up your mind - rfv tag was removed by original creator. SemperBlotto 14:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic. Delete. —Stephen 09:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Παρατηρητής 14:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toned down from encyclopedic definition and added cites for the generic sense. I really doubt it means "a website" totum pro parte though. —Muke Tever 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yortle edit

A lot of work has been put into this entry (and the redirects yortles and yortling, and Wiktionary:Interesting new entries) - but I think the author may just be having a laugh. SemperBlotto 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness I'm not. Its usage has grown throughout London in recent years. Up to you guys though. Essexmutant 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a "neologism"? Should be yortle? - Παρατηρητής 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A neologism with several years' usage. Should probably be moved to yortle, agreed. Essexmutant 17:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No print or usenet hits. The Google hits suggest that, however well-known in London it may or may not be, the Internet exposure does not stretch beyond a couple of websites and references to same (and most of its existence in those is in 'definitions' or assertions that it is not a word, not examples conveying meaning). —Muke Tever 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix:Orphaned words edit

The words listed there need to be checked. I just deleted one which doesn't belong there, and suspect more are listed erroneously, but don't have an etymological dictionary to make sure. Ncik 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and found that only two of the words belong there: (dis)-gruntle and ruth-(less). A few others could stay if we count words in Old English and Latin, but that does not seem to be the idea. —Stephen 15:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2005&oldid=34320547"