June 2007 edit

bluesnarf edit

(moved)

--Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFV extended from February. — Beobach972 20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one English GBS hit which actually uses the term; pretty much all the GSS hits seem to be nounal senses or part of the phrase “bluesnarf attack”; zero GNS hits. 77 Groups hits, but a comparatively whopping 593 Blogue hits and 48,200 GWS hits. Make of this what you will. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted by TheDaveRoss (talk • contribs) in April 2008. —Ruakh_TALK 16:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barca edit

This appears to be an anglicization of Barça, the Catalan abbreviation for FC Barcelona, not a name for the city. Dmcdevit·t 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in spoken UK English "Barca" is used to refer to FC Barcelona, but I don't recall seeing written (but then I don't read much about football), nor do I remember seeing or hearing it refer to the city. If it is going to be written down anywhere then the sports pages of tabloid newspapers will probably be the most likely. Thryduulf 12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google web search for "Barca" [1] offers a sample of results for "Barcelona FC". The first two pages of results on Google news and groups searches all return uses relating to the football team. There are no relevant books results in the first couple of pages.

The entry should definately be marked informal, but I'm not certain about a (UK) context. The groups results show use in the same context in English-language posts in Netherlands groups, and also use of the word with the same meaning in Dutch and Greek posts. Someone who can read Italian should also check whether any of the capitalised uses in that language relate to football and not boats/boating (barca is Italian for boat).

I'm not certain whether the etymology is an anglicisation of the Catalan "Barça" or whether it is an abbreviation from the first syllable of the English pronunciation of "Barcelona", which ends either with a hard /æ/ or a stressed schwa /ə/. That the same word is used in Dutch and Greek (and possibly Italian) suggests to me though that the origin is Catalan, but I know nothing about these languages. Thryduulf 13:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In East Africa/South Africa "Barca" always refers the football team, and in pronounced as the first two syllables of Barcelona in English, with hard /æ/. If it came from Catalan we don't know, we got it from the Beeb. Robert Ullmann 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Brit living in Spain, I can confirm that Barça pronounced as the first two syllables of Barcelona in English is the common way of talking about Barcelona FC in Spanish media, and that all Brit football fans use the same term in general conversation. Algrif 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost six months on — is someone going to add the three requisite cites, seeing as this is apparently so common? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. All news headlines if anyone is being picky but spread across 7 years without having to look hard. MGSpiller 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. The entry has long since been de-tagged (by a WF sock), and the def has long since been changed to refer to the football team. If someone wishes to re-RFV this, feel free. —Ruakh_TALK 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flat store edit

Any takers? (no formatting) SemperBlotto 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I remember this from John Scarne's Complete Guide to Gambling that I read a long time ago; very good book. I think more commonly or at least alternately "flat joint". Robert Ullmann 12:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely enough GBS hits which use this word in the given sense. Unfortunately, the vast majority thereof seem to be “phantom” hits (which render no image). This definitely exists, but I can’t verify it myself. Anyone want to give it a go? Also, I added quotations to the entry which seem to be using flat store in three other distinct senses. Who’d like to try his hand at defining and verifying those three additional senses? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 14:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford edit

If this is used figuratively/attributively, then it needs citations to show that. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need citations to show that Ford means "Ford car"? Kappa 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need citations to show that it CFI, since "To be included, the use of a trademark or company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word) has to be attested.". Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can attest that "Ford" is quite commonly used to describe cars... Kappa 10:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am shortly going to propose a rule permitting inclusion of names of automobile brands as a matter of course, based on their community of interest. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely arbitrary. How is an automobile any more dictionary-worthy than other terms? Why would we exempt any category of words, much less brand names, from needing attestation? Dmcdevit·t 05:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this my vote against said rule. I agree with Connel and Dmcdevit and WT:CFI. Cite it. There may have been a time in early auto history when Ford and car were used synonymously, in which case it's as archaic as referring to pop as coke. Worth noting for a select few brands, not creating a rule for advertisers to walk in the door.--Halliburton Shill 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars are things, like pianos and desks. A person drives a Ford or an Accord or a Rolls Royce or a Volvo. I doubt a car exists for which attributive use can not be found, but do we bother hunting down attributive uses of "piano" and "desk" to prove they exist? bd2412 T 00:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy here is not quite right. I think a better parallel would be Yamaha vs keyboard, or Steinway vs piano. My own personal feeling on this issue is not easy to summarize in words or I would have put forward a specific proposal or general argument by now. I think I can best sum up the majority of my opinion this way: If a brand is so well known that a novel or national magazine or major newspaper article uses the brand name in place of the name of the product, without providing context on the assumption that readers will understand, then it is worthy of inclusion. Thus Kleenex, Q-tip, Steinway, and Xerox would likely qualify, as would pretty much any major brand of car. Wendy's and Burger King would not qualify because the brand name is not applied to the products sold (i.e. You can say "I bought a Steinway," but not "I bought a Wendy's."). --EncycloPetey 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you sure can say that you had Wendy's for lunch. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I need to refine my criterion: It must be usable with an indefinitite article (in English) and refer to the product. --EncycloPetey 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If a brand is so well known that a novel or national magazine or major newspaper article uses the brand name in place of the name of the product, without providing context on the assumption that readers will understand, then it is worthy of inclusion." - EncycloPetey, you said it, man. You said it all. bd2412 T 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if its citations of use you want...

Willa Cather, My Antonia (2006) p. 187:

They have a Ford car now, and she don't seem so far away from me as she used to.

Hester Browne, The Little Lady Agency (2006) p. 59:

I remembered too late that Honey should probably drive a cute little Mini or a Ford Fiesta or some such. Damn.

William Braxton Irvine, On Desire: Why We Want What We Want (2005) p. 26:

He is disturbed not by the crass materialism of his life but by the fact that he is still driving a Ford when he could and should be driving a Porsche.

Robert McCrum, Wodehouse: A Life (2004) p. 154:

When she spotted her stepfather coming towards her she had pulled over and Wodehouse crossed over to greet her, noticing too late that she was being followed by a Ford, which swerved to avoid the Buick.

Keith Bradsher, High and Mighty: The Dangerous Rise of the Suv (2004) p. 304:

A Ford dealer in Saudi Arabia repeatedly warned the automaker the same year that Firestone tires were failing on Explorers.

...

A Ford memo in March 1999 said that Firestone's legal staff did not want to to replace tires in Saudi Arabia for fear that doing so would require Firestone to notify NHTSA, and added that a Ford lawyer had worries "similar to the Firestone concerns."

Lois Lowry, The Silent Boy (2003) p. 140:

But if he had a Ford automobile, he could simply telephone the garage, and--

...

We didn't need a Ford motorcar.

Elmore Leonard, Killshot (2003):

Elmore Leonard is as dependable as a Ford used to be and as knowing as a New York fashion designer.

Catherine Ryan Hyde, Pay It Forward (2000) p. 24:

Unless, of course, he limped away, not sauntered off, maybe dragged himself to a hospital, maybe got out okay, maybe died, far from anything to tie him to a Ford extra cab, far from any ties to hometown news.

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (1998) p. 141:

It is easy to see why the modern car manufacturer does not enjoy the eminence of a Ford or an Olds.

Stella Gibbons, Cold Comfort Farm (1995) p. 90:

Why don't you go round the country with a Ford van, preaching on market days?

Bernard Goldberg, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes how the Media Distort the News (2001) p. 174:

And they can also live in a bigger house and drive something a little fancier than a Chevy or a Ford.

Henry Ford, Samuel Crowther, My Life and Work (1922) p. 146:

There were several of us and we had a little caravan — the Lanchester, a Packard, and a Ford or two.

The Killshot quote is the only one that qualifies as it being used beyond a trademark or brand name. It's still far away from a quote like "Get me a xeblox of this report." It's more like "I don't trust the Xeblox any more than BD2412's copy shop."--Halliburton Shill 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citations provided show that this is a common word, which has entered the language and is used attributively. Kappa 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A make of car, named for Henry Ford" is not an attributive definition. Please actually provide such an attributive sense, and give citations that show that sense. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is for attributive use, such as "Ford car" or "as dependable as a Ford used to be" Kappa 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or as in "drive something a little fancier than a Chevy or a Ford." If we were only permitted to have attributive definitions, we'd be a very sparse dictionary. bd2412 T 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, huh? You didn't realize that only citations that use the word in the sense being cited are relevant? It sounds like you're saying that any number of citations showing that the word exists should justify any definition of the word. If you wish to verify an attributive meaning, you should give citations that show the word expressing an attribute and then give a sense that those citations correspond to. Dmcdevit·t 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those are not attributive citations, I'd like you to show me what you consider an attributive citation for piano. Or should we remove all nouns from the dictionary? bd2412 T 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. If you (bd2412) want to propose a change to CFI, this isn't the place to do it. If you want to propose that we simply flout CFI in this case, I think you can give up now, because it really doesn't look like you'll get consensus on that point. If y'all (bd2412 and Dmcdevit) want to re-define the linguistic term attributive, y'all can feel free to start a revert war at that entry. If you (bd2412 again) want to argue that Ford is not the name of an actual person, place, or thing, I think that's an argument you could possibly win (since people do use Ford to refer to individual cars, not just to the company), except that the second paragraph of that section of CFI makes it pretty clear that even so, it would consider that to be the name of an actual person, place, or thing. —Ruakh_TALK 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a change to the CFI. Ford clearly meets the CFI. Piano and acetaminophen are names of actual things, should they be deleted from the dictionary? The examples that the CFI gives of "actual people, places, and things" refer to unique things, Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush, etc. There are, by contrast, millions of Fords out there, all different types of them too, but for every one it is as accurate to say "that is a Ford" as it is to point to any piano and say "that is a piano". Now, as for the company, yes, the company is an individual thing, but many other things can be defined by their relationship to it - a Ford driver, a Ford executive, a Ford dealership. If I were to say to you, I met a Randazzo's accountant, you might guess that Randazzo's is a restaurant. But if I told you I met a Ford accountant, you would know that I was referring to the Ford Motor Company, and if I meant any other entity, I'd have to explain that. Just as, if I told you I met an American pilot, I might hasten to specify that it was a pilot from America, not a pilot employed by American Airlines. bd2412 T 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming it is about unique names is starting to sound like blatant misrepresentation. Keep reading and you'll find that under the category of names are "Remington," "Hoover," "Playstation," and "Xerox." There is nothing about being unique names. It seems to me that you are essentially arguing here is that Ford has encyclopedic notability, and so should be included. It has name recognition, and I think you would add Exxon, Citygroup, and Hitachi, though those clearly fail CFI. And comments like "Or should we remove all nouns from the dictionary?" are hyperbolic and unnecessary. My point is this, you cannot use an attributive sense of "Ford," like "dependable" as above, to cite the sense of "a make of car" or vice versa. You seem to be conflating all senses, as if proof that those four letters used in that order proves that the current definition is attested. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the references to piano. Piano is not a trademark, Ford is; CFI requires evidence of attributive use for trademarks, and we may or may not have found such use. Now, if we keep this term, we do need to define what connotations a Ford has that a — to use the example bd2412 gives below — 'Schwinn' hasn't. Otherwise, we're being totally unhelpful. If we found the hypothetical quotation *That car is perfect for the job! It runs like a Ford, but it looks like a Porsche!, it's obvious that Ford means automobile; the only reason somebody would look in a dictionary for Ford is to find out (to continue the example) what one runs like — do they stereotypically break down often? Are they stereotypically unbreakable? We need to figure out what attributes are implied in the above quotations, and mention them in our definition. — Beobach972 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: bd2412's statement, "The examples that the CFI gives of 'actual people, places, and things' refer to unique things, Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush, etc.": I take it you didn't read the second paragraph of that section? The CFI that you think we have would make more sense than the CFI we do have, but we have the CFI that we have. Don't try bringing your logic here. ;-)

Re: Dmcdevit's statement, "My point is this, you cannot use an attributive sense of 'Ford,' like 'dependable' as above, to cite the sense of 'a make of car' or vice versa. You seem to be conflating all senses, as if proof that those four letters used in that order proves that the current definition is attested.": Your statement makes logical sense, but our CFI aren't logical. :-) The CFI do make it pretty clear that we include New York (in its ordinary sense) because the term New York delicatessen exists.

To both of you: Yes, we should definitely fix our CFI so they're less batshit insane; but this discussion isn't the place to do it.

—Ruakh_TALK 04:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading that last bit. I don't think it is clear at all that we include any and all senses of the term "New York" because one of them is attributive. If so, we would include only the trademark meaning for xerox, or something else silly like that. The phrase "New York delicatessen" is using the term "New York" to express a certain attribute that is not tied to the location, see the new New York#Adjective. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone sells cars under the name "Ford" does not make the word any less of a word for a type of car than piano is for a type of musical instrument. That I can say, 'I take a Ford to work,' and you know that I'm talking about an automobile as opposed to a bus or a bicycle evidence this. The citations confirm it. A capital letter at the beginning of a word does not strip it of its informative qualities. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit: I don't think our CFI make us only include the tradmark sense of xerox. — Beobach972 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, the CFI does not exclude trademarks, it merely says that "Being a trademark or a company name does not guarantee inclusion. ... Although some words are trademarks and company names, not all trademarks and company names are words." Ford has become a "word", not just in the sense that it is a family name or a company name, but in the sense that it is a kind of car just as surely as a "mid-size" or a "hybrid" is a kind of car. bd2412 T 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moving back to the left) I'll vote to keep this if you'll add the qualities of the vehicle (when it is used attributively, what is implied? reliability? luxury? conspicuous consumption? environmental friendliness?) to the entry. — Beobach972 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, suppose I were to say that the quality implied is "manufactured by the Ford motor company"? Ford used to mean reliable, or imply a certain status of the driver ("he is still driving a Ford when he could and should be driving a Porsche"; "they can also live in a bigger house and drive something a little fancier than a Chevy or a Ford"). However, if I see a Ford pickup or a Ford car of any kind today, the name tells me that it's made in a Ford factory, just as surely as a Brazlian coffee was made in Brazil or an Italian statue was made in Italy. The point I'm getting at is that even if the only attributive use refers back to the manufacturer, that's still a perfectly cromulent attributive use (and, before this opens an argument about all marks being similarly attributive, one that meets the CFI in terms of citations). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if you said that, I'd tell you that, to my understanding, it didn't meet our CFI. — Beobach972 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, you're arguing that the possibility of eliding ‘car’ from the sentence ‘He drives a Ford [car]’ is the driving factor (forgive the pun) in including this word, ie, because we can leave out the word ‘car’ and still be understandable, ‘Ford’ means ‘a car of a certain type’ and ought to be included? — Beobach972 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - based on the easily available citations which show that Ford can be used in substitution for (and not merely in combination with) the word "car". bd2412 T 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, the CFI actually say the opposite: they give more weight to attributive uses, as in "Ford car", than to normal substantive uses, as in "He drives a Ford." But even the attributive-use criterion doesn't apply here, as "Ford" is a trademark, and the CFI only allow trademarks that have become genericized, like xerox machine meaning "photocopier" and band-aid meaning "adhesive bandage". (This doesn't necessarily mean that a court has actually declared the trademark genericized — the Band-Aid trademark is still holding on by a thin strip of adhesive — but that we have CFI-qualifying citations of genericized use.) Can you pull up cites where "Ford" does not refer to the actual trademark? As in, where someone uses the noun "Ford" in reference to a car or truck without meaning that Ford makes it? —Ruakh_TALK 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting the CFI - it is certainly not clear that the fact that Ford is a trademark means that referencing a car made that happens to be made by Ford by saying, "hey, there's a Ford" is making a trademark use. Consider this: if you see a Ford driving down the street, and then another Ford pulls up next to it, what do you have? A pair of Fords. But "Fords" (the plural) is not a trademark. So in theory, we should be able to have the plural in the dictionary - but not the singular? bd2412 T 00:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps relevant. Is the word 'Ford', defined as 'a car made by the Ford company', really a noun, or just the sort of item mentioned in that discussion? — Beobach972 01:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, substitute "Schwinn" for Ford in any of the above cites and you'll see why it deserves an entry. bd2412 T 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 01:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not RfD, this is RfV, and silly as it was to require it in the first place, I've provided citations demonstrating that Ford is a word in use. bd2412 T 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone dispute that Ford is now eminently verified according to the amended CFI for brand name products? In other words, can we close this discussion? bd2412 T 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts edit

in the sense of "Any of several worldwide youth movements based on the one begun in 1907 by Baden-Powell in England." These should be independent of the second sense, which is specific to America.

This nomination made in resolution of WT:RFD#Scouts. DAVilla 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are some that refer the UK movement:

On My Honour: Guides and Scouts in Interwar Britain (2002). This book is full of references to "Scouts" meaning the UK organisation.
Distance Education for Language Teachers: A U. K. Perspective by Ian MacGrath, Ron Howard - 1995. "... Scouts who were using their map-reading skills as well as studying geology. As a student, I have been able to carry my studies of professional judgement". Unfortunately this appears on page 17, which is not part of the limited preview.
Youth Of Darkest England: Working-class Children at the Heart of Victorian Empire], 2005. (page 107). "t should come as no suprise the title character of Rudyward Kipling's Kim (1901) is one of the first Boy Scouts. Of all the socialist imperialist organisations, the Scouts is the most irrepressibly optimistic about the ability to make working class your people into servants on the British empire ...".
The Rough Guide To England by Robert Andrews, Phil Lee, Emma Rees, Jules Brown, Jonathan Buckley - 2004 (page 294, not part of preview) "But the most regular visitors to Brownsea are scouts ..." (w:Brownsea Island was the site of Baden Powell's first experimental scout camp, and the scouts now own the island).
Dr. Golem: How to Think about Medicine By Harry M. Collins, Trevor J. Pinch, 2005. "Boy Scouts in the UK in the 19505 [sic] trained to "be prepared" by carrying such mirrors. After the Second World War," (page not part of preview).

Thryduulf 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004: Philippa Levine, Gender and Empire
Boer War hero Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouts in 1907 so that young men might put military and colonial frontier discipline to work in suburban peacetime.

— Beobach972 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1991: James E. Hassell, Russian Refugees in France and the United States Between the World Wars [2]
"Scouting on the Baden-Powell model had caught on quickly in pre-revolutionary Russia ... Scouts wore uniforms and had their specail prayers, hymns, pledges and mottos... Scouts went off every summer for lengthy stays in thier camps." (pages 75-76).

1996: Peter Vine, Ibrahim Abed, Paula Casey-Vine, Abdullah Al Jabali, Chronicle of Progress
"The Higher Scouting Council of the UAE held its first meetings under the chairmanship of Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum...It was agreed to establish a group of Girl Scouts in the UAE." (p43)

"Sheikh Zayed opened the eleventh Arab Conference of Girl Scouts in the Abu Dhabi Cultural Complex."(p297)"

Thryduulf 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1991 quote above, it is not clear that Scouts is being used as a proper noun. It appears these instances are capitalized as a result of starting the sentence. The 1996 quotations for Girl Scouts is for a different noun. --EncycloPetey 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1976: Ernest Thompson Seton, The Worlds of Ernest Thompson Seton
Lord Baden-Powell of England is generally given credit for founding the Scouts. There is no doubt he founded the Scout movement in England along military ...

2006: Tess Cosslett, Talking Animals in British Children's Fiction 1786-1914
Baden-Powell did not himself write animal stories, but when he decided to form an organisation for younger boys, modelled on the Scouts, ...

— Beobach972 02:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004: Dr Winsome Roberts, Brian Galligan, Australian Citizenship p95
"...and in 2002, the Guides, Scouts, Returned and Serves Leauge and Surf Life Saving clubs all sponsored Harmony Day."
1961: Australian council of social service, Committee for Post-graduate Study in Social Work, The Australian Journal of Social Issues p46
"The most common criterion of effectiveness quoted from within the Scout Movement is that of the large number of former Scouts who become successful in later..." (presumably the following word is "life", but this isn't part of the preview)
1969: John Buchan, Canadian Occasions: addresses p148
"...wherever I have gone...I have found companies of Scouts inspired by the true Scout tradition..."
1931: American Forests (Association), American Forests p56
"The Scouts from Australia and Denmark said they hoped to practice conservation on the same basis as they had witnessed it here. And, the Iranian Scout was..."
2002: Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1919-1945 p48
"...in the spring of 1919, a number of local Scouts somehow got hold of a few guns and assisted the Polish soldiers..."

"Besides such common scouting activities as hikes and summer camps, the Scouts participated in various Polish national festivals..."
1977: GLADYS. NICOL, Malaysia and Singapore p68
"...stadium was rapidly filling with small groups holding brilliant coloured banners proclaiming their club or organisation such as Scouts, Guides, Workers Clubs, nurses and so forth."

Thryduulf 09:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now please can we apply some common sense and get rid of defs 2 and 3? Widsith 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've found a citation for every country that I've looked for (except the UAE and Pakistan, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't any in the later), so unless you want a separate definition for every country in the world with a Scout group... 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC){{third-person singular of|}} — This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs).

If they're attested, why would you want to get rid of them? DAVilla 04:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase they are redundant to definition 1, "Any of several worldwide youth movements based on the one begun in 1907 by Baden-Powell" (my emphasis). The Scouts Association of Australia and Boy Scouts of America are youth movements based on the one begun in 1907 by Baden-Powell; as are the Danish, Iranian, Polish, Malaysian/Singaporean, British, and Canadian ones we have attested on this page, and I have also found cites for the Icelandic and Swazi organisations but haven't transcribed them here. Do we need separate definitions for all of these and any more that can be found? Thryduulf 08:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davilla, compare an entry like policeman. Do we really want 1: A member of a State police department. 2: A member of the Australian police force. 3: A member of the Hong Kong police department...etc etc? Widsith 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action would be to leave the Baden-Powell sense, remove the BSA and Scouts Australia senses, and list quotations for the different nations' Scouts in the quotations section, distinguished by (sub-headers) (as I have done to illustrate). — Beobach972 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier is another example — do we need to list the senses Russian soldier, German soldier, Burgundian soldier, Canadian soldier, etc? No. — Beobach972 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I can think of a compromise, as Connel wants (and rightly so) the BSA listed: what if we give the definition as ‘Any of several worldwide youth movements based on the one begun in 1907 by Baden-Powell in England; for example, the Boy Scouts of America, the U.S. branch founded in 1910’ — what do you think? — Beobach972 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good compromise, (though I'd obviously still think the B-P info belongs in the etymology section.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf: Although we definitely do not need to list them as senses, I'd love it if we could give all the nationalities' Scouts in the quotations section (or even in a citations subpage) — care to transcribe that Swazi quotation? — Beobach972 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again I'm not certain the Swazi quotation is referring to Scouts who are African or 'African Scouts' as a separate organisation, so I've not included it in the list below. It is in the first listed book below if you want to look yourself. I have found quotations for Uganda, Kenya, South Africa and Iceland though. I failed to find ones for Sweden, Panama and Malta. If "Boy Scouts" is acceptable then there are ones for these countries and more.

(year unknown): Timothy Parsons, Race, resistance, and the Boy Scout movement in British Colonial Africa,
"In interwar Palestine, where the British Amry introduced Scouting, Zionist Scouts refused to share a terreitorial association with the "brother" Arab Scouts" (p65)

"the commender-in-chief of the the Indian arm barred his officers from serving as Scoutmasters in both European and Indian Scout trooops. Yet the government lost control of the movement by refusing the Indian Scouts official status." (p65)

"In 1966 the Uganda Scout Association estimasted that one-third of all ministers in the postcolonial government were ex-Scouts. (p185)

"Peter Leo Ormurnga, a member of a troop in western Kenya, urged his fellow Scouts to support the Bob-a-Job program, where Scouts undertook simple chores to raise money for thier troops and the KBSA." (p185)

"Jack Leech, a government welfate officer and divsion Scout commissioner in Bechuanaland, declared, "If South African Scouts are not prepared to acept the principles and the ideals of the Movement in them entirely [sic], there should be no Scouts in South Africa."." (p214)

2004: Paul Harding, Iceland
"Check out the amusing sundial designed by Icelandic Scouts. (p190)

Thryduulf 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I'm not sure if examples where Scouts is immeadiately qualified by an adjective count — the point being to show that Scouts has the meaning Swazi scouts etc, a member of an organisation where the information on nationality is supplied by a separate term. — Beobach972 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "African Scouts", it is in contrast to "European" in apartheid and immediately pre-apartheid-era South Africa and, like the Palesitinian "Zionist" vs "Arab", this is not nationality but ethnicity qualification. Thryduulf 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is this discussion’s conclusion? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 14:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

man-flu edit

— Beobach972 01:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This or a variant has been brought to RFV or RFD in the past. Does anyone know the result? DAVilla 05:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Google News hits [3] from earlier this week about it being inlcuded in the latest edition of Chambers English Dictionary. Thryduulf 07:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect where you've seen it before is Wiktionary:Beer parlour#New words in the Collins English Dictionary 9th edition. Thryduulf 09:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall this (capitalized?) failing in the past too, but I'm not finding any residue in RFD or RFV. Looking at specific items on b.g.c., it seems pretty clear that this doesn't meet our CFI. (Confer {{nosecondary}}.) --Connel MacKenzie 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups has 150 hits, 9 of the first 10 are relevant and range from 2001 to 2007. There doesn't seem much consistency in capitalisation or hyphenation though:

2007 uk.rec.sheds "Feels like minus 5 here, though I have the worst case ever of Man-flu at the moment so it's probably about 8 degress in reality." [4]
2005 uk.rec.motorcycles "I have man flu so the furthest I have been from the house today is into the garden" [5]
2001 uk.rec.motorcycles "For a start disregard the fact that Man Flu has a far worse effect on the bodies of men than wimmin" [6]

This is the same author in the same group as above but 4 years earlier, is this independent?

2006 england.chat "Sounds like he has 'man flu' lol " [7]

Thryduulf 09:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those demonstrate that this refers to a sickness, but can we determine that they support the definition currently given? — Beobach972 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 quotation would seem to me to support the first part of the definition, although not the latter. I've not looked beyond the first 10 g.g.c hits though to see if any of the others can aid us. As I've been drinking wine all evening, now is not the time to do so. Thryduulf 22:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moving back left)

2005 rec.sport.unicycling [8] "Been feeling rough and developing a nasty cold* all day. Only three working days to infect my colleagues before Christmas...;) *The world shall hear of new man-flu again:D "
2003 alt.support.stop-smoking [9] "It's like "man flu" - exactly the same as "woman flu" but according to them, three times as bad." [written by a woman]
2004 misc.fitness.weights [10]

> Whatever this is it is kicking my ass.  Started out as headache and
> stomachache, then sore throat with fever, then sore throat without
> fever.  Now it is in my nose along with a moderately persistent cough
> and still no fever.

Sounds suspiciously like man-flu to me!

2005 uk.sport.football.clubs.celtic [11]

>>>>> If I wasn't so loaded with the flu I'd Google this and pick holes
>>>>> in it, but in the meantime...*throws you a chicken leg*...dance,
>>>>> hun, dance !!

>>>>> Paddy

>>>> Flu? I very much doubt it Paddy.

>>> Why?

>>> Paddy

>> Because if you really had flu you would not be posting.

> Don't be a wuss. I've had it all week ( since Tuesday ), I'm feeling
> a bit better but I've coughed and sneezed that much my rib cage is
> killing me ( and does kill me every time I cough or sneeze ).
> Maybe you're just the bad patient, dramatic "I'm dying" type?

Angof suffers from man-flu ;-)

Sorry about the long quotes (and feel free to improve the formatting), but I think the whole exchange is necessary to get the meaning. From the groups this is getting hits in, if this isn't exclusively British it is certainly chiefly so.Thryduulf 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised if it doesn't meet CFI, it's not that rare. RobbieG 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added the 8 quotations hence to the entry. I’ll add more from GNS tonight. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 17:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added another 8 citations from Google News Search. Seeing as this entry now has 16 citations, I take it that it passes RFV? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argismo edit

Supposed to be Italian - but not in any of my Italian dictionaries. SemperBlotto 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly from argia (Sicilian for spider). —Stephen 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

b.g.c. has ten hits, of which seven seem to be relevant (though not all of those are independent). —Ruakh_TALK 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Google Scholar has five hits, of which three seem to be relevant (all seemingly independent). —Ruakh_TALK 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying it is Italian (in which case I know how to format the headword) or Sicilian / Sardinian (in which case I don't). SemperBlotto 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since most of the hits say something like "argismo sardo" ("Sardinian argismo"), I assume it's a normal Italian word, but presumably of Sardinian origin. I'm not sure where the "Sicilian" comes in, since it's not my understanding that they speak Sicilian in Sardinia. —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident of this word - so I'll leave it for someone who actually knows its origin for a fact. SemperBlotto 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ariosa edit

As above. SemperBlotto 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fiestar edit

Cleaned up as a possible regionalism, but I've never heard it before. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books returns this as usage:

1984: Abū Sarīʻ Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Hādī, Tārīkh al-shuʻarāʼ al-Ḥaḍramīyīn
... que está pensando cómo joder al que tiene al lado. Además, es un gusano de marca mayor. Ese hombre no lleva encima una sola cosa buena. Jugar, fiestar, [...]

... but I'd baulk at that being the correct author and title; it seems like some mix-up. — Beobach972 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can also find a Cuban source discussing the word :

no year given: Boletín, published by the Academia Cubana de la Lengua, Havana
Sin embargo, el que hoy nos ocupa, fiestar, ha querido derivarse de fiesta, a pesar de que esta palabra no ha dado derivados en castellano, salvo fiestero,
(which is, in English) Nevertheless, that which presently occupies us, ‘fiestar’, is supposed to stem from ‘fiesta’ (holiday), although this word has not given any derivatives in Castilian, save for ‘fiestero’, [...]

— Beobach972 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most useful to us is Paul Austerlitz’ 2005 Jazz Consciousness: Music, Race, and Humanity, which gives sentences in English and Spanish:

Con el yo voy a fiestar,
I will celebrate with it,
Y con mi novia a bailar.
And dance with my girlfriend.

This definately seems to support it, and we can conclude from it and the above source that this is, indeed, a regionalism. Please do let me know if you'd like me to track down more examples. — Beobach972 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scatman edit

--Connel MacKenzie 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most uses are nicknames - Scatman Crothers, Scatman John, Scatman Patin, etc - and as the occasional name of fictional characters. So, if nothing else, it is indeed a nickname for someone who performs scat music. Here's an attributive use of the variation, "scat man", though:

Stanley Dance, The World of Count Basie (1985) p. 20:

George 'Fathead' Thomas, with McKinney's Cotton Pickers, was a good ballad singer and a scat man.

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason edit

Should be put in Wiktionary instead of rotting in Wikipedia with little to no hits. —This unsigned comment was added by 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 75.38.11.10.[reply]

I'm sorry, but you seem to have come to the wrong place. Are you saying that w:Reason does not belong on Wikipedia? If so, I disagree, but you're welcome to bring that up for discussion at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. —Ruakh_TALK 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lapsūs linguae edit

This has one quotation, but it needs two more... my own hypothesis is that, as the macron isn't even used in Latin, it isn't used in English. — Beobach972 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy at Wiktionary:About Latin is to never use macrons for entry names. They appear only in the inflection line and inflection tables (and in quotes, if the quotations actually used them). The information should be moved to a Latin section on the page for lapsus linguae or else deleted. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the quotation — it is in “The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America” (an English language publication) and appears in an English sentence, in a non-Latinate context. The policies peculiar to Latin do not apply. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, and we may indeed need to add a Latin section. This RFV, however, isn't about Latin; this is about whether the English language forms the plural of lapsus linguae by adding a macron. — Beobach972 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to see this as a rather pretentious nonce-form. Widsith 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic perhaps (following the pluralising rules of the Latin fourth declension in English tends to be regarded as such), but not noncy — the context in which it appears doesn’t seem to imply that it is being used humorously, ironically, or cetera. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But noncy in the sense that this is its only appearance. Or are there more cites? Widsith 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see just yet, but there should be a couple more somewhere — for an obviously Latin noun phrase, this word is rather common in both the singular and the plural — there need only be two more authors like Victoria A. Fromkin who are pedantic enough to add the macron to indicate vowel lengthening. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has one reference, and it is a possible construction (it follows the rules of the only applicable language that has the ability to distinguish singular from plural). If it fails RFV it should be moved to the WT:LOP. — Beobach972 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll also create a copy user sub-page for it as per the four English circumfix entries. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as this exists, I'm inclined to say that it's not English. There are speakers who never use the phrase lapsus linguae, there are speakers who take it as an English phrase of obvious Latin origin, and there are speakers who take it as a Latin phrase that can be sprinkled into an otherwise English text. The first group is entirely irrelevant; the second group would not include a macron in the plural; and the third group is irrelevant for the purposes of the English entry. Our usage note should mention that some speakers do not treat this as an English phrase, but as a Latin one, and some even include a macron in the plural (in accordance with some modern scholarly Latin orthographic schemes). —Ruakh_TALK 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but : if it were a purely English term, one would expect the plural lapsus linguaes, and if it were a purely Latin term, one would not use a macron (and would indeed use, as the plural, LAPSVS LINGVAE). At any rate, that's an excellent suggestion for a usage note. — Beobach972 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, English speakers sometimes retain foreign plurals in loanwords. Sometimes they even — shock horror! — retain foreign diacritics. It doesn't mean it's not English. (Besides, wouldn't the Anglicized plural be "lapsuses linguae", like attorneys general and Knights Templar?)

Not to mention the fact that Classical Latin is not the only Latin. Latin remained in use for many centuries, and went through numerous orthographies, including ones that use lowercase and/or diacritics marking vowel length. --Ptcamn 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I agree with you; that's what I was trying — not very clearly, I now see! — to say... it keeps the natural (ie, foreign) plural, it isn't a purely English phrase, it's in that standard in-between place in which most loan words end up, where it could plausibly have a plural with a macron (were it not for the fact that such a plural would not be natural — ie, found in Latin). — Beobach972 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the usual plural (without the macron) is the one retained from Latin — (based on RP) the singular is pronounced as /ˌlæpsəs ˈlɪŋgwaɪ/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters ( g) or /ˌlæpsʊs ˈlɪŋgwaɪ/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters ( g), whereas the plural is pronounced as /ˌlæpsuːs ˈlɪŋgwaɪ/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters ( g). It’s not as if “lapsuses linguae”, “lapsus linguaes”, or even “lapsi linguae” are generally accepted alternatives. It may be pedantic, but it makes perfect graphologically sense to use the macron, otherwise, the singular and plural forms are indistinguishable, and how one ought to pronounce “lapsus linguae” can only be determined from context (and that’s only if the context can offer clues about the sentence’s grammatical number). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Latin policy is to not include macrons on the spelling for any Latin entry. The macron will show up in an inflection template on the page, not on the entry name. If you are asking for a policy change, this is not the place to do it. The RFV is not intended for policy changes, though such changes may arise from discussions that begin here. In this particular case, I see no reson to think the citation is evidence of anything but a Latin phrase dropped into the middle of an otherwise English sentence. While instances of this phenomenon may be relatively rare today, inclusion of Latin and French phrases was not uncommon in British literature of twenty years ago. The few Agantha Christie novels I've read habitually include such foreign phrases in italics. If we had sufficient evidence to consider this a wholesale borrowing into mainstrean English, then we could discuss this entry in light of policy for English words. However, we do not, and my opinion is to treat this entry under policy for Latin entries. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is to be considered a Latin phrase or a Latinate phrase, it occurs in an undeniably English context. I’m sure you’ll agree that most Anglophones are unaware of the Latin orthographic convention of using macrons and breves to indicate long and short vowels; therefore, how many thereof would be likely to know to omit the macron when looking up the word in Wiktionary? If a person were to do the usual web-based thing for looking up words in a dictionary, he would copy & paste the unknown word or phrase literatim into a dictionary. If we omit lapsūs linguae because Latin doesn’t actually use macrons day-to-day, then we would likely simply be presumed not to have the word or phrase looked up.

Pragmatics aside, it’s worth asking what exactly makes a borrowed word or phrase “English”. Consider nom de plume, argumentum verbosium, and reductio ad Hitlerum — you’d be forgiven for thinking that the former is French and that the latter two are Latin. However, all three are, in fact, English coinages, albethey ones meant to affect a foreign style. As far as I’m aware, none of the three exist in the languages which they imitate — can they be considered French and Latin, respectively, if they don’t enjoy any usage in those languages? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just thought — as lapsūs linguae appears in an issue of The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, it satisfies the CFI under criterion 3 (“[a]ppearance in a refereed academic journal”) and, therefore, passes RFV. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimunity edit

This looks like a protologism to me. Dmcdevit·t 02:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it already is tagged as wjargon. --Connel MacKenzie 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend add to WMF Jargon appendix and remove from main dictionary. IMHO no reason to have WMF jargon here. sewnmouthsecret 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seeker edit

A Harry Potter coinage. Dmcdevit·t 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

g.g.c is full of results for "Seeker" and "seeker" from people talking about the books, the characters and the universe. I'm not certain if this is what you are after though? Thryduulf 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonce usage and should have no place here.--Williamsayers79 12:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonce words don't see repeated use. However, there are enough books by other authors about Harry Potter that this word (and others) fulfill the criteria for inclusion. --Ptcamn 09:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But those are (mostly? all?) discounted as failing to come from independent sources - hence the RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 15:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

steel sip construction edit

Any takers? US thing? Construction of what? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building construction (homes, commercial) + general construction. I've seen this used, but I didn't know what it was called...it's really cool how they quickly set up the styrofoam pieces in a very short time, then fill it with concrete. (b.g.c has hits for "steel SIP" and "SIP construction" but "steel SIP construction" only gets hits on raw web searches.) Fascinating stuff. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

κολώνα edit

Supposed to be Greek for column. Is it just a transliteration? (Badly formatted) SemperBlotto 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It isn't just a transliteration. I live in Greece and I know. Jack hadfield 10:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it’s good. —Stephen 16:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qawt edit

Any takers? Should it be QAWT if it is real? (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 15:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

auto racing edit

Is this more than just a sum of parts? Thryduulf 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to pass many Pawley tests, offhand. Tests 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19 and especially 22. Keep as clearly in widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sum of parts that adds nothing that auto and racing already provide.--Halliburton Shill 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it provides translations which aren't just "sums of words" but actual words. Where else could they link and be linked? Keep. --BiT 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any US-based editor (where this term is used in lieu of motorsport and motor racing) could pick up a book or magazine about motorsport and find this term in about five seconds. Would a reference such as this be suitable? There are plenty more on the web. If that reference would suffice, I'd be happy to add it. Adrian M. H. 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Here is the text of {{nosecondary}}, which explains it succinctly...

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification. --Connel MacKenzie 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a long-time hard-bitten Wikipedian, I assumed that it required verification from independent reliable sources to demonstrate that the term had been documented, as we do for notability. However, when I read the criteria for inclusion yesterday (among many other things), I found it to be rather woolly and decidedly unclear. I'm used to more prescriptive guidelines. I'm really none the wiser as to what sort of source you are actually looking for and what kind of words and/or phrases, if any, are not suitable for inclusion. I have thus far held off from adding any entries for this reason. Adrian M. H. 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woolly? Well anyhow, see w:Use-mention. Most people just use b.g.c. to find citations. Although a citation from any book will do, it is less likely to be contested if it can be verified very quickly. Since this originally seems to have been intended for RFD (not RFV) it is probably a moot issue, as the phrase itself is clearly in widespread use. That makes it a good candidate for learning the quotations formats as per Wiktionary:Quotations, I suppose. --Connel MacKenzie 05:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

growler edit

Senses: "ice floe", "beer container", "vagina." --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the "iceberg" sense before and the first page of a Google search on "growler iceberg" is full of credible hits. -- WikiPedant 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search for 'her growler' (trying to find examples of the vagina sense) gives

1931: Alvin Fay Harlow, Old Bowery Days: The Chronicles of a Famous Street
There were even a few where a woman must stand outside the side door while her "growler" (beer bucket) [sic] was being filled inside.

— Beobach972 05:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1890: Jacob August Riis, How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York
I doubt if one child in a thousand, who brings his growler to be filled...
no year given: Jacob August Riis, The Children of the Poor
His opportunities for studying it while the barkeeper fills his growler are unlimited and unrestricted. Someone has said that our poor children do not...
1939: Edward Livermore Burlingame, Robert Bridges, Alfred Dashiell, Harlan Logan, Scribner's Magazine
... and imported beer, are inconsistent when we deny the laborer his favorite saloon and his growler — they do it from political motives no doubt, ...

The evidence I have found so far suggests that the beer container sense, though valid, is dated. — Beobach972 05:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The beer container sense dated? Hardly. I've heard it used as recently as this week. Several local brew pubs in the area sell growlers to the customers, in addition to kegs and bottles. --EncycloPetey 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brephophagist edit

—Ruakh_TALK 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OED (online) has it as a nonce word. With the quotation "1875 E. RAE Land of N. Wind 265 (D.) A gentleman who affirmed that babies were excellent eating..This Brephophagist was a well-dressed and nicely-mannered man." SemperBlotto 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the WT:LOP? — Beobach972 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than consigning it to WT:LOP, maybe the best way to deal with it is to turn it into a brepho- page and add any similar cites to that (until a particular word has 3 or more, when it can become a page of its own). On Google Books there are cites for brephophagy, brepholatry, brephomania...probably more. Widsith 15:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blazer edit

Last sense. --Connel MacKenzie 07:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zenca edit

Perhaps the creator meant cenca "very". This same user claimed that teochihua meant "divine" (actually "to bless") and that tonalli meant "luck" (actually "day"). --Ptcamn 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moob edit

Is this new, or regional? --Connel MacKenzie 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's regional; it was added by a Briton, and I (an American) am familiar with it. (Of course, maybe the Web's influence means we need to re-define "region" in some cases.) As for newness, I don't know; I first heard it a year or two ago, I think. —Ruakh_TALK 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slang word in the UK, it is synonymous with bitch tits I think.--Williamsayers79 10:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a contraction of "man boob". It's quite a common word nowadays. RobbieG 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle illustration edit

Dictionary material? (improperly moved from -pedia) Caps? Plural? English? SemperBlotto 17:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only know it as French. In French, no caps, no plural. In case it’s kept, moved to nouvelle illustration. —Stephen 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zip file edit

Dictionary material? (No definition) SemperBlotto 10:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so, offhand (nice cleanup Ruakh.) Looking at b.c.g., I'm a tiny bit surprised to see the preponderance of O'Reillys. --Connel MacKenzie 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qabab edit

In going through all of the words that start with q in Category:English nouns, this is one of the few for which I could find no support at all. — Beobach972 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The form qabab seems like an incorrect romanization of the Arabic. (The Arabic actually starts with a kaf, romanized to "k", not a qaf, but someone with limited familiarity with Arabic might hypercorrectly use "q" instead of "k".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could also see it as a phonetic (re)spelling by somebody unfamiliar with the spelling. At any rate, the only mention of that sequence of letters that I could find was (as ‘qābab/nāqab’) a transliteration of a Hebrew word that doesn't mean curse [sic — the article dealt with Hebrew words incorrectly translated as 'curse']. — Beobach972 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Hebrew is w:he:קבב or שישקבב, which could be transliterate as qabab. —Stephen 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but only by a crazy person: קבב (kabáb) is a modern word, borrowed recently from Arabic, and Modern Hebrew uses ק in borrowings instead of כ in the same way that Modern English uses k instead of c (and for the same reason). And it's not like you could mistake it for an Ancient Hebrew word; the grammar of it is all wrong. I'd bet that even one of those rare people who maintain the ק-כ distinction would pronounce קבב as though it had a כ (or would find a grammatical way to express the meaning). (BTW — and I've always assumed this came from Arabic, but maybe not — in Hebrew קבב is the general term, and שישקבב is a more specific term referring to קבב that was ground and reconstituted.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe one of our Hebrew contributors, User:Liso, has been transliterating Hebrew ק with a Q. Or at least that’s how he started out doing it here. But perhaps he was only doing it with native words and not borrowings. —Stephen 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I spoke too strongly. Only a crazy person would borrow the Modern Hebrew noun קבב into English as "qabab"; but someone using a one-to-one transliteration scheme for some purpose would of course have to transliterate ק with a "q", even for words where the ק doesn't actually represent an emphatic (glottalized/pharyngealized) consonant. (And indeed, the Hebrew Academy does recommend here that ק be transliterated with a "q".) —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting the addition of the transliterated Hebrew word, by the way (as I can find exactly one mention of it). — Beobach972 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

… and even that mention is in reference to a different word spelled קבב (qabhābh), so it wouldn't support our entry anyway. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qanún edit

As above — but NB that if this RFVfails, the contents should be copied to qanon, which is attested. — Beobach972 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the GFDL forbids us from taking information from an article and then deleting it. If we really want information from both qanún and qanon and really want to delete qanún, I think what we have to do is delete qanon, perform a cut-and-paste move from qanún and merge the two pages' histories at qanon, and then incorporate all the information we want from the different versions. —Ruakh_TALK 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete qanon, move qanún to qanon, delete (the new) qanon, and then restore (the full history). — Beobach972 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zetland edit

There's an entry on Wikipedia, but no readily available examples of this in literature. — Beobach972 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

divulgation edit

[RFV extended]

Sense - Technical and scientific divulgation is the technology and science communication to the general public. SemperBlotto 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a synonym of Public awareness of science. See:

and so and so on... So, I am going to delete the request for verification, because it has been verified IMHO. --Mac 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do other contributors think : is this verified, or not? — Beobach972 21:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into at the moment. The first thing that grabbed my attention is the mit reference. As it turns out, this is on someone's resume as "National Science Divulgation Week" in 1996 & 1998. No search results are returned anywhere else for such a week, just the resume, of a person who's goal just happens to be to become active in "computing, telecommunications and media". You get 1 more result for a mailing list if you remove week from the phrase. Wikipedia is out and may in fact be depending on the other sources. So I'd say we need something more durable at the very least. The books returned for science divulgation are all old and in Spanish.--Halliburton Shill 06:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem adequate, to me. The entry claims it is in OED, but Oxford Reference Online lists it in the French Business dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

g note edit

While there at one time (about hundred years ago?) such a thing as a $1,000 bill, no such thing is in circulation now. http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/denominations.shtml Since this is marked clearly as a "US" term, I fail to see how this is even imagine-able. Only a tiny handful of "collectors" have even possibly ever seen such a thing; how could it have been an informal (i.e. colloquial) term? --Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the US Treasury web site which Connel cites above, it is noted that the $1000 bill was no longer distributed by the US gov't as of 1969, however the web site also states that "these notes are legal tender and may still be found in circulation today" although they are removed from circulation whenever the central banks get their hands on them. In Canada, the story is similar -- The thousand dollar bill is no longer printed, but it is still legal tender, although the banks are retiring them from circulation as opportunity permits. Rumor has it that there are still lots of them out there. The problem with this denomination is that it has proved very popular with the criminal element (especially drug dealers and money launderers), but the gov't also has to be cognizant of the little old ladies who have them squirreled away in safety deposit boxes, etc. So the G-note is not ancient, although the term is getting to be a bit dated. I'm sure it's a valid entry. (PS -- So far as I know, the nickname "G-note" never really caught on for the Canadian currency.) -- WikiPedant 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would check the works of Rayomnd Chandler and Dashiel Hammett (and their imitators) for references, except that they don't seem to be out of copyright yet so I don't have an electronic version to search. It's a term I've heard before, and I assume it's derived from the idea of $1000 being "one grand". --EncycloPetey 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A google books search on "a g-note" seems to provide several hits where it means $1000 (not necessarily in the shape of a single bill, however.) Can't add these at the moment, though. Here are some links if anyone feels motivated:

--Jeffqyzt 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverse discrimination edit

Is this really a "process of openly and legally discriminating" and not, as I would have suspected, a pejorative term used by opponents of affirmative action? Does it really require either ethnic groups or minorities (women, say, would seem to disprove both)? Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick, non-extensive search seems to suggest it is a synonym of affirmative action/positive discrimination, used both positively and pejoratively with the latter being slighlty more common. Thryduulf 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't know that it is a synonym, as much as a counterpart to affirmative action. The subject (who is being acted upon) has the opposite referent. I don't recall ever hearing this used in a positive light; offhand I can't think of how it could be used that way. No matter how you slice it though, the current entry could benefit from a complete rewrite. --Connel MacKenzie 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, now here's a topic I know pretty well. The term "reverse discrimination" is not used consistently by writers in applied ethics, and it is not necessarily pejorative or derogatory. Basically there are 2 distinct usages:

A policy or program intended as a corrective to past patterns of racial or gender discrimination by reversing the traditional patterns of discrimination, so that previous beneficiary groups are now discriminated against (usually until some measure of acceptable diversity is fulfilled). In this sense, "reverse discrimination" may mean pretty much the same thing as "affirmative action."

The most stringent form of affirmative action policy or program, where members of the designated groups (usually, people of color, aboriginals, people with disabilities, and women) receive preferential treatment in hiring and promotion using a strict quota system in which job qualifications are considered only secondarily. In this sense, "reverse discrimination" denotes only a subset of what is denoted by "affirmative action." -- WikiPedant 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intervarsity edit

Noun sense. (and why would it be uncountable?) SemperBlotto 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non plus edit

This seems to be a misspelling or, at best, an obsolete spelling of nonplus, for which Wiktionary already has an entry of superior quality. Onelook.com and the OED have no entries for "non plus." In its quotations, the OED shows some early spellings of "non-plus" and, in the 1500s, spellings of "non plus". But the two-word version seems to have disappeared after the 16th century. -- WikiPedant 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mondaytofridayer edit

Zero hits in Google books. Spam? (See also mondaytofriday) SemperBlotto 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 substantive hits in Google, both attributable to one Judy Niner who says (in the Telegraph story) that she is trying to add this to the language:

It sure sounds like a protologism to me. -- WikiPedant 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Kappa 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted SemperBlotto 07:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tactical research edit

"A branch of education that deals with the studying of the battlefield and opponent." Kappa 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wholetail edit

Apparently a blend of wholesale and retail. Google Books has one mention of this sense, one use of a different sense, and one hit I can't see. Google Groups has three hits, all uses of different senses, one a pun. Google Web seems to pull up about 150 hits in this sense (found via a search for wholetail|wholetails|wholetailing|wholetailed -lockbox -scampi -"wholetail.com"), but many are mentions, and I'm not sure if any are durably archived. Also, many are verb uses, but that can be addressed by adding a verb sense to our entry. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the coined term is used mostly to describe one main service, electronic lock boxes (and shrimp) altavista does have over fifty articles. The term 'wholetail' is fast becoming a bonifide description of pricing products. [17] "vendors may eventually compete in the retail/”wholetail” market [18] refers to the term as a pricing advantage ebay refers to the term in numerous articles (copyright protected) try ebay & wholetail [19] refers to 'wholetailing' (copyright protected) [20] wholetail components for the RemitTrac platform [21] refers to auro sales on ebay (copyright protected) durability [22] and [23] and [24] and [25] --Andrewkellerman 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the outcome regarding the wholesale/retail sense, we should have an entry for the scampi sense. bd2412 T 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited noun sense. Adjective, verb, adverb senses not supported in our usual sources. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-Fun Time edit

I have a feeling I've heard of this but it doesn't google very well. Kappa 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that the thing that started WT:-) ? --Connel MacKenzie 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actirasty edit

Is this for real? --EncycloPetey 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

546 raw google; 1 b.g.c. I don't care either way. sewnmouthsecret 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind.. if the term passes, move to actirasty. sewnmouthsecret 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

freeway edit

Second (UK-only) sense. Discussion on my talk page indicates it may have been poorly-worded as being the UK equivalent before being split out, mistakenly? --Connel MacKenzie 23:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the term "freeway" used to describe a UK road, and I used to be rather active on a road geek forum. There was discussion as to what the term should be to describe "dual carriageways that are not motorways but have no at-grade junctions" (similar to, but not quite the same as the usage note in the freeway page), but unless anything has changed in the past ~2 years nothing got as far as a becoming a protologism in the road fans jargon. Almost all* motorways meet the first definition of freeway, and there are some dual carriageways that also meet definition (and more that nearly do), but there is no widely used term for these, nor do I recall even a discussion about possible protologisms. *There are some motorways with at-grade roundabout junctions on the mainline for at least one route. Thryduulf 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the word "freeway" is never used in the UK. SemperBlotto 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

like sixty edit

— Beobach972 16:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long sweetening edit

Be advised that, as this was contributed by User:Primetime, it may need to be rewritten in addition to being verified. — Beobach972 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of molasses in the U.S. Midwest is correct. I have never heard of short sweetening, however. —Stephen 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean any ‘liquid sweetener’ (as it is presently defined), or just molasses? — Beobach972 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it formally means molasses, but it would be okay to use it for table syrup as well (but not corn syrup, sugar syrup, etc.). Long sweetening is something that you put on your pancakes, or you can cut it with butter and sop it up with biscuits or cornbread. Sugar syrup goes on pancakes as well, but sugar syrup is very thin and not viscous enough to be called "long". —Stephen 15:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

decollete edit

Supposed to be a noun, but defined as an adjective. Is it meant to be décolleté? SemperBlotto 15:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[26]; I suppose it's an alternative spelling of décolleté. CloudNine 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Wikimedia, UTF-8 is uncommon (on teh internets, in English.) Part of the problem is that for most of its history, Usenet was ASCII 7 bit. Today, IRC clients have some smattering of support for Unicode, but none get it right consistently. Foreign language web pages rarely display correctly without OS-level language pack additions. In colloquial language, diacritics are somewhere between 1) rare, 2) very rare and 3) impossibly rare. In colloquial advertising the accents are pretty consistently misused, if used at all (here in the US.) (Compare: grocers' apostrophes.) While we strive to represent printing typography, we would be doing our readers a disservice by skipping the unadorned forms (particularly for borrowed terms.) On the other hand, the Italian spelling (with accents) should be mentioned in the etymology. --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clusterfuck edit

(Consider this a bit of a RFC, too.) Clusterfuck has a number of senses that need to be verified or merged into more specific senses. This word has a generic sense of mess, and I'd believe a generic orgy sense, but... a group of soldiers presenting a target for small arms fire? A group of four individuals performing anal sex on one another? Can any of these specific senses be verified? — Beobach972 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite the clusterfuck. I'm sure that will make someone happy. We also have a cluster fuck (spaced) entry and Charlie Foxtrot. GBS returns:

Not to say it's correct, but NTC's Dictionary of American Slang →ISBN spells it with a space. It defines the primary sense of both as the same (group rape). The secondary sense is the mess/chaos sense, but is really nothing more than the metaphorical/figurative application of the primary sense (any event significantly similar to group rape). The citationas presently on the page support the figurative use.--Halliburton Shill 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nub edit

Senses 3-5. --Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plonker edit

vulgar sense edit

Second sense (penis). Thryduulf 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a word in the English language (perhaps in any language) that can't be made to mean that? bd2412 T 15:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As vulgar as it may seem this is a valid sense. I have heard it used in the UK (well England at least). It may be infered also that this was the original meaning of the term leading to the perjorative which now seems rather mild.--Williamsayers79 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in the UK all my life (almost entirely in England) but haven't heard this use, which is why I queried it. As a complete aside, on the radio today I heard an American using the term "plonker" (in the first sense) for the first time in my life. It sounded completely wrong! Thryduulf 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the only word not used with this meaning (outside of medical literature) is penis ... Robert Ullmann 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case personal testimony is of any use here, I can confirm that this is a slang word, in the UK at least, for "penis". It is perhaps slightly dated now. Popular belief has it that this is the original meaning, from which stemmed the "idiot" meaning (along the lines of "dick", "knob" etc.). Matt 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

Hopefully personal testimony does carry some weight here. "Plonker" is primarily a synonym for "Penis", and always has been. If ever used in the poultry industry to refer to a specific task on the production line, this could be taken as extremely derogatory (indicating that the position required little or no cognitive capacity) and would be a cause for concern.

It might help from getting the term deleted immediately, but unless a term is "clearly widespread use", which this is not, in the end only citations will count. DAVilla 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I've only ever hear it used in sense 1 (fool) as a polite way of saying wanker. I have never heard it used as penis or as chicken farmer. -- SGBailey 22:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poultry worker edit

Can I also add here the newly added sense: "(UK, Job Description) A worker on a cutting line in a poultry factory". I've had a quick look and find no google web or books hits for plonker "poultry factory". Thryduulf 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it gets a full month. DAVilla 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my part of the woods edit

This entry hasn't yet been created because I first wish to establish which would be considered its basic form, the alternative being part of the woods. I am dealing with an idiom which has the approximate meaning "my area", "my neighborhood" or "where I live". My problem specifically is that a web search of the first variant clearly indicates the prevalence of an idiom whereas with the second one all hits I get appear to reference the literal, non-idiomatic sense, i.e. some area within an actual forrest. __meco 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one's part of the woods? Kappa 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only know this as neck of the woods SemperBlotto 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have heard it said once or twice, but if my part of the woods is created at all, it should just be as a redirect to the already entered and vastly more common neck of the woods. This is what is normally done with idioms. -- WikiPedant 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is correct procedure as part versus neck makes these two expressions similar however distinct. __meco 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's procedure used with common misspellings and variations. Besides, the meaning is exactly the same and, if anything, less idiomatic and even less in need of definition. What would your literal translation of being invited to someone's "part of the woods]]"?--Halliburton Shill 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic forms get redirects, while nothing else on en.wiktionary (in the main namespace) is supposed to. The likelihood of a collision for a full idiom is very remote (and in that case, both languages that use the idiom will likely be similar enough that the redirect is appropriate for both.) Alternate forms and spellings have to have separate entries so that language-collisions that share a particular spelling don't try to redirect against each other. (E.g. American English "café" should redirect to "cafe" while French "cafe" should redirect to "café"...therefore neither one can reasonably be a redirect.) But idioms (by nature of grammar and sentence formation) don't have that same limitation, making redirects preferred for idiom forms. Doing so, guides ESL students to the more common form, which in most idiomatic cases, is quite hard. So, my part of the woods, part of the wood, part of the woods, my neck of the woods etc. should all redirect to neck of the woods. --Connel MacKenzie 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer part of the woods or one's part of the woods since the etymology would be different (at the very least, it derived from neck of the woods or vice versa), and the regionalism might vary. But I have no objections to a redirect, provided nobody else does either, until such time as those distinctions are made. DAVilla 20:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not part of the woods? The expression does not have to be preceded by a personal pronoun, but could also follow this or that. I've usually heard the expression as neck of the woods, though. --EncycloPetey 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moment edit

Sense No. 1 states: unspecified amount of time, originally three-and-a-half minutes. (Changed from an equally mysterious "two-and-a-half minutes"). —Stephen 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three edits from one-time IP users starting with this one should be clear indication that we're dealing with vandalism. __meco 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the something-and-a-half minutes definition, in Trivial Pursuit in fact, although I can't remember the number exactly, and trivia games are rather suspicious to begin with. The second edit might not be deliberate vandalism; it could be that there are a lot of false claims out there. These contributions are unsubstantiated, simply. DAVilla 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the silliness and the rfv tag. DAVilla, those claims aren't just unsubstantiated, they are also unlikely and unreasonable. --Connel MacKenzie 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, Old English had the word momentum meaning "the fortieth part of an hour" (i.e. 1.5 minutes), from post-classical Latin. Likewise it has Middle English cites for moment with this sense since a1398. That's not enough to make it necessarily the "original" sense — the OED has Middle English cites for the current sense since a1382 — but it's enough to make an "originally one-and-a-half minutes" claim reasonable and plausible. Especially for us, since when we say "English" we mean "Modern English", so for our purposes, both of these senses have been around longer than English itself. —Ruakh_TALK 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure why this was struck, since the sense certainly exists. I've reinstated it and marked it historical, since it still appears in some modern works with reference to mediaeval time-keeping etc. Widsith 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that that matches neither "two and a half" nor "three and a half" minutes, right? At any rate, that belongs in an OE or ME section, not the English section. (Modern reference works inherently fail the use/mention distinction.) I had been bold, as it obviously was tripe. Yours isn't tripe, but it is misplaced now. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendospacken edit

I think, this word is made up. Maybe it is a slang word, but even this is unlikely, because it has no Google hits on German or international pages. --Zeitlupe 02:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single entry from an anon. Nothing turns up for it, so deleted. —Stephen 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oodf edit

Supposed to be an English noun. Looks like an initialism. Definition uses different capitalization. References are in German. ?!? SemperBlotto 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition looks more encyclopaedic to me than a dictionary entry as well. Thryduulf 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the entry and SemperBlotto is correct - it is an initialism. I actually spent quite some time reading through the help-pages to see if initialisms were allowed. I took the wording on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WT:CFI#General_rule as acceptance of this. I was a bit confused when choosing template but thought "noun" was the best match. Btw, references are in Danish, not German. Jlundstocholm 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mumpsimus edit

Sense: old person. --Connel MacKenzie 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 3 does not appear in the OED, Webster's, AHD, or Random House. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean ORO not OED? --Connel MacKenzie 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 3 DOES appear in the OED - the following is copy/pasted

b. derogatory. An old person. Also: = MUMPS n.1 Obs.

1573 G. GASCOIGNE tr. Ariosto Supposes I. iii, in Hundreth Flowres sig. Ciiii, And if this olde Mumpsimus..should wyn hir, then may I saye,..farewel the sight of my Polynesta. 1596 T. LODGE Wits Miserie 37 The next of this progenie is Vnlawfull lucre, looke what a handsome Mumpsimus shee is, will you know her profession? 1691 T. SHADWELL Scowrers II. i. 9 Eugenia. [To Priscilla, her governess.] Did she so old Mumpsimus. 1815 Zeluca I. 336 He showed me into a room with some mumpsimuses.

So, do we trust that if it was obsolete 192 years ago, it is still obsolete now? :-) Or would it be better to remove that sense as misleading? --Connel MacKenzie 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably still obsolete. Your edition of the OED differs from mine. I have only the two-volume reprint edition. It uses 'old fogey' rather than 'old person'. --EncycloPetey 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shog edit

Per the entry, seems to be a protologism. --Jeffqyzt 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've been unable to find any uses (or even mentions) of it on Google web, its not even in Urban Dictionary. There is a verb "to shog", which means "to shake; to sway; to jog; to go away" although this was used (common?) in Elizabethan times, it is now obsolete except apparently in Scottish dialect, although this could be the Scots word "shog" (I've not established whether this has the same meaning). Shakespeare used it as "shog off" in Henry V (Act 2 scene 1), and this gets ~400 web hits and 13 groups hits (not checked for independence) as an exact phrase; always used with the meaning "fuck off", which is the sense Shakespear used it in (although the vulgarity at the time is not known). Further searching suggests the term isn't obsolete but is just an archaic spelling of shag (Etymology 3). Something among this probably meets our CFI.

When searching, particularly Google Groups, there are an awful lot of Polish messages. Some of these at least are from a contributor with an email address "shog@...", but a Polish speaker may wish to take a look and see if there is a CFI-meeting word amongst them.

There is also a "DJ Shog" (doesn't have an en.wp article) (which might be what the Polish groups hits are about), a proper noun (an alien race?) in some Dr. Who related postings and quite a lot of hits in Cthulhu-related groups (particularly alt.sex.cthulhu).

None of these however match the sense given in the entry. Thryduulf 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kaalchakra edit

Supposed to be Sanskrit, but is in the wrong script. (needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 15:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fice edit

--Connel MacKenzie 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited. Incidentally, apparently this has variants with a final [t] sound, which according to the OED are the source of the adjective feisty (though one of the cites I added seems to think it's the other way 'round). —Ruakh_TALK 05:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

theater/homonyms edit

This has some verb entered that looks like spam; with the "experiment" it is hard to tell. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

open-mouthed edit

Sense 3: loudly insistent. Widsith 17:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

organo pleno edit

--Connel MacKenzie 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited; although it appears the agreement on the definition is not universal, or at least it wasn't until about the mid 1970s (I'm not certain after that). Also its marked as a noun, but it seems to me more like an adjective, I'm not going to act on this though as I have absolutely no musical talent! Thryduulf 21:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's Latin and not Italian---ablative of organum plenum. Luckily, I do have musical talent. JackLumber 21:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two citations are mentions, not use. The second one in particular only covers its use in 18th century Germany, which doesn't support it as an English word. --EncycloPetey 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other uses in google books, but these are the only ones I could find where the meaning was clear. Thryduulf 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning doesn't have to be clear to count as a supporting citation. While it would be ideal to have three like that, it's more important in this case to demonstrate conculively that it's an English word and to show it in use. That doesn't mean the other two citations are entirely useless or should be removed, just that they do not count towards the three citations we need. The do show something of the meaning and context, they just aren't proper use of the word. --EncycloPetey 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And órgano pleno is a misspelling---it ain't Spanish either. JackLumber 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misspelling; it's Italian with optional stress markings, as often found in Italian dictionaries. The markings are not part of the language but do indicate stress. --EncycloPetey 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And pleno is not an Italian adjective, the word for "full" is pieno. SemperBlotto 22:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misspelling. Organo pleno is Latin, not Italian or Spanish, and the character ó doesn't exist in Italian. JackLumber 22:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was finding earlier, if the spelling with "ó" is a misspelling then it is probably common enough to get an entry here as such. I don't speak or read Italian, Spanish, Latin or music, so I was basing this on what the original contributor put. Thryduulf 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally had never seen the "ó" spelling---and I play the pipe organ myself. Well, I used to. JackLumber 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian word organo is sometimes written with a grave accent (òrgano) in dictionaries to show the non-standard stress (normal would be on the "a") but is never used in real life. SemperBlotto 22:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it---never with an _acute_ accent. JackLumber 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

welsh edit

RFV failed for sense in question, discussion archived to Talk:welsh. -- Visviva 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bandeaux edit

Listed as a plural - but I don't think it can be used that way in English. As a French borrowing in italics, perhaps, but the english borrowed word is "bandeaux" not "bandeau". --Connel MacKenzie 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is OK, in fact on Google books there are twice as many cites for this in English as for bandeaus (717 for the bandeaux compared to 332 for bandeaus). Widsith 10:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added five citations to the entry. I’m not very familiar with the grammatical function of pluralia tantum — could someone please check the quotations to verify whether they show the correct usage? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange is going on. The one cite given for the plurale tantum sense is not even plural, much less only plural. The cites you gave don't really show anything one way or the other, except for the 1845 cite; they could be taking the word as inherently plural, or as the plural of a some singular noun. (Even the 1845 cite isn't decisive; cattle is a plurale tantum, but apparently there are some speakers who find ?"two cattle", meaning "two head of cattle", to be acceptable. Of course, cattle is a special case because there simply is no singular form available; I think it's unlikely that a speaker would accept "two bandeaux" without accepting some singular form. And the availability of bandeau as a singular form makes it really hard to claim that bandeaux could be a plurale tantum; one might as well claim that books is a plurale tantum because you can't say *"a books." All told, no offense to whoever added the "plurale tantum" tag, but I think it's likely that (s)he didn't understand the meaning of the term.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was Connel, who added the plurale tantum sense at the same time that he requested verification of the “plural of bandeau” sense. Connel — I think your quotation shows a misuse of a plural as a singular, not a standard use. Can you provide a reference to a dictionary or similar authority which labels bandeaux as a plurale tantum? In the meantime, I’ve tagged the plurale tantum sense with a request for verification, so now both senses are listed here under this single section. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for (mis)using the terminology that User:Muke insisted upon. The English word "bandeaux" is only a reference to a singular C-shaped hair thingamajig (with two forks that end up over either ear.) The plural of it is "bandeauxs". The French singular term is "bandeau" (which currently is erroneously listed as an English singular, instead of a rare alternative spelling) and the French plural obviously is "bandeaux." Hippo, hippo, hippopotamus. --Connel MacKenzie 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? “Bandeauxs” gets 0 Google Book Search hits, 0 Google Scholar hits, 0 Google Blog Search hits, 0 Google Groups hits, 0 Google Image Search hits, and only 4 Google Web Search hits; furthermore, I’ve never seen a ‘-u-x-s’ double plural before (and it looks damn ugly — non-standard one might say). Surely you’re mistaken? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, specifying a plural of a pluralia tantum is erroneous - I obviously never should have taken your assertion that it isn't pluralia tantum as genuine; just like pants, bandeaux refers to the single object with two extensions. And yes, had it not been, then it would have been +-es. But thank you for demonstrating that it is not bandeauxes. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. For bandeaux, if it were a plurale tantum (which, btw, is the correct singular — pluralia tantum is the plural), to be treated as a pants-like singular, it needs a collective noun (as Ruakh explains, “a set of bandeaux”, just like “a pair of pants”). Your quotation doesn’t show a plurale tantum, just a misused singular. BTW, please explain what you meant by “I obviously never should have taken your assertion that it isn't pluralia tantum as genuine”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's just a typo or innocent oversight on Connel's part... if bandeaux is ever treated as singular and pluralised, I'd guess bandeauxes, with an e between the x and the s. However, I've never seen either word before, so I have no idea. — Beobach972 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by your quotations hereinafter, Connel’s giving as “bandeauxs” as typo of “bandeauxes” is unlikely: 0 GBookS hits, 0 GS hits, GBlogS hits, GG hits, GIS hits, only 1 GWS hit, and not even a single hit from Dogpile Websearch (which is essentially Google, Yahoo, Windows Live Search, and Ask.com combined). I think that he was very much mistaken. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very curious, the different format that Google returns for UK searches. I'm not sure if that is relevant, or not. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I can find regarding the singularity and plurality of the various forms: (bandeau as a singular noun)

(medical)
- 1999: Bill C. Terry, Maxime Champy, Franz Härle, et al, Atlas of Craniomaxillofacial Osteosynthesis: miniplates, microplates, and screws
  The supraorbital bandeau is fixed to the nasal structure by a titanium [...]
  
  This bandeau is fixed by microplates. The median bone strip is fixed to the [...]
- 1998: AANS Publications Committee: Setti S. Rengachary, MD, and Edward C. Benzel, MD, Calvarial and Dural Reconstruction: Neurosurgical Topics
  The frontal bandeau is then elevated en bloc. A Bi on BC1 (Midas Rex) bit is used to create the osteotomies circumferentially.
(item that is worn)
- 2002: Raoul d'Harcourt, Textiles of Ancient Peru and Their Techniques
  Fragment of a wool cap, of which only the bandeau is well preserved. It is made in square knotting in alternate directions (see Fig. 79).

(bandeaux as a singular noun)

- 1937: Talks, page 7, by the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc
  In the middle of this bandeaux is the cross of Lorraine. These arm-bands are brand new and only recently handed out.
- 2003: R. D. Manning, The Wandering Jew (and Jewess): III REDEMPTION four part screenplay
  [...] without being fully-dressed, is still attired with more care than usual. Her light hair, instead of being simply arranged in a bandeaux, is curled and [...]
(seems to be a rare construction - ?)

(bandeaux as a plural noun)

- 1938: Sherman Paxton Lawton, Radio Continuity Types
  They're seventy-nine cents, and the bandeaux are fifty-nine cents apiece.
- 1981: United States Customs Court Reports: cases adjudged in the United States Customs Court, published by the United States Customs Court
  In use, hair bandeaux are "placed over the top of the head to keep the hair in place and also for decoration."
- 1997: George Frederick Kunz, The Magic of Jewels and Charms
  The elaborate and rather oppressive headdress is a typical adornment of the queens of Sikki, the broad bandeaux are composed of pearls, [...]
- 1998: Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Aurora Floyd
  Bandeaux are narrow fillets or head bands.

(bandeaus as a plural noun)

- 1839: Alexander Forbes, esq, California: A History, published by Smith, Elder and Co. Cornhill, London
  Their feather-bandeaus are sometimes very beautiful; and the acquisition of the materials of some of them must be a work of great labour.

(bandeauxs as a singular or plural noun)

(seems to be a rare construction - ?)

(bandeauxes as a singular or plural noun)

(no examples found)

(bandeaues as a singular or plural noun)

(no examples found)

— Beobach972 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't help identify which is more common, singular or plural. But I will certainly concede that it can be misused as a singular, given your citations above. That leaves the question of relative frequency (particularly by region) unanswered. Also, it is very curious that at least two of the citations added for the 'plural' sense describe 'singular' use. Is someone's POV biasing their selection? --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification edit

A plurale tantum ("only plural") is a word that is plural, and that has no singular counterpart (though a pseudo-singular form may sometimes be used attributively, as with "pant leg"). Pluralia tantum are not used as singular nouns; you can't say *"I'm wearing a pants" or *"There's a suds in the sink." (In this regard they differ from normal count nouns whose singular and plural forms are identical, like sheep.) Generally, they can't even be used as count nouns; you can't say *"She's wearing two pants, one over the other." Instead, you have to use an East-Asian-style noun classifier, as in "She's wearing two pairs of pants."

That out of the way, there are a number of ways bandeaux could plausibly be used:

As a singular count noun: She wore one bandeaux. (In this case, there must exist some plural form; it could be something like bandeauxs or bandeauxes, or it could just be bandeaux, like how the plural of sheep is sheep.)
As a regular plural of bandeau or of bandeaux: She wore one bandeau and her sister wore two bandeaux. or She wore one bandeaux and her sister wore two bandeaux.
As a plurale tantum: She wore two sets of bandeaux in her hair. They were lovely.

It's very clear that the first and second of these do exist (see above cites), though Connel is insisting they're non-standard in English. It's not been demonstrated that the third of these exists — we have no cites that are clearly in the third sense — but we do have a number of cites that are ambiguous between the second and third of these, and Connel has been insisting that only the third is standard in English.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to say that use 2 was incorrect; I wasn't making the same distinction between 'count nouns' and 'pluralia tantum' you clarified above. After all, the mandate had been to use the specific tag 'pluralia tantum' to show pluralish-form as a singular as the primary sense (like "pants.") I do maintain that the form 'bandeau' is rare in English, in deference to the correct singular (and plural?) 'bandeaux'. I can certainly say that trying to answer three tangential counter-interpretations (of what I said or didn't say) is perplexing. --Connel MacKenzie 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now that would throw a kink into the mix (if I may basterdise a couple figures of speech), if the plural of bandeaux was bandeaux... — Beobach972 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this word exists in the Collins Word Exchange online dictionary in the same single and plural forms as the French. No pluralia tantum sense is listed. Some words are just more common in the plural than in the singular and this does not make them pluralia tantum. — Hippietrail 07:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has left me a tad confused; are we agreed that, as per French, “bandeau” is the correct singular, with the plural form as “bandeaux”, and that the issue of pluralia tantum stems from a misunderstanding of terms? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bandeau is a singular form, and the plural form of that is bandeaux or bandeaus. Bandeaux appears to be able to be a singular form or pluralia tantum (both less common than bandeau) also, but I could only find two examples (the 1937 quotation could show usage as a pluralia tantum, the 2003 one shows usage as a singular form), so we'll have to track down a few more examples of the phenomenon in order to better understand it. — Beobach972 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

1862–65: Vancouver Island Letters of Edmund Hope Verney (published in 1996; Allan Pritchard, ed)
I did not give it to Emily for a bandeaux for her hair, because I always intended it for my wife whom I intend to love better than Emily, if possible; [...]
1997: Emily Brightwell, Mrs. Jeffries Questions the Answer
Her hair, upswept in an elaborate arrangement on top of her head, was circled with a bandeaux that had a flurry of white ostrich feathers.

So, bandeaux appears to be acceptable (but not as common as bandeau) as a singular noun, meaning a [set of] bandeau[x]. — Beobach972 17:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and the plural of bandeaux (singular) is bandeaux (plural). — Beobach972 03:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the acceptable words are :

singular: bandeau — the plural of which is: bandeaus or bandeaux
singular: bandeaux — the plural of which is: bandeaux

NB: bandeaus is not acceptable as a singular noun.

— Beobach972 03:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the uses of bandeaux as a singular noun are in error, stemming from the fact that both bandeau and bandeaux are rare words and (very near-)homophones. Surely that’s obvious from the fact that bandeaux doesn’t have its own plural? (–The sheep analogy seems unlikely to me.) If it need be included at all, the definition for the singular use of bandeaux ought to read:

(non-standard) A bandeau.

What possible use could there be in muddling up this word’s singular and plural forms? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the singular sense of bandeaux clearly exists, and that Connel MacKenzie insists that it is the correct singular in American English gives me some pause in marking it non-standard. (It's really too bad I've never heard this word before.) As for the use of 'muddling up' the forms, it would actually be clarifying them; if somebody was reading and saw bandeaux used as a singular, and researched it, and found it defined as a plural — well, it would be quite a mess... — Beobach972 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so if a usage note were to specify that bandeaux is occasionally misused as a singular noun. I don’t see any way that a word with distinct singular and plural forms becoming a word with one indeclinable form can possibly be regarded as a positive semantic change. Given Connel’s recent antics as well as his seemingly inconsistent (or at least confusing) opinion on this matter (he wrote hereinbefore “[b]ut I will certainly concede that [bandeaux] can be misused as a singular, given your citations above”), I personally wouldn’t take his word for it without his presenting a reference of some kind to back up his assertions. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can get rid of the hidden references to pluralia tantum — that issue, it appears to me, was based upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. By the way, what were the s about? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 04:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those indicated that I wasn't sure if the quotation had a plurale tantum in it or not. — Beobach972 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since bandeau and bandeaux are ordinarily homophonous in French, and the -x doesn't look like a pluralizing suffix to English eyes, it's not surprising that the words would get mis-borrowed, with some writers maintaining the French distinction and others using the French plural for English singular and plural. (A similar thing happened with naif and naive; eventually the feminine won out, with the masculine being comparatively rare nowadays.) And please try to be objective, setting aside your opinions of the editors involved; if there's an editor who thinks a certain usage is standard, we should examine the possibility that it may well be. (Note that the editor in this case is usually in the exact opposite position, insisting that a usage is non-standard, or non-standard in the U.S., when no one else agrees. If we want him to consider our opinions and accept that there might be standard U.S. usages that he's unfamiliar with or that he personally dislikes, it's only fair that we extend him the same courtesy. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that we stand on principles.) —Ruakh_TALK 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that some pluralisation suffixes don’t look like plural endings to most Anglophones (such as the Hebrew -im suffix — hence cherubims); I also accept the converse, that many singulars are misinterpreted as plurals (such as pease, whose plural is peasen, but was mininterpreted as a plural — namely of pea; and such as Homo sapiens, believed by some to be plural, thus giving rise to the abominable Homo sapien). However, I don’t think that this is the case for the ‘x’-terminal plurals. See the Dervied terms subsection of -x’s new English section — is it standard to treat any of them as singulars? Treating bandeaux as a singular noun is wrong on every level; its occasional misuse as such should be mentioned in its entry’s usage note, and no more. By the way, naïf & naïve are not comparable — it is very rare for English to distinguish masculine and feminine forms of adjectives (nota bene, that’s not the same thing as having different adjectives for similiar yet gender-specific attributes, which English does have, as in the case of handsome & beautiful); however, almost all English count nouns have distinct singular and plural forms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-civil edit

This was recently deleted, but I'd like to bring it back to the table. ~~I'm sorry I missed the discussion the first time around.~~ (EDIT: actually, this is a brand-new RFV, as it seems the term was deleted by mistake without one.) I don't know if the quotations support the given sense, but the fact that I can find quotations suggest it has some sense/meaning...

1868: Matthew Arnold, Schools and Universities on the Continent
Anti-civil and anti-modern tendencies are generally imputed by the friends of progress to these corporations, and at the end of the last century they had [...]
1905-1909, Matthew Arnold, Essays
[...] to see the Antonines as they really were;—one may concede that the point of view from which Christianity appeared something anti-civil and anti-social, [...]

(later quoted in Masculine Desire: The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism by Richard Dellamora, 1990: [...] since the sect at the time “appeared something anti-civil and anti-social” Arnold then proceeds to fashion the emperor as the exemplar of a masculinized [...]

variously given as 1938 or 1971, Paulist Fathers (of the later version), The Catholic World
[...] and the Osservatore Romano said with him and for him: "Toward the Israelites we are not only extremely anti-Christian and anti-civil, but inhuman.
1971: Gottfried Dietze, In Defense of Property
[...] then the latter, by definition, can't be civil. They might even be anti-civil or a-civil. They must be incompatible with civilization. But this is simply not the case. As was shown, [...]
2000: Leonhard Praeg, African Philosophy and the Quest for Autonomy: a philosophical investigation
In the Leviathan, Hobbes could only represent the pre-civil as the anti-civil, as that which lacked in every respect what was considered important in civil society.

The last two in particular seem useful... — Beobach972 02:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pro-civil edit

Similar to anti-civil...

1990, Thomas E. Chávez, Manual Alvarez, 1794-1856: A Southwestern Biography
[...] the gathering underscored even more pointedly the growing dissatisfaction with the military as they listened to pro-civil and anti-military gov-ernment [...]
2000: David Marquand, Religion and Democracy (presumably quoted in Religion and Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment by Gerald James Larson, 2001, although it has exactly the same sentence (the same dozen paragraphs, in fact) with no visible note to that effect)
How to be pro civil and human rights and pro-feminist without being anti-Muslim? Where to go? We have suggested that a uniform civil code can be [...]

— Beobach972

Neither of those seems to be using "pro-civil" as its own thing, though. The first seems to be "pro-{civil [government]} and anti-{military government}" (like "pro-good and anti-bad news"); the second, "pro {{civil [rights]} and {human rights}}" (like "pro-good and happy news"). —Ruakh_TALK 02:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, you're right; I didn't parse them like that at all, when I read them... — Beobach972 03:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- the following were in the article:

2005 June 25, "Gary", "Cruelty and Dishonesty are a Preference, Not an Orientation", in Animal Writings: Essays and Musings on Animals and Society, blog entry,
It would, however, be pro-nice and pro-civil.
2006 September 6, American Civil Liberties Union, "Top Ten Hits for Civil Liberties Since 9/11", Web page,
Also, more than 400 communities and eight states passed pro-civil resolutions calling for changes to be made to the act.
2003, Maria Marczewska-Rytko, preliminary version of "Religious Communities as Interest Groups", presented at the CESNUR 2003 International Conference, paper (quoted without permission),
In American literature religious group refers to a denominational affiliation with a longer tradition, which is organised, registered, and acting as a pro-civil “Church”.

— Beobach972 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually put those quotations in the article (after the article's creator provided links to them). My intent was to make their content more immediately visible, so it would be clear that the first and third cites aren't in our sense and that none of the cites is durably archived. (And even the second cite, which does seem to be in our sense, is very easy to write off as a mistake — accidental omission of a word, maybe, or error for the apparently-existent pro-civic — though obviously it would be harder to write off as a mistake if we could find any other cites in our sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki:Hawnyawk edit

Seems to be a protologism. Dmcdevit·t 05:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a personal attack? (The handle hawnyawk is in use on various Web sites.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. Deleted. Goldenrowley 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unlesss edit

Hmm, this seems to have some application in Logic or Maths, but cites on Google books are few and far between, and seem to show the last S as being subscript. Can anyone advise? Widsith 10:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was added by an untrustworthy contributer (who keeps reappearing with a new name) it seems to be correct. I have wikified it and added a reference to MathWorld. SemperBlotto 11:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waitasec. In mathematics, it is "IFF" not "iff". But this 'unlesss' seems impossible for several reasons: #1 English does not allow three consonants together, #2 the mathematical notation would be a logical XOR, #3 if it did have a purpose, it would still be UNLESSS just like the headword that Wolfram's lists (NB: as a "proposed" term...i.e. unused and unattested.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? My rigorous-math professors (discrete math, mathematical proofs, analysis, etc.) always wrote it "iff", never "IFF", and b.g.c. suggests that that's how book-writers write it, as well. Maybe you're thinking of something different? And b.g.c. does pull up some uses of "unlesss" in the relevant sense, its impossibility notwithstanding. (Mathematicians aren't always known for adhering to normal rules of English; for example, math terms that start with the word total are often hyponyms of the corresponding term starting with the word partial, such as total order is of partial order.) I'll see if I can cite this adequately. —Ruakh_TALK 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two cites, and one is from a refereed academic journal, which if I'm reading right seems to suggest it automatically passes CFI (can that be?); nonetheless, a third cite would obviously be better. The problem is that while there are a number of cases where "unlesss" might well be being used this way, there's usually no way to rule out the possibility that it's just a typo of "unless", and in most cases it seems pretty clear that that is the case. —Ruakh_TALK 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I have learnt something new here! Widsith 08:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/June 2007

June 2007 edit

Reason edit

vulgar sense edit

poultry worker edit

Clarification edit