Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Tea room

(Redirected from Wiktionary:TR)

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

WT:TR redirects here. For Translation requests, see Wiktionary:Translation requests. For guidelines on translations, see Wiktionary:Translations
Tea house party in Japan (not tea ceremony)-J. M. W. Silver.jpg

A place to ask for help on finding quotations, etymologies, or other information about particular words. The Tea room is named to accompany the Beer parlour.

For questions about the technical operation of Wiktionary use the Beer parlour. For questions about specific content, you're in the right place.

Tea room archives edit

Please do not edit section titles as this breaks links on talk pages and in other discussion fora.

May 2018

"Last April" "Next October"Edit

It looks as though the entries for Russian months all include examples like:

  1. в апре́ле про́шлого го́даv apréle próšlovo gódalast April
    в апре́ле бу́дущего го́даv apréle búduščevo gódanext April

The Russian is clear (I think, though I am a beginner): "April [genitive] of last year", and so on. I am an English speaker from southern England, and this does not match my understanding of the English phrases: to me, "Last February" was February 2018, and "next October" is October 2018. Notoriously these phrases vary wildly within the British Isles, let alone anywhere else. I would like to change these to "April last year" and "April next year", but invite comments in case I have totally misunderstood something. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in Russian, unlike in English, "April of the past/coming year" does not imply a calendar year? —Tamfang (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev? --Per utramque cavernam 18:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium, Per utramque cavernam: "April of last year" and "April of next year" are more accurate translations than "last/next April". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


A request for a quick check that I've done the right thing in giving strangles two separate "Noun" entries, since one is a lemma (horse disease) and one is a non-lemma (plural of strangle (noun), an option trading strategy). I followed ducks as an example of the same. -Stelio (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Etymological discussion moved to: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2018/May#strangles. -Stelio (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


I'm only an occasional contributor here, so would be grateful if someone would kindly check and improve my recent addition to jizz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


So, I'm editting in Malagasy now. My contribution to the sum of human knowledge is fanogon-, a form of the noun fanogo. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Can't this also mean shirataki? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done. All these gosh-darned "proper name" entries that don't include normal usage... —Suzukaze-c 00:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

place names?Edit

example Dixfield, Swanville etc... -- 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Can i add place names without deletion? -- 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Place_names. There isn't a consensus about all place names, but as long as you stick to the ones in the first list at the link I just provided, you should be OK. Personally, I only find place names interesting enough to include if they have non-obvious foreign translations, but I'd never nominate one for deletion solely for the reason of failing to meet that criterion. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The origin of some place names can be quite interesting, I'm about to enter Spartanburg. Regarding uninhabited islands: some have crept in even if they're not meant to be included. DonnanZ (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

adding a "translation to be checked"Edit

I wanted to add a Serbian word to the "translations to be checked" on the page for (English) "mold" but I just can’t figure out how it works. E.g., when I enter "sr" as language, an error message comes up, although it’s the correct abbreviation.

Any pointers? Or rather: Isn’t there a wizard or easier way to edit those things?--Geke (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that this Wiktionary considers Serbian to be a form of Serbo-Croatian - language code sh. Have a look our entries for some Serbian-only words to see how we handle them. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
For me, the translation-adder script "autocorrects" sr to sh. The script only works if you're adding a translation for a specific sense, though; you can't (AFAICT) add to the "translations to be checked" box with it, because adding translations you're not sure of is discouraged. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


Any research on this? Spybag may be new coinage, with a nominal definition which is intuitive in describing humor fiction (or nonfiction) which deals with the espionage domain.. which is hampered by poor intel or poor operation. Similar military intelligence in its idiom form. Also the usage of -bag as suffix may be interesting. -Inowen (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC) PS: link: spybag

tíha vs. váha: compare and contrastEdit

tíha is glossed as weight and váha as weight (mass). Now, I see two problems here:

  1. Are they really synonyms or is there a difference, e.g. váha is a technical term in physics whereas tíha is more "colloquial" (and can perhaps be used metaphorically to mean "hardship")?
  2. The gloss at váha makes "weight" and "mass" appear synonymous, which is not the case in physics, so maybe a better gloss is in order; also, maybe we should add a usage note to clarify the distinction between the two? Depends on what comes out of problem 1…

Oh btw those are Czech words.

MGorrone (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Slip 2.3 is quite incorrectEdit

The current definition of "slip" as "young" and "person" is incorrect on two accounts, a misgeneralization from contexts in which it often occurs. Please check a source such as OED for the correct definition as something slight, small, slim. It's often qualified ("...of a girl" or "...of a boy") to apply to children, and more generally "of a" is needed to transform it into a person, but youth is not inherent to the meaning of the word itself. I'm not going to make the edit myself because I'm too long out of practice and not tuned in to the community curating English and don't have time to chase up literary examples to cite. Alden/Onyx or something like that. 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard it applied to anyone except a girl, a young woman, or an old, usually frail, woman. The notion seems to me to be "slim, slender, willowy, slight", not "small".
Macmillan (Online) has an entry for a slip of a boy/girl, defined as "a small thin boy/girl". I have heard the collocation "a little slip of a thing", referring usually to a young girl. Citations would clarify whether there is a gender limitation on use and thus whether its use might be a microagression in the eyes of some. DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I've certainly no quibble with you about "small." But in writing fiction, I wouldn't hesitate to describe a character as "a [mere] slip of a man," understanding, of course, that this could be seen as quite a denigrating description of an exceptionally slight person -- denigrating not because it compares him to a girl (it doesn't at all, in my far, far pre-millennial ear) but because it describes him as physically insignificant. To me, though, it's merely descriptive, not inherently judgmental. I've simply never understood any inherently young or female connotation to slip, though I agree that at least in the realm of cliché, latterday usage tends toward girls. Intuitively there is little difference between this slip and the origin of "a slip of paper." When you get to "pink slip," then it's inherently paper, but that's an evolved term. Underneath all of these, a slip is really a physical trifle or a trifling thing, isn't it? In "slip of paper," which may very well be something torn and irregular, it gets transformed into a trifle consisting of paper. In "slip of a [person]," it's transformed into a physically trifling person. If it were inherently female, we wouldn't need "of a girl." I see that the error had already slipped into Merriam-Webster by 1989, but M-W has always been known for that very kind of imprecision, and the notion has not yet corrupted the OED. I will trust OED over M-W every single time. There we also see that "slip of a [person]" does share its origin with "slip of paper," among other slips. When you look at the etymology, there's simply no reason to describe a slip of a person as inherently young or female -- and in all my reading, this entry is the first time I've seen a suggestion that femininity would be inherent to "slip" rather than to "girl" or "woman" in the expression. I think this instance of devolution and loss of meaning should be resisted. But English Wiktionary is not my domain. Either someone will correct it or it will continue to be erroneous. It's off my mind and out of my hands now.
Alden/Onyx or something like that. 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

chlad vs. zima: synonyms or not?Edit

Wiktionary gives Czech chlad and zima as synonyms, but my (half-)Czech friend says chlad means cool, so cold but not very cold, whereas zima is more appropriately rendered as cold. Czech Wiktionary seems to suggest that they are indeed synonymous in terms of "temperature lowness", but chlad refers to sensory perception (smyslový vnímání) while zima is actual factual cold. Who is right, or is either right? MGorrone (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Synonyms don't have to mean exacdtly the same thing. I'd say cool and cold are synonyms in English too. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
A dictionary is supposed to help with word choice (diction!). Even if we declare such words to be synonymous, shouldn't we make clear the distinction in the gloss or in usage notes? DCDuring (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
We should try to make the distinction clear in the definition itself. Only if that is insufficient should there be a usage note. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My friend went on to explain that "chlad" is used for shadow in summer and for air conditioning. I take it that "chlad" is, in her usage, a pleasant sensation of freshness (shadow and air conditioning), whereas "zima" is actual "cold" as in winter (which coincidentally is also called "zima"). She also asked her Czech mother, who answered with two messages, «Chlad je poloviční zima» (chlad is half zima), and «Chladnička chladí potraviny na 4 stupně» (the fridge "chlads" (cools down) food to 4 degrees). That is not quite the "pleasant freshness" vs. "cold" distinction, but it is indeed "cool" vs. "cold(er)". MGorrone (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: and @DCDuring: this issue came up because I translated a song into Czech and had my friend correct the result, and she corrected my chlad to zima, and I asked her why. If there is enough difference to warrant such a correction, it is worthwhile, IMO, to investigate exactly what this difference is, and clarify it in a usage note. MGorrone (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, a usage note is a good idea. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
An etymology would also be nice. Zima has one meaning winter, chlad, if the same as холодный, would be from PSlav meaning cool, cold; uncertain beyond this. That doesn't explain much, but it's a hint that the former is perhaps more specific.
cool and cold are almost like antonyms (with overlap) because I like it cool but dislike the cold. Those are slightly different senses so we could expand the definitions. I guess hyponym and metonym respectively wouldn't be clear either. Very fuzzy. 15:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
In English "cold" sometimes appears as a gloss or synonym of wintry, but some sources restrict "cold" in these definitions to its non-literal senses. Whether or not this specifically parallels the Czech words definitions, it may suggest possibilities. DCDuring (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I think Czech chlad and zima are basically synonyms (Czech speaker here). The sentences Venku je zima and Venku je chlad seem synonymous. SSJC definitions do suggest greater intensity in zima, per SSJC:zima[1] "velmi nízká teplota" contrasting to SSJC:chlad's[2] "nízká teplota", where "velmi" (very) is missing. I personally would not say "Chlad je poloviční zima", but what do I know. As for translation, "cold" seems to be a good one for chlad; Glosbe[3] seems to agree; there's even the phrase "polární chlad" (polar cold), which can hardly refer to mild cold. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


Is badass still regarded as “vulgar”? I had updated the label to “possibly offensive” but @Tharthan begs to differ. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it in any professional correspondence, for instance, so I suppose "yes", it's still vulgar. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that the test, though? The word now seems mild enough to be used in general conversation without raising too many eyebrows unlike, for example, the C-word and F-word which remain widely taboo. — SGconlaw (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's vulgar, it's just (very) informal; same thing for kick ass. OTOH, take it up the ass is vulgar. --Per utramque cavernam 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
One wouldn't freely use it around their conservative pastor or churchfolk though, so caution should still be given per its use Leasnam (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There are lots of things I wouldn't say around conservative churchfolk that aren't vulgar, though, so that's hardly an adequate test. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
True, but this is one because it's considered vulgarity. Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
If ass is vulgar, then badass is also, very likely. Ass has become an intensifier, likely because it's obscene.
The term profanity literally stands in contrast to sacred (sacrecy?). Vulgar is itself vulgar or pejorative, depends on perspective. The difference to obscene as a label is not quite clear to me. At least, I don't think badass is used offensively or as a slur. 15:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the test should be whether a term would be considered vulgar in ordinary conversation and not if said to any specifically sensitive audience (e.g., conservative churchfolk) or special context (e.g., business correspondence). I’d also disagree that simply because the word incorporates the word ass it is automatically vulgar. I think the word has lost most of its vulgar connotation, which is why “possibly offensive” is sufficient (Oxford Dictionaries Online doesn’t label it as “vulgar”, for example). However, if there is consensus that the word would still raise many eyebrows in normal conversation I’ll leave the “vulgar” label in place. — SGconlaw (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
"I’d also disagree that simply because the word incorporates the word ‘’ass’’ it is automatically vulgar." Yes, I agree with you. To me, the word ass has lost its "edge" in this specific word, through some kind of "erosion". --Per utramque cavernam 20:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
IMO this isn't vulgar, whereas Per utramque cavernam's example of "take it up the ass" is. Given that it's approbative or even self-applied, I'm not convinced "sometimes offensive" would be right for sense 2 (of the noun or adjective, the latter of which is currently so labelled), either. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, looks like there's a consensus. I've removed the labels "possibly offensive" and "vulgar". — SGconlaw (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw Hey, I know that you pinged me after reading this, but I didn't get your ping for some reason. If you want to remove the vulgar label, that's fine I guess (although I do not agree at all). But removing "possibly offensive" is taking a big leap, because there are plenty of people who would take issue with this being used in public or being used in polite company (I know that some people were surprised [as was I] at seeing this when I went into a large book shop which had a book with that in its title not long ago [the use of the word was directed at the reader, in case you were wondering]). Tharthan (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tharthan: the usage note you added seems fine to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your idea of "concensus" is quite interesting. I count 4 to 4 voices here (the IP being me).

The use of ordinary to mean not vulgar is also peculiar, considering sense 4 and ordinär (vulgar). That's the same difference as with vulgar.

I agree that even ass itself does not have a strong edge. I approximately say "'ba-dass", not "bad ass-car" anyway and apparently that makes a difference as xkcd has it]. It probably helps that it's a sweet as rhyme on as.

A positive connotation is not offensive by definition, but doesn't exclude vulgarity. If anything has lost it's edge, it's the perception of vulgarity. So perhaps it's not a suitable label at all.

The label "youth slang" is an endearing compromise. I suppose the usage is somewhat ironic -- powerful precisely because it's using an explicative. If you think it's not at all offensive, that's pretty badass style. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhyminreason: Many people these days, especially many youths, swear and use other vulgarities every other word. They think that it's cool, when it isn't. It makes them sound like buffoons. Soon, I think English's vulgarities will go the way of some of the French vulgarities, where they aren't even really perceived as vulgar anymore due to overuse and normalisation in the culture. It's quite sad, really. It's the dumbing down of society, in my opinion. Tharthan (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the reverse of the w:euphemism treadmill and probably isn't particular to this generation. A certain quote from the Greeks lamenting the ethics of young people comes to mind. Rhyminreason (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

mind the gapEdit

Is this UK English? I thought so, but I can see some usage online from Americans. Would they say 'mind the gap' in the US? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's fairly clear English--I'm not sure why we need an entry for it--but if I heard it in the US, I'd think it was a Britishism sneaking over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


This entry needs some labels for the senses. Is it archaic (per Oxford), offensive (per American Heritage), derogatory, etc.? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It needs some work, certainly. "One who does not believe in a certain religion." is supported with "Some Muslims are taught that non-Muslims are infidels and are to be shunned." which does not fit; all non-Muslims are people who do not believe in Islam. I'm not sure how phrase the definition or the labels, though.
I don't know why Oxford is saying that it's archaic. I guess a little bit, but it still has currency in sentences like the quote above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not archaic. It does seem at least somewhat derogatory. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it has become increasingly derogatory over time. At some point, it was simply a statement of fact. An infidel was someone who was not of "the Faith": literally an infidel. Now it sounds dated and pejorative if used seriously. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, usually now ironic in some way. Equinox 16:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback, but does someone want to take a stab at improving the entry? Also, the fact that the translation table at unbeliever redirects to infidel is just wrong. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

ax to grindEdit

We have not only two senses but two claimed etymologies — yet I think they are the same thing and should be merged. Chambers only has "a personal reason for getting involved". Equinox 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Is anyone familiar with (or able to track down citations of) the use of this as a bare adjective, meaning "great" (presumably an elision of "hella good/cool"). "I just scored free tickets to the show!" - "Oh, that's hella." It seems parallel to how "wicked" can be either an adverb ("wicked cool") or a standalone adjective ("that's wicked!" / "wicked guitar solo"). - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

hearts beat as oneEdit

Is it right for this to be entered as a verb, and to have the "to"-infinitive on its definition line? Seems fishy to me. Equinox 15:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It's rather a phrase, and the "phrase inflection" is similar to usuall phrase changes, like regarding person (changing one's into my, his, .... as in to one's knowledge). But phrases beginning with a verb are often added as verb entries in wiktionary: return to one's senses, stick to one's knitting... - 17:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Tá's agEdit

The entry for Tá's ag is capitalised, but I can't see any indication as to why. Is there a reason for this or should it be moved to lowercase? Zumley (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that there is tá a fhios ag and that tá is capitalised in a fhios a bheith agat because it's the beginning of a sentence, it looks like a miscapitalisation. has "Is bréag é agus tá a fhios agat gurb ea,   it is a lie, and you know it is.", thus lowercase should indeed be correct (and not be a wiktionary mistake). - 16:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help! Zumley (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

-bilia, -abilia?Edit

Should we have an English entry for one of these, for words like automobilia (okay, bad example, it could be a blend) that come from memorabilia? It's a lot like -ana. I just saw this:

  • 2017, Steve Radlauer, ‎Ellis Weiner, Monsters of the Ivy League
    Over the course of Yale's first two centuries, Calhoun was the only graduate to be elected to a superprestigious position in the US government. Ergo, Yale is, or at least was, proud of its association with him and is, or was, rife with commemorative Calhounabilia, including a statue []

Equinox 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably. It seems to be a quite productive suffix:

  • 1975, Georgie Anne Geyer, The Young Russians, ETC Publications, →ISBN, page 277:
    In "Lenin rooms," those patriotic corners in the schools and in the Pioneer palaces where Lenin memorabilia are displayed in effusion, I had the feeling that this was no more than the kinds of patriotic display of Lincolnabilia or Washingtonabilia in schools in the United States.
  • 1995 November 24, Caroline Sullivan, “CD review: The Beatles Anthology 1”, in The Guardian[4]:
    Why not just put the whole lot out as a bargain-priced odds'n'sods set, and save the hand-tooled luxury pack for worthier Beatlesabilia? The genuinely interesting artifacts could have been released as an EP, which would have saved listening to the rest.

Einstein2 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Kannada WiktionaryEdit

I have been through the list of wikitionary and found that Kannada witionary has not been created yet so I'm interested, please help for the same. If anyone can see it please help me in new to this realm thanking you. Regards Prasannaloop —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 01:17, 7 May 2018‎.

Hi, there is a Kannada Wiktionary at, which you can certainly help to edit. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Or if you'd like to add Kannada entries here (English explanations of Kannada words), take a look at how the Kannada words we already have at formatted (Category:Kannada lemmas) and make some new entries modelled on that. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dragon BallEdit

I added the definition of Dragon Ball to this site - who removed it? —This unsigned comment was added by Inowen (talkcontribs) at 10:02, 7 May 2018‎.

It was speedily deleted as an administrator felt that it did not satisfy the requirements of the WT:FICTION policy. See "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Dragon Ball". — SGconlaw (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Victim of..Edit

[[victim of [their] own success]] is an idiom catchphrase. -Inowen (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be victim of one's own success here; arguable. Equinox 02:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be sum-of-parts. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


I've added a definition for liberalism to define it as interchangeable with progressivism. But it got reverted. I think it should be undone. AltHypeFan (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding some random Web sites is not enough. You must urgently read WT:CFI regarding what we accept. Thanks. Equinox 03:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


I think it should be tagetes, which is given as the plural; @SemperBlotto who created this. See also Tagetes in Wikipedia, Translingual Tagetes, “tagetes” in Den Danske Ordbog, tagetes in Oxford. DonnanZ (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

google books:"a tagete" (which gets hits) vs google books:"a tagetes" (where the hits are all for capitalized Tagetes) suggests that the common noun singular is tagete. Tagetes seems to be attested as the genus name, and also by elision in the place of a species name. - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately people are human and make false assumptions. Apparently tagetes should be treated the same as species, i.e. singular and plural the same (coz it's Latin?).
I also checked Tagetes in Duden, interestingly all inflections are the same, without variation (just like Spezies). DonnanZ (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be treated as a common misspelling. I checked also “tagetes” in The Bokmål Dictionary / The Nynorsk Dictionary., “tagetes” in Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB)., and SAOL / SAOB. Swedish inflections are similar to German. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Misspelling implies an error in writing. Here, not only the writing but the manner of speech is in question. So misspelling would be a misnomer. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Digging through more books, I finally found ones that use lowercase tagetes as a common noun singular. (Two are attributive, but two are plain noun attestations.) Lowercase tagete seems like a back-formation in the mode of pea. I've moved the content around so tagetes has the translations and tagete is listed as a synonym / probable back-formation. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant, more or less what I would have done, thank you. DonnanZ (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


The octochamp page ( lists "octochamp" as 'informal', but it is used by Nick Hewer (the presenter) in-show, and there is no other word for it. Therefore, it seems to be more like jargon than an informal word. —This comment was unsigned.

Well, "eight-time champion" would be the other/formal way of expressing it. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The same rules as for works of fiction, or names (see WT:CFI) should apply to neologisms, ie. references to the work don't count as use, but as mention, and therefore don't qualify the term for inclusion. We don't include protologisms, is that correct? I'd add an RFV but I don't feel strong enough about it, yet. Rhyminreason (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sara, SarahEdit

Aren't these homophones? I mean, there are several ways of pronouncing them, but I don't think any applies to only one spelling. The pronunciation sections should either be synced, or one could even be reduced to "like [the other]". - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have heard Sara being pronounced as /ˈsɑːɹə/ (most commonly) or even /ˈzɑːɹə/, but I've not heard Sarah pronounced that way (it's always been /ˈsɛəɹə(ɹ)/ in my experience, which can also be used for Sara and hence, yes: homophones in this case). That's just my personal anecdotal experience rather than a prescriptive opinion. -Stelio (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Where I live, both Sarah and Sara are pronounced /ˈsæɹə/ (due to a difference in the distribution of /æɹ/ and /ɛəɹ/ in words between British English and some North American English dialects which lack the Mary-marry-merry merger, such as mine. This can also be seen in words like vary and various, which are /ˈvæɹi/ and /ˈvæɹi.əs/ respectively in my dialect, as well as the word parent, which is pronounced /ˈpæɹənt/ in my dialect. Interestingly, though, my parents pronounce vary and various as /ˈvɛəɹi/ and /ˈvɛəɹi.əs/, whereas most of the friends I grew up with and others who I know pronounce those words as, like I said above, /ˈvæɹi/ and /ˈvæɹi.əs/. My parents pronounce parent, Sarah and Sara as /ˈpæɹənt/, /ˈsæɹə/ and /ˈsæɹə/ respectively, however). Tharthan (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Amusingly, however, at the moment /ˈsɑɹə/ is listed as a pronunciation only of Sarah and not Sara, the opposite of your anecdote!'s dictionaries and Collins have them being pronounced identically, whereas Merriam-Webster asserts they are different, and a user on stackexchange asserts that in Scotland Sara has the vowel of "bat" and Sarah has the same vowel of "air", but I doubt how widely that (or any) distinction holds in practice. /ˈsɛəɹ.ə/ is noted for Sarah and Sara by, and for Sarah by Collins (as a British pronun) and by Merriam-Webster. /ˈsɛ(ː)ɹə/ is noted for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun) and by /seɹ.ə/ is noted for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun, but with the stress on the last syllable!) and approximately by Merriam-Webster (in their non-IPA notation as /ˈsā.rə/). /ˈsɑɹə/ is noted for Sara by Merriam-Webster and for Sarah by Collins (as an American pronun, but with the stress on the last syllable!). /ˈsæɹə/ is noted by Collins as another American pronun (with stress on the first syllable, as expected!). - -sche (discuss) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the truth of the matter is simply that different women named Sara(h) pronounce their name differently. As a merry-merging American I'd pronounce them both /ˈsɛɹə/ at first encounter, but would alter that if someone told me she preferred, say, /ˈsɑɹə/ or (here in Germany) /ˈzaːʁa/ or anything else. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That's absolutely what I would expect. Unless someone has reasoned objections, I would like to update Sara to just say "in any of the ways Sarah can be pronounced; see that entry" or similar. - -sche (discuss) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In the UK, they are different. "Sara" is pronounced with /ɑː/ and "Sarah" with /ɛː/. The Hensher citation at the entry is a good illustration. Ƿidsiþ 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    That distinction doesn't seem to be maintained in practice. For example, here's English comedian Sara Pascoe (0:15) and English comedian Richard Herring (0:05) pronouncing Sara Pascoe's name with the "air" vowel, and Welsh comedian Rob Brydon (0:48) pronouncing Sara Cox's name with the "air" vowel. (I've heard /ɑ/, too, of course, like this Channel 4 presenter pronouncing Sara Khan's name with /ɑ/.) (And here is the host of the UK's 'Last Leg', who is apparently Australian(?), using the "air" vowel for a "Sara".) - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I guess I'll concede the point since there are too many high profile exceptions. I admit I still think of them as exceptions though… Ƿidsiþ 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


doleful currently uses {{en-adj|er}}. While there are citations for dolefuler and dolefulest, in practice more doleful and most doleful are significantly more common (links to Google Ngram Viewer). While I could change the template use to {{en-adj|more|er}}, is there a standard way of indicating that "more" is common and "er" is rare on the page for doleful? -Stelio (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of entries don't make any such note, although they probably should. Those that do make such a note probably use usage notes. IMO this is a common enough phenomenon, and stardardizing the wording of a note about it is desirable enough, that the template should probably accept a parameter the way en-noun accepts a parameter to display "usually uncountable, plural [x]". I'll start a GP thread about that. For now, usage notes are your best bet. The usage note(s) should be templatized, like Template:U:en:equal, since many entries can use them. Maybe name them something like Template:U:en:adj more vs er? - -sche (discuss) 16:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyway, it would normally be dolefuller/dolefullest. The single-L version is pretty uncommon. Ƿidsiþ 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Google n-gram for the last 100 years is interesting. It would nice to include this as an image on such pages. Ƿidsiþ 05:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Super; thank you both! I've updated doleful to include all three comparative/superlative pairs, listing them in order of commonality, with a usage note to explain and references to Google Ngram Viewer. I've not templatised the usage note at this stage, but I'll look at doing that at some point in the future. -Stelio (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

social constructivism, social constructEdit

Worth entries? --Per utramque cavernam 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


Is 'sad!' now an interjection? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you know it's new? DTLHS (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't, but people keep on making statements and then saying 'sad!', I don't remember that before Trump popularised it. People used to say, 'that's sad' or, 'how sad', didn't they? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. Unsurprisingly it's hard to search for this construction to date it. DTLHS (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you give examples? Is it distinct from exclaiming e.g. "pitiful!" or "pathetic!"? Equinox 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You're right, it's not different and it's just a new way of using the word. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that it is new at all. As far as I can tell, people have been saying "Sad!" as a short form for other phrases for quite some time. "It is sad to hear that!"/"I am sad to hear that""Sad to hear that!""Sad to hear!""Sad!". Also, alternatively, (or concurrently), "That's sad!""Sad!", "So sad!""Sad!", "How sad!""Sad!" Tharthan (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
ISTR also that in the '90s (when losers were called "sad cases") people might exclaim "saaaaad!" too. It's in an I'm Alan Partridge scene but I think it's part of a sentence there. Equinox 20:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Such a use of the word sad in speech seems normal and somewhat common to me. I seem to remember my mother saying it a few decades ago. I might even say it myself after having heard a description of a situation I found sad. I agree especially with Thartan's comment. DCDuring (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

如是, part of speechEdit

The Chinese entry has this as an adjective, but the Japanese entry has this as a noun and is exclusively a Buddhist term. Closest translation is "like this". Anyone help me clear this confusion? ~ POKéTalker) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the JA sources I've looked at don't actually give a POS. The implication is that terms with no stated POS are nouns, but that's not always the case: for instance, 如実 (nyojitsu) has no stated POS in the KDJ monolingual JA entry, and it's most commonly used as an adverb. The JA definition for the "like this" sense is given as:
Meaning of just this way, like this, used as a word written at the start of sutras.
With that stated usage, it sounds much more like an adverb. Ferreting out some actual usage examples could help clarify. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian (《現代漢語規範詞典》) defines it as a pronoun ("like this"). Wyang (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The Chinese definition of 代词 is wider than "pronoun". Pronouns can only substitute NPs, but 代词 is the general term for pro-forms. I think 如是 and 如此 are adjectives/adverbs since they can replace adjectives or adjectival phrases (AP, AdvP, PP, etc.). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, we have "particle" as a POS for things that don't clearly belong to any other part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
In Japanese contexts, a particle is a more clearly defined category. Using that POS for terms like 如是 might be akin to applying an ===Article=== heading to an English term of otherwise-indeterminate POS-ness. Personally, I'd be much happier if we find usage examples, and base POS decisions on those. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


Probably needs labels of some kind; I surmise it's not completely standard? --Per utramque cavernam 12:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe mainly British/affected/formal/old-fashioned as in -st? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
What causes you to surmise that it's not standard ? Do you mean not universal to all English varieties ? Leasnam (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's not old-fashioned in that way. unbeknownst is fairly common, a slightly jocular formalism that has hung around in common speech, and in most uses of beknownst it's actually a kind of locution for unbeknownst (the examples use "little beknownst" and "beknownst to only them"). I would usually read it as a bit jokey, in the same way as a comment like, "Well I wouldn't say he was disgruntled, but he definitely wasn't entirely gruntled either." Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV: Podunk, US?Edit

Isn't this specially American as said in wikipedia and the etymology (stated there) suggests? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked a few dictionaries and confirmed this is US only. (But we have a synonym/alternative form problem and a part of speech problem in the entries.) Ultimateria (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

by definitionEdit

Do we need two senses? --Per utramque cavernam 09:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is some (mis?)usage that does not conform to the more literal, but idiomatic, first definition. In these cases it seems to mean something like "by its very name". But there are other readings and usages too. DCDuring (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

tramp tradeEdit

Just a term I came across at trampfart, and there is an article Tramp trade in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how common it is now with containerisation in shipping; I worked for a shipping agency in Sydney years ago who dealt with all manner of ships in the tramp trade, usually chartered. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added a definition. Feel free to improve it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, that was quick. Do we still use the term tramp steamer, no entries for tramp ship or trampship either. DonnanZ (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

translations of 'the curse' (menstruation)Edit

This is a highly dated, or even obsolete, way of referring to menstruation with obvious strongly negative connotations, but the translations seem to be for the neutral 'menstruation'. I think ideally the translations should either attempt to reflect the tone of the English or have qualifiers. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing these translations. I would also move the translation table to the page of a word that's more common to refer negatively to menstruation, but I can't think of one. Ultimateria (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: I have updated the translation table in the style used by User:Per_utramque_cavernam for other words with neutral and colloquial translations, what do you think? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary: Hmm, I like the note, but I think our standard practice of labeling the table "derogatory: a woman's menses" is sufficient (but often ignored...). The point that I didn't really make before is that the previous translations would all be more useful at either "menses" or "menstruation" or "period"; I don't think anyone would think to look for them at "curse". Is there a more common derogatory term? Also, the Finnish term isn't labeled as derogatory, so I would remove the translation. Ultimateria (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of leaving room for any translations that captured the pejorative sense while sending folks directly to the more neutral (and common) entry for the corresponding neutral translations. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: Sorry for the late reply. I did check that the deleted translations were already mentioned at the standard entries. Re: the Finnish entry, I added 't-check' after the note about derogatory or negative meanings was added and the 't-check' template was removed, so it should be correct. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Arabic عُوَيْنات‎ (ʿuwaynāt)Edit

Please check this entry. I have two questions:

  1. Why is this derived from the plural, not dual?
  2. What's the relationship between عيينة and عوينة?

Thanks. Wyang (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe عُوَيْنَة‎ (ʿuwayna) is singulative, not plural. It's a singular diminutive. The ending ة‎ () often forms singulative nouns.
عيينة is the Standard Arabic singulative diminutive of عين.
عوينة is (I believe) a dialectal singulative diminutive of عين (Libyan dialect). —Stephen (Talk) 11:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown Thank you Stephen. Sorry I should have made #1 clearer... I was wondering why عُوَيْنات‎ ("spectacles; eyeglasses") was derived from the plural, rather than dual (since it's an object occurring in pairs?). Thanks for the answer to #2. عوينة is also in Wehr, and is cited as the source of a 14th-century Chinese word. It seems to be the assimilated form of عيينة. Wyang (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, عُوَيْنات‎ is not derived from either the dual or the plural of عين (eye), it is derived from the singulative diminutive عُوَيْنَة‎ (ʿuwayna) (eyelet). Inanimate feminine nouns such as عُوَيْنَة‎ (ʿuwayna), ending as they do in ta marbuta (ة), normally have the feminine sound plural in ات, hence عُوَيْنات‎ (ʿuwaynāt). The dual form of عُوَيْنَة‎ (ʿuwayna) is عُوَيْنَتَانِ (ʿuwaynatāni).
So why do we use the plural instead of the dual of عُوَيْنَة‎ (ʿuwayna) for eyeglasses? I think the reason is (1) that eyeglasses did not exist 1300 or 1400 years ago (so there is no record of the dual being used for that), and (2) that today's Arabic dialects have dropped the dual. —Stephen (Talk) 11:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nom Foundation charactersEdit

The readings provided by the Nom Foundation [5] seems to cover also simplified Chinese characters. Here are a few examples: (, refer [6]), (điểu, refer [7]), (hồng, refer [8]), Most of these are sourced from the gdhn reference code provided by Giúp đọc Nôm và Hán Việt [9]

Are characters such as and actual Han characters used in Vietnam? Are the readings provided by the gdhn reference code reliable? Curiously is given as mở [10] while is given as [11] under the gdhn reference code. In Wiktionary, the page for includes simplified Chinese characters such as , , , , but the corresponding traditional characters , , , are not included. Is there a mistake here? KevinUp (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp It's not a mistake, but gdhn includes these simplified characters so as to inform Vietnamese readers how these simplified characters should be read. (The name gdhn literally means "help read Nom and Sino-Vietnamese"). The content in that book can be queried here- as you can see the traditional and simplified are listed side by side. Most of the simplified characters are not attested in the Nôm literature, unless they have existed as informal variants prior to the official simplification. Wyang (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang: Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. Unfortunately I have problems accessing that page. I need to check the readings provided to see if it is linked to a traditional form. And some of the readings appear to be inconsistent: (mở) [12] and () [13], (sền) [14] and (tanh) [15]
Hello. I just created the following page: Module:vi/nom-data. Hopefully it will be of some use in future. I've also figured out how to query the contents of the gdhn book. I can see that the simplified characters are listed along the traditional ones. KevinUp (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wyang I've noticed that a small number of Sino-Vietnamese characters such as 𡎭 (⿰土统) [16] and 𬖷 (⿰粘间) [17] are being encoded using simplified Chinese characters. It should be noted that the corresponding traditional characters ⿰土統 and ⿰粘間 do not exist in Unicode. KevinUp (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@KevinUp Yes, indeed. Wyang (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

actual sense 5Edit

Sense 5 says "Used to emphasise a noun or verb": example: part of the brain that does the "actual thinking". I believe this sense should be removed and the cite should go to sense 1 ("Existing in act or reality, not just potentially; really acted or acting; occurring in fact"). Thoughts? Equinox 11:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the difference is figurative vs, well, actual meaning. Simply because the dividing line between fact and imagination is not clear cut, so the term might be used erroneously under the assumption that sense 1 applies. The nebulous meaning of the quote being a fitting example. Not sure that's lexical, if the speaker is actually convinced. I don't think so. Not sure whether there is inflational or ironic usage as in "that was a real circus". "for actual" is a jocular substitution of "for real". Rhyminreason (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the definition and example fall well within sense 1. Ultimateria (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how good that example is, but I think there is a difference. The OED distinguishes between "Existing in fact, real" and a separate "intensifier" sense "In weakened use, emphasizing the exact or particular identity of a following noun: precise, exact". I suppose this is what they were getting at. Ƿidsiþ 07:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Latin: -īs for -ēs (

I read here editions having "omnīs" for "omnēs" ( and "-ntīs" for "-ntēs" ( Should not this variation be noted on our templates? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an archaic feature, which we should treat as the infinitives in -ier (audirier), imo; see the conjugation table of audio. @Mahagaja, JohnC5, Metaknowledge? --Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Here particularly of Quintilian I see one edition with "-ēs" and one with "-īs" (but acc. "testēs" "partēs"). I still have not understood the reason of the latter editor for this. Which would be right? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect of superscript numbers to normal numbersEdit

Why was this done:⁰&diff=next&oldid=39814265? Is it because ⁰'s only definition is "superscript of 0". See also: ¹. --Bringback2ndpersonverbs (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oscan and Umbrian on PIE *h₁entérEdit

I apologize if I'm not posting in the right section, but on the PIE entry *h₁entér, it lists oscan and Umbrian "antep" Are you sure someone isn't conflating the letter r with rho (p-lookalike)

Yeah, somebody accidentally put a P instead of an R (when the content of that article used to be part of *h₁en). Fixed it. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I trust that's according to the source material. Otherwise I would suspect a remote possibility for the 𐌐, eg. as in en. up, *upo (under), which seem to be conflated in Proto Germanic. By the way, the glosses for the cognate untar at its own page and at 𐌀𐌍𐌕𐌄𐌓 (anter) don't agree. *under has both senses but a slightly different root for Latin inter, not exactly *h₁entér. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Judging by recent articles in the British press, this is used by (mostly white?) leftists there to refer to (well-off?) white male conservatives. (Some articles say it was originally used by Remainers to refer to Brexiters.) It's apparently likening the people's complexion to ham (or accusing them living high on the hog?). It was supposedly used as early as a June 2017 BBC Question Time (from York, in the phrase "wall of gammon"), so there might be enough durable citations to "hot word" it (and check back in a couple months to see if it meets the spanning-a-year criterion). In any case, it's getting a rush of attention (the referents find it offensive), if anyone wants to take a stab at adding it. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has now been pointed out that Charles Dickens used "gammon tendency" in Nicholas Nickleby, chapter 16, so it may not be "hot" at all. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I think this is new. Dickens used "gammon" (AFAIK) in an old sense of "nonsense, rubbish, tommyrot", whereas the new independent coinage seems to refer to elderly men with pinkish faces. Equinox 18:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
In case it's helpful, I've added a reference to gammon for a BBC News article that traces this recent sense to February 2016, so it's already spanning more than two years. -Stelio (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


Entry for Etymology of peely-wally links to unrelated article

I'm not familiar with proper editing, however... on looking up "peely-wally", I see that the Etymology claims it is an extended form of "peelie" with a -link- to a sole English definition of: a coupon, attached to product packaging, which can be peeled off. However, peely-wally seems to be a Scottish phrase denoting: Pale, pasty; off-color or ill-looking ...originating long before peel-off coupons. The Scottish definition of "peelie" is: Thin; gaunt; pale. So peely-wally does perhaps seem to be an extension... of the Scottish definition of peelie. Perhaps an experienced Wiktionary editor might include the Scottish definition on the "peelie" page ...or remove the link (to the inappropriate English 'coupon' definition) from the "peely-wally" page.

Scottish definition of "peelie" at... or

Just noting a discrepancy.

  • Yes, thanks, I've changed this a bit. The reference should ultimately be to the Scots word peelie (which we were missing). Ƿidsiþ 07:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


This word is commonly used by weather forecasters throughout the USA to describe rain that has evaporated before reaching the earth from its clouds. I see no logical reason for it to have been redacted from my original effort to add it to the "approved" vocabulary. Scott MacStravic


The etymology is given as "Blend of abnormal + end", and yet the etymology of "segfault" is given as "Clipping of segmentation fault". Is the former not also a clipping, since it contains all of the second element? &mdash 16:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't call it a clipping – seg is a clipping of segmentation, but segfault is better described as a blend or contraction IMO. Ƿidsiþ 11:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A clipping is a kind of blend, according to WP (see w:Blend_word#Linguistics). Rhyminreason (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but not all blends are clippings. Ƿidsiþ 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Ety 3:

  1. (in the US, especially used in Chicago and New York) Eye dialect spelling of the.

Is this "eye dialect"? According to Wiktionary's definition, "eye dialect" is a nonstandard spelling that indicates a standard pronunciation. Is "da" considered a "standard pronunciation"? Mihia (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read w:eye dialect, you'll note that it's used liberally and less pejorative. I mean, yes, dat's da idea. It's supposedly the standard pronounciation in the region. "pronunciation spelling" would be more informative, of course. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "pronunciation spelling" is better. I have changed it. Thank you for alerting me to this alternative way of labelling these. IMO this "eye dialect" thing is overused and/or often misused in Wiktionary. If I encounter further examples like this I intend to change them to "pronunciation spelling". Mihia (talk)
Prior to 2015 (when the "pronunciation spelling" template was created and started to be deployed, although the issue had been discussed already in 2012), "eye dialect" was widely used on Wiktionary in this idiosyncratic way, so most of the entries that use it need to be reviewed. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

hearts beat as oneEdit

Today's WOTD, "hearts beat as one", is defined as "to share the same feelings". This definition is the wrong part of speech. I'm not sure that "hearts beat as one" even exists as a dictionary phrase. Mihia (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the definition is awkwardly non-substitutable (although I think it is the right part of speech). The definition could be made less awkward, and the includability more obvious, by moving the entry to "beat as one" and labelling it "(of hearts) to share the same feelings"... but if "hearts" are the only things that "beat as one", it might be weird to not include them in the headword. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Usually the owners of the hearts are stated, or at least implied, so "hearts beat as one" seems incomplete as a phrase, and it is certainly not a verb as presently defined. It seems more like a fragment. I agree that the lexical item is "(to) beat as one", used almost exclusively with the subject "hearts". Mihia (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation sound levelsEdit

Can something be done about the audio volume of the pronunciations on pages like bloedzuiger? — 02:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not by us, unless there's another recording that can be substituted. All of our recordings are hosted on Wikimedia Commons (this one is c:File:Nl-bloedzuiger.ogg). Perhaps someone there might be able to fix the volume. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Why not just level it out with Audacity or something and reupload? (Edit: thanks, User:AmazingJus, for doing so with this one!) We have too much technology at our disposal for this to be a common issue.   Or is Commons less inclusive with who’s allowed to make changes? — 04:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but it will have to be done at Commons- not here. I don't know their rules, but I'm sure the main thing they would be concerned with would be the edit history and attribution- as long as it's clear where you got it from, it shouldn't be a problem to upload a better version. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The new file can be uploaded to the same file name. It is fairly straightforward. —Suzukaze-c 04:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

to have been and goneEdit

Worth an entry in some form? Perhaps it is SoP, but feels less so than e.g. "[he has] been here and gone". Equinox 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Some slang dictionaries have been and, which seems to be the same as go and. There is also some support for been and gone and. Get this:
DCDuring (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, see go and at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But it's not slang in the Thackery quote – Pitt has been (i.e. visited) and also proposed. Ƿidsiþ 07:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This makes me think of try and (as a substitute for try to). --Per utramque cavernam 08:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Try and only substitutes for try to in the plain form, not in the -ed or -ing forms. That might make it a lexical item, eg, entryworthy. Alternatively, we could have a long usage label. I'd think that a usage note would be separated by too many page-downs from the definition. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The idiom "been and gone and done it" means "actually done it" rather than just planning it or talking about it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Comparing been and gone with some of the other expressions mentioned makes me think it is not entryworthy, though it does seem usage-note-worthy at the appropriate sense of be.
Try and, go and, up and, and (more datedly dialectal) take and all seem to have some quirkiness of usage, such as limitations in the form of the following verb or the assumption of a meaning not present in the and-less usage of the verb. They are also distinct in register and relative frequency among English-speaking regions. They appear in usage and style guides like MWDEU and Garner's Modern American Usage. To bury the quirkiness in the overlong entries [[go]] and [[try]] seems to place unreasonable demands on a user. Take and, being more dated/obsolete, might be adequately accommodated at a definition at [[take]]. Up (verb) is similarly short enough so a user should find relevant definition easily. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


An old spelling of city, used around the 17th century. Any volunteers? DonnanZ (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


  1. Used to link singular indefinite nouns (preceded by the indefinite article) and attributive adjectives modified by certain common adverbs of degree.
    not that good of an idea

This usage is viewed as incorrect in BrE. Is it fully accepted in AmE? Mihia (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I would say colloquial, surely – you don't see it in the NY Times or whatever. Ƿidsiþ 05:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have added a "US, informal" label. Mihia (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Usage note at haughty - Moved from RFVEdit

This was added to RFV, but it is more appropriate here. Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A usage note at haughty suggests, "Possibly due to the similar sounding (and utterly different in meaning) hottie, haughty has become rare in some parts of North America." I can't find any published sources making a similar suggestion – though there are a few that suggest the two words are easily confused (e.g. [18], [19]). The usage note was apparently added by User:Facts707 with this edit. The suggested effect is not impossible, but it's also not obvious. I would prefer to see outside verification, or else remove the note. Cnilep (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

One more data point I should have checked earlier: According to, haughty is in the "top 10% of words", making the claim of rarity dubious. I'm not sure, though, whether M-W's "popularity" is by usage or by look-ups. Cnilep (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This Google n-gram suggests that haughty has had a recent spurt in usage at the same time that hottie has achieved fairly wide usage. I'd remove the note. DCDuring (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Identifying the "top 10%" of words by usage is quite a tricky proposition. If every word that has ever been used in English is included, every word that you and I know might be in the top 10%, since 90% of all words may be highly obscure or rare or specialised. Having said that, "haughty" surely cannot be in the top 10% of usage of "reasonable" English words. (I don't in any way oppose the removal of the label, btw.) Mihia (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Haughty is 5230 in the PG frequency list.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
As the n-gram shows haughty was previously significantly more common. I've been wondering how to plausibly interpret MWOnline's relative frequency number. They must have some defined list of terms, which I haven't seen specified. Perhaps they have some minimum level of required attestation. If we were to include lexical items like species names we would swamp the normal vocabulary-in-use of virtually any speaker and exceed the number of other lexical items in the language. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you looking at overall usage, anyway? The note says "in some parts". And it appears to be an unverifiable opinion. Slightly embarassing to say, I didn't know the word, though I might have seen it. Surely, haughty is rather rare outside the cot-caught merger, in North America? 5000 words is a lot, more than the average for a common word inventory, as far as I know, so place a place behind 5000 seems to be rare, indeed. Project Gutenberg might not be quite up-to-date and biased for out-of-copyright, ie. old material.
Also: some people say "notty"? Never heard that in person, either. Rhyminreason (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
"In some parts" people write hawty for hottie. The mere fact that someone makes an unsupported claim is bad enough. When it is qualified in such a way as to make it unfalsifiable it should be considered worthless. DCDuring (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Rhyminreason: Haughty is by no means rare. Perhaps it is used less than it once was, but it is not rare. Then again, where I live, the cot-caught merger is not present (except coming from the mouths of some youngsters). Tharthan (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tharthan: I thought you were from Eastern New England, which is one of the epicenters of the cot-caught merger. The merger is complete in the traditional accents of Maine, New Hampshire, eastern Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and eastern Connecticut. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I am from Eastern New England, but (without revealing exactly where I live) I would note that not all of the traditional accents in Eastern New England have the cot-caught merger. In fact, in one of the states you mentioned, the merger is only complete in certain areas of the state (many, but not all) [and I am not referring to Connecticut; I do not live there]. One big city, and a few smaller cities in that state do not have the merger. I happen to live in one of those smaller cities, in the suburbs. My mother was born in a city in that state which does have the merger, but she moved to the city in which I live when she was a child, so she only has the merger in a word or two [laundry and laundromat are the only ones that I can think of]. My father is from another New England state, but close by to mine, and also does not have the merger. If you would like more details, I can e-mail you. Tharthan (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the traditional Eastern New England accent is pretty recessive now anyway (I've met more Bostonians without it than with it), so it's quite possible that you and your parents don't have the same accent that people in your area did 60–80 years ago, when the data for The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States (where I got my info from) were collected. Also, the merger in Eastern New England is different from the merger in the western half of the U.S., because in traditional Eastern New England there is no father-bother merger (father having a frontish unrounded vowel and cot/caught having a backish rounded one), while in the western half of the U.S. all three vowels have merged to a centralish unrounded vowel. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You may well be right, but I e-mailed you some more information, just FYI just in case. Tharthan (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
5000 is more than the average for the common word inventory? Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has about 5500 distinct words, and the Half-Blood Prince, sixth book in the series, has 10,000 distinct words, including four instances of "haughty". Tom Sawyer has 7000 distinct words. Combined, the first six Harry Potter books, Tom Sawyer and Pride and Prejudice have 23,000 distinct words between them. In that selection, or just the Harry Potter books alone, "haughty" sits around place #6500. ("haughty" would jump up quite a few places if only root words were counted, or if names were exclude.) I'm pretty sure any educated native speaker knows way more than 5,000 words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
"Combined, the first six Harry Potter books, Tom Sawyer and Pride and Prejudice have 23,000 distinct words between them": How did you arrive at that number? --Per utramque cavernam 22:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I took text copies of the works, lower-cased them, and counted the number of unique words (defined as strings of letters.) It's a bit rough, but eyeballing the list of distinct words, it's not too far off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: What I find surprising is the apparently limited amount of overlap your numbers are pointing to. If two English books have 5000 and 7000 distinct words respectively, it seems very improbable (impossible, really) that you can simply add the two numbers; they must share a good amount of words between them. What would be realistic? 500 hundred words found in one but not in the other? The total figure would be 8000, not 12000. --Per utramque cavernam 12:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't simply add them. Pride and Prejudice has 6000 distinct words, and Tom Sawyer and P&P combined have 10,000 distinct words, not 13,000. A lot of the words are only used once; P&P has 2000 words used only once in it, and Tom Saywer has 3500 words used only once in it. There are 4,000 words used only once in P&P and TS combined. I've uploaded a wordlist of just the two works to User:Prosfilaes/Tom Sawyer versus Pride and Prejudice; as you can see, there's not a whole lot of overlap.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks. All right, I just wanted to make sure (sorry if it sounded like an insult at your intelligence btw!). Interesting, I would have expected more overlap than that. Per utramque cavernam 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a number I heard in school, referring to chinese: "Studies in China have shown that functional literacy in written Chinese requires a knowledge of between three and four thousand characters" (w:Chinese Characters). So it's a minimum, not average, sorry. Still though, knowing and using a word are two different things. Rhyminreason (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Chinese characters aren't the same as English words- they're syllables. If you look at Category:Chinese lemmas, most of the entries have more than one character. That's not to ignore the semantic component- you can say more with fewer characters than if they were strictly phonetic- but there's a lot more to basic Chinese vocabulary than the number of single characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I removed the usage note. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Why is the second sense labelled as 'rare'? The Queen has ladies-in-waiting, it might be unusual (not rare) to hear much about them, but the name for them is not rare. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think sense 2 is the main sense, and the "rare" label can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason to label this "rare". Mihia (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  Done. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Thanks. I think the definitions need improvement, though, but I don't know much about it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know enough either: the 1st sense I imagine is virtually obsolete (but I could be wrong), and a royal lady-in-waiting seems to be more of an attendant and a companion than a servant, being an honour is probably correct. This is where the links to Wikipedia and Oxford (with its usage examples) come in useful. DonnanZ (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The senses should be merged, IMO. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think the majority of the translations are for a "woman who is servant to a lady" anyway, but for a royal lady-in-waiting, to which can be added “hofdame” in Den Danske Ordbog and “hoffdame” in The Bokmål Dictionary / The Nynorsk Dictionary.. DonnanZ (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bogus Japanese "god"Edit

The entry トレント has just been added by a new user Testaccount9000, almost certainly the same person (or possibly persons) as Wikipedia user YodogawaKamlyn‎ (sorry, I don't know how to do proper cross-wiki links, or exactly what the rules are on having different accounts). This is almost certainly completely bogus - the article as it is makes no sense, and is completely unsupported by evidence, except for en:WP and ja:WP articles, created by the same person. I suggest it should be peremptorily deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Eirikr, does this seem to be same user who adds other bogus Japanese mythology terms under a variety of IPs? If so, perhaps our colleagues on Wikipedia should be notified of the scope of the issue. - -sche (discuss) 16:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a list of four WP user names involved in the original addition of this "torento" to the WP:List of Japanese deities page, and they seem to have similar curious habits, such as "translations" of "edit" or similar words into a random language as the edit summary. It would help to know whathese other bogus terms are. Oddly enough, user YodogawaKamlyn‎ has just added an entry to the list which appears to be genuine. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Hardly. This user speaks Japanese and has trouble with English. The other IP user couldn't get anything right in Japanese after years and years of trying very hard. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this user actually does speak Japanese, judging by the edit summaries on ja:WP, and by the bits of Japanese pasted into the Talk page of the List of deities page. But this discussion should surely happen on WP... Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Whoever they are, the JA WP editors remarked on this user's poor Japanese abilities in the deletion discussion for the machine translation of this same bogus Torento no kami article on the JA WP. Surveying this user's activity across the MediaWiki sites, I see nothing to suggest competence or good faith. I posted more details at w:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Torento-no-kami. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't paying attention when I wrote the above. Since then I posted some details about the behavior of their socks on Imaginatorium's WP talk page, which seems to have spooked them. Without any use of checkuser tools at all, I would guess we're dealing with a kid or clueless adult in Minot, North Dakota who thought that they could fool people by copying content from various places and editing from IPs and sockpuppet accounts. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Edit

I would like to add a Chinese section to the entry, so I need Pinyin (and perhaps other dialects). I looked at Chinese Wiktionary, and it gives "hрi, wшi" for Mandarin and "hoi6" for Cantonese. What is going on with that Mandarin? It must be some sort of Mojibake. I was able to decipher hрi (which features a Cyrillic letter in the middle - nope, that ain't no p) as hài thanks to zdic, but wшi is still mysterious. I mean, it starts with w and has a final featuring a diphthong with -i as the second element, is it's either wai or wei, but which, and what tone?

Moreover, what is it pronounced like in Hakka? hakkadict gives kai24 (= PFS khâi) for Sixian and Southern Sixian, kai11 (= PFS khài) for Raoping, kain11 (= PFS khàinn with -nn indicating a nasalized final) for Shao'an, and kai53 for Hailu and Dabu, but this video seems to have khan for a word that means exactly what 㧡 is reported to mean by Hakkadict, so what is up with this? doesn't even have the character, so does this have a Min pronunciation?

MGorrone (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Assuming we are looking at a simple code point shift, à is U+00E0 and was turned to р which is U+0440, so ш, which is U+0448, should be from U+00E8, which is è, giving us wèi. Is this a thing? MGorrone (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@MGorrone: @Suzukaze-c and I have expanded the entry. Indeed, р should be à and ш should be è. This character is a rare character outside of Hakka. AFAIK it is definitely not normally used in Mandarin, Cantonese or Min Nan. In Hakka, it should be read as khâi (Sixian). (Note that the version of PFS we use here in Wiktionary is only applicable to the Sixian dialect. We currently don't have support for other Taiwanese dialects. 53 in Hailu, 33 in Dabu and 11 in Raoping/Zhao'an correspond to 24 in Sixian.) I don't have an explaination for khân in the video yet; it's probably an idiolect thing. I'll probably elaborate on that when I answer your question on Chinese StackExchange. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


I had never, ever seen this as one word until I edited مهمان‌پرست just now. I have seen 'guest-friendly' before, but never 'guestfriendly' as one word. So is 'guestfriendly' (one word) American English? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It seems to have been created as an Anglish-ism; it should be moved to the hyphenated spelling. - -sche (discuss) 16:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Should probably be RFVed. It famously appears in Finnegans Wake, but that hardly counts as an English-language citation… Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I completely missed the label. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Guestfriendly (no space or hyphen) seems to be becoming a staple in tour guides and hospitality-industry literature. Guest-friendly remains more common and thus should be the lemma. DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

truth is,Edit

Is this includable as a sentence adverb (≈to be honest)? "Truth is, I don't like movies that are only good once", "Truth is, he's clean and sober", "Truth is, he's too tired to think about it much right now". --Per utramque cavernam 22:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Just an elision of the definite article. Like "Problem is…", "Thing is…" etc. Ƿidsiþ 04:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wake, Wake IslanderEdit

It seems odd to have an entry for Wake as Wake Island (created 2013) and another one for Wake Islander (created before that in 2011).

  • Is Wake Island usually known as just Wake?
  • Are there actually any Wake Islanders? According to Wikipedia the population is nil, with around 100 people stationed there (non-permanent residents). DonnanZ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
They both look attestable. DCDuring (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the attestability of using Wake as a short form of Wake Island, the question is how common is it; I feel there should also be an entry for Wake Island. As for Wake Islander, I fear that may be a myth, so it needs proper attestation. It reminds me of Mustique, a private island, I read somewhere that no babies are allowed to be born there, so no one can claim they are a native of Mustique. DonnanZ (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Japanese SOP questionEdit

@Suzukaze-c, Eirikr and anyone else who knows Japanese: At WT:WE there's a request for Japanese 富士の山 (ふじのやま, Fuji no yama), but wouldn't an entry just be SOP as 富士 + + ? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

🤷 It's included in the Digital Daijisen. —Suzukaze-c 21:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
One lemming does not a summer make. I remain unconvinced. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Mahāgaja on this one. Moreover, the DJS citation is for the Taketori Monogatari, a tale about a thousand years old, and the grammatical construction in the quoted text itself suggests non-lexicality:


Similarly, 岩手山 (Iwate-san, Mount Iwate) and 高尾山 (Takao-zan, Mount Takao) can be called ~の山 (XX no yama). While the former appears to be a lexicalized compound, with some instances even showing rendaku, the latter with the particle (no) is just "the mountain XX". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

cheerio (as a greeting?)Edit

The entry for cheerio seems sure that it can mean "hello", in Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. As a speaker of British English, I can fairly confidently say it only ever means "goodbye". The entry contains a large number of translations for the purported "hello" sense. I don't want to undo all that work when I might be wrong. Does anyone use it to mean "hello"? 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I use Br. English (born in NZ) and (to me) it has always meant "goodbye". DonnanZ (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. No such sense in Chambers Dictionary. Equinox 22:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I added one example that appears to be a greeting. DTLHS (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that play (?) from Britain, Ireland, Australia or New Zealand? I found this, but that doesn't help (me) much. 22:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for Samuel French, Inc. states that it is an American company but that it publishes stage plays for the UK market. Of course, that could be very different from what was the case in 1947. DTLHS (talk)
I've seen a few older Samuel French works; they published a broad range of plays, and that alone isn't going to help much.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell from the text cited, nor can I find the text online: what is the surrounding context? Equinox 23:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
"Fleetwood. (As he pauses in arch c. and eyes the assemblage with a cordial smile) Cheerio, everybody! What a delightful gathering of charming femininity! (Coming down to r. of Alvina admiringly and continues suavely) Alvina, you are even more ravishing than those flowers you are holding in your lily-white hand! (Bows gallantly.)" DTLHS (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
chiefly British
—usually used as a farewell and sometimes as a greeting or toast
According to
At the back of my mind is some inkling that I may know the "greeting" sense. If it exists, I think it is obsolete or at least very dated. Mihia (talk)

It's been updated to my satisfaction (not by me). Thanks! 22:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

kennels as singularEdit

2005, David Brian Plummer, Practical Lurcher Breeding, page 177:
So how does the owner of a house who wishes to build a kennels go about getting planning permission?

Is this British? It's definitely not American. Our entry doesn't cover this. DTLHS (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is British. From Oxford:
1.1(usually kennels) [treated as singular or plural] A boarding or breeding establishment for dogs.
‘I put my dog in kennels if I go away’
Planning permission could be obtained from the local authority, but there could be objections to setting up a kennels. DonnanZ (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Planning permission is also a British term, so that text was presumably written in Britain. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

色即是空 and 色則是空 in Heart SutraEdit

Is 色則是空 an alternative spelling to 色即是空? The only difference is the use of 則是 (it is only) instead of 即是 (it is indeed). May also apply to 空即是色. Daijiten uses both. ~ POKéTalker) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

blocked nose, stuffed nose, stuffy noseEdit

Is one of these worth an entry? We have runny nose; is it more idiomatic than these three? --Per utramque cavernam 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, but I do feel like sense 1 of stuffy should be split into two senses. There's a big difference between a stuffy room and a stuffy nose, and I bet other languages don't use the same word for both situations. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
A stuffy nose is a "nez bouché" in French, but a "**pièce bouchée" doesn't mean anything, so yes. --Per utramque cavernam 14:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, and in German a stuffy nose is a verstopfte Nase, but if I ever heard the phrase verstopftes Zimmer I'd imagine it meant a room that was crammed full of stuff. (verstopft also means "constipated", so you have to be careful to clarify which end of you is verstopft.) —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Lol, only seeing this now :p --Per utramque cavernam 12:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata first attempts as wiktEdit

wikidata:Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical data#First experiment of lexicographical data is out. Coordination could be awesome! Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 11:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to check, for theatrersEdit

Do we have this right?:

  • audience left Noun Uncount On the left side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage; stage right.
  • camera left Noun Uncount On the left side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage right.
  • house left Adv NotComp Stage right.
  • stage left Noun Uncount / Adv Comp The area to the left of the stage when looking towards the audience
  • audience right Noun Uncount On the right side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage left.
  • camera right Noun Uncount On the right side of the stage when viewed from the audience facing the stage, stage left.
  • house right Adv NotComp Stage left.
  • stage right Noun Uncount / Adv Comp The area to the right of the stage when looking towards the audience

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 13:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sobreira Yes, although "camera left" and "camera right" have nothing to do with an audience watching a stage, they are to do with how directions are seen from the point of view of a camera or camera operator. If you think of an audience watching a cinema screen, for instance, then camera left would normally correspond to house left, but not always – depending on how the shots are treated in postproduction, camera left could end up as house right, or up, or something else entirely. Ƿidsiþ 07:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

official storyEdit

This phrase isn't in Wiktionary but it seems like it should be. To me, it means more that just a story that's official; there's an implication that this version of events is very convenient for the powers that be and that there were some shenanigans with evidence and/or witnesses. Not sure if it qualifies as an idiom though. It's hard to get anything meaningful from Google since it keeps pulling up the movie "The Official Story", a title which seems to refer to exactly the meaning I have in mind. Add it to official perhaps? --RDBury (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, "official story" uses official in the same way as "official explanation", "official line", "official narrative", etc. —RuakhTALK 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, seems entirely sum-of-parts to me and thus not idiomatic. — SGconlaw (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

grade ("the grade fives are on a field trip")Edit

We have the usual educational sense of grade, but then an extra one: "(Canada, education) A student of a particular grade (used with the grade level). The grade fives are on a field trip." This seems misplaced to me because it is not a "direct" use of the noun, and "grade fives" is not the plural of grade. (We also have no corresponding sense at year, form or class.) I would just move it to a usage note, but the problem is we have translations for that sense. Equinox 06:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It seams idiomatic. What's that about snow clones?
The quote is for the plural (not of "grade", but of "grade-five"), so it's opaque which sense it actually stands for (plural tantrum or singular from backformation, e.g.).
I guess RFV would be the wrong direction?
But wait. Further up we have "a degree of quality" and quote "food grade [...] earth" (obstruse word omitted for clarity, exuberant quote IMHO). That def is effectively equal to def 1. From the quote I can tell that the editor thought it was different because it was used adjectival. Either way it should be del'ed. 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
This just seems like an ordinary metonomic use of grade, context-dependent for the selection of the appropriate definition. It doesn't seem particularly Canadian, though in the US we would usually say fifth-grader(s). I don't see how this warrants either a separate definition or a usage note. It seems like a feature of English grammar: how we form transparent compound nouns.
Instances of this grammatical construction in the singular are extremely common: position three, day five, phase three, page six, level two. I don't think it's limited to numbers either: condition red, code blue. And even plurals can be found:
  1. Game sevens of World Series demand the entire nation's attention. (Not fanciful: see this Google search.
  2. I'm always been wary of season twos.
This seems like yet another case of suddenly becoming conscious of what is normally unconscious. All too often the sudden awareness of an instance is not accompanied by identification of other comparable instances. I myself fall prey to this phenomenon regularly. DCDuring (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
94 IP dude, I'm not saying we shouldn't document this (necessarily), but that it isn't a distinct sense of the noun grade (and indeed isn't used that way, hence my mention of the plural). (I think I misread your comment actually. but never mind.) Equinox 02:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

titan arumEdit

Could someone help find an English category for this entry? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  DoneΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

conflict - adjective sense?Edit

Could someone help me add the adjective/attributive sense of "conflict" as in "conflict diamonds", "conflict palm oil", etc.? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a noun, not an adjective; compare "blood diamonds", "blood money", etc. Arguably, it's just the regular sense of the noun (like "conflict negotiator", "farm eggs"); if it's not, then we're also missing a sense at blood. (Actually, we may be missing a sense at blood regardless, to cover "shedding of blood; taking of life; slaughter, murder", as when people speak of avenging the blood of someone, or seeking revenge for the blood of someone.) - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Cf. war child. Equinox 02:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Other dictionaries have more than two senses/subsenses. They seem to have a sense that is specifically about battles or wars. Collins puts that sense to "journalism". DCDuring (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Sense 3 of "blood" is "(historical) One of the four humours in the human body." But aren't references to blood as a bodily humour just references to actual liquid blood, sense 1, that simply consider that liquid to be a humour? Suppose a certain religion considers blood and water to be the two sacred fluids; would we add a sense "One of the two sacred fluids in Religion X"?
Relatedly, until a moment ago we had three separate senses for "earth" as a classical element, for each of three groups of people who considered it one! I consolidated them into one definition on the model of "fire" and "water".
- -sche (discuss) 03:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If we had a "Coordinate terms" section at [[blood]], we might want to put the other three humors on one line. What definition would we refer to in {{sense}}?
IOW, I think it merits a definition line, perhaps as a subsense of sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Is the "no good" sense used in native English? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I heard it used pre-internet. DCDuring (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, nothing like as widely as it is in Japanese, I think. But there is a much narrower usage in the film industry: the Complete Film Dictionary, by Ira Konigsberg, published 1987 has an entry:
  • NG takes: A take which is [singular sic] "no good" and hence not usable.
I quickly found similar entries in other such dictionaries, and all explain that it means the take is not usable. This corroborates my feeling that "NG" is not a word from the wider English vocabulary. In Japanese the "no good" would not need to be explained, because it is as common as "OK" for the opposite. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It's also commonly used in Chinese. It seems like the Chinese usage is from Japanese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
NG is not a word to be used in a definition. It needs a definition for many native speakers I think. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A dhurrie (also dhurri or durrie or durry)Edit

How to do the interconnections ? 11:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Turkic in ArabicEdit

The Arabic Wikipedia claims a term for "Turkic" is, along with تُرْكِيّ (turkiyy), which also means "Turkish", is أَتْرَاكِيّ (ʾatrākiyy), as in لُغَات أَتْرَاكِيَّة (luḡāt ʾatrākiyya, Turkic languages) and provides two references, not sure how good they are. The term seems to exist in Google books but no hits for a vocalised form to be sure about the pronunciation. I assume I got the reading correct from أَتْرَاك (ʾatrāk) plus a nisba. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

contraruta, and other "only in"sEdit

...are categorized as lemmas, thanks to their headword-line templates. Is this desirable? (Incidentally, I can find citations of a contraruta, seemingly a rough synonym of en contraruta which the current definition of contraruta could be expanded to mention.) - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No. They should be deleted, or replaced with something like {{no entry}}. DTLHS (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I think {{only in}} is fine (certainly there's long precedent for having them, they shouldn't just be deleted), it's just the categorization of the terms as lemmas that I wonder about. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cap and nicknames that are not diminutives of namesEdit

Do we have a category for nicknames that aren't diminutives of names (like Cap and unlike Ozzy)? I notice that some (like Chief) don't have entries, because they're arguably just uses of the (lowercase) common noun + routine capitalization of terms used as names, but I can't find citations of "cap" meaning "captain" in lowercase (even though it seems plausible). I see Red is in CAT:English unisex given names. I guess most nicknames are at least rarely attested as formal/birth names, so maybe conflating them with given names is OK. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Our categories in this area don't seem very intuitive. Therefore they must by well-documented and easy to find from the places one would look for a category intuitively, like Category:English nicknames. DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

El CapitanEdit

What does this term mean in this article? I've never come across this usage before. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See w:El Capitan#Climbing history. It's a huge, sheer rock face well known as a challenge for rock climbers. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you. Would this merit inclusion on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

of (2)Edit

The entry at of is organised under sub-headings, the first two of which are "Expressing direction" and "Expressing separation". The category "Expressing direction" includes senses such as "within a mile of the White House" and "a quarter of two this morning". I can't see how these, especially the first one, express "direction" as opposed to "separation". Does this make sense to anyone else? Mihia (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure those examples express direction, but what about phrases like east of Eden, east of the sun and west of the moon and left of centre? — SGconlaw (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, more accurate for this sense would be "expressing distance or motion". (The OED groups these together under the heading "Of motion, direction, distance.") I'll change it. The point is that these subsenses have in common the idea of movement away from some thing or time, whereas the "separation" subsenses are concerned with expressing a separateness or removal from something. Ƿidsiþ 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, would "motion away from" be better than just "motion" I wonder? A couple of other things. When you moved some stuff around in this edit did you intentionally remove the usage example "not that good of an idea"? Is there a problem with it? Also (addressed to everyone), the definitions of "of" begin with two that are marked "now obsolete or dialectal" and "obsolete except in phrases". I don't understand why a general-purpose dictionary would put obscure or obsolete senses first. Shouldn't the most common senses come first, even if they developed later in history? Mihia (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your last point, I think we don't currently have a firm rule as to how definitions should be arranged. I'd agree that in most cases archaic, rare and/or obsolete senses can be relegated to the end. However, I've encountered situations where it seems more logical to put them in front because they show the development of the entry's senses – they show that the senses in current use derived from the obsolete senses. — SGconlaw (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That historical ordering is what I would prefer to impose as a general rule (as in all the best print dictionaries), but there is some disagreement about it here so in practice different entries have different layouts. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but appreciate that this would be difficult for most editors (myself included) who don’t necessarily have access to the resources and time to arrange definitions in a strictly historical manner. I also imagine that in many cases it would be quite difficult to determine whether a particular sense predates another one. — SGconlaw (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Historical ordering may be useful to the people who consult Wiktionary in order to understand word development, but I feel that a larger number of users may be put off when they look up a word and the first thing they see is a whole load of obsolete meanings that are irrelevant to modern usage. Mihia (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
What about the "not that good of an idea" example that I mentioned? I intend to restore it, but I don't want to restore it if you deleted it for a good reason. Mihia (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it seems OK…I was under the impression that usexes were just a stand-in until we had real citations, which is why I removed it, but if you want it back go ahead. Ƿidsiþ 10:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I'll put it back. "just a stand-in until we had real citations"??? Gosh, I hope not! These are extremely helpful IMO, and much more accessible than quotations/citations for the quick-glance user. Also, they can be hand-crafted to really highlight usage distinctions as clearly and conscisely as possible. Mihia (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

fascia lataEdit

Is there a Latinate plural as well? Ultimateria (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"fasciae latae" I believe. DTLHS (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


It seems like someone has been promoting this as their favourite/pet word here; I think it's rare and not likely to be commonly understood. It seems to have been used in a way that doesn't match its supposed definition anyway (e.g. sigheh). Would anyone object if some instances of 'wedlease' were removed? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "some instances"? Mihia (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Some of the times where it has been used. This seems mainly to have been various IPs and single-edit accounts, possibly all the same person trying to popularise the word. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not just possibly. The IPs geolocate to Carphone Warehouse in the northern end of greater London, and everything else points to a typical Pass a Method/North Atlanticist Usonian campaign. They think they see a hole in our coverage, so they make up or misinterpret terms in order to fill it. Given their total lack of understanding of how real people use language, there's always something fake and usually vaguely disturbing about their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Regional labelsEdit

  1. (slang, Northumbria, Liverpudlian)

Is there any reason why "Liverpool" is converted to "Liverpudlian" but "Northumbria" is not converted to "Northumbrian"? It looks inconsistent. Mihia (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand. There is an entry for Northumbrian (quite rightly). DonnanZ (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that {{lb|en|Liverpool}} converts Liverpool to Liverpudlian, while {{lb|en|Northumbria}} doesn't convert Northumbria to Northumbrian. That's inconsistent. But it would be good to reach a decision before changing them all one way or another. --Per utramque cavernam 12:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest making them all the place name rather than an adjective, if only for the reason that it is more easily understandable by readers (for example, some may not know that Liverpudlian means "relating to Liverpool" and Mancunian means "relating to Manchester"). — SGconlaw (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think I prefer that option too. --Per utramque cavernam 12:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I do too, it also fits better with the national labels (US, Britain) etc. Ƿidsiþ 12:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with all the above Leasnam (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


The first quotation: "this very Midland line" was referring to a branch of the Midland Railway from Rugby to Leicester, which was closed many years ago but shown in my "British Railways Pre-grouping Atlas and Gazetteer" published by Ian Allan Ltd. The point is I doubt that this is use of Midland as an adjective, so it should be deleted perhaps. DonnanZ (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And I think very is being used as an adjective here, not as an adverb. DonnanZ (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I find that sentence quite hard to understand, but I imagine you are probably correct about "very". I see "Midland line" as the same type of usage as "Midland accent" and "Midland city" in two of the other quotations. But if it is not an adjective, then what is it? Is there a noun "Midland" in the relevant sense? Are there any instances where "Midland" (as opposed to "(the) Midlands") is unambiguously used as a noun in reference to this region? Mihia (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I would say here that Midland is a proper noun, meaning the Midland Railway. A line was built to Rugby by the Midland Counties Railway which later became the Midland. At that time they didn't have a main line to London and connected with the London & North Western trains at Rugby to provide a London connection. The Midland built a line from Leicester to St Pancras in London after this time, opening in 1868. I think that provides the missing context. DonnanZ (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see. Mihia (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
We could create a new sense of the proper noun for the Midland Railway and move the quote there. DonnanZ (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I am guilty of creating a precedent for that, where a railroad a concerned, see Wabash. DonnanZ (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like the whole entry is the wrong way round…Midland was an adjective first, and the English Midlands were so called because they were a Midland area…I also don't think it's clear that it's not an adjective in the quotation. Elsewhere in the same source there is a lot of talk about a "Midland route" as well. Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Or was it midland first? Midland may be a capitalisation of that. DonnanZ (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
And was very used much more as an adjective in 19th century English? DonnanZ (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I have added a proper noun def for the Midland Railway anyway, which can be removed if anyone disagrees. I haven't moved the quote, I guess it will end up staying where it is. DonnanZ (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not think "Midland" is ever an adjective, in any useful sense. The example is rather funny, because a standard diagnostic is that if a word can be preceded by "very" then it's an adjective: "very thick bark" shows that "thick" is an adjective. But of course this is a different "very". I also don't see how "Midland" could have been an adjective "first", since it would originally have referred to the "mid(dle) land", which is a noun-phrase. The problem with spurious entries like Midland, adj." is that there is no end to them. I just looked at the entry for 현대 as I was editing the WP article: so we have "a Hyundai engine", and probably "a very Hyundai sound" made by the engine. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"I also don't see how "Midland" could have been an adjective "first", since it would originally have referred to the "mid(dle) land", which is a noun-phrase." This is not a good argument. There are many examples of mid- + noun being used to form adjectives before they were nouns, including mid-ocean, mid-price, midshore, mid-size, mid-engineǷidsiþ 10:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Also consider such American examples as "especially in the Eastern and Midland States", "rivalries between the Eastern, Western, and Midland States" and similar (pulled from a quick search). Ƿidsiþ 10:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think we're dealing with an adjective that became a noun, then a proper noun, which then was used attributively in the first sentence. The Midland line is also referred to as the "Midlands line": you could substitute "Midlands" for "Midland" in that first sentence without changing it at all, syntactically. You could also take out "Midland" and "very" would mean exactly the same thing- it's the same "very" as in "to think that Julius Caesar stood on this very spot". That sentence doesn't belong in an adjective section, even if other quotes might.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head, Midland in "this very Midland line" is used attributively (why didn't I think of that?). In fact, even today the main line from London St Pancras to Sheffield is still called the Midland Main Line, this title isn't used for other parts of the old Midland Railway, many of which still survive. DonnanZ (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I have been looking at the Oxford treatment of the adjective, "of or in the middle part of the country", in usage examples as midland, and "of or in the English Midlands" in usage examples as Midland. DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, well, that's interesting. Oxford is Oxford, but I do not think that a single one of their examples for the headword "adj. midland" (lowercased) referring to the English Midlands is actually an adjective. (Now the SOED does give a meaning dated to 1555 of "midland" adj. meaning "inland", which strikes me as archaic.) I mean, do they (you?) not think that a noun can be used attributively? A peanut icecream, a cheese-and-pickle sandwich, a wildebeest roast. In no case is the meaning "as an adjective" distinguishable from the meaning "as a noun". How do you decide which nouns need a separate but indistinguishable adjectival meaning? I cannot see how the logical conclusion of this is just to give every noun an "adjective" definition. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Apart from distinct semantics there are some grammatical tests for adjectivity. Can the word be modified by the adverbial very or too? Is it gradable? Can it form a comparative or superlative? Can it be used predicatively? (The last is not so useful for distinguishing adjectives from nouns.) DCDuring (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The words "peanut", "cheese", "pickle" and "wildebeest" all clearly exist as nouns outside of attributive use. The word "Midland" does not, as far as I am aware, otherwise exist as a noun in a relevant sense (except potentially as an abbreviation of "the Midland Railway", as mentioned above). If it is proposed as a noun in "Midland accent", "Midland city" etc. then it seems to be a case of a noun that is used only attributively, unless anyone has any counterexamples. Mihia (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
One keeps eyeglasses in an eyeglass case, books in a book case/book-case/bookcase. That is, nouns formed as plurals that are also plural semantically in compounds drop the plural ending s or es. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
In some cases I guess so ... yet "Seychelles government", "Netherlands flag", "Great Lakes scenery", "Cayman Islands airport" ... In fact, we can also say e.g. "Midlands accent" as well as the cited "Midland accent". Mihia (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
My grammar books discuss many kinds of compound nouns, but offer few restrictive rules about their formation or the derivation of their meaning from their components. (One characterizes them as mnemonics semantically.) DCDuring (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's an adjective...rather attributive use of the noun Leasnam (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, it looks like an attributive form of the noun rather than an adjective. I seem to recall similar cases, where a normally-plural word is singular when attributive, coming up before. I've found a couple of citations where it's by itself as a noun, but virtually all use does seem to be attributive. Still, we have lots of hyphenated terms entered as nouns, as attributive alternative forms of their unhyphenated versions, and setting aside the debate of whether or not they should be included, they do go to show that we do treat attributive nouns as nouns and not adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

leap of faithEdit

Are the labels (philosophy, religion) appropriate? The second usex is a standard colloquial use I'm familiar with. --Per utramque cavernam 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience this phrase is in general use and is not restricted to those fields. I'm not even sure it has any particular use in those fields. To me, the first usex seems very faintly wrong, or at least unrepresentative. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur. It looks all good now after PUC's changes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Pronounciation of U.S. datesEdit

Hi, how do you read aloud the text "on July 4th"? (Like, do you say "on July the fourth" or "on the fourth of July"?) And for "on Dec. 25", do you say "on December twenty-five" or something else? Thanks, 17:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"On July fourth", "on December twenty fifth". DTLHS (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, though I have sometimes heard people use the cardinal number, e.g. calling today "May thirty" instead of "May thirtieth". It grates, but the descriptivist in me acknowledges its existence. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Same here. It annoys me too. Tharthan (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally, I've heard people read dates out according to how they're written -- if it's "July 4th", they'll probably say "July fourth". If it's "July 4", they'll probably say "July four".
However, it depends on whether they're reading something aloud, or just talking. If it's just talking, date format depends on speaker and context and rhythm and convention. The fourth day of the seventh month, in the United States, is almost invariably "the fourth of July". The fifth day of the fifth month is generally "cinco de Mayo". Meanwhile, the fourth day of the fifth month is more commonly "May the fourth". And so on, and so forth. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"notehead", "note head"Edit

"Notenkopf" is defined as "note head", but "note head" has no definition. Wikipedia has an article on "notehead", and links to it from "note head"; Wiktionary has a definition for "notehead", but no link to it from "note head".

most significant bit, most significant byteEdit

These are common "terms of art" in programming (in particular the abbreviations MSB and LSB are often seen), but there is some SoP-ness. For example you can find "most significant word", "most significant dword", "most significant nybble". I think we should cover this at significant (or if necessary most significant and least significant, though there are then questions of something being less or more s~), and perhaps redirect the existing headwords. Thoughts? Equinox 22:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think these are totally SOP. And much more general than "programming", as in "least significant digit", "three most significant digits of pi". It's the mathematical concept of "significance", which should be covered by "significant/significance". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

على as it's used as in modern standard & classic arabic and its meaningEdit

first of all, I'm not pretty sure if I should be saying this here so have patience with me, and english is not my first language so if there's any grammatical mistake please forgive me

I wanted to discuss the real meaning of the preposition على. I've just found out that here, the conception we have as "obligation, duty" in arabic it is not fully covered. the page of the verb وَجَبَ (wajaba) it is indeed adressing this meaning to the fullest and explaining how على is also used with this verb.

The point I want to reach is, as a classical and modern standard arabic studen I've found most of the time that what we have in english as "must" or "have to", the verb expressing neccessity of almost any reason, is mostly covered by the preposition itself only. which means that على can work as a "have to" or "must", as it is used عِنْدَ (ʿinda) as "to have" with a personal preposition

The example is عليك أن تدرس كي تنجح "You have to study to be successful". shall I include the meaning "to have to"/"must" in the على page? I've alredy done some edits here but I'm not sure how I can address this to be honest —This unsigned comment was added by Keitwr (talkcontribs).

@Keitwr: I have just added a usage example in this edit. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Bulloches and TullochesEdit

Plurals of Bulloch and Tulloch. I have always thought Tulloch is pronounced "Tullock" but I'm not sure about Bulloch. Has anyone any idea? DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bulloch is pronounced "Bullock". The plural is Bullochs. —Stephen (Talk) 06:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought it might be. Is there any objection to moving Bulloches to Bullochs and Tulloches to Tullochs? DonnanZ (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No objection. —Stephen (Talk) 08:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  Done, but Bulloches and Tulloches are blue-linked as redirects. DonnanZ (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Comment at Talk:Χριστός.-Inowen (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that's relevant. These are surnames. DonnanZ (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
My guess is that Inowen meant to create a new section unrelated to ulloches. —Tamfang (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Abu (ISO:ado) lemmasEdit

The words in category Abu lemmas seem to be wrong. According to another database 'bird' is ʌlimil (not ungaraka) and 'ear' is ɛligʌ (not kur). What is the source for these words? --Metsavend (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They were created by User talk:Mulgadweller, who was still active earlier this year: do you remember where you got these? I would have hypothesized that perhaps that user had a text on a different Abu and simply used the wrong Abu's code, but Blench's work on the other major Abu, jid, has cɛncɛ as the word for "bird" and etɔ̃ for "ear" (and wuru for "fire" and mma for "water"). Trying to see what (if any) other language might have been intended, I see that even a Google search for "ungaraka"+"bird" turns up nothing but mirrors of our entry. - -sche (discuss) 09:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I've RFVed both entries. According to the database you link to, water is "ʌbʌl", woman is "numʌto" and man is "ʌʔlemʌn" (those being entries Wiktionary translates into a great many languages). - -sche (discuss) 04:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Hey. This page is missing Greek script. How can I tag pages like this in the future which need Greek script? --Genecioso (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The simplest method is probably to add a {{rfscript|grc}} tag. You could also do something more complicated like this, where you reformat the etymology to use all the right fancy templates, and set any transliteration and gloss that are provided, and just leave the parameter where the actual Greek script should go completely blank, which causes the template to call for native script on its own. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Got it. {{rfscript|grc}} --Genecioso (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually you don't even need that. Just typing {{m|grc|tr=leucos}} (i.e. leaving |2= blank or omitting, but including a transliteration) while automatically make a request for Greek script. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

le sienEdit

le sien#French has "his" and "hers", but not "its". Shouldn't "its" be there too? Same question for la sienne#French. 18:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Is this a misspelling, or just an alternative spelling? It seems very common on Google Books. DTLHS (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a nonstandard spelling, just like manoeuver is a nonstandard spelling of maneuver. Depending on where you are coming from, you could also say that they are nonstandard spellings of manoeuvre and manoeuvrability, hybrids formed from the standard US and British spellings.  --Lambiam 13:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed quite common, certainly common enough to have an entry. I suppose the etymology can explain that it's a blend or mix-up of the two standards. In fact, given that it's about 1/20th as common as either standard spelling, perhaps it should be labelled a "(nonstandard Alternative spelling of" rather than a "Misspelling of". I see it used both in works that also use British spellings and those that also use American spellings (of other words). - -sche (discuss) 14:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Mathematical meaning of periodEdit

I don't understand the meaning given at period. Please discuss at Talk:period#Mathematical meaning.  --Lambiam 13:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

birthday suitEdit

In searching for the first usage of the idiomatic meaning, I found several uses for "a nice suit worn on your birthday/at your birthday party". I think it's archaic/dated tho. Should {{&lit}} be added? – Julia (talk) • formerly Gormflaith • 02:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, almost all entries for multi-word expressions warrant use of {{&lit}}. I could imagine usage contexts for birthday suit for which most of the senses of suit might apply, as uncommon as many of them might be. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I was enjoying my cake when a lawyer knocked on the door with a birthday suit. Ruined my whole day. Equinox 18:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I added {{&lit}}. And a bunch of citations to support it. BUT! In my searching I found a couple sources ([[20][21]) that said the original meaning was "a suit worn for the king's birthday" which does make sense in context (except in the 1990 one). New sense or is this covered by {{&lit}}? – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 02:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Context determines what birthday is involved (as well as which suit), so I'd argue that only the current sense, which involves something other than any ordinary definition of a suit, is likely to be an includable idiom. DCDuring (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

block and tackleEdit

The current (main) definition: "A system of two or more pulleys (the tackles) each enclosed by a housing (the block) with a rope or cable threaded between them, usually used to lift or pull heavy loads."

I think this is probably inaccurate. According to the Wiktionary article on "tackle" (when paired with "block"), it seems to refer to gear/apparatus associated with the block(s) and not necessarily just to the pulleys or to the pulleys at all. This definition is also misleading or unclear about the number of blocks; are the two or more pulleys in one (or more) blocks? Observing diagrams associated with "block and tackle", the phrase seems to refer to two (and possibly more) blocks, each containing one or more pulleys -- not simply two or more pulleys (possibly in a single block). It could be that the "block" in "block and tackle" historically refers specifically to one of the blocks -- the free one or the stationary one; in that case, tackle could refer to the line/rope/cable/chain and other block. I think "tackle" is unlikely to be referring to the pulleys (which are hidden in the blocks). I think "tackle" might be referring just to the line/chain. (Personally, I'd like to see some translations and excerpts from early texts on "block and tackle" to be confident of its original meaning.)

I prefer this definition from "a hoisting device in which a rope or chain is passed around a pair of blocks containing one or more pulleys. The upper block is secured overhead and the lower block supports the load, the effort being applied to the free end of the rope or chain"

Zeroparallax (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You might find w:Block and tackle informative. From my experience, I cannot imagine how one could possibly incorporate more than two blocks in any useful fashion, while one block alone cannot be used to apply any leverage. Also, a block is basically a chunk of wood with an axle mounted within it (in very primitive versions, just a block of wood with a hole, where the body of the block itself serves as the "axle"; in more performant versions, the axle has a wheel on it). The pulley is essentially the rope passing over this axle. As visible in the diagrams in the Wikipedia article, the rope may pass over the axle multiple times (each time, after going over the axle in the other block). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 15:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  block and tackle on Wikimedia Commons.Wikimedia Commons contains interesting images including one of a four-pulley system which could be implemented with multi-pulley blocks. The same nesting approach could be extended indefinitely, though practicality would intrude in the form of friction and space limitations. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're talking about configurations like in this image? Multiple-pulley setups, sure. But it's still got just the two blocks. I can't think of a practical setup for any configuration with more than two blocks -- unless, for some reason, you're trying to apply pulling force in multiple directions? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Things w:American football players do? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "three-block tackle" is rare but attested, suggesting that it's possible to have more than two blocks. This supply company's page on how to set up tackles has "exploded" diagrams with ropes passing over more than two pulleys that would normally be parallel to each other within the usual two blocks, but which (if anchored to a bar or something) seem like they could theoretically be fixed in separate blocks in their shown/"exploded" placement. Probably the definition should be changed to put "or more" in parentheses, like "two (or rarely more)", if it's only very rarely than there are more than two. - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Confusingly, an image search for "three-block tackle" shows almost exclusively two-block tackle configurations. However, there were a couple images that suggest use-cases for more than two blocks -- where the direction of force must be redirected, or where the load on any one block must be reduced.
Thank you for the leads (and Chuck for the puns).  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This old guy on youtube says that some would consider his four single-pulley "block" system to be a "block and tackle" (and he also says that the "tackle" is the rope): (User: Tanglerwr; Title: Rope and Pulley Systems: Segment 6 - The Block and Tackle - 4:1 and 5:1.pds.m2ts)
I think that DCDuring was referring to this image when mentioning a four-pulley system which could be implemented with multi-pulley blocks.
I myself was considering the situation where one may only have blocks with, say, two pulleys in each, but to create more mechanical advantage, multiple blocks could be placed side-by-side at the anchor and/or at the load.
My concern is that the current definition is very unclear and misleading about the setup, making it sound like there is one block ("the block"), when there are at least two and possibly (maybe rarely or disputably) more, generally with one (set) being anchored and stationary and the other (set) being attached to the load to be moved. And the claim that the pulleys are the "tackles" seems to be incorrect/uncommon and maybe not even grammatically correct (since "tackle" might be uncountable in this usage). "Tackle" seems to often be used to refer to the whole setup (as hoisting gear), and it may be used sometimes to refer to some subset of the gear, maybe even just the line/rope/cable/chain.
Zeroparallax (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
From a Google Books Ngram Viewer search of "block and tackle", I found some quotations from old sources:
The World Book: Organized Knowledge in Story and Picture, Volume 2
January 1, 1918
(page 773)
"BLOCK AND TACKLE, a mechanical appliance consisting of a combination of pulleys and ropes. It is a 'machine', for it is designed to perform work. 'Block' refers to the casing for the pulleys, 'tackle', to the ropes. A single block contains one pulley, a double block, two pulleys, and so on. Each block usually has a hook with which to fasten it to its support or to the object to be moved."
In Fig. 1 a, there really are "ropes" (two ropes). When referring to a setup with a single rope wrapped around four times, the author writes " Fig. 1 c, there are four ropes..." So "ropes" really seems to be referring to "ropes or rope segments", which can *appear* to be more than one rope but are usually just one.
So "tackle" = "rope" according to this source.
Applied Mechanics (an Elementary Manual On)
Andrew Jamieson
January 1, 1898
C. Griffin & Company, Limited
(pages 65-66)
"[A block and tackle] consists of a number of pulleys (or sheaves as they are technically termed)..."
"[The lower block] is called the movable block, whereas the upper or home one is termed the fixed block."
So maybe a better definition of "block and tackle" would be:
an apparatus usually consisting of a rope (or cable or chain) and two blocks, each block being a device that contains one or more pulleys (called sheaves), where one block is anchored (called the fixed block) and one block is attached to the load (called the movable block), and the rope is generally attached to one of the blocks and run (reeved) through the blocks around the pulleys, the other end of the rope being free to be pulled to move or lift the load; this apparatus is used for lifting (hoisting) or moving a load, usually with mechanical advantage; the term "tackle" may refer to the whole device or possibly just the rope (which may naively appear to be more than one rope when wrapped around the pulleys)
Zeroparallax (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
As to the definition above: TLDR. And, in any event, that could not possibly be attested in all of its detail. See block and tackle at OneLook Dictionary Search for definitions typical of and appropriate for a dictionary. The names for specialist (eg, maritime) names for components, specifics of configurations, etc. don't really belong. For many readers, an image (photograph or drawing) is more useful than a long-winded "complete", "precise" definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, DCDuring! I'm satisfied with your edit to the definition. It's now concise and clear and seems to be accurate. Zeroparallax (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Another issue with the current definition that I just thought of: I've seen no evidence that the plural of "block and tackle" is given by "(plural 'block and tackles' or 'blocks and tackles')". I think the phrase "block and tackle" is an uncountable construction (even in its "singular" usage). However, when the word "tackle" is used to refer to the whole setup, many people who are unfamiliar with the uncountable usage of "tackle" (like "gear") may use "tackles" as the plural to refer to multiple block-and-tackle setups. (They may also use "tackles" to refer to the multiple "ropes", that is, the multiple rope segments visible in a block and tackle device.)

Zeroparallax (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

despite that (again), in thatEdit

I've just created an entry for despite that, but I'm not sure it's entirely entry worthy; maybe we should just add a "conjunction" header to despite?

Anyway, I was looking for uses, and I found this in the process: "The problem lies in that Mary is arriving tomorrow". How would you parse that? Would a in that entry be warranted? Per utramque cavernam 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: well... Per utramque cavernam 11:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
AIUI, "that Mary is arriving tomorrow" is a subordinate clause with "that" as complementizer. Compare "the problem is that Mary is arriving tomorrow": this does not justify an entry for "is that". (Or maybe "the problem lies in the fact that Mary..." makes it clearer.) Equinox 13:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

deaf as a nounEdit

I requested verification, User:BigDom has verified it. Please could someone help update the context labels and possibly add a usage note. I have put 'very rare' but perhaps it needs something else, e.g.'deaf community' etc. Also, should 'deaf person' now be deleted and the translations be moved to 'deaf'? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As much as I dislike translation hubs, they serve a purpose: they may preventing use of a term like deaf#Noun as if it were the common term for deaf person. DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It's already marked "very rare" and we could probably add "nonstandard". Of the citations given: the first two have foreign-sounding author names (NNES?). The third one (Chelsea Handler) is a piece of informal conversation in fiction; I did wonder whether the tone-deaf "deafs" was used to convey the fact that the speaker was a tactless or uninformed person (but I looked up the context and it's not clear); the fourth citation I can't see due to Google's copyright blocking. The noun disabled is a similar case (but compare marrieds, insureds). And the euphemism treadmill will always make it difficult to refer to people by their disability (or diffability); the acceptable words change with some rapidity. (Compare the current explosion of gender terms, and the fact that terms like coloured person and blacks are explicitly unacceptable among some groups of speakers and okay among others.) Equinox 18:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added a "nonstandard" tag. Also, I gave each headword-line its own POS header, since that seems like the usua thing we do, and moved the derived terms like "deaf and dumb" under the adjective. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As to the latter part of your comment, it's somewhat amusing how far across-the-board/spectrum the phenomenon goes, like right-wing white people who identify as white nationalists pushing back if called white supremacists (or getting offended if called Nazis when they prefer alt-right, etc). - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Rapprochement is borrowed into English from French. In such a case, is it correct to say that the English word is suffixed with -ment? — SGconlaw (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, as there's no corresponding base verb. Maybe you could write "See re-, approach and -ment."? --Per utramque cavernam 16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, that seems a bit odd because the lemma is a French word in form while approach is an English word. If -ment is not really a suffix in this case, I'll just not add the entry to "Category:English words suffixed with -ment". — SGconlaw (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The word isn't 'reapproachment', though. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This looks like one of those difficult edge cases where an ending corresponds to a suffix, but wasn't added within the language. Pinging @DCDuring, Mahagaja for their thoughts on this based on their participating in discussing Marxism at Category talk:English nouns ending in "-ism". That entry is in Category:English words suffixed with -ism. (Arguably Marxism involved adapting French marxisme to -ism, and so has more claim, and this entry has less claim, to belonging in an "English words suffixed with" cat, though.) - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As regards Marxism, I'd say that has a stronger claim for being suffixed with -ism as we can always say the word, though adapted from French, can be analysed in English as Marx + -ism. However, I think it's quite awkward to say rapprochement can be analysed as re- + approach + -ment. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I accept that many, many words like Marxism, whatever their diachronic etymology, can be analyzed morphologically to give a synchronic derivation. I don't think this is a quite fits the bill.
Viewing rapprochement as a written word, the core morphological element of a synchonic derivation, ie, rapproche doesn't exist in English.
Viewing rapprochement as a spoken word, at least as I have heard it, mostly on talking-heads shows on television, it is not pronounced as anything close to re- + approach + "-ment". I usually hear it pronounced more or less as a French word.
Finally, there is an attestable English word reapproachment. It is probably is a calque used principally by non-native speakers and authors.
I think this case is well on the side of not having a credible synchronic derivation. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

devil's beating his wife, old woman's plucking her gooseEdit

Are there more "weather expressions" like this, which explain weather phenomena as being (caused by) something? I see some suggestions that thunder is sometimes explained as Henry Hudson's crew playing ninepins or Thor driving his chariot, but I haven't found a phrasing that seems citeable the way the two above are. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've heard the phrase "When it rains, it means Gods' crying" before (at least here in the states - I imagine it's highly regional!) --UltravioletAlien (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

turning circleEdit

Can this be called a turning circle (which I do), or something else? There's nothing in the entry covering this. There's more info attached to the image. DonnanZ (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In some places the term cul-de-sac is used to refer specifically to the circle at the end (see [22]). I have also uncovered the term court bowl, the use of which seems to be restricted to government authorities in the state of Victoria. I personally would have used the word "turning circle" to refer to these things, but there seems to be little evidence of that online as far as I can see. This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
In British English a cul-de-sac normally refers to a dead-end street or road, in fact I live in one. It has a small turning circle at the end, too small to turn without reversing, and large vehicles have to back in or out of the street. I was beginning to think this is an odd case until I found more images on Commons labelled "turning circle". It appears to be a favourite term used by DonnanZ (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

make a mistakeEdit

I don't think it's idiomatic. Convert to translation hub? – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 04:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's err on the side of caution and use a single-word synonym... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Very punny. DonnanZ (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not super invested in what happens to it, but I'm gonna RFD it just to get some opinions. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 12:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Did it. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

ugly cry, ugly crying, ugly crierEdit

Is that a thing? Per utramque cavernam 09:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've heard it used a lot. Not idiomatic but the construction is such that it's kind of treated as one word. Which might warrant an entry, idk. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 13:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

English emergency departmentEdit

What regional label should this have? "chiefly Australia, New Zealand"? This is pretty much the only common name for this concept in Australia and New Zealand, and it seems this is not used as frequently elsewhere. Wyang (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking if you need to add a new term under the "synonyms" listing and with a regional notation? If the general term 'Emergency Department' is what is commonly used than I don't think the page warrants any additions or edits. --UltravioletAlien (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to at least sometimes be used in the US, especially in reference for the department of the hospital's administration/staff, though "emergency room" seems to be more common for the physical space in conversation. Perhaps usage notes are the best way to approach this; note that this is the only common term in Australia and NZ, and is also used elsewhere especially in more formal contexts where it would be inaccurate/awkward to talk about a multi-room "emergency room". - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


From the example, and the ones in le Trésor (under II.), it seems like an interjection rather than an adverb.__Gamren (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I went ahead and changed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.__Gamren (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

feel the needEdit

SOP or not? I think not. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Merriam-Webster has it, but it seems transparent to me; one can also feel or have a, some, much or little need to do something. I don't know, I don't see the/a/much need for it. - -sche (discuss) 19:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I can't think of anything to put in I feel the _____ to ... or I didn't feel the _____. that would fit quite as well as need. Everything I'm trying out sounds better with an indefinite article. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Felt a need to is about one fifth as common as felt the need to on Google Ngram. MWOnline includes as first usex: "I felt a need to take control of the situation." That suggests that the sole OneLook dictionary that has the term doesn't view the as essential.
It certainly isn't a set phrase, strictly speaking:
Some synonyms, antonyms, and coordinate terms substitute for components:
urge, impulse, yen, yearning, lust, temptation, responsibility, pressure for need.
this or that substitute for the.
Have, see, understand, etc for feel.
Adjectives can be inserted before need.
Semantically, to me, using the (or that or this) implies that the following noun refers to something universal or recurring.
It seems like a transparent common collocation to me. DCDuring (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I took a look at the Ngram and it's only eight times more common than "feel the pressure" and twice as common as "see the need". And "the need for..." is very common. So yeah probably SOP; I didn't think about it enough before. As long as there's a sense at feel. Which to be honest I've been looking at them for a while and I still somehow don't know – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 12:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


I cannot imagine how one would find out that the word refers to a monotheistic god explicitly without being used as a title for any god just being used in a monotheistic context. I also heard this used several times in Shinto contexts, which is far from monotheistic. Can anyone confirm that there is a specific monotheistic meaning to this word? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears that some version of this sense has been in the entry since it was created in 2003. That's a long time to be mistaken.
JA-JA sources don't mention monotheism; those all describe this as an honorific of (kami, god, deity). JA-JA sources for (kami) alone, without the suffix, include a "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" sense, but generally further down the list -- the KDJ has it as sense 5, Daijirin and Daijisen have it as an example of the initial god, deity sense after describing Shinto and folk beliefs in Japan.
I'll have a go at the 神様 entry later. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, a reminder. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, striking. (Thanks for the ping, Μετάknowledge!  :) ) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


I've had a go at defining this, but the definitions could probably still use some work. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Italian - stormoEdit

On page for stormo - it said verification was needed for military sense of word.

Today I read in Corrierre a sentence with military sense:

"Conte ha viaggiato con un aereo da tempo in dotazione al 31° Stormo dell’Aeronautica Militare."

Pronunciation of armadilloEdit

The entry for armadillo currently has English pronunciations that match more or less what I'm familiar with. However, the Disney short "Pluto and the Armadillo" offers pronunciations ending in -ɪjoʊ and -ɪʒoʊ; listen to a copy on Youtube (37 seconds in). Are these still in current use, and were they ever? And do we include obsolete pronunciations?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We have included obsolete pronunciations before, both of still-current words (I recall having seen some early-1900s New York pronunciations in entries, although I can't find any now)* and of obsolete words (e.g. accoil, prodition), and I think that is useful. Especially for English, we should probably find more than one (independent) example of an old pronunciation, or find it in an old reference work, to be sure it's not just a one-off pronunciation in one work. - -sche (discuss) 02:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
*Update: still can't find the New York pronuns, but a search for insource:"a obsolete" turns up (various misuses of {{a}}, and) an obsolete US pronunciation of salmon and weird old pronunciations of sure. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
We could also try to find it used in rhyming poetry. DTLHS (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Armadillo rhymes with "pillow", 1877. DTLHS (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's dialogue from another movie from around the same time period pronouncing "armadillo" in the usual way. DTLHS (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Beeton's 1861 Dictionary and the 1897 Century Dictionary also have it pronounced as it is today. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that this is being treated as a Spanish word, and the variation between -ɪjoʊ and -ɪʒoʊ is an attempt to represent the most common variants in Latin American Spanish. I'm guessing that either the script writer or the narrator had never heard of this as an English word, so they checked sources for Spanish. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur, seems consciously Spanish by the context. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
    Except that since it's Brazil, it should be consciously Portuguese by context. I'm not sure if the narrators cared about the distinction, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

reniform in definition???Edit

Chromadorida has as definition: "reniform aquatic nematodes"

Why in the name of all that is politically correct would we use reniform instead of kidney-shaped in a definition?

Do we need to have a defining-vocabulary list and do dump runs that find instances of words in definitions that are not in that list? The problem is not limited to Translingual terms. I notice it in vernacular names, FL entries, etc. I am not saying that such terms should never be used in definitions (though reniform doesn't seem at all necessary), but that there should be a prejudice against using them. I don't think that a definition of reniform that is a wikilink away is an adequate substitute for a more straightforward definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like obfuscation either but I think I prefer "reniform" here. The taxonomical terms are somewhat technical by nature (nobody ever says in everyday conversation "a Canis bit me") and I gather there are more or less standard technical terms for the types of shape that one tends to encounter in botany and zoology. Objecting to "reniform" in a zoological definition feels to me rather like objecting to "deciduous" in a botanical definition. Equinox 01:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like sprinkling French in one's conversation to give it a certain j'e ne sais quoi je ne sais quoi and show off one's vocabulary. Technical descriptive terms are fine when they have precise definitions which allow a more accurate description, but in this case, reniform just means "kidney-shaped" (one book described it as "bean-shaped").
I can't find any references to Chromadorida being reniform, only to their having structures called amphids which are reniform. As for there being a larger taxon called "reniform nematodes", I can't find that either. There's a common agricultural pest called the reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis, but it's a single species and it's only very distantly related to the Chromadorida. Of course, I could be wrong: I've never studied nematology. I suspect, though, that @SemperBlotto knows even less about nematodes than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
And what's more annoying than snob-French with an inappropriate apostrophe? —Tamfang (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't all real dictionaries simplify? Longman's, for example, has IIRC a 10,000-word defining vocabulary for a 50,000 word dictionary.
I take it that you think that we have or will have or should have a scholarly readership here. I seriously doubt that we do or will and don't think we should aim for them. I believe technical words in a dictionary are for people who may be reading scholarly or technical material who are not yet experts in the field and probably will never become experts. DCDuring (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Reniform seems to be a reasonable word to use here. Technical words need technical definitions. There is always the "Simple English Wiktionary" for people who struggle with the language. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Or, if the word is the correct technical term but seems a bit obscure, add an explanation in parentheses: "reniform (kidney-shaped)". — SGconlaw (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
We already wikify words in definitions - the definition of that word is just one click away. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That is dismissive of the problem of the limited cognitive capabilities of many of us near-normal humans. One click is often one click too many. If your main concern is figuring out just what a Chromadorida might be so you can get about the business of understanding more of the basics of nematode taxonomy, any diversion to yet another page reduces the likelihood or your reaching your object. Many will simply not proceed farther down the rabbit hole and hope that not knowing what makes a nematode reniform doesn't have significant consequences. DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I like Sgconlaw's idea of "reniform (kidney-shaped)". - -sche (discuss) 15:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't that open a rabbit hole of editors being forced to make random guesses at what's too fancy a word for readers? I would personally prefer that my dictionary of choice not clutter the explanation of what I want to look up with additional text detailing information already in the page in the form of words I may or may not understand. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a decent compromise with people who think "sure, this word is too fancy for ordinary readers to understand, but I don't care". (Sorry, that was brusque.) - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


Are the senses "happy, joyful, and lively" and "festive, bright, or colourful" dated, or archaic? Please chime in on Talk:gay#Archaic?. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say they were just dated. Watching old movies from the 50's and 60's you'll usually hear all the meanings above used for gay Leasnam (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


We have a sense "the works of an author or authors", as in "Have you read any Corinthian authors?". This seems to be some kind of metonymy or synecdoche: you could also say "have you read Dickens?" (meaning the books, not the man), or "did you buy Nike?" (the stocks/shares, not the entire company). So does it deserve its separate sense? Equinox 14:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a separate sense, for the reason you note, that one can substitute "Dickens" (or "him", or "writers", "poets", etc) into the sentence. At read it's currently handled as a usage note: it doesn't seem like a separate of that word, either, since (as you also note) other verbs function this way, too. "I couldn't find any Martina Schradi at the book shop, all they had was Stiefvater; I asked if they'd bought any Franck, which they hadn't... they hadn't bought any other female authors (/writers/poets) at all." or "In a fit of rage, I threw out all my Artistotle (/Joyce/Le Guin)." - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a separate sense. It's metonymy (using the author's name to refer to his work) or, less likely, ellipsis (omitting 's work(s) or ' work(s) as in any Corinthian authors' work). That there are also other metonymies, would only mean that names like Dickens have another sense too. Berlin gives its metonymic sense.
Though in case of proper nouns, the metonomic sense might better only be mentioned once somewhere else (like in author or proper noun, Hauptstadt or Eigenname)
BTW: Is the second sense of Dickens ("Charles Dickens, English novelist.") CFI-compliant? The best I found at WT:CFI was "No individual person should be listed as a sense" which is restricted by "whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic" (applies only to two-parts names, thus not to Dickens, Obama, Trump). - 01:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Add new Russian word to WiktionaryEdit

In this article Tashkent City: is 'progress' worth the price being paid in Uzbekistan? the word kelinka [Russian > "young bride"] is mentioned. It is not in Wiktionary. I would like to do it myself, but perhaps there is somebody with more knowledge of the term and its etymology (like a native Russsian-language-speaker) who could do it better. Hotspur23 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

келинка (kelinka) is not a regular Russian word. I think it might be used in Uzbekistan, where it was probably borrowed from Uzbek kelin (bride). —Stephen (Talk) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This (not authoritative) source (in Russian) sheds some light on the issue: Кто такая келинка?. Translated quote:
Who is this Kelinka? — The word "kilen" [sic] in Turkic languages means a bride. Kelinka, in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, is the name given to brides who are married to the youngest son in the family. It means, roughly speaking, the younger daughter-in-law. However, these days the word applies to all wives in general. This word today carries a negative connotation. It is believed that the kelins have no rights, but are totally subordinate to their husbands and their family. However, many girls do not agree with this definition, and they want to revive this tradition.
The need to explain the word to the Russian readers confirms that it is not a regular Russian word.  --Lambiam 04:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hotspur23, Stephen G. Brown, Lambiam: I have created the entry кели́нка (kelínka) but it may not pass our CFI and survive an RFV process. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


In the entry bounden I moved the c. 1596, 1626 and 1963 quotations under the verb sense, but I'd like some feedback on whether this is correct. Thanks. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
@Sgconlaw, IMO since it's either an adjective or a past-tense verb form, but not an infinitive/lemma form, I don't think it should be under its own verb subsense: it should either be under "past participle of bind" and bind should have a relevant sense (and apparently does: "to put under definite legal obligations, especially, under the obligation of a bond or covenant", so "I am bounden unto you" = "I am much put under obligations to you"), or it should be under the adjective. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
As for which one of the adjective or verb those quotations should be under: they look verbal, although if there were any dispute we could check if there are any clearly adjectival examples ("he became more bounden than her" or something) or clearly verbal examples (i.e. other tenses of bind used with this sense). If there were verbal examples (I suspect there are...) but no adjectival ones, it must be verbal; if there are adjectival examples but no clearly verbal examples, it would suggest it would have to be adjectival. If there are both adjectival and verbal examples of the sense, then those particular quotations look more verbal to me but YMMV. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

An NamEdit

A lot of weird stuff going on here. How are these really two separate etymologies? And why is one seemingly innocuous geographical sense labelled as both "offensive" and "pejorative"? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it'd be most ideal to find Vietnamese sources attesting to the offensiveness, but poking around Google Books does turn up some English-language references to it, at least: Thomas Hodgkin, Vietnam: the revolutionary path (1981), page 100: "the Chinese clung to the offensive T'ang word 'An nam' although communications they addressed to the Vietnamese bearing this name were promptly returned on the direct orders of the emperor"; Bruce M. Lockhart, William J. Duiker, The A to Z of Vietnam (2010, →ISBN), page 24: "The term [An Nam], meaning “pacified South” in Chinese, was offensive to patriotic Vietnamese and was dropped after independence". The split etymology is also present in Annam, btw. It's apparently an effort to convey that the Chinese used the term for one area, and the Vietnamese dropped it, but the French picked it back up for a somewhat different area. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mxn, do you think there should be two etymology sections for the two different senses/regions or should they be combined into one etymology section (that might say, for example, that the term was originally used by the Chinese to name one area, and then applied by the French to a somewhat different area)? I have no opinion on the matter. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

gundeck, gun deckEdit

I laughed for a minute or two. We should probably pick one of the two and actually add a proper definition there instead of this. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

to trailblazeEdit

I think it has other senses, and I don't think the quote is illustrative of the current meaning. Plus it's used transitively. Could a native speaker clean it up? Per utramque cavernam 20:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of بلجيكا in ArabicEdit

Moved from User_talk:عربي-٣١#بلجيكا and Talk:بلجيكا


I saw your two reverts with explanations and I was planning but never got around to address this issue.

I have a few questions, if you don't mind regarding your view:

  1. Do you support our language policy in WT:AAR, especially regarding transliteration of foreign words? I know you didn't take part in making the policy but this is what we've got.
  2. Do you support references, such as Hans Wehr. If you search for "بلجيكا" in [23] or open your copy of the printed Hans Wehr dictionary, you will find "beljīkā". So, it means, at least by some Arabic standard it should be pronounced that way.
  3. Yes, I know there is no phoneme /e/ in Classical Arabic but this is a loanword, it wasn't in the Qur'an. So, do you pronounce جُون لِينُون (jon lenon, John Lennon) as "jon lenon" or "jūn līnūn"? Are you saying that the phoneme /e/ is absolutely absent in MSA?

Please feel free to raise it with Arabic language editors. Pls note, I'm not seeking any conflict. I welcome your contributions and help! I just need to find out why my referenced entry was reverted.

BTW, if you wish to add another regular reading/transliteration, you don't need to use "tr=", you can simply use Arabic diacritics in the header or the pronunciation sections - بِلْجِيكَا (biljīkā), بَلْجِيكَا (baljīkā) (we do you harakat on loanwords as well!).

Notifiying (Notifying Benwing2, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, Kolmiel, ZxxZxxZ, Stephen G. Brown, عربي-٣١): : pls let me know if you disagree. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Should such a discussion be on the word's page? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is [belˈʒiːkæ] in Egyptian Arabic and in Literary Arabic as pronounced by Egyptians. The claims about [e] as not more than an allophone is wrong.

Speaking about Egyptian Arabic, there is an initial/medial high front short vowel that varies between [e] and [ɪ] in native words. In loanwords, [e] would be the preferred one if the loanword had it.

The pronunciation that has the first vowel open [bælˈʒiːkæ] is unknown to me, but I imagine it might be in the Arabian Peninsula.

Also speaking of loanwords and actual pronunciations, no one really elongates vowels that are at the end of final syllables. So, [bɪl.d͡ʒiː.kaː ~ bel.d͡ʒiː.kaː] is wrong.

Now, why [ʒ] and not [d͡ʒ]? It's because the name entered through the French name, "Belgique" [bɛlʒik], but Arabic speakers don't distinguish both, they either pronounce [ʒ] or [d͡ʒ].

Speakers who have no [æ] (and no [e]), usually hear [ɛ] as [æ], therefore approximating it to [a], not to [e].

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeating the ping for people in the Arabic notification group:

Notifiying (Notifying Benwing2, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, Kolmiel, ZxxZxxZ, Stephen G. Brown, عربي-٣١): . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri: We can incorporate all possible pronunciations by region, just by adding an {{i|Egypt}} or similar.
[ʒ] vs [d͡ʒ] is very typical variant. So, if we default it to the phonemic [d͡ʒ], [ʒ] can be assumed as a more colloquial realisation. Shortening of the final alif would be important for the phonetic transcription.
  1. IPA(key): /bel.d͡ʒiː.kaː/: The transliteration "beljīkā" is according to Hans Wehr. Phonetically, the final /aː/ can be shortened and realised as [æ] or [a], same story for /d͡ʒ/ as [ʒ]. Otherwise we can use a simple "a" (with no macrons) in the transliteration (tr=) or a fatḥa in the Arabic script.
  2. IPA(key): /bil.d͡ʒiː.kaː/, IPA(key): /bil.d͡ʒiː.ka/: This is what user عربي-٣١ has suggested (one variant), no "tr=" is necessary here, using native means
  3. IPA(key): /bel.ʒiː.ka/ (Egypt, Levante): This may work as a compromise for some regional or more colloquial pronunciations. Note that "ž" will produce /ʒ/.
  4. I encourage you to start using {{ar-IPA}} either with "tr=" or with native Arabic means. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Why multiply our time and effort because one user misunderstands the phonemic vs phonetic notations?
I've said over and over in Wiktionary discussions that it is impractical to state each and every regional realization, because some might not be known to (all of) us and it's a lot of work, when we could simply write the phonemic transcription and leave the actual realization for the readers. This would also save us questioning the pronunciations, since there is a scarce of pronunciation documentation and the ones that are there poorly represent true pronunciation and nearly always generalize ungeneralizable pronunciations, that includes Hans Wehr and Janet C. E. Watson. They basically treat Arabic phonology (and often the literary language) as completely uniform, from the Atlantic coast all the way to the Persian Gulf. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri: I only suggested to add regionalisms because you insisted on [ʒ]. That's not the most standard realisation of "ج", anyway, regardless of etymology.
I actually don't want to waste time and efforts, if you imply that I do and suggest to use one source for transliterations - Hans Wehr dictionary, which has transliterated a vast majority of Arabic words. Everybody knows how "ج" is realised regionally and a phonemic final "ā" is shortened to "a". In short a transliteration "beljīkā" and /bel.d͡ʒiː.kaː/ gives sufficient information for an Arabic learner about how to pronounce it exactly, based on the knowledge of specific Arabic phonology and rules.
If there was enough interest, we could fine-tune the module to allow for a more phonetic pronunciation, with [æ], [ɑ] and [æ], a more accurate presentation of the length of vowels but we have to make a group decision. I think when coming up with Wiktionary:About Arabic you finally agreed that we transliterated the final shortened alif as "ā". We could use a short "a" if you insist and get /bel.d͡ʒiː.ka/. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's a phonemic transliteration, then it is unnecessary to specify whether the final open vowel is long or short, as long as it aims to transliterate alef, then it is OK to leave it with the length mark. In the Persian Gulf, the final vowel would be short [ɐ]. This has to do with the phonology there. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
That's my point too. Adding phonetic transliteration to each Arabic term would be a huge task and we don't have enough active interested and knowledgeable editors for that. The transliteration is available and the phonemic IPA is still very helpful. What can be slightly automated is distinguishing vowels around emphatic vs normal consonants and the length of vowels. The module is basic but it does the job for now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mahmudmasri, @Atitarev: Yes I can guarantee for the vast majority of Arabic speakers there is no difference between /i/ and /e/ in Arabic, there is not a single minimal pair in most Arabic dialects or MSA between /e/ and /i/, it's just one phoneme with vast array of different pronunciations, you can see it in the way Arabs write names and words mixing up E with I and O with U, for example Ettihad vs. Ittihad or Umar vs. Omar, which I guess gives the impression to foreigners that those are two totally different phonemes.

I guess Hans Wehr was listening to the words based on his own native language or he was listening to Arabs who were pronouncing the words with a foreign tongue (the way Lebanese people pronounce French words in a with French phonetics in the middle of speaking Lebanese), there is no difference if you mix up the allophones [e] and [i] which is never an issue, except if you were trying to tell the difference between foreign words like "six" and "sex" when speaking English.

Modern Standard Arabic should have one phonemic representation, since each Arabic dialect have their own phonetic way when speaking MSA and we just can't put all of those representations in every MSA word.

and for; جُون لِينُون (jon lenon, John Lennon) I pronounce it phonemically (in my head) and in writing as جُون لِنِن (jōn linin, John Lennon) /d͡ʒoːn linin/ and phonetically (with my mouth) as [d͡ʒo̞ːn lɪnɪn] or [d͡ʒo̞ːn le̞nɪn], since long /eː/ and /oː/ are phonemic in most/many Arabic dialects and they sound so different from long /iː/ and /uː/ and many minimal pairs occur in most dialects.--عربي-٣١ (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

vantage pointEdit

The entry for vantage point currently has this example:

It may be difficult for us to understand the motivations of these people from our 21st century vantage point.

The example is found under the second sense:

2. A point in time.

The problem is that the word 'vantage point' does not mean 'point in time'. Not in this sentence nor in any other. It means 'point of view' or 'perspective'.

If you had that sentence and nothing more as a reference, you could concoct a theory that the phrase could mean 'a point in time', and I would surmise that that is exactly what the original submitter did. But the reasoning that lead to that definition is faulty.

This sense should be removed, since it is incorrect, and the example moved to the correct sense.

Thank you for your time. I would fix this entry myself but some kind of higher power seems to be preventing me. -- 13:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

za rządówEdit

This apparently existing phrase uses za + genitive. We do not list a usage of za with a genitive. Are we missing something or is this some special case phrase? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian inflection table templatesEdit

In many of the Wiktionary entries for Estonian I find “(genitive [please provide], partitive [please provide]) and “This adjective, noun, numeral etc needs an inflection-table template”. These are obviously requests that people have made for the stated forms but for some strange reason nobody ever provides them. I have provided the requested forms but my contributions have been ignored. What is the point of requesting something and ignoring it when it is provided? Here are the forms for teine (second, other, another) and a few other Estonian nouns. Will someone please enter them in Wiktionary instead of ignoring them? Genitive singular: teise Partitive singular: teist Remaining forms:- Illative singular: teisesse, teise Inessive singular: teises Elative singular: teisest Allative singular: teisele Adessive singular: teisel Ablative singular: teiselt Translative singular: teiseks Terminative singular: teiseni Essive singular: teisena Abessive singular: teiseta Comitative singular: teisega Nominative plural: teised Genitive plural: teiste Partitive plural: teisi Illative plural: teistesse Inessive plural: teistes Elative plural: teistest Allative plural: teistele Adessive plural: teistel Ablative plural: teistelt Translative plural: teisteks Terminative plural: teisteni Essive plural: teistena Abessive plural: teisteta Comitative plural: teistega

kapp (cupboard, wardrobe) Genitive singular: kapi Partitive singular: kappi Remaining forms:- Illative singular: kapisse, kappi Inessive singular: kapis Elative singular: kapist Allative singular: kapile Adessive singular: kapil Ablative singular: kapilt Translative singular: kapiks Terminative singular: kapini Essive singular: kapina Abessive singular: kapita Comitative singular: kapiga Nominative plural: kapid Genitive plural: kappide Partitive plural: kappe, kappisid Illative plural: kappidesse Inessive plural: kappides Elative plural: kappidest Allative plural: kappidele Adessive plural: kappidel Ablative plural: kappidelt Translative plural: kappideks Terminative plural: kappideni Essive plural: kappidena Abessive plural: kappideta Comitative plural: kappidega

kael (neck) Genitive singular: kaela Partitive singular: kaela Remaining forms:- Illative singular: kaelasse, kaela Inessive singular: kaelas Elative singular: kaelast Allative singular: kaelale Adessive singular: kaelal Ablative singular: kaelalt Translative singular: kaelaks Terminative singular: kaelani Essive singular: kaelana Abessive singular: kaelata Comitative singular: kaelaga Nominative plural: kaelad Genitive plural: kaelade, kaelte Partitive plural: kaelu Illative plural: kaeladesse Inessive plural: kaelades Elative plural: kaeladest Allative plural: kaeladele Adessive plural: kaeladel Ablative plural: kaeladelt Translative plural: kaeladeks Terminative plural: kaeladeni Essive plural: kaeladena Abessive plural: kaeladeta Comitative plural: kaeladega

Does nael (nail, pound) follow the same pattern as kael? Please check whether naelte occurs as one of the forms of the genitive plural or whether there is only the one form, naelade. nael (nail, pound) Genitive singular: naela Partitive singular: naela Remaining forms:- Illative singular: naelasse, naela Inessive singular: naelas Elative singular: naelast Allative singular: naelale Adessive singular: naelal Ablative singular: naelalt Translative singular: naelaks Terminative singular: naelani Essive singular: naelana Abessive singular: naelata Comitative singular: naelaga Nominative plural: naelad Genitive plural: naelade, naelte Partitive plural: naelu Illative plural: naeladesse Inessive plural: naelades Elative plural: naeladest Allative plural: naeladele Adessive plural: naeladel Ablative plural: naeladelt Translative plural: naeladeks Terminative plural: naeladeni Essive plural: naeladena Abessive plural: naeladeta Comitative plural: naeladega

kuld (gold) Genitive singular: kulla Partitive singular: kulda Remaining forms:- Illative singular: kullasse, kulda Inessive singular: kullas Elative singular: kullast Allative singular: kullale Adessive singular: kullal Ablative singular: kullalt Translative singular: kullaks Terminative singular: kullani Essive singular: kullana Abessive singular: kullata Comitative singular: kullaga

One would have thought that this is a mass noun and as such has only singular forms. However, apparently plural forms occur. If desired, they are as follows: Nominative plural: kullad Genitive plural: kuldade Partitive plural: kuldasid, kuldi Illative plural: kuldadesse Inessive plural: kuldades Elative plural: kuldadest Allative plural: kuldadele Adessive plural: kuldadel Ablative plural: kuldadelt Translative plural: kuldadeks Terminative plural: kuldadeni Essive plural: kuldadena Abessive plural: kuldadeta Comitative plural: kuldadega

—This unsigned comment was added by Johnling60 (talkcontribs).

American EmpireEdit

Meaning the USA. Can we gloss this appropriately? It's not an everyday synonym you would encounter in airports, maps, etc. Is it poetic, derogatory, historical? Equinox 19:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems sum of parts, could be replaced with {{&lit}}. DTLHS (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation of quotations with 栽Edit

The quotations of the Chinese character 栽 didn't have English translations so I tried to come up with some.

I'm posting this because I'd like other people to verify this first, plus I'm having trouble figuring out how to edit it into the page.


"He raised a mound at the distance of a li, 10 cubits thick, and twice as many in height" (from James Legge's translation of Zuozhuan)

Also on the page this phrase is marked as Modern Standard Chinese, but this is actually Classical Chinese.


"In the mountains there are a lot of planted trees, it is equal to managing the water reservoirs. If there's much rain it can take in, if there's little rain it can dispense." (own translation, couldn't find an official translation online)

Riki115 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wyang, Justinrleung. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Riki115 Thank you. The first part of the second sentence would be better translated as "Planting more trees on mountains is akin to building reservoirs". I've added these to the entry. Wyang (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian verb conjugationEdit

keetma (to boil, to cook) - transitive

Presumably the conjugation of this verb will follow that of saatma (to accompany, to escort, to send), therefore the forms are as follows:

Present indicative active:
		1st person: keedan
		2nd person: keedad
		3rd person: keedab
		1st person: keedame
		2nd person: keedate
		3rd person: keedavad
	Negative: ei keeda
	Passive positive: keedetakse
	Passive negative: ei keedeta
Past indicative active:
		1st person: keetsin
		2nd person: keetsid
		3rd person: keetis
		1st person: keetsime
		2nd person: keetsite
		3rd person: keetsid
	Negative: ei keetnud
	Passive positive: keedeti
	Passive negative: ei keedetud
Perfect indicative active:
		1st person: olen keetnud
		2nd person: oled keetnud
		3rd person: on keetnud
		1st person: oleme keetnud
		2nd person: olete keetnud
		3rd person: on keetnud
	Negative: ei ole keetnud, pole keetnud
	Passive positive: on keedetud
	Passive negative: ei ole keedetud, pole keedetud
Pluperfect indicative:
		1st person: olin keetnud
		2nd person: olid keetnud
		3rd person: oli keetnud
		1st person: olime keetnud
		2nd person: olite keetnud
		3rd person: olid keetnud
	Negative: ei olnud keetnud, polnud keetnud
	Passive positive: oli keedetud 
	Passive negative: ei olnud keedetud, polnud keedetud
Conditional present active:
		1st person: keedaksin
		2nd person: keedaksid
		3rd person: keedaks
		1st person: keedaksime
		2nd person: keedaksite
		3rd person: keedaksid
	Negative: ei keedaks
	Passive positive: keedetaks
	Passive negative: ei keedetaks
Conditional perfect active:
		1st person: oleksin keetnud
		2nd person: oleksid keetnud
		3rd person: oleks keetnud
		1st person: oleksime keetnud
		2nd person: oleksite keetnud
		3rd person: oleksid keetnud
	Negative: ei oleks saatnud, poleks keetnud
	Passive positive: oleks keedetud
	Passive negative: ei oleks keedetud, poleks keedetud
Imperative present positive:
		2nd person: keeda
		3rd person: keetku
		1st person: keetkem
		2nd person: keetke
		3rd person: keetku
	Passive: keedetagu
Imperative present negative:
		2nd person: ära keeda
		3rd person: ärgu keetku
		1st person: ärgem keetkem
		2nd person: ärge keetke
		3rd person: ärgu keetku
	Passive: ärgu keedetagu
Imperative perfect positive:
		3rd person: olgu keetnud
		3rd person: olgu keetnud
	Passive: olgu keedetud
Imperative perfect negative:
		3rd person: ärgu olgu keetnud
		3rd person: ärgu olgu keetnud
	Passive: ärgu olgu keedetud
Quotative present:
	Active positive: keetvat
	Passive positive: keedetavat
	Active negative: ei keetvat
	Passive negative: ei keedetavat
Quotative perfect:
	Active positive: olevat keetnud
	Passive positive: olevat keedetud
	Active negative: ei olevat keetnud, polevat keetnud
	Passive negative: ei olevat keedetud, polevat keedetud
Nominal forms:
	ma-infinitive active:
		Nominative: keetma
		Inessive: keetmas
		Elative: keetmast
		Translative: keetmaks
		Abessive: keetmata
	ma-infinitive passive: keedetama
		da-form: keeta
		des-form: keetes
	Present active: keetev
	Present passive: keedetav
	Past active: keetnud
	Past passive: keedetud

Please check that all the above forms are correct then create an inflection table template with the complete conjugation of this verb. Johnling60 (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rua. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian noun declensionEdit

külmkapp (refrigerator) Genitive singular: külmkapi Partitive singular: külmkappi Remaining forms:- Illative singular: külmkapisse, külmkappi Inessive singular: külmkapis Elative singular: külmkapist Allative singular: külmkapile Adessive singular: külmkapil Ablative singular: külmkapilt Translative singular: külmkapiks Terminative singular: külmkapini Essive singular: külmkapina Abessive singular: külmkapita Comitative singular: külmkapiga Nominative plural: külmkapid Genitive plural: külmkappide Partitive plural: külmkappe, külmkappisid Illative plural: külmkappidesse Inessive plural: külmkappides Elative plural: külmkappidest Allative plural: külmkappidele Adessive plural: külmkappidel Ablative plural: külmkappidelt Translative plural: külmkappideks Terminative plural: külmkappideni Essive plural: külmkappidena Abessive plural: külmkappideta Comitative plural: külmkappidega Johnling60 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian noun declension - kaelEdit

Please create an inflection table template for kael (neck) and complete with the declension already given. Johnling60 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


Does the definition "of or pertaining to homosexuality" really make sense? Also, most of the translations are simply "homoerotic". Ultimateria (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the definition should probably be changed to something more like "Homoerotic; homosexual, gay." And the translations that are just of homoerotic should be moved there. I'll deploy {{trans-top-also}}. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

fill in the blankEdit

The page fill in the blank has experienced recent, persistent vandalism. I am somewhat new to editing Wiktionary, but on Wikipedia there are methods for protecting pages that are getting excessive vandalism. What is the protocol for doing that here? Thanks Nemoanon (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If a page is considered by admin to need protection it can be protected, but this is usually limited to edits by anons, and doesn't normally affect registered users. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
There have been 4 reverted edits since May 2017. This doesn't seem too bad, though I can't speak for the patrolers. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I've watchlisted the page. If there is further vandalism I'd be willing to protect it for, say, three months against new/unregistered users (since the only edits to the page by such users in recent years have been vandalism, or in one case reversion of vandalism). - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

bioboy, biogirl and mention of chromosomesEdit

Defined as "somebody who was born with a penis and testicles and assumed to have one Y chromosome"; "somebody who was born with a vulva and assumed to have two X chromosomes". The grammar puts the whole thing in the past, suggesting that the assumption re chromosomes was made at birth. Is that correct, or is it trying to say that they were born with such-and-such parts but are now assumed by general observers to have such-and-such chromosomes? If the latter, def needs revising. Equinox 19:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

One should not expect these informal neologisms to have sharply delineated meanings. My understanding is that, as used, it is meant to identify the sex that the speaker supposes or assumes was the one assigned at birth. There ought to be no presumption that the utterer of these terms is even cognizant of the relationship between sex-determining chromosomes and the outward appearance of human genitalia.  --Lambiam 08:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Our "job" is to explain the meaning of words, though, so if a word has no fixed meaning (which is really something of a first for the language!) then we need to indicate that fact clearly. Of course having no fixed meaning is different from having a fixed meaning that a negligible minority of speakers aren't getting right. Equinox 08:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If one accepts that the meaning of a word is the meaning intended by speakers as they use the word, then the meaning of all words is somewhat fuzzy. Like when someone says, "Trump is a fascist" – what do they mean, precisely? The degree of fuzziness changes, of course, but it's hardly a first for the meaning of a word to vary somewhat according to the speaker (or even their mood); one would expect that to be true in general for informally introduced neologisms.  --Lambiam 09:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
If one accepts that the meaning of a word is the meaning intended by speakers as they use the word then there is absolutely no need for a dictionary, and no way that people can understand each other. Lewis Carroll famously satirised that attitude in his book about Alice in Wonderland: [24]. Equinox 09:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is conceivable (evidently, because I can conceive of the possibility) that someone, being told, Oh please! Stop behaving in such a pusillanimous manner!, would be quite unsure of what the speaker meant with the term pusillanimous, one they are not familiar with – perhaps this is their very first encounter. In such a case, a dictionary may come handy. Still, did the speaker imply "ignoble cowardice", and are they indignant? Or did it express a mere slight annoyance, expressed in a mildly exaggerated way?
That just seems like a division between Grice's "sentence meaning" and "speaker meaning". The exact same question arises if you don't use any fancy words, and just say something like "stop behaving like a jerk!". I think you are mixing up pragmatics (which will never be part of a dictionary definition) with semantics. Equinox 02:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The oldest occurrence of bioboy I could find is in a Savage Love column from June 12, 1997. It contains a definition (which I think may be considered somewhat offensive now): "Bioboys: Boys born boys, as opposed to girls made boys."  --Lambiam 09:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
What is and isn't offensive changes over time, and we should endeavour not to colour our definitions based on current popular fads. We must define things in terms of what a word means and that alone, whether it is offensive or not. (Otherwise we would have to delete words like nigger, which are in fact words and which a reader might well require a definition for.) If for example the meaning of "woman" is changing from "a person with such-and-such genetic code" to "any person who says 'I am a woman'", fine, we need to reflect usage and we will do so, but we also need to keep previous/historical definitions in order to explain texts from earlier periods (they may be marked dated, archaic etc.). Certainly if you think that we shouldn't define bioboy the way it was used in 1997 because that is offending someone, you are missing the point of a dictionary: someone might be reading a 1997 text and want to know what the word meant then. Equinox 09:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The assumed offensiveness is in the words "girl made boy", in which I take "made" to refer to sexual reassignment surgery. As used here, this would seem to identify gender identity with gender appearance and deny the possibility of a pre-existing gender identity different from the sex assigned at birth. If definitions found elsewhere use needlessly offensive language, it is not part of our mission to copy that.  --Lambiam 10:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Our concern is not to copy definitions, but to record understood meaning. We have lots of historical meanings that have been, are now, or will be considered offensive. We try to use {{label}} to document the offensiveness, but the nature and temporal and demographic extent of the offensiveness is very hard to track, especially in the current cultural climate. DCDuring (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Now suppose that you find a definition of the term homie in this (made-up) quotation: "He said he thought I was his "homie", a word that these stupid niggers use to mean a friend." I assume that you will agree this is offensive. But note that the offensiveness is not in the meaning of the word homie, but in the gratuitously odious way in which it is expressed. The example is somewhat extreme in order to illustrate my point clearly. Above, Savage's particular choice of words in the flippant phrase "girls made boys" is needlessly offensive. Again, it is not the meaning that is offensive, but the description. Maybe this is not just coincidental, or the result of increased sensitivity surrounding trans issues. In the Wikipedia article on Dan Savage you can read: "Savage has repeatedly been the focus of controversy for his use of slurs regarding the transgender community".  --Lambiam 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
As I see it used, the meaning is a boy who's not trans (as written it excludes intersex boys, but most speakers probably aren't thinking of intersex people to the extent they even realize they exist); defined "positively", it's a boy who's a boy according to speakers' simplistic view of "biology". And the reference is to some notional "original" condition (past tense); if someone has surgery to have a penis now, he doesn't "count". If doctors performed such surgery on someone in the womb (like how they perform genital surgeries on intersex babies right after birth), that probably wouldn't "count", either. Chromosomes might not need to be mentioned, as it's only relatively recently that (some) people took up the (not entirely right) idea that they determine sex, let alone that they determine gender... and if in the future someone undergoes a treatment that changes all their chromosomes, that too is unlikely to "count", but anyway the thought experiment suggests the term is indeed defined by by a past tense state, not by the present tense. - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Christina Richards, Meg Barker, Sexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals: A Practical Guide, 2013, →ISBN, explain it (as I did) as basically meaning 'not trans': "Biogirl or Bioboy: A term used to differentiate cisgender people from trans people. Derogatory of trans people and incorrectly suggestive that trans does not have a biological base. Should never be used. 'Biological man/woman' is similarly problematic." (I found that just by Google-Books-searching "bioboy". Incidentally, the book right below it from the same year may show a trans writer using it, but in my experience it's more often non-trans people who use it, especially as time has gone on and the biological bases of the gender identities trans and cis people have have become better known.)
  • tl;dr? The basic/primary meaning is "a boy who's not trans", genitals and chromosomes are secondary.
- -sche (discuss) 15:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit hesitant to trust any source that says something is "problematic" and "should never be used" because that is politics. Once again, we are supposed to say what things mean, and our remit strictly stops there. In any case the question isn't "is this offensive or derogatory, or derogatory to some self-defined offendable group" but rather "what does it actually mean". I am personally happy for you to basically rewrite the entry because in my experience here you are someone who seems to know a lot about gender identity. I do however feel that the "be, feel, and do what you want" gender trend is going to cause us some never-before-seen lexicographical problems. Will we be the first dictionary to define a word as "(non-gloss) whatever the identifier wants it to mean". Is this a triumph of postmodernism? Maybe. Let us keep our eyes on it. Equinox 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
In fairness, I think the book is only suggesting mental health professionals should never use the term when providing healthcare to trans (or queer) patients.
Searching to see how other people define it is complicated by the fact that it's the name of at least two commercial products (with no discernible relationship to boys, ha) and it also seems to occur as a compound with a more "literal" meaning, e.g. in Ian McDonald, The Broken Land (2013, →ISBN): "The bioboy's forehead was studded with terminals. Biocircuitry coiled back over each ear and clung with small curved claws to the nape of his neck."
My suggestion would be to define it like "{slang) A cisgender boy or man." Perhaps some people would want to add "; one who is anatomically male." ("Biologically male", while more in line with the etymology, would be a can of worms and not really accurate, for reasons I can get into if need be.)
Incidentally, I notice this has made it into Lesser's 2018 English / Spanish Dictionary, and it seems like a weird enough word to include that I half wonder if they just lifted it from us because we provided a Spanish translation of it (which may not meet CFI!). - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Update: I think Lesser's dictionary did lift it from us, because they also include our translation of "Wiktionarian" and our former logo's very unusual pronunciation of "Wiktionary". Hahaha. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had a go at it: bioboy, biogirl.  --Lambiam 11:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked it further. I found three citations of "bioboy" in fiction, but can't work out the sense enough to add one yet. I see we have entries for bioman and biowoman, too, currently only with cisgender-related senses (which need updating; I'll take a stab at it), though they too may be attested also with fiction-related senses. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


This entry looks wrong. At least one citation, very possibly all three, are dialect forms of lonesome, and nothing to do with lunacy. Equinox 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the connection (if any) between loon and lunacy ? Leasnam (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, maybe it's related to the connections in 50 of your Anglo-Saxonisms I have had to bring to RFV in the past twelve months? Equinox 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This statement makes no sense. You're being emotional. Leasnam (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Even the Anglish subreddit isn't sure about you (and I've never been a participant there; I found it by looking for discussions of Wiktionary the other month): [25]. Equinox 05:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no affiliation with them. I don't care what they say. Why are you using that? That's your argument ? Pathetic. Leasnam (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that @Leasnam is overzealous rather than attempting to advance an Anglish agenda. But it is indeed worrying if these Redditors have come to notice a problematic pattern, and it's on us to RFV them, as well as Leasnam to be much more careful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Who's to say they're not phoney Anglish-whatever-they are's ? Sockpuppetting to make Anglish look ridiculous (which they're succeeding at) and to substantiate stupid claims now against me. That's nothing new or creative. Leasnam (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I warn of the early makings of a witchhunt. Assume good faith. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is what you do when you encounter a newbie. I have no personal problem with Leasnam but I have, over the past years, encountered huge numbers of his "Anglish" entries that do not make sense in terms of actual use of the language. Indeed at one point I called out this pattern and he said something like "I used to create those entries and I don't any more" (sorry: can't source it, but I'm sure someone remembers). You can find a lot of dubious Leasnam entries by searching under "Germanic" prefixes like be-, for- and to-. These represent a huge mass of (usually unglossed, not marked as archaic or rare) mess that will mislead any learner who comes here and that are basically a liability. Furthermore they often have blatantly wrong cites that consist of scannos, errors, or nonce-word poetry. It is not appropriate to call "assume good faith!" when I have been struggling against this stuff for at least three or four years, and when I am not in any way fighting him but trying to produce a dictionary that represents real-world English. Equinox 14:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Since these were created years ago, maybe they were the work of a newbie. The problem here is that the Leasnam you're complaining to isn't the Leasnam who was creating all those old schlock entries- are you asking Leasnam to go back in time and not make those entries? Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There seem to be two basically unrelated definitions on one definition line, which is a common ploy to attempt to use a small number of possibly valid citations cover a putative word that is uncommon and with at best ambiguous meaning.
Also, don't we normally exclude attestation that does not unambiguously support a definition, as is typical in much poetic usage (quotation 3). It is these tactics that makes one suspect a real witch. DCDuring (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Fee-fi-fo-fum I smell the blood of an Anglishmun. DCDuring (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You should be a lawyer :). Not agreeing with your judgement, but tell me, why is Anglish so bad ? Just curious...You two seem to have a hater-stance on it... Leasnam (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
To everyone: I have never made up a word here (maybe elsewhere a long time ago, sure, but not at Wiktionary. I know the rules and I respect them)...every entry I've ever created has been someone else's creation--it came from somewhere. I may come across an interesting new word--I like new words...I even actively seek them out...that's part of language evolution. Now, granted, I may not be as gifted as Equinox at interpreting new words when I find them...I'm just skilled at finding them. Of late, I have been using rfdef to have someone with more focus assist me. But I find it amusing, and honestly a little annoying, that this is as big an issue as you're making it. I should feel flattered (?), but I'm not. Makes me wonder if there isn't another agenda at work here. I seem to sense a lot of hostility (from fear ? I dunno)...but can it please be resolved. I've done what you've asked of me. Leasnam (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
So, onto the word itself...I created loonsome along with about 200 new words I found that were being used which contained the suffix -some. (Yes, this is a suffix native to English. Nothing wrong with that. What I feel is wrong is that it was grossly overlooked (Kudos !). I think it may at one time have been labelled "obsolete" or "no longer productive".). So, I start searching actively for words flying below the radar that use this suffix...and lo and behold, I found MANY of them...many never even cataloged anywhere before. They are first defined at Wiktionary (you're welcome ! :). So yes, I trust and rely on my fellow Wiktionarians to assist me in making my entries better...that's what it's about. It's not about a one man show. Multiple editors with multiple inputs characterise us. So why is this happening? If an entry is scrutinised, that's the process we go through. You're mad at me because I am forcing the process to be used. That makes no sense to me. Leasnam (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that is that we have millions of entries, and bad ones may go undetected for a very long time. Yes, Equinox is being unfair- he's done similar things with his mineral and "-id" entries- but you're overreacting, and throwing in some completely irrelevant and rather emotional arguments in response. FWIW, I have similar concerns about your old practices, but I realize you grown beyond that stage. It should be enough to point out that you don't do that anymore, and tune it out as someone blowing off steam. I would rather not have two very prolific and mostly very good contributors succeed in driving each other off the project. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I harbour no ill will. Equinox is talented and hard-working. He is a tremendous asset to this project. I do not only appreciate his dedication, but I trust and value his insights. Leasnam (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not fear; it's annoyance. It seems like PoV-pushing, especially when the definitions and attestation are so poor coming from someone who should know better.
If someone would like to spend time finding good citations and splitting the definition appropriately, more power to them. The result of their efforts will speak for itself. Based on the current attestation and definition, loonsome should fail RfV IMO. DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"It's not fear; it's annoyance. It seems like PoV-pushing"--Okay, I'm telling you for the last time, it's NOT PoV-pushing. Stop seeing it as such. If the word fails, then so be it. My job is to present the word to the group for evaluation. If it's not legit, then we have a process to care for that. That process works. It's working now. Feel good about it. Leasnam (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just as annoyed, but this isn't something Leasnam can do anything about- it's water under the bridge. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian noun declension - rahaEdit

raha (money, currency) Genitive singular: raha Partitive singular: raha Remaining forms:- Illative singular: rahasse, rahha Inessive singular: rahas Elative singular: rahast Allative singular: rahale Adessive singular: rahal Ablative singular: rahalt Translative singular: rahaks Terminative singular: rahani Essive singular: rahana Abessive singular: rahata Comitative singular: rahaga Nominative plural: rahad Genitive plural: rahade Partitive plural: rahasid Illative plural: rahadesse Inessive plural: rahades Elative plural: rahadest Allative plural: rahadele Adessive plural: rahadel Ablative plural: rahadelt Translative plural: rahadeks Terminative plural: rahadeni Essive plural: rahadena Abessive plural: rahadeta Comitative plural: rahadega Johnling60 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Estonian noun declension - kaelEdit

Why has nobody created an inflection table template for this word despite the fact that the full declension is available on the tea room? Johnling60 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a wiki. We're all volunteers. You've been dumping huge amounts of language-specific detail in a general forum. This is like buying a kit, dumping all the parts on someone's table, then demanding to know why they haven't built anything with it yet.
I would suggest adding {{rfinfl|et|noun}} where you want the inflection to go in the entry and putting your data on the talk page for that entry. To be technical, this is the kind of thing to discuss at Wiktionary talk:About Estonian, but if you need to bring it up here, link to the entry and say the data is on the talk page. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

sign of springEdit

I'm not too optimistic (it's one of those days) but I'd like to see an entry for it. DonnanZ (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

What's your definition? DTLHS (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Um, something like: An indication that winter is coming to an end, and that spring is on its way (or just around the corner). DonnanZ (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems like just a sign of spring, like there are also signs of summer (in Japanese poetry, the call of the lesser cuckoo is a major sign of summer), signs of winter, and so on. Searching OneLook and google books:intitle:Dictionary "sign of spring", I don't spot any other dictionary that includes it. :/ - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking it could also serve as a translation hub, but never mind. DonnanZ (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


I'm surprised about this one. DonnanZ (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprised how – that it's generally not used literally but mostly figuratively? (That's my sense anyway.) — SGconlaw (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and added figurative. Done by SemperBlotto, thanks. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't realise it's a new entry (I was surprised it didn't exist before). DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

people are peopleEdit

people are people is probably not appropriate for WT, but I made it anyway and probably totally screwed up the definition too. Perhaps it means nobody's perfect too. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember using the term people are human recently. DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. Corporations are people, my friend. :)  --Lambiam 12:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this meets WT:CFI. As far as the meaning is concerned, it seems to be used more often to convey the message that people, everywhere and in all walks of life, are basically the same, with the same range of virtues as well as foibles; judging from some samples of use it does not refer exclusively or even usually to, specifically, human imperfection. A small anthology of uses found with Google book search:
  • Though people are people no matter where they live, their reactions to certain stimuli are largely influenced by their environment.
  • Your delight in the goings on between men and women will not be limited to those of us restricted by gravity. People are people and sometimes angels, like doctors and nurses, are people too.
  • There are many viewpoints regarding the practice of intercultural communication but a familiar one is that "people are people," basically pretty much alike; ...
  • I didn't care much about that. People are people, right — black or white, yellow or brown, whatever.
  • It was a trip of a lifetime and I learned that if given the chance people are people, loving and caring.
  • They're probably gonna do it anyway, because people are people. But we shouldn't encourage them to do so.
  • Most people in Iran behave like that woman. Most would extend the same kind of courtesy as she did. People are people no matter where in the world they live.
  • I try to tell Shlomo, and he says people are people, the same everywhere.
  • As long as people are people, democracy, in the full sense of the word, will always be no more than an ideal.
 --Lambiam 13:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I work with a certain genius (he's about 75 and will retire any day now) who will never attend a meeting without reminding us that "it is what it is" (sounds better as che sera sera, perhaps). I don't think "people are people" is a popular English idiom; it is basically just a Depeche Mode song. Equinox 23:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Is someone going to list this at RFD or RFV? It has been nominated for WOTD. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

He was abnormally agitated, she only normally soEdit

Is the following sentence grammatical? if so, could sb. offer a paraphrase? He was abnormally agitated, she only normally so. --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't straight-out proclaim it ungrammatical, but it looks to me as something you would not normally say. It is either an unnatural made-up example, or a jocular use of the adverb. Here is an attempt at a paraphrase: "He was abnormally agitated, she only to an extent that could be considered normal under the circumstances." A cursory search for examples of "normally" being used in a non-mathematical sense turned up only cases where it meant something like "usually", "under normal circumstances". Other senses may be rare or non-existent because the sentence would almost always be ambiguous and most likely interpreted in the more usual sense. For example, "She was normally agitated" will normally be understood to mean that being agitated was her normal condition, and not that she happened to be agitated, but not abnormally so. It may be best to remove this 3rd sense (which is very close to sense #2 anyway) unless or until someone comes up with an attested use.  --Lambiam 12:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Regarding the phrase "she only normally so", isn't a verb missing? Otherwise I cannot find a meaning for it, and even the pronoun should be "her". --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks perfectly OK to me - the second phrase is just a shortening of "she was only normally agitated" (the "so" being the adverb usage that we have defined). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks to me like an ellipsis of "he was abnormally agitated, but she was only normally agitated". As Lambiam noted, this kind of ellipsis wouldn't be used in normal speech- it seems like something that might be used in formal writing or literature. A writer might use such a construction to play with the different implications possible for normally, or they might just be trying to be concise. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The sentence is grammatical, to the extent that grammar accepts elision. And while "normally" would, er, normally be interpreted as having a different sense, in this context — directly contrasted with "abnormally" — it would probably be understood. I see it is a usex in the entry [[normally]]... it seems tolerable, but finding actual citations would be better. Perhaps we should even combine the 'manner' and 'degree' senses. As for a paraphrase, plug in the definitions: "he was agitated to an abnormal degree, she was agitated only to a normal/customary/usual degree/extent." - -sche (discuss) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather we kept the manner, degree, and temporal senses distinguished:
He made a point of behaving normally. (manner)
He was normally quite sensible, except when it came to hyphens. (temporal: "usually", "under normal circumstances")
He was drunk, but normally so for a teenager on a Friday night. (degree)
The degree sense does seem a bit odd in many uses because the other interpretations create ambiguity, sometimes humorous ambiguity. DCDuring (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You'd do better asking a question on Danielklein (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems completely acceptable to me: "the grass was green, the sky blue". "So" serves as a placeholder like "thus" or "latter". Equinox 02:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Semi-unrelatedly, as someone who was brought up to spit poison at sentence fragments: "he was abnormally agitated, she only normally so" feels like a single sentence (and it would very definitely be wrong to replace the comma with a semicolon, since that would turn the second portion into a stand-alone clause without a verb); however there's something ugly about it :D The French are more chilled about throwing sentences together with commas, but it's hard to unlearn this stuff. (I still think we should have APPENDIX:GRAMMAR. Okay, grammar should be an entire separate project, but Wikt is already the unloved ginger stepchild of WP, so we can't be too ambitious; also, it's almost unthinkable to create a grammar project without being prescriptive, and we have enough people who come here complaining "UNIQUE IS NOT COMPARABLE OMG" etc.) Equinox 02:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

kapu (Finnish)Edit

I'm a native Finn, and do not recognise any of the definitions listed on the page. They would be passable translations for the word kapula (but that's it). Perhaps they are dialectal, but I have my doubts about that.

The word, as defined on fi:kapu, is a colloquial form of kapteeni (captain). -- 18:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have managed to catch what I have started to call a Liedesism - I will try to fix the entry up. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sicilian DefenceEdit

I'm not sure whether Defence has to be capitalised. DonnanZ (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Google ngram for both. An alternative form or simply a redirect could be created. DTLHS (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, that's for Sicilian Defense (no entry). I guess we can leave it as it pops up anyway if "Sicilian defence" is searched for. DonnanZ (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There are quite a few such terms (often dog/cat breeds). I would like to say "don't capitalise unless necessary" but I suppose we should base it on the majority. Sometimes there are relatively few texts and the phrase tends to be capped for other reasons (e.g. chapter headings in a dog breeding book). Hills to die on. Equinox 02:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Please check 1. whether this term is on’yomi; 2. why this word have two completely different spelling.--Zcreator alt (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the entry the reading is irregular. The article 左義長 at the Japanese Wikipedia gives some kind of explanation of the alternative spelling 三毬杖 (in the section headed 起源). This somewhat complicated explanation is unreferenced; I'd feel more comfortable with a solid reference. The other spelling (left unexplained) would then presumably serve to have a spelling with a reading that conforms to the actual pronunciation.  --Lambiam 23:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: multiple completely different spellings, this is not unusual for Japanese terms. See also prosaic terms like kawa (“leather”, spelled variously or ), kutsu (“shoes”, ), miyako (“city, capital”, ), etc. etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ergens and nergensEdit

Would someone expand the definitions of ergens and nergens (Dutch) to include their other meanings? Danielklein (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done – Any native Dutch speakers? Please check if the examples given are truly idiomatic.  --Lambiam 23:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


How official is this word? How formal is it? If it is not very formal yet, then maybe someone should tell people it's informal, and shouldn't be used in formal speech and writing (like on college essays).

The term Islamicate has been in use since at least 1967, and presumably earlier, since the author freely uses the term, apparently not feeling a need to explain the term to his readers. The term is found in the titles of many scholarly publications. Is that "official" enough? The use is, in any case, generally quite formal.  --Lambiam 11:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Islamify is more generally found.,

That is a verb, and Islamicate is an adjective. They mean different things. The verb Islamify is mainly used by Islamophobes. A more common form is Islamize.  --Lambiam 02:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ز ه رEdit

What does "related to flower magic" mean? (I'm trying to find out why زهر means both "flowers" and "dice".) Ultimateria (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In Lane's Lexicon (volume 3, pp. 427–428) I see nothing related to magic or dice. The basic meanings are give light / shine / blossom, with many words with obviously related meanings. There is also want (the noun) and "a certain musical instrument". One way of saying "dice" in Arabic is نرد, which is not related  --Lambiam 03:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I have changed it to match the known definitions per H. Wehr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


Can this also mean "to make overpowered (excessively powered/powerful)", e.g. in the context of video game studios making an unbalanced game? - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I scoured a few gaming sites and a handful of game dev books and only came up with one example that definitely fell under this def. I added it (and might even tag it as rare...) Ultimateria (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

chocks away!Edit

Supposed to have been used during the Second World War but other sources say that 'chocks away' is indicated with a hand signal, in which case sense one would be wrong. Possibly dated? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever was actually done or said during WWII, there are a goodly number of cites at Google Books of uses of the expression as a command or as a report that the command had been executed. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It may predate WWII. I wonder if it was restricted to single-engine aircraft, removing the chocks from the wheels of a twin-engine aircraft with the propellers revolving could be a risky task. DonnanZ (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The term occurs in a 1926 RAF flying training manual as the name for a command transmitted in the form of a hand signal: "Chocks Away. Open Hand at arm's length waved slowly from side to side in line with the Shoulders." The combination of words "chocks away", while basically a SOP, is much older: “ Well, Jack, what can you make on it now ?—we shall have to knock the chocks away from the bo’sprit presently, and run it in fore and aft, like a cutter—— ”. ("The Old Sailor" [James H. Graff?], "Nights at Sea", in Bentley's Miscellany volume 3, 1838).  --Lambiam 07:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Dutch interjection ey?Edit

The lemma for Dutch jo gives this as an example of use: "Ey! - Jo! - Hey! - Hi!". This would imply there is a Dutch interjection ey with the same sense as hey. I cannot find any example of this. By the way, the Dutch Wiktionary does not list a Dutch lemma at jo either. The Dutch Wikipedia, though, has an article Yo (groet) in which jo is given as an alternative spelling to yo, mentioning the phrase ey yo as derived from Hey you, unrelated to the standalone interjection yo.  --Lambiam 08:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

chaty and vizierEdit

It's weird that Spanish chaty and English vizier both seem to come from the same word in Egyptian. tjati or something like that - I'm not gonna attempt to use hieroglyphics. According to WP, "vizier is the generally accepted rendering of ancient Egyptian tjati, tjaty". How can that produce two words that sound nothing like each other? Oh, and if anyone wants to make an entry for the Egyptian word, go ahead. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Spanish chaty and English vizier have very different roots -- the English term derives ultimately from Arabic وَزِير (wazīr, helper, aide, minister). See [[vizier#Etymology]].
Note that rendering can sometimes mean “translation”, not “etymological derivative”. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The author of the source cited in Wikipedia, Alan Henderson Gardiner, also wrote the book Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction. On page 104 of that book you can read, "The bearer of the title [hieroglyphics] t̼ɜty, appropriately translated ‘vizier’, ..." So it is indeed merely a translation.  --Lambiam 22:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, was this removal right, or was the information valid? - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The anon's edit was good. Better to leave that hypothetical origin on the Arabic page where it belongs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Languages and people : proper noun or nounEdit


Most words for language of area are also use for the people of the same area. But are these word proper noun or noun? I've looked at some entries and most of them are consistent: French (language is proper noun, people is noun), Spanish (idem), German (idem, except that the section Noun is before Proper Noun), etc. but not English (both are proper noun). It's it correct? or is it something specific to the word "English"?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Collective nouns for people are a bit of a grey area (proper nouns in general are hard to pin down, we've had several discussions about whether certain things are proper nouns); I suspect the difference in headers between English and French and Abenaki and Spanish is just inconsistency because of that, not a difference in grammar. (Count nouns for people are clearly common nouns, e.g. "Norwegian" for a person is a common noun.) IMO the "collectives" seem to be as much proper nouns (having one distinct referent) as country names are. (Like country names, they can sometimes be considered to have more than one referent, "two Frances", "the real English/French/etc vs the ones you see in the media", etc.) - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Names for people, e.g. Spaniard, New Zealander, Londoner, are common nouns, no question about that. I have always been at odds with Wiktionary treatment of languages as proper nouns, which I consider rather bizarre. This certainly doesn't happen in languages such as Norwegian, norsk has no capital letter. I think proper nouns should be reserved for place names (including planets and constellations), names given to buildings, roads and streets, surnames and given names, names of companies, organisations and brand names / trademarks. So Coke would be a proper noun, but coke a common noun. Languages on that basis are not proper nouns, even if they are uncountable. DonnanZ (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that a proper noun is the name of an individual thing. They are usually capitalised in English, but capitalisation doesn't make something a proper noun. I'm pretty sure that, in English, the names of languages are simple, uncountable nouns (but still capitalised). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that the confusion comes from the fact that language names normally derive from (or are the same as) a common adjective. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether a vote on the language issue would help resolve it, or has one been held before (before my time)? DonnanZ (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Languages names are each a name of an individual thing, if an abstract one, and are thus proper nouns. I'm not sure what we're trying to do here, though; if we have difficulty distinguishing between proper nouns and common nouns, what's so important about them that we should be labeling them? Labeling them as "usually/always capitalized" and "usually/always uncountable", as appropriate, should be good enough. Making up some arbitrary rule here isn't helpful to our users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone (God knows who) decided ages ago that languages are proper nouns. I guess that is an "arbitrary rule" that should be debated, as not everyone agrees with that. DonnanZ (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want lexicographical evidence, refer to Oxford as I have done, both online and my hard copy. English and French (languages) are both described quite specifically as being mass nouns. My understanding of a mass noun is that it is uncountable, not a proper noun. Oxford describes a mass noun as "A noun denoting something that cannot be counted (e.g a subject or quality), in English usually a noun which lacks a plural in ordinary usage and is not used with the indefinite article." DonnanZ (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Languages and people should be common nouns, also month names and days of the week. The English usage has infected some editors even for languages where there is no capitalisation used and the difference between proper and common nouns is very vague. The transliteration e.g. for Chinese and Japanese romanisations should be in lower case and common nouns. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I should have provided some references, here we are: mass noun, proper noun, English,
French, Norwegian. DonnanZ (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence at all that languages are proper nouns, so I'm not sure where that notion came from. I feel editors should be free to revise language entries from proper nouns to uncountable mass nouns without being challenged (no reversion of edits, edit warring, that sort of thing). If that can happen peacefully there would be no need for a vote, otherwise there would.
For a start, the entry for English is a bit of a mess, with bits shown as a proper noun and other bits as a common noun. It can still be a proper noun however, as it is also a surname and the name of at least one place. DonnanZ (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I've done Italian - it's fiddly and error-prone, so take care. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Having done Norwegian I can agree it can be tricky, especially moving translations. But it can be done. DonnanZ (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Language names and demonyms would easily fit our definition of [[proper noun]], as they are understood to refer to specific things. English (language name) and "the English" (demonym) fit. But many demonyms take the form of plurals of nouns that refer to any member of the group, eg, an Italian pluralizes to the Italians. And Italian is also the name of the language.
I don't think most dictionaries bother with the distinction because it makes so little difference. Even as to orthography, the capitalization of the headword itself conveys the idea that it should be capitalized. In English we capitalize Italian when we use it in "[DET] Italian(s)" even though only "the Italians" might be considered a proper noun. DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Languages being proper nouns was discussed already at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/February#Languages_-_are_they_proper_nouns_or_not?. Pinging @DCDuring, who in that discussion found support for clasifying them as proper nouns in The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography, and the fact that they refer to unique things. I am also inclined to view them as proper nouns, and don't think piecemeal reclassification of them is wise. (As for abolishing the distinction: as DCDuring has also said, "I have yet to find any English grammar reference, of any vintage, that doesn't discuss proper nouns." And yet many low-level e.g. high-school reference works don't make the distinction, or wrongly say that it's just "capitalized nouns are all proper nouns", so we do readers a service by offering more accurate classifications.)
By the way, most of this discussion seems to have missed what I considered the more interesting part of Vigneron's question: is "English" in "the English live in England" a proper noun or a common noun? - -sche (discuss) 17:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I missed that - "the English" is a plural noun (as the entry says), not a proper noun. I have been looking at translations of English (language) and generally where a translation is in lower case, it is treated as a common noun. Where it begins with a capital letter it is almost invariably treated as a proper noun, which is probably due to editors being confused and following the example set in English. One odd one is Maori te reo Pākehā (the language of the white man) which you definitely can't call a proper noun. DonnanZ (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
In the case of the English live in England, it is not hard to find support that English is a proper noun demonym. I think that English is more commonly a demonym, as many Englishmen would agree. The availablity of Englishman to indicate an individual member of the English makes it possible to show that the English tends to be used as a demonym. English is almost never used as a noun with singular determiners (a, this, that) and seems restricted in its use with plural determiners. Further many English are is about half as common as many Englishmen are, even though the use of EnglishMAN goes against the trend toward gender-neutrality.
It is a bit harder in the case of the Italians live in Italy. The demonym use of the Italians has to be teased out of the total usage of the Italians which includes much use of the simple plural. I am not sure what collocations would reliably indicate demonym usage. Perhaps the Italians voted or some expressions referring to supposed traits or behavioral differences (the Italians use their hands for emphasis).
But I would argue that any instances in which there are distinct terms available for the demonym and for the plural of the members of the demonym should follow the pattern of the English and Englishman/Englishmen. DCDuring (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Englishman/men is usually reserved for men, and Englishwoman/women for women - "a couple of Englishwomen", an English girl is using the adjective. But talking about Englishmen and Englishwomen collectively we call them "the English", not "the Englishes" (where's the problem?). DonnanZ (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The same would apply for "the Irish", "the Welsh" and "the Scottish", but not "the Scots" (plural of a Scot). DonnanZ (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And "the French" and "the Dutch". It may be noted they all end in "h", is that accidental or not? DonnanZ (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The recent (2002-2008) surge (from c. 30% to c. 50%) in the frequency of many English are relative to many English men are seems to coincide with a period of much-increased concern with gender neutrality. Many Englishwomen are is not to be found in Google N-grams for 2002-2008. DCDuring (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Latin inflected/conjugated formsEdit

Since there is some confusion and even wrong indication elsewhere of Latin inflected/conjugated forms' pronunciation, our templates indicating the accented syllable would be most useful. Bold? Acute accent? -GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm deeply confused as to what you're talking about. What confusion? And we already have a template that marks the stressed syllable (as well as giving actual pronunciation information): {{la-IPA}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: that template gives nominative cases only. I said all inflected/conjugated (nouns, adjectives, verbs) forms. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you don't understand how pronunciation templates work. They show the pronunciation of any word you feed them with. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


Our senses seem to describe the same thing. I think that we should combine these into a single sense (perhaps giving a separate sense or subsense for the meaning in Catholic theology), and then add a colloquial sense "unusual, extraordinary". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the two senses are basically identical. The Catholic thing is just a clarifying example of use (clarifying, provided that you have an idea of the theological meaning of sanctifying grace); in no way is it a specific subsense. It should not be part of the definition; instead, the quote from the catechism ("Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love.") could be used as a quotation in the regular way.
And how common is this colloquial sense? Most things that can be considered unusual or extraordinary, in reality and fiction alike, are perfectly natural, in the sense of being firmly based in the natural, physical universe (what Madame Blavatsky would call "the plane of the manifested Universe"). Is this colloquial sense simply hyperbole? Do we have good and attested examples? Something like, "The chocolate cake was absolutely supernatural, like it literally made my head explode!"  --Lambiam 21:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

blowhard is American English?Edit

WF claims that blowhard is not American English. It's used in the Guardian and The Telegraph. Changing the tag to include {{lb|en|USA|Canada|UK}} would be simple, as would removing the {{lb}} tag altogether. But it would also be lazy. So, I could open a general question: When does a term stop being region-specific? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I should just add that Oxford Dictionaries Online labels the word as "North American". — SGconlaw (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard this word spoken (lifetime UK resident); I've read it a lot but those might not have been British texts. Equinox 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
It definitely sounds North American to me. Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Among OneLook references, only Oxford labels it US. Some dictionaries give it an American origin. w:Blowhard (a dab page) has three toponyms, 2 in Oz, 1 in US, though this may well be in reference to literal wind. DCDuring (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

blowhard has another meaning?Edit

So, the new quote for blowhard doesn't at all fit with the definition. I could put {{rfdef}} on there, but... --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Arabic enclitic pronouns with genitive constructs, e.g. جواز سفرEdit

(Notifying Benwing2, Mahmudmasri, Metaknowledge, Wikitiki89, Erutuon, Kolmiel, ZxxZxxZ, Stephen G. Brown, عربي-٣١): : How should the enclitic pronouns work with iḍāfa constructs? I can only think of جَواز سَفَر (jawāz safar, passport) (literally "licence of travel"), which could take the enclitic pronouns by its sense. So, if I want to say "my passport", it's جَواز سَفَرِي (jawāz safarī) - confirmed by native speakers - the ending ـِي (, my, mine) is attached to the end, as if it's a single word. It's attached to the "al-muḍāf ilaihi", not "al-muḍāf", which I would expect. Please let me know what I'm missing. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)