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 general Wiktionary policies, use the Beer parlour; for technical questions, use the Grease pit. 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.

Oldest tagged RFTs

October 2022

Turkish diş ağrısı/diş acısıEdit

Is it acceptable in Turkish to say diş acısı instead of diş ağrısı for 'toothache'? Andres (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes and No. Yes in case it is a phantom tooth, for in this strict form of acısı goes for things like kalb acısı "heart ache" , birini kaybetmenin acısı"the pain of losing someone" always for ache in a figurative sense. On the other hand, using it with personal pronouns, such as dişim acıyor/ağrıyor dişin acıyormu/ağrıyormu etc. are both acceptable. Flāvidus (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of Estonian poolEdit

Is it acceptable to use pool together with hull pollhull  ? "half crazy" Or the use pool in reduplicative phrases, such as "half machine half human" In the nominative or in genitive or in both forms , since pool in Estonian seems to be declinable too. Any other terms for "half" to express like above mentioned examples? Flāvidus (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, poolhull 'half crazy' is acceptable and is actually used. poolmasin-poolinimene is 'half machine half human'. pool- can theoretically be used with all adjectives, nouns and adverbs. pooleldi is an adverb of the same meaning: pooleldi hull; pooleldi masin, pooleldi inimene. --Andres (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"pool-" in this meaning isn't declined, it's always in the nominative. --Andres (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

tranquility, tranquillityEdit

Two identical entries (except the UK [Commonwealth??] vs. US thing) that could use deduplication. But the fact that there are four separate senses is also a red flag. The first three seem to mean the same thing, as far as I can tell, and the fourth is a subsense. Equinox 14:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Piggybacking, it'd be nice to come up with a system for US/UK variants that doesn't duplicate that we could potentially standardize with a bot on the whole site. Vininn126 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The many redundant definitions date to 2005-2006 (the old problem that people used to add multiple ways of saying the same thing as different definitions, which helps clarity, I suppose, but not accuracy). I've centralized content on the older entry. In theory it would be possible to put the content in one central "placeholder" location, encase any US- vs UK-specific terms in the definitions in little "if 1 then 3, if 2 then 4" template-magic statements, and then transclude the content onto both pages, displaying the right national spellings in the definitions on each page... - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to admit I was amazed when I looked it up that tranquillity is indeed the ‘Commonwealth’ spelling but OneLook and a GoogleBooks search (where British, Irish and Indian books using this spelling can easily be found) confirms it. How odd, we don’t write fragillity or civillity (though this is an archaic spelling I’ve just added). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(look) sorry for itself/oneselfEdit

Is this worth an entry? Under what headword? Example: 2017, J. L. Merrow, To Love a Traitor: "But my scarf has been looking rather sorry for itself since our encounter with the tree." Equinox 16:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also feel sorry for oneself, but I don't know whether the meaning's the same.
PUC – 16:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I gave the example of the scarf, above, because you can "be/feel sorry for yourself" SoP, if you feel self-pity; but the scarf is an inanimate object and just looks wretched or tatty. Equinox 16:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The question is whether it's a lexicalized figure of speech or a live metaphor. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it's borderline, but probably worth including. The key is that when using it, I don't consciously think of it as an act of feeling sorry (i.e. sympathy) in any real sense, even though it probably does amount to that; it's lexicalised in its own right. Theknightwho (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Three professional dictionaries have something; we should too. I'd prefer an entry at sorry for oneself with hard redirects from "feel/be sorry for oneself". DCDuring (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we have to include "itself/themselves/themself(?)" or "look" into redirects. Look could be replaced by sound, appear, seem, etc., probably attestably. I think one is probably understood as replaceable by any pronoun, even the newer ones. If it is not universally understood in that way, we could add something in WT:Glossary (and Appendix:Glossary?) to make explicit our usage. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  Done Created sorry for oneself. Equinox 22:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


The definition for "dysphemism" is misplaced and found under "direct object". Please correct, I can't edit. Thank you :) 21:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thank you. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

How to approach "commercial codes"(also known as telegram or brevity codes)?Edit


here is an whole genre/use case of words(some of which are only used in this context and otherwise don't exist) that:

- can be safely assume to have been used more than the three attested times.


- have little, if any, surviving uses outside side of what coined that use, due to preservation of telegrams all but nonexistent

people on the discord suggested i bring up the matter here. Akaibu1 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There are several whole books of these from the telegraph era. but I think the use-mention distinction is going to keep almost all of them out of mainspace. Given that just about any string of text that was often repeated could be assigned a code, there's no doubt a lot of it we wouldn't want anyway. For a descriptive dictionary such as Wikitionary, the philosophical question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" can be paraphrased as "If a term was in use, but isn't attested, do we have an entry for it? According to WT:CFI, the answer is "no".
It reminds me of textspeak, which may someday suffer a similar fate, and for which we have Appendix:Glossary of textspeak. Given that all of the original reference works are now in the public domain and easily available on Google Books, you would probably want to provide extra organization and editing to make it worth repeating content that everyone already has access to. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I think putting them in an appendix COULD be a solution. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I often find these telegraph code books when searching for citations of rare, peculiar words. As far as the actual "business uses" from random real words go (e.g. AMBULANCE = "our deal was completed as arranged"): I see no point in documenting them. Dictionaries are for words that have meanings, not words used as a random stand-in element of a cipher. The codes/words unique to this system like ABCXYZ might be more interesting. Equinox 10:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah it's you! Your user page was what actually reminded me of this, yes there's alot of those, and if not that, i know for a fact there's a number of words that appear in their that have normal uses that aren't listed. Akaibu1 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
As Chuck said, I guess it comes down to whether we can find cites that are uses. There are books where people say "roger that" or "10-4" or report a "Broken Arrow", we even have "404" (although probably mainly because of the extended senses); if there are books where conversations happen via telegram and someone asks how a deal went and the other person replies "ambulance" the same way people in other books reply "roger" or "10-4", I think that'd be includable. But spot-checking a few of these, I can't find uses (except unrelatedly as common words in Italian, German, etc). Maybe an appendix is the solution or maybe the books which already document this are enough and we don't need to copy over their contents at all... - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Добро пожаловать: explanation?Edit

Neither of the pages добро пожаловать (dobro požalovatʹ) and добро (dobro) explains how this expression comes to mean “welcome”, and why the emphasis is добро́, presumably making this word mean something like “goodness” and why пожаловать is in the infinitive. I searched for an explanation, but found nothing. I suspect that the original meaning is something like “to bestow goodness”. An explanation could be given in an etymology at добро пожаловать (dobro požalovatʹ) (or is etymology not wanted in phrasebook entries?) and/or a usage note at добро (dobro).

P.S. I added the meaning “name of д” (which I came across while checking out ru:добро) to добро, but am not sure if it should have been called Etymology 3.

PJTraill (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that it was a noun? At least with the Glagolitic letters, the names seem to come from all parts of speech.Soap 01:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Surely a word used as a name is in that sense a noun? PJTraill (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It's from the adverb meaning of добро (the last one listed) and the meaning of "to visit" in пожаловать. Vininn126 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I originally expected it to be from the adverb, and I imagine it is perceived that way by many native speakers, but then why does the stress in добро́ пожаловать disagree with that in the adverb (до́бро)? Does the adverb admit multiple stress patterns? PJTraill (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
ru.wikt in section three provides both accent paradigms. Vininn126 (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have ensured both pronunciations are in the Pronunciation section, but I wonder what should be done with https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:Ru-добро.ogg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ru-добро.ogg , which seems undesirable but is still in use on 8 wikis. PJTraill (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


An IP changed it. I reverted by accident. But don't know if edit was good or not. Anyone know Venetian? Equinox 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not, but I see that https://vec.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doxe&redirect=no is (since its creation on 2021-04-06) a redirect to Doze de ła Repùblega de Venèsia, suggesting that the IP is correct to call Doxe an obsolete spelling of Doze. PJTraill (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

prior[s] a connectome of biases which interpretationally filters input informationEdit


  • Greek: προϊδεασμός (it also has a different meaning)

死#Affix (baseball and other senses)Edit

the Japanese word means an out in baseball, just like the transparenl loanword アウト. But we have the kanji word listed as an affix. Could we clarify better what that means, and how the two words differ? For that matter, Im not sure what it means to be an affix in the case of the other four definitions at 死#Affix either. Thanks, Soap 00:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Plural of leaf ‘Canadian’Edit

I believe the plural is leafs for the slang sense. 00:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Im pretty sure youre right. It might be metonymy from the sports team named the Toronto Maple Leafs (never *Maple Leaves). Soap 00:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


When someone is good at talking over the phone to a date or a business client, you can say they "give good phone"; similarly, they can "give good e-mail". In Total Recall, a character who convincingly played a wife says "I give good wife". If someone's face is photogenic, they "give good face". What sense of give is this?
Separate question: is sense 19 ("exceed expectations") used in other tenses ("Your outfit yesterday gave!") or only giving? - -sche (discuss) 10:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of this. Is it slang from "give head" (oral sex) or something? Equinox 10:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The first and second example had me ponder how I would translate abgeben where sense of the third example perfectly matched. So these might be contractions with fricative prepositions, if that's ab, but the different examples don't feel related, in as much as it would feel unintuitive to derive the former from the latter. 2A00:20:6043:CC17:958F:FAB0:DB93:55C5 15:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I have certainly come across this. It sounds like “provide” (sense 1.4 and 4) to me, with the proviso that the object, perhaps actually a service, is expressed by a figure of speech. PJTraill (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure which sexual sense, but that's the idea: the humor comes from the subtle implication that some prosaicly non-sexual service is some kind of sex act. It comes from the way heterosexual guys used to gossip about girls: "I hear she gives good ____" Chuck Entz (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
"Provide" seems to me to be the right sense of give.
But to give good X might be worth an entry. I think "X" has to be an uncountable, metonymous sense of a usually countable noun. Uncountable use of "X" in give good X may actually be a pioneering usage of the uncountable noun. I think head, e-mail, phone, and face fit this model, but there are others, some attestable: gift, book, kitchen, host, party, breakfast; some not, eg, various forms of work product (which usage is somewhat demeaning to the producer), Christmas, piano, press conference. "X" seems to typically be some kind of performance. I don't think that the expression normally works well with other adjectives besides good, even bad. I think one would usually say doesn't give good X rather than gives bad X. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I've always understood it to be an allusion to expressions such as "give a good performance" meaning one puts on a good show, so to give good face is to "act well" (as an actor or actress does) or to "look well, look attractive, be expressive, pose nicely, etc.". To me it's an acting/stage/film sense, so in this view, give would align with "perform"...maybe even 'play'/'enact'/'portray' (e.g. he's giving good devil's advocate = he's giving us good devil's advocate = playing (the role/part) of devil's advocate well) Leasnam (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It also reminds me of the photographer saying to his/her model: "Give me happy,...no, not that happy... now give me sad...sadder...that's it...now give me surprised...good, good give me more" Leasnam (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Whitney Houston also had a song "You give good love". Leasnam (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Re whether it's connected to give head or sex: I considered that myself, but some of the examples of "give good phone" are in business settings and don't seem sex-related and the photographer's jargon of "give good face" also doesn't seem overtly sex-related, although that doesn't rule out such an origin, I know. I've moved the second "provide" sense (which had been sense 4, and already had a cite about giving good phone, I now see) up to be sense 2, next to the other "provide" sense from which it seems to differ mainly in transitivity. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


Does anyone else feel that the register of this word has gone down in recent years? It seems to me to be much more informal than "young person". In Australia at least you wouldn't see it that much in government documents or even brochures. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

To me it has a rather dated feel. Vininn126 (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's more informal, but here in the US at least, a youngster is someone of pre-adolescent age, whereas a young person can also refer to this group it also reaches into early adulthood (early to mid twenties), so the latter is much broader and more general. Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I am from Colorado ;) Vininn126 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Well, I can see that, it's often used more by older folks, right ? Leasnam (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the people who would use it is why I would associate the term as being dated. Vininn126 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that it is actually dated, though. It may end up that way in a decade or two, but labelling it as dated right now is a bit of a stretch unless we have really solid evidence. Tharthan (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I partially agree with Leasnam, in that I perceive a distinction in what this term and "young person" most often denote, even though overall I suppose they probably can cover the same territory (e.g., an old person can call someone in their mid twenties a youngster). Should we change the definition from just "A young person" to something like "A young person, especially a child"? I notice other dictionaries either have something equivalent to "especially a child" or else list both "young person" and "child" as senses. They don't, AFAICT, mark the term as dated (yet). - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The point you bring up regarding the difference in the one using the term and the referent is where it is, I think. A person in their 80's might refer to someone in their 40's as a youngster, so it's relative to the one using the term. Possibly, because when the 80 yo was 50, the 40 yo was 10 (?). Funny, now that I think about it, they might also refer to them as a young person. hrmm. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

German West-Berlin vs Westberlin, Ost-Berlin vs OstberlinEdit

I've started making changes but I noticed there are a few discrepancies here and in the German Wiktionary.

My opinion:

  1. West-Berlin (also Berlin (West) is the political territory (the American, British and French sectors of Berlin between 1949 and 1990.)
  2. Westberlin is just western part of Berlin at any period but may be used for West-Berlin colloquially?
  3. I am less sure about eastern Berlin

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak, Fytcha): Could please make the necessary changes? Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it will take some work to tease apart official FRG usage, official GDR usage, colloquial FRG usage, colloquial GDR usage, colloquial West Berlin usage, and colloquial East Berlin usage. Apparently Westberlin was the preferred name in official eastern usage, while Berlin (West) was the preferred in name in official western usage. East Berlin was called simply Berlin or Berlin, Hauptstadt der DDR in the east and Berlin (Ost) officially in the West. Definitely read w:de:West-Berlin (particularly the section w:de:West-Berlin § Begrifflichkeiten) and w:de:Ost-Berlin (particularly w:de:Ost-Berlin § Begriffsproblematik). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I started the entry and was going to add some notes, but it looked like a can of worms. Maybe we should start collecting some quotes first. – Jberkel 09:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
My two cents: --- The official stance in West Germany was: Germany is one, Berlin is one, all current borders are temporal. Accordingly the officialese terms were "Berlin (West)" and "Berlin (Ost)", in order to stress the unity. Neither was ever common in normal speech in the West (nor obviously in the East). --- The official stance in East Germany was at first that Berlin was entirely part of the East, but after 1970 they accepted the existence of West-Berlin and tried to normalise it. Accordingly "Berlin" was East-Berlin and the western part was written "Westberlin", in order to make it look like a totally different entity. --- The forms "Ost-Berlin" and "West-Berlin" with hyphens were compromise forms and were used by most people and publications that tried to be neutral. These were also the commonest in general parlance. --- Of course, in Berlin itself, "Berlin" normally referred to the West in the West, and to the East in the East. 02:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: @Jeuwre is from Berlin as far as I know. Maybe he can contribute with some more "in-depth" info :) 02:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Just my two cents: Only people my age still distinguish between West- und Ostberlin (that's how I would write it in everyday situations). I don't think anyone would verbally say Berlin (Ost) or Berlin (West). And even in writing it would only be a distant memory of street signs in GDR, for example, and today not used very often. Sorry for my poor contribution. Have a nice day --Jeuwre (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, what I wrote above of course referred to the time before 1990. Today the spellings "Westberlin"/"West-Berlin" and "Ostberlin"/"Ost-Berlin" are probably interchangeable because the ideological background is gone. Having briefly lived in Berlin myself, I agree that both terms are fairly rare in Berlin itself. They usually say "im Osten" and "im Westen" instead. To be sure, the distinction as such is still very much alive -- to a surprising degree even among many people who are now in their 30s, particularly those from the East it seems to me. 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

end upEdit

The definitions as currently stated are:

  1. (transitive) To bring to a conclusion.
  2. (intransitive) To come to a final place, condition, or situation, sometimes unplanned or unexpected; to turn out.
  3. (transitive) To lift or tilt, so as to set on end.

In American English I cannot imagine sense #1 being used (transitive end up, the usex provided reads very awkwardly to me). Is this used in this way elsewhere? - TheDaveRoss 14:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

OED has both transitive and intransitive examples of sense 1:
  • 1874, [1]: Psalm 102 "ends up right gloriously with calm confidence for the future".
  • 1926 August, Ladies' Home Journal: "Those things you use to divide off words and end up sentences with."
Certainly needs a "dated" or "obsolete" label.
OED also has some limited evidence for sense 3, such as "We ended-up an old plank [] against the [] wall".
If it helps, I've never heard either sense myself as an Australian. This, that and the other (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Sense 3 sounds like a synonym for up-end, which I have heard used this way as well (i.e. resting a thing that's usually horizontal in a vertical position). Theknightwho (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of ending up (in its most literal sense) a hogshead is a hogshead standing on one of its ends. In my idiolect the result of upending (in its most literal sense) a hogshead would be a hogshead on its side or damaged or destroyed.
The result of end up (sense 3) is the essential part of the definition. I think the means (lifting, tilting) is not essential. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As to dating, Sense 1 might be very 21st century, though I think it goes further back than that. I get paltry collections of Google hits for "ended up the meeting", "ended the meeting up" and "end up the discussion", and they have the same sense as the example for sense 1. I do slightly better with "end up the day", but that has a different nuance. I'm wondering of Google is artificially terminating the results. I get millions of raw Google hits, and then only a few actual hits. None of them were in books, alas. The idiom does seem surprisingly "rare". FWIW, I'm English. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Chinese landingEdit

Have we decided whether this kind of term (like French disease, English disease, etc) is derogatory, triggering the rapid-attestation requirement? DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not derogatory. GreyishWorm (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I assume it's not intended as a compliment, but I don't know. Theknightwho (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Nor is it intended as an insult. It's a joke, a kind of joke that doesn't go down well today, but nothing like the n-word for example. I thought the "derogatory" thing was intended for extreme abusive insults and not stuff like Chinese fire drill! Equinox 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Is it intended to derogate the landing, to say it's a bad landing? If so, it'd be derogatory for that reason, separate from racial aspects, no? Or do we not label terms that derogate inanimate objects? I'm surprised we don't label other insulting terms like piece of shit and maybe even hunk of junk as {{lb|en|derogatory}}. I suspect it's {{lb|en|offensive}} as a separate matter.
(Overall, this bleeds into the earlier discussion of whether any or all of n*gger killer, negrophilia or get someone's Irish up are "ethnic slurs" or not... It's adjacent, but it's not directly racially slurring the referent, it's indirectly insulting a third party / playing on an offensive stereotype...) - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't worried about the landing's feelings, or even the pilot's feelings. I know that this is not usually directly intended to insult the Chinese. I don't think intent is really the issue, anyway. My question whether this kind of incidental offensiveness is to be included in our definition of derogatory. Is it to carry a label of offensive?
There is no shortage of similar terms. Almost any use of a demonym as part of a term applied to something inherently negative (eg, a disease (French disease, French pox, French measles), a noxious organism (French weed (Thlaspi arvense)), dishonourable or peculiar behavior (French leave/French exit) is potentially offensive. The same may be true of any expression that relies on an ethnic stereotype (French kiss, French letter, French tickler). Are we only to be concerned about those ethnic groups or nations that have complained, rioted, or threatened violence? DCDuring (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting question. Despite the French predilection for complaining and rioting (far more often than many marginalized groups), I hadn't thought to consider whether they'd find French kiss offensive... do they? - -sche (discuss) 06:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It's literally tongue in cheek.
The topic of the figurative Spanish Inquisition (last month) had me wonder if it was really that bad while there had been other inquisitions, indeed. The Wikipedia article doesn't explicitly say how it gained its reputation, rather takes it for granted, and I'm not sure how much this is because of the idiom. 2A00:20:6096:2C1E:46AC:3E66:41E3:BADF 08:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm delighted to see that Chinese landing is a pun or other kind of folk etymology, because my worry with the Spanish was phono-semantic matching (spyin'ish) since I have similar doubts about spanische Wand (tl;dr, clearly not derogatory) though it does not explain the Spanish flu, however. 2A00:20:6096:2C1E:46AC:3E66:41E3:BADF 08:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Nor Spanish practices, though the use of this term should be considered complementary rather than derogatory to the Spanish, in my book. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The question might be whether French women, for example, object to the sex-related terms.
I understand that Spanish flu originated from the desire of the US government to have an alternate origin for the US WWI flu epidemic, as the apparently true source was returning soldiers. They did not wish to discourage enlistment, resistance to the draft, and public support for the deployment of US soldiers in Europe. The alternative origin needed to be European and not from one of the Allies. A southern European country was probably considered more plausible than a northern one, possibly because of some vague ethnic stereotype. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Spanish flu is brought up these days because of Wuhan coronavirus and the naming switcheroo. Wuhan coronavirus is a literal translation from Mandarin Chinese into English, a calque. I say this so that we keep in mind that historical antecedents for the pattern of naming a disease for a place are not allowed under a modern political campaign outside the scope of descriptivism. As a citizen of Oceania, I say: root out the old vocabulary and prepare the way for the 11th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:37, 9 October 1984 (UTC)
  • We clearly want Chinese landing as a future Word of the Day, as it got half a dozen Wiktionarians excited, something difficult to do these days. GreyishWorm (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am in total agreement with WF. Let us celebrate this rare concordance with the adding of chocolate to milk. Equinox 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian плеть needs more sensesEdit

We are missing some senses of плеть (pletʹ). A Russian blogger writing about the explosion on the Kerch bridge uses it possibly in the sense of span or carriageway. "То есть, в случае подрыва одной плети вторая остаётся в целости и сохранности по силовым элементам". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

have the heart to do sth.Edit

e.g. "My daughter keeps asking where her daddy is. I don't have the heart to tell her that he just died in a car accident". (trigger warning!) Is this covered by heart, or should we have an entry? It certainly isn't the same thing as have a heart. Equinox 21:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The definition fitting best would be sense 4 at heart? It also seems rather different. I'd also argue the phrase has lemmatized for most speakers. Vininn126 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Collins and Fairlex idioms have have the heart. They must think it has lexicalized. DCDuring (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As we already have take heart then creating have the heart would appear to be a valid approach to including this phrase on Wiktionary (though someone could always add a cite using the phrase to sense 4 of heart instead of, or as well as, doing that). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Any of definitions 2, 3, and 4 of heart might be sufficient to understand the expression have the heart. But the expression has some special features, such as being a negative polarity item, having a limited number of types of complements (PPs headed by for, to infinitives) , as well as being restricted in the type of emotion or, rather, lack of emotion involved in the subject. "I don't have the heart for torture"/"I don't have the heart for torturing"/"I don't have the heart to torture" all imply that one lacks the motivation, or callousness or cold will to perform torture. DCDuring (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the entry.__Gamren (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

wheat and chessboard problemEdit

We should probably actually mention what the problem is here. The only problem I see, as a non-mathematician, is how tedious it would be to add the rice. GreyishWorm (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Problem" doesn't mean "annoying difficulty" to mathematicians. It just means "something to be solved". If you do the rice nonsense, you get into such ridiculously large numbers that it becomes hard to keep count. Equinox 22:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but the actual problem -- determining how many rice the board has in total -- wasn't actually stated in our def. Fixed now.__Gamren (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Uncommon and Rare labelsEdit

Why is it that rare links to our glossary but uncommon doesn't? I'm assuming we could set up a little group like what we have for obsolete/archaic/dated. Vininn126 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. Ultimateria (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Free Corpus ApplicationEdit

I did not discover this, but I feel people should be made aware of antconc. If you have the time or energy to create a corpus for better linguistic analysis (i.e. get collocations and such), then I recommend checking this out. Vininn126 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


There was a lot wrong with the description as ၐြဳ (grī //ɡ͡rəː//). Interestingly, this word has a very Sanskrit spelling - its initial letter is not normally listed as occurring in the Mon alphabet! On that point, I suppose the principle of "Verify! Verify!" applies. Now, I would expect the letter to be pronounced /s/, which would lead to a clear class vowel, whereas the vowel reported for this word appears to be a breathy class vowel. The same would apply to a pronunciation as /c/. I have accordingly amended the transliteration of the first vowel to /ś/.

Now, a misreading of the first letter as (g) might conceivably lead to a Middle Mon onset /gr/, but that would either lead to an anaptyctic presyllable initial /har-/ or more likely/kr/. I therefore think the pronunciation is more likely to be /krəː/, possibly with late-acquired breathiness. This word needs expert attention - @Crowley666, 咽頭べさ. I can detect an anomaly, but not confidently correct all of it. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

hi @RichardW57m, I am advanced in Mon language, but I am lacking in IPA phonetic writing, so do as you see fit, I have no objection, see the link below for proof of ၐြဳ terminology. thanks.--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 15:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Replies only need to be indented one extra level (':'). I believe using '::' at the first reply level will cause layout problems if one clicks on 'reply' for a post that someone has already replied to. --RichardW57m (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • That is a beautiful symbol. It looks a bit like someone taking a shower GreyishWorm (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


Worthy as an interjection for the phrase book? Of course used to tell the knocker that the bathroom is occupied. Might seem obvious but seems like good material for the phrasebook. Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems kinda lame... so perfect for the phrasebook, then! GreyishWorm (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The phrasetome -- call it the glossonomicon.__Gamren (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:coin: the or no the?Edit

There are many uses of {{coin}} where the |nat= parameter begins with a "the". I think this is counter-productive, and the template should add the article if it's desired. But should it? Is it better to write "coined by American scientist Josiah Willard Gibbs" or "coined by the American scientist Josiah Willard Gibbs"? This seems to be somewhat of a controversial issue. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 18:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should avoid it - news articles avoid articles and I also think we should avoid them in definitions and glosses if possible. Vininn126 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

piece of shit, hunk of junkEdit

Splitting this off an above discussion: is piece of shit derogatory? I think sense 1 is (sense 2 obviously is), but want more input, because all the terms I could think of offhand to look at that refer derogatorily to inanimate objects are not labelled "derogatory"... - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think derogatory is more or less synonymous with pejorative. I never thought a pejorative could not refer to a thing. I am less certain about derogatory, but I would think that derogatory term would include terms denigrating things. We might say we don't need to label as derogatory terms that belittle or denigrate things because things can't be offended, but people are often offended by pejoratives directed against things they care about, eg, books, cars, clothes, houses. DCDuring (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Are we going to be saying that any term (eg, bad) that assigns a negative value to something is derogatory? DCDuring (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, we should add most ethnic designations, because they imply that the person is not English. :-) --RichardW57m (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

French: se donner le motEdit

Currently, there exist a weird hard redirect (Citations:se donner le mot) but I think it merits a separate entry in the sense "come to an agreement" with someone, the Russian сгова́риваться (sgovárivatʹsja) seems to match the sense I have in mind, not sure about the exact English definition. I only found it in a couple of dictionaries but it seems idiomatic. @PUC: What do you think?

A usage example from G. Simenon's "Maigret et le tueur": Maigret avait chaud et la sueur lui collait au dos. Les quatre hommes s’étaient donné le mot. Chacun jouait son rôle sans se laisser surprendre par des questions plus ou moins inattendues. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this idiom also has an entry on the French Wiktionary: fr:se donner le mot, defined as Être de concert et d’intelligence ensemble. This means, somewhat pleonastically, something like "To be together in concert and agreement".  --Lambiam 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam, PUC: Thank you, @Lambiam. I saw the French entry but it doesn't have any references. I had a go and made the entry, please double-check.
The citation in [[Citations:donner le mot]] is just for the reflexive form of donner le mot / passer le mot, isn't it? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
To me, it seems more like these web traders conspired on the reddit platform to attack the hedge funds simultaneously, in a concerted action. So, IMO, this fits better as a citation for the new se donner le mot. In fact, I see no immediate evidence that donner le mot is used as a synonym of the more neutral passer le mot, so perhaps this needs verification. On the French Wiktionary, fr:donner le mot is a hard redirect to fr:se donner le mot.  --Lambiam 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


This Mon word was originally entered, by @Octahedron80 as ယဲကာလ, whose components were then swapped by @咽頭べさ. Now, I've found a seeming on-line usage: "ဘယ်ကပ် က္တဵုဒှ်ယဲဇဳချာံမတုပ်တဴ ညံၚ်ရဴဂျိဇြုံသ္ကာတ်မြဟ်လောန်ဂှ်မွဲ(ယဲကာလ လေဝ်ဂး)" (Google display) at https://kzhead.info/sun/p7FmeZmAgYiJioE/ratanasuttam-pali.html, so is the original also right? It's going to take me quite a while to make sense of the Mon, while Octahedron80 presumably has his source for the y-k form. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @RichardW57m, if this issue is important to you, vote in the ကၠာဲစၠောံဘာသာ မန် (Translate To MNW) group with Mon scholars and confirm with the majority of votes, so I will pretend not to know about this matter.--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 10:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
He just didn't accept how Thai Mon uses and spells comparing to Myanmar Mon, even I already shown sources. The fact is that it is dialectual difference. I tried to split into two titles (on other words) but he still told me 'wrong' and blamed me destroying his language. So, I gave up Mon already. There are other hundreds of languages to help.--Octahedron80 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Octahedron80, now that I read your reply, I realize that you are angry with me, so the way you're angry with me right now is completely unfair, so let me ask you one last question, if you can answer the question I ask, I will take whatever punishment you give me.
  1. do you have your own brain that can distinguish right from wrong Mon vocabulary?
  2. writing Mon texts at a professional level, can you make it readable?
remember when you told me you were ผมซื้อหนังสือพจนานุกรม on Facebook?, so looking at your statement, it is clear that you have no level of proficiency in the Mon language. if you're competing with native speakers without a brain of your own to distinguish Mon vocabularies right and wrong, if that's not destroying other people's native languages, what is?. unless you are destroying other people's mother tongue, you should respect what native language experts say, so as a proof, I made a few Thai typos while writing an article on Thai Wikipedia, so who excused me?, who allowed me to explain later?, so Thai people are fully protecting their mother tongue, do I not have the right to protect my Mon language?, you wouldn't like someone destroying your mother tongue, and I wouldn't like my mother tongue being destroyed in any way, so it is necessary to have mutual respect. your insistence on not accepting the native language expert's statement deserves to be called destroying other people's native language. you know very well that I have an intermediate level of Thai, you also know that I can speak and write Thai, has you ever seen me doing Thai vocabulary mistakes on Wiktionary without following the advice of a native speaker and being forced to do so?, also, when I write about Thai vocabulary on Wiktionary, it's natural to follow your statement because Thai is your mother tongue, so you should also follow my instructions when writing Mon vocabularies on Wiktionary, because Mon language is my mother tongue, you can always check out my Mon language knowledge on Mon Wiktionary, it's a shame to blame others for your own sins.--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 10:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@咽頭べさ: There are better ways than angry deletion for 'protecting the Mon language' that are consistent with the Wiktionary goal of documenting words in Mon. Words, spellings and encodings (TBC) that are used but would better not be used can be marked as such by using the templates {{lb}} and {{q}}, with labels such as 'rare', 'misspelling', 'substandard' and 'obsolete'. The latter may be appropriate for words taken from old dictionaries. I am rather surprised that we are not using labels like 'literary' and 'colloquial'. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
For the word ယဲကာလ, it may be that this is a 'sum of parts' rather than a true compound. If that were so, then it would not belong in Wiktionary. --RichardW57m (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@RichardW57m:, many Mon people write easily without noticing when they write Mon, you must remember that Clerk Mon is two people, those are scholars and non-scientists, so scholars are very careful when they write and non-professionals write easily without noticing anything when they write, so you need to check whether a vocabulary written by a person is a scholar or not, so as an example, consider the example below.
  1. Burmese writing=ဘုရားသာသနာ
  2. Mon writing=သာသနာကျာ်
if we use the term ယဲကာလ, then it is not correct Mon writing, so take a closer look at the two examples shown above, thanks.--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You have to repeat the indentation controls for each new paragraph. However, f you click '[reply]', the simple controls seem to work, and the gadget does the compounding for you. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If I understand you, the problem is:
The Burmese (and Indic!) order of compounding is the opposite to the native order. While a scholar will be careful to use the native order with a compound of an Indic and a native word, non-scholars may use the other order, which is bad Mon.
However, Wiktionary should help people understand the writings of non-scholars, even though they can get the order of elements of compounds the wrong way round. I therefore conclude that we should document the compound ယဲကာလ with a definition
{{lb|mnw|deprecated}} {{alternative form of|mnw|ကာလယဲ}}
(deprecated) Alternative form of ကာလယဲ
--RichardW57m (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I always rely on Thai's Mon dictionaries because they was collected and approved by Thai-Mon local communities. (They were led by gurus of those villages and government.) If you don't accept Thai sources that means you also don't accept those people's effort. (I could think that you destroyed Thai Mon vocabulary either.) And I also tried to indicate usage only in Thailand, in case if it was different from Myanmar. I have no comment on Myanmar Mon as I don't have better source than Sealang (which was collected by Harry Leonard Shorto, a linguist living and studying in Myanmar-Mon villages 60 years ago). You might have better sources of Myanmar Mon than mine that I will leave this part to you. I am not angry; I am just disappointed that we cannot work together. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will tell you once, please remember, if you want to write a Mon-Thai dictionary, please use Mon Thai alphabet, I cannot allow you to use Mon-Myanmar alphabet, the reason is that there may be confusion in the next appointment, so I can't allow it at all, also, if you want to write a Mon-Korean dictionary, use Mon-Korean alphabet. I cannot allow you to use Mon-Myanmar alphabet for that language. also, if you want to write a separate Mon-Thai dictionary, separate the language code for the Mon-Thai language, I can't allow Mon-Thai and Mon-Korean to mix with Mon-Myanmar. I love and respect the Mon-Korean and Mon-Thai people, but I don't want to complicate matters at all, I hope you understand what I am talking about now, thanks. 𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 13:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
That may be good idea. I just added Thai script to Mon database. By the way, the language code "mnw" is able to share both; the system can deal with scripts by default. I will move to "mnw-tha" instead. I will apply on Thai Wiktionary too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Is the writing system officially defined? My wife's currently in Thailand, and may be able to get me a copy of the definition if there's one of those government booklets defining the orthography of a minor language. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
It was defined in พวน รามัญวงศ์ [Phuan Ramanyawong] (2005) พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย ฉบับมอญสยาม [Mon-Thai (Siamese) Dictionary], กรุงเทพฯ [Bangkok]: มติชน [Matichon], →ISBN from top to toe. I have a very last copy of it, or you can check this app [2] (In practice, Thai Mon might not kin to write. They just speak.) But I must adjust a little bit to be more readable, such as, กอ. > เกาะ, แพฺ-าซา > แพฺ-อาซา, แปฺ.แญฺ-า > แปฺะแญฺ-อา --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You need to add the Thai sort_key field on to the Mon sort_key field in the languages data module. [Done]
Should we add the Roman script? A lot of Mon stuff is only easily available in transliteration or transcription. Is this an issue for the Bear Pit (WT:BP)? RichardW57m (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
There's still the Burmese-script printed material from Thailand to cover, though. That will be slow and tedious work. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Is the k-y form used in Thailand? If so, is the y-k form deprecated? If we can't tell, please report that the Thai Mon dictionaries don't tell us. I'm going to have to look for attestation of usage in Burma. I'm not sure how we would record acceptance in Thailand but deprecation in Burma - there ought to be an example amongst the English lemmas. --13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC) RichardW57m (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Did the communities approve the Mon script spellings or the rendering of the pronunciations into Thai script? --RichardW57 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Spelling, of course. It is the reason why they make dictionaries. And it is unavoidable to write in Burmese script because the "real script" is not yet supported. (We may fix this with pictures but nobody will do it every time.) BUT spelling inconsistency still exists among books (how they are taught), as well as Myanmar Mon. See some headache-ness at စှ်. Thai script is the way they pronounce clearly; some Mon people communicate with it. "Thai Mon" should contain both scripts.--Octahedron80 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

When I have many dictionaries, I usually must check all those books (or digital books) for a word if they spell the same. However, it is worth to be saved on Wiktionary even it is misspelled or no-usage todays. --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@RichardW57m: and @Octahedron80: for the spelling of ကာလယဲ, check out the Mon news article, thanks.--𝓓𝓻.𝓘𝓷𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓼𝓪|𝒯𝒶𝓁𝓀 14:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
But is that Thai Mon or Burmese Mon? I already knew that the k-y form had a vastly greater presence on the Internet. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
See my Thai Mon ယဲကာလ too -> [3] Thai Mon is influenced by Thai, so they arrange words like Thai. --Octahedron80 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Does that dictionary also have ကာလယဲ? RichardW57 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
No. As I said, it is Thai Mon only. --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Please add this mention to ယဲကာလ. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


I think the definition that we have for "fee" as a noun is incorrect. In common parlance, it is usually referring to an ADDITIONAL cost to an item or service (I added this to the definition just now); where the cost is RELATIVELY MINOR. A cleaning fee for a rental car is a good example, where the fee is in addition to the rental cost. A late fee for returning a rented item late (unlike a late fine for returning a library book late, which had no underlying cost). A school fee, which is typically in addition to the taxes paid for public education. The underlying cost may not be monetary. Legal or banking fees may be in relation to a commercial transaction, where the costs are substantially higher than the fees, or a criminal proceeding where the costs are restrictions to the defendant's freedom. Or tuition fees, where the cost of attending a university could be considered minor compared to the time and effort required to obtain a degree. I'm not overly familiar with editing wikipedia, so thought I'd add this note here. Thanks! 00:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the previous definition was "A monetary payment charged for a service" and the current one you've supplied is "An additional monetary payment charged for a service or good that is minor compared to the underlying cost". The previous, simpler definition is better, I think. Your analyses of late fees, school fees, and legal fees seem to be stretching things quite a bit and there's no etymological reason to expect fee to mean only a minor or supplementary payment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think you are mistaken. A fee is just money charged for a service. For example, a translation fee. That it be minor or secondary or additional is not an essential characteristic of a fee. As such, the definition as it stands right now is inaccurate. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
And as to the example, some school's fees are unaffordable for most people. I can remember one MP complaining that his children's school fees were crippling because of his drop in income due to becoming an MP. Moreover, the legal fees in defamation suits can lead to bankruptcy. However, the OP might be able to find an example where 'fee' means 'extra fee', e.g. with low cost air travel. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • ATM usage fee: minor and in addition to the withdrawn money. Airbnb cleaning fee: minor and in addition to the rental costs - and actually this is an interesting example, because there is a lot of discussion in North America about how the cleaning fees are excessive at airbnb, and probably shouldn't be considered fees any more. Luggage fees: in addition to the cost of an airplane ticket and relatively minor. A finder's fee: in addition to the cost of a transaction and relatively or comparatively minor. Inspection fee: typically minor and in addition to the cost of a repair. However, I agree that fee sometimes means just the cost of a service, like a teeth cleaning fee at the dentist. But, it's funny how not all payments for services are referred to as fees. I'm the OP, I just created an account. --TheLaziestAndy (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    But none these rely on the sense of 'additional fee'. Something close to what I am looking for would be 'And what fees are there?' when asking about the total price of air travel - and for economy airlines, baggage costs can be a significant addition. --RichardW57m (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Really I don't think there's anything minor or additional about e.g. legal or school fees, the idea in the OP that they're called fees because they're supplementary to the potential cost of a suit or taxes seems like a just-so story and has no etymological basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Being new to wikitionary editing, I'm unaware of the importance of an etymological root for a definition, thinking definitions are shaped by usage. Regardless, fee seems to have its etymological roots in feu, which was a payment to a vassal lord supplementary to a pledge of armed support. And as for school fees, when they were introduced in GB, and named, they were capped at 1000 GBP (small relative to total costs). In Canada at least, school fees, refer only to incidental costs associated with attending a primary or secondary school. And tuition fees, were the private and relatively small contribution to a post-secondary government funded education, and have unfortunately grown since then. (I am revising my tuition fee argument from before) As for the comment of baggage fees they typically account for less than 5% of the revenue of an airline, and Airbnb cleaning fees less than 10% of the booking charge of a stay. Just imagine paying $500 for checking a bag for $50 for an airplane ticket; in that case you would be paying to send your bag, with an additional fee to accompany it. --TheLaziestAndy (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Usage does indeed trump etymology; my point was just that I don't consider it part of the current usage and there's also no historical reason to expect it to be. I suspect the reason you might view it as additional is because fees are often charged for extra services when buying a particular item, which are indeed additional but the charges are not called fees for that reason (I would certainly still call the $500 luggage fee a fee). In other cases your explanations seem quite contrived and ad hoc. Small/additional doesn't come up at all in the definitions in the OED, Collins, Merriam-Webster, Chambers, or the Cambridge Learner's. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    But why don't you call the primary cost to travel by airplane a ticket fee? It is always an airplane ticket price or fare. And if I heard "ticket fee," I would assume it was a minor and additional to the primary cost. I just googled dog walking fee - and every search returned with the terminology "dog walking rates", with particular fees to compliment the underlying service (ie a grooming fee). But, if I look up a dog groomer, they have prices and rates, with fees for supplementary services like special shampoos. I understand there are some circumstances, related to government services where there are fees - but that too, I would think is named so, because they are supplementary to a primary funding mechanism ie taxes. --TheLaziestAndy (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps this notion should be expressed in the usage notes. RichardW57m (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    It is common to call the price to be paid for admission to an event a fee.[4][5][6] In this use there is no sense of it being in addition to something else. A difference between price and fee is that the latter term is not used for the price of goods bought, but only for intangible rights or services.  --Lambiam 13:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    The first site you reference states: "2-day General Admission (includes express entry): $50 + $5 fee" So, the fee is supplementary and relatively small to the admission price. And reviewing the ticketmaster site they have fees separate from the admission prices [7]. Admittedly this is not always the case, and I think you've mentioned it in your response, that fee is used when purchasing intangible rights (like being in a space when an event is occurring). I think that might be a separate use case like licensing fee. But, even as a I write this, I think the implication is that a licensing fee is small relatively and supplementary; the licensing fee for publishing a book is usually assumed to be less than the printing, promotion...etc costs. I think part of the problem is a lot of professional services are by their very nature supplementary, and comparatively small (ie engineering services for the construction of a bridge or architectural services for a building). But, the services I can think of that are stand alone, often don't use the word fee. There isn't a haircut fee, but a haircut price. A photographer usually charges rates. A house painter also charges rates. A landscaper is rates or price. --TheLaziestAndy (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


Should sense 1 (synonym of turning point) be considered separate from sense 2 (an unstable situation)? The OED is the only dictionary I see distinguishing them while also illustrating sense 1, but the quotations stop at 1886 and all read as obsolete to me. In any case, the entry would benefit from quotes. Ultimateria (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say they're (still) separate. A reasonably common example of 1 is the phrase "come to a crisis", in something like Our relationship came to a crisis that summer. The current definition of 2 does muddle things a bit with "especially one involving an impending abrupt change" but I think the basic distnction still holds. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I have the impression several of the definitions put too much emphasis on an aspect of “change”. As the term is used in the sense of an unstable situation – really a deviation from what is considered normalcy – a “crisis” can last for a decade or more.[8][9][10][11][12] Also in the pop-psychological sense the term refers IMO more to the abnormal situation itself than to a change of situation.  --Lambiam 13:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Change is bound up with the way the term itself has developed—Koselleck's article (JSTOR) on the concept is a history of ideas classic and traces its generalisation from the ancient medical/dramatic use, meaning a critical turning point, through its application to momentary emergencies, and finally in reference to vague and long-drawn-out situations of uncertainty—see the philosophical use in "crisis of Western civilisation", "crisis of parliamentary democracy", etc., Koselleck cites Huizinga's idea of a "crisis of European science" going all the way back to Descartes. It's worth quoting some of Koselleck's interpretation (pp. 369, 371):

[By the 19th century] "crisis" marked external or military situations that were reaching a decisive point; it pointed to fundamental changes in constitutions in which the alternatives were the survival or demise of a political entity and its constitutional order; but it could also describe a simple change of government. [] As it pertains to historical time [] the semantics of the crisis concept contains four interpretative possibilities: 1) Following the medical-political-military use, "crisis" can mean that chain of events leading to a culminating, decisive point at which action is required. 2) [] A unique and final point, after which the quality of history is changed forever. 3) [] A permanent or conditional category pointing to a critical situation which may constantly recur or else to situations in which decisions have momentous consequences. 4) [] A historically immanent transitional phase.

I agree in that context it can sometimes be used very loosely to just mean an abnormal situation, though I think generally, as those examples suggest, there is a specific expectation of something needing to be resolved, an emergency that demands a new course of action. So a crisis can be a turning point or a situation, but in practice the two senses are often deeply intertwined. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


To me as a native speaker of GA these are homophones, yet @Tharthan seems to disagree. Are they for any other American speakers? warship and worship on youglish seems to have most other GA speakers pronouncing them the same. Vininn126 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Without meaning to come across as rude, you should take a hearing test. Those YouGlish clips don’t demonstrate what you claim, rather they prove that the pronunciations are different. I’m not American, I’m English, but Thartan is clearly right here. It’s correct that the pronunciation of ‘worship’ that you claim to use, so that it sounds like ‘warship’, is rare and should be tagged as such. It would, in fact, make much more sense to tag such a pronunciation as Irish instead of American. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Most do use /ɝ/ for worship, but some do also pronounce it /ˈwɔɹʃɪp/. We list this as "rare". Even by listing this as a rare pronunciation, it would still make the two terms homophones. (Also for what it's worth I do have mild hearing loss due to a "prank", but typically I can still distinguish between phonemes, perhaps the /ɔ/ pronunciation is either idiosyncratic or specific to particular regions). Vininn126 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm a GA datapoint that has distinct pronunciations for these. I'll have to remember to refer to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum as a place of warship. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
(You're asking about AmE: definitely not the same in most forms of BrE though. But good enough for a pun!) Equinox 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
GA speaker here, and no they are distinct and even the stress on warship is slightly different, evincing that it is still a compound of 2 individual words, whereas worship is treated as a single word with 2 syllables, one stressed and the other unstressed. Leasnam (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
(re stress) Makes one wonder about blackman et al eh? Equinox 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Interesting - I do not stress warship that way, but there is a tendency in AmE to stress compounds that way. Vininn126 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Another strange phenomenon I’ve noticed, although I think I’ve only ever heard it from other English people, is the tendency to stress the word armchair on both syllables as if it’s two separate words arm chair. It’s definitely a minority and seemingly dated pronunciation in England though (although there are a surprisingly large number of American people saying it that way on YouGlish). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Leasnam, the stressed vowel is clearly different exactly as ward and word differ, and in addition there may be a slight difference in the secondary stress or lack thereof in the second syllable.
On a separate note, I'm convinced that I pronounce Carter and carder slightly differently as well, analogously to writer vs. rider (i.e. the vowel in Carter is slightly shorter and more centralized, with somewhat the same quality as cup). Any other GA speakers have such a distinction? Benwing2 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Canadian here: I do make that distinction. (And more relevant to the primary discussion, I also distinguish between worship and warship.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing: I make that distinction. It is subtle, but I don't pronounce water exactly the same as wadder. In the first (water), the t sound is produced further back and higher in the mouth, as though I am forming the mouth to make a clear t but switching to enunciating it lazily so that it comes out like a half-t/half-d while keeping my mouth in the t position. Yet in wadder, there is a clear, heavy d sound, pronounced more forward in the mouth. Same is true for city and siddy. Not 100% the same sound between the two. Leasnam (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

unprotected sexEdit

Do we need three different senses? PUC – 16:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, but the wording of a single definition may be a bit cumbersome. DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is the antonym of safe sex not unsafe sex?  --Lambiam 12:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

tuck shopEdit

The definition as it stands is problematic. I can't speak for other regions, but in Australia tuck shops have gone beyond just selling confectionery or snacks. Nowadays they sell hot food, among other meals. Can anyone share their thoughts? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tooironic: As an old Brit (I'm 40-something): this may be a slightly dated term. Certainly in all the old "school stories" for kids (Enid Blyton etc.) there is talk of "tuck" and "tuck boxes", which were phrases I never heard. We did have a "tuck shop" (1990s): this was just a place to buy sweets/candy/crisps/etc. at break-times. It was distinct from actually getting a hot meal at lunchtime. Also, because of modern ideas about diet (probably wise!) I'm not sure that UK schools would be likely to sell sugary snacks at breaks any more either. Need some input from the modern youth :) in particular, whether the term even still exists. (We could hack it by searching the Web for the use of the term, too.) Equinox 02:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
In Australia at least it is commonly used in schools across the country. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It's still used in the UK as well. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I have the same feeling as Equinox, as a Brit my late 20s. That being said, I know some schools have them. Theknightwho (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I’m between the two of you in my 30s and I wouldn’t say it’s that dated, though maybe I’m showing signs of my age and it has dated somewhat post Jamie Oliver. IIRC it was always snacks rather than hot food served in the tuck shop, so I agree with Equinox on that.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard of this term before, so I expect it's at the very least dated here in Canada. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for your input. I have added a usage note to this effect: In some English-speaking regions, like Australia, tuck shops also sell hot meals, being similar to a canteen or cafeteria. I think that clarifies it somewhat. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

pointed, unpointed, point (verb)Edit

Is it worth having explicit senses at these entries relating to Semitic orthography? To be fair, unpointed does have "(typography) Not marked with a point.", which is more general but I suppose covers it. There's a verb sense at point, "(transitive) To mark with diacritics." which again is pretty general (but noun sense 1.19 does cover the specific case). 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think so. It is also worth noting that there are two relevant sets of Arabic points - those that distinguish letters and those for marking vowels. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Follow up to label updatingEdit

I'd also like to have the label "regional" link to the index, but I'd like some input as to the wording. I'm thinking something like "A term not present in the general language, only occurring in particular areas". I believe there is a better way to express this. Vininn126 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


The recent creation of ŭulong-teo has me scratching my head, because it violates the almost-inviolable rule that words cannot begin with an initial Ŭ. On top of that, I can't find this word anywhere in the resources which I typically use for attestation. NordaVento (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

dramatis personaeEdit

The English etymology links to a Latin source, but the link target is missing. Gary Glass (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to link to each of the Latin words separately. If the combined term were actually idiomatic in Latin, then it would make sense to revert this and create a Latin entry for "dramatis personae", but it seems like a literal sum-of-parts analysis ("characters of (the) play") works here. 14:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Spanish pantsEdit

The entry for the Spanish word pants defines it as meaning pants. But that’s ambiguous, as it means something different in British English than it does in American English. The entry needs to clarify whether the meaning is trousers, or underpants. Or if it is used in both senses, then this should be stated explicitly. --Zundark (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed --Hvergi (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

deck roofEdit

I'm far from an expert on architectural terms, but the definitions/images given in various other sources [13], [14], [15] seem a bit different. Essentially, it is a hip roof which has been truncated with a flat surface at the top. Maybe this amounts to the same thing; I don't honestly grok "not surmounted by parapet walls". Unfortunately, I couldn't find a matching image in c:Category:Illustrations of roof forms, but I'm sure there photos of buildings with similar roofs on Commons. ("Frustums of 4-gon pyramids" would be about right, if they were even more truncated and were on top of a rectangular prism representing the building underneath the roof.) 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Usage notes by наверное (navernoje) and наверно (naverno)Edit

Currently, наверное (navernoje) is specified as ‘dated’ and наверно (naverno) bears no remark. My impression is the opposite: the former is the normal word, while the latter is colloquial. Of course both forms are rather informal in general. 12:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that both are dated: You'd use "точно". Pinging also @Atitarev, Tetromino, SUM1 Thadh (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
наверняка́ (navernjaká) is also current (not dated). наве́рное (navérnoje) in the sense of "for sure" is dated, наве́рно (navérno) has the same meanings, the sense "for sure" is also dated. It's a colloquial form of наве́рное (navérnoje). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
My impression is that one always reads or writes наве́рное (navérnoje) but always says наве́рно (navérno), and slangy наверняка́ (navernjaká). If hadn’t dived in systematically into the current language rules of Russia I would not even know that the former exists, knowing the language only from speech in Germany. But IP did not read the entry correctly, as Thadh wares. It is only the sense “certainly” that is marked dated and the forms have no remarks by Wiktionary though they probably should. Fay Freak (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
наверняка́ (navernjaká) is not slangy. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s not slang. Like чутка́ (čutká), that’s why I have only labelled this informal. There is a spectrum. Fay Freak (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not even colloquial or informal, it's very standard, almost literary. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, I use наверное interchangeably with наверно in speech. Thadh (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
They are interchangeable, only наве́рное is a bit more formal than its shorter form. Both are current (not dated) for the sense "probably, perhaps" but dated for "for sure". Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You're CIAEdit

For organizations like the CIA, Mafia etc. it's quite common to say "you're CIA" meaning "you're with the CIA" or "you're a member of the CIA". Does this merit a separate noun sense? Drapetomanic (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question by pointing out that it applies to all such organizations (likewise to fraternities and sororities, civic organizations, etc.). This means it's a feature of the language not of the term, and doesn't merit a separate sense added to every such organization. Benwing2 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an example of a kind of synecdoche that is probably very common for names of organizations. I don't think anyone decoding "you're CIA" would have any trouble, so it doesn't seem essential to me. YMMV. DCDuring (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I am CIA : Can I add [this]?  :) --Octahedron80 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Surely this went You are baker, police, CIA, because police is confusing and we afford a pluraliatantum definition. In contrast, to single out a baker, you'd prolly go for an agent, an officer, which is a marked difference. 2A00:20:6095:E9A4:C6EE:65B4:7727:3BD4 15:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


Etymologies 1 and 3 are both "you". Should they be separate? Ety 3 seems to mention East Anglian dialect. Equinox 11:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I read etymology 1 as saying that it comes from the word yeah, but that it is now used to mean you. I find that hard to believe. Looking back at the history, I wonder if we added the non-"yeah" senses to the first etymology just because that's what we see on the screen, when they really should be under the third etymology. So, I would say the first etymology is valid, but should be only for when yer means yeah, not when it means any of you ~ your ~ you're. Soap 14:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, on the face of it it looks like someone inattentively added it to the wrong ety section, although actually we seem to have been missing the right ety section (it's not from "yeah"!) until this malformed edit. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Old HalloweenEdit

Wikipedia says St. Martin's Day, 11 November, is also called Old Halloween. Is this true, in which case we're missing an entry? I'm not spotting it (for an 11 November holiday) in books from before ~2015 (and only a couple from after that), searching for "Old Halloween" + "Martin" or "November". Added in diff citing Carlyle and a book on Irish American labour history which speaks of "St. Martin's Day, also known as Old Halloween", a late mention as far as we're concerned and hardly much of an RS for the topic of St Martin's Day from a Wikipedia standpoint. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this before, but a Google search (and a Google Book's search) of "Old Halloween" and "Martin" (both in quotation marks) returns a number of results. this article claims that it comes from Halloween landing before St. Martin's day when the Gregorian calendar was introduced, but that seems unlikely to me, since that would only have happened once. Whatever the origin, it does seem to have existed (though I didn't come across any actual uses, just mentions). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
One crystal-clear example of use from the early 19th century here: [16]Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

pretender quotesEdit

Someone thought we were OED, and decided to add loads of abbreviated forms for the quotations. It looks rather horrid to me. Perhaps someone wants to help putting the quotes in full form? GreyishWorm (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what source these were copyvioed copied from. DCDuring (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
FWIW the person who added them linked the source in their edit summary (diff); it's the first edition OED so not a copyvio. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

remove/withdraw/lose the "whip"Edit

(reposted from Talk:whip, UK politics) Does this refer to the document (sense 5)? That is, if you're an MP and have "the whip removed", you don't receive this document and are therefore unable to vote? Or is this another missing sense? (example use) Jberkel 12:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: The OED treats this as a distinct sense, the whip. Etymologically it probably does derive from the document—I can find an 1890s use ([17]) strongly suggesting this—but in current usage I think the senses ought to be distinguished since it would be very strange to talk about withdrawing and removing if the document were meant. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a new sense to it. – Jberkel 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I corrected it slightly since "the whip" only refers to membership of a parliamentary party; withdrawing the whip has no effect on whether the MP can vote or their standing as an MP as such, it just means they sit in Parliament as an independent. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe this is a synonym of whipper-in (when talking about the person). And there's another sense regarding some abstract status that an MP "has". Indeed, the document sense is not adequate, because if you remove the whip, you are not removing a document. Jberkel seems to have done some work on it now. Equinox 20:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


Where there ever cabriolet taxis, wut?

I have a hunch that it derived from caballo "horse", thus a "ride", and that scholars can afford to sit on a first class "horse" not some rusty caple, and that people who rode caple couldn't write. That aside, in more recent times it's more likely to be from cabinet, compartment, anything that's not open to the elements.

Jinx, the etymon cabriolet is indeed from Italian for "horse caper". 16:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The classical horse-drawn cabriolet, functionally a forerunner of the taxi cab, had a folding hood (also seen on some pram models), and the re-use of the term for an automobile model derives from this characteristic. Weather permitting, the hood could be folded back, as seen in this picture. (The closed carriage on the right is a coupé, likewise lending its name to a contemporary automobile model.)  --Lambiam 17:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

pub-quiz questionEdit

I was thinking about adding this as some kind of adjective phrase to describe someonr famous (usually a politician) who holds the record as shortest holder of some important post. Possibly very UK usage. Does anyone feel that they could do this justice as an entry? always assuming that it could be included. -- ALGRIF talk 13:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think we can find at least three independent instances of the term being used with this sense in permanently recorded media, spanning at least a year? Is there even one such use?  --Lambiam 17:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Algrif's definition is much too narrow but it's certainly not a recent invention, the BBC News website records someone saying John Major will "become a pub quiz question" in 1999 [18]—I've heard it in reference to football too. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're describing. Can you give an example sentence? I only understand it as "a question in a pub quiz", like, say, "Which transgressive 1980s industrial group shares its name with a shock-absorbing mechanical component?" Equinox 20:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
It means someone who will only be remembered as an item of obscure trivia. See this recent usage in The Guardian: "His political career is finished. His credibility trashed. Destined to become a pub quiz question as the shortest-serving chancellor who didn’t die in office"; or the John Major one I linked above, "He will become a pub quiz question, because most people will think the long years of the Thatcher Government became the long years of the Blair Government without any leader in between." —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd never seen it before. Equinox 21:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I’ve definitely heard this before, just can’t specifically remember where and when. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Here someone is said to have become a “pub quiz question answer” – in response to the question, “who was the first player to score a hattrick for the same club in the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup?”. In this use the term ”answer” is not used but implied, since the question is explicitly stated: “who was the proposed Supreme Court justice who never got a hearing?” Also, this source says, “his name will become a pub quiz question”, so the answer here is not the person but their name. So it appears that two forms of metonymy are simultaneously involved: (1) “pub quiz question” as short for “pub quiz question answer”; (2) referencing the entity whose name is the correct answer, rather than the name. The latter metonymy is possibly already present in the formulation of the question, which could have been phrased as, “Name the proposed Supreme Court justice who never got a hearing.” There are several uses of pub quiz question answer in reference to the hapless Truss, some not referring directly to the person but for instance to “[h]er shambolic premiership”.[19] Here is a 2017 use of pub quiz question answer, so my provisional conclusion is that inclusion of a figurative sense of pub quiz question answer is warranted, whereupon we can define a figurative sense of pub quiz question as Short for pub quiz question answer..  --Lambiam 12:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
How is "pub quiz question answer" figurative and not literal? Doesn't seem to warrant an entry to me. Nosferattus (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Something can only be a literal pub quiz question answer if it is an answer to a literal pub quiz question, that is, a question posed in a pub quiz. Examples of such answers are “spiders” (for the question, “Arachnophobia is the fear of what type of creatures?”[20]) and “Edvard Munch” (for the question, “Who painted The Scream in 1894?”[21] — although the year is usually given as 1893). The putative questions to which the “pub quiz question answers” in the figurative sense are meant to be answers are not questions that have been or are meant to be asked in an actual trivia quiz held in a public house, or for that matter in an off-premise quiz conducted in the same style, but are formulations of some rather unique property, labelled thus by an author for no other purpose than to stress its uniqueness.  --Lambiam 20:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Coordinate Terms & SimilarEdit

Are Hubei and Hunan (and Huguang- Huguang) coordinate terms because their 'hu' components refer to Lake Dongting? In a more complex question, are Kinmen (Jinmen) and Jinsha, Jinning, Jincheng, and Jinhu coordinate terms or something like that via their 'jin' component? That the four townships of the island are all named with 'jin' as is the island itself is certainly 'coordinated'. Thanks for any speculation or guidance on what these relationships are, please ping me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


In our entry for thô it claims that this an abbreviation used in telegraphs for though but the supporting citation we use to justify this claim is from 1720, long before the first optical telegraph of 1793 or any electrical telegraphs (see Telegraphy). Perhaps this particular cite is referring to an abbreviation used in a letter rather than a telegraph? —Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if the telegraph had been invented in 1793 BCE, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu would not very likely have communicated her letters of thousands of words by telegraph. I cannot access the quoted edition, but in an edition of 1790 we find this passage with occasionally rather different spellings: The whole ſhew lasted for near eight hours, to my great ſorrow, who was heartily tired, though I was in the houſe of the widow of the captain baſſa (admiral) who refreſhed me with coffee, ſweetmeats, ſherbet, &c. with all poſſible civility.[22] We’d need to see a photostat of the original to know what the Lady actually wrote.  --Lambiam 18:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Well spotted. There are quite a few GoogleBooks hits for thô but nearly all for 17th century publications (or later reprints of C17th works). I’ve relabelled it as obsolete now. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Did English telegraphy use diacritics? 23:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hyperforeign Pronunciation of XiEdit

Hey all, I believe that 'Xi' (as the surname of a Chinese person) is sometimes pronounced with a hyperforeign(?) sound- see: CBS News 0:06. It kind of sounds like "dzhji". If you know IPA, could you add this pronunciation, if appropriate? Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised /ʃiː/ is the only one listed there given that I hear /siː/ about as often. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
We should IMO only add mispronunciations of foreign names if they are really common. I wonder how the reporter would pronounce the name Ji.  --Lambiam 22:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
If we actually want to help normal people and journalists with pronunciation we need a lot more audio files in addition to our IPA. What percent of our potential user population is good with IPA? (I say 'potential' because I'm pretty sure that we have already discouraged many normal people with voluminous, cognate-laden etymologies, elaborate antiquarian cites, poorly worded definitions, etc.) DCDuring (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do think a lot of etymology sections could be improved. And naming fewer cognates, especially from minor languages, is one way to do that. But I hardly think etymology sections as such discourage people from using Wiktionary. You can always skip them... What discourages people is the part-of-speech sections. It starts with the mania to add archaic and nonstandard forms to the verb templates: stuff like that can really do harm because people can't find what they're looking for. 08:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the overall impression one gets from an entry has a major effect on visitors during their first visits. Large blocks of type in foreign languages and scripts appearing at the top of an entry are a usability problem. For that matter, an inch of vertical screen space taken up by IPA is almost as bad. DCDuring (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Data and layout are orthogonal (form follows function). :::::The broad transcription is sufficient to distinguish it from /tʃiː/ (Qi, qi, chi, ...), likely to be confused in my own experience because the transcription underspecifies and semantics necessarily so. 2A00:20:608D:BFDD:11DD:1E02:6A74:B58D 21:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Please explain for the folks at home. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


Gerunds in Spanish are non-personal verbal forms so the info currently contained in calando#Spanish, hablando#Spanish and possibly many more is wrong. Check: Talk:calando. - 23:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just checked comiendo#Spanish and estando#Spanish and the same "conjugation" shows up while their equivalents in Asturian or Portuguese only provide the definition "Gerund of...", which in Spanish should be the same. It seems to be all over en Wiktionary... a template issue.-- 11:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Benwing2. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Oops, I forgot about this. Been meaning to fix it but it slipped off my radar. Will fix today. Benwing2 (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2, @Chuck Entz. Thanks to both. The problem doesn't seem to have been addressed yet, though. It seems to be a template issue so it hopefully should be easy to solve even though it affects a lot of entries (many or all Spanish gerunds). -- 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC) (aka
I guess part of the problem may be due to the discrepancy between the meanings of English gerund and Spanish gerundio. Spanish gerundios basically have an adverbial, not substantival, meaning... adverbs are not declined or conjugated in Spanish. -- 20:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese 入る Senses 4 and 6 may be "backwards"Edit

The examples I have seen other dictionaries use to explain this sense all seem to point to a passive form definition, where the subject is the item being "contained", "included", or "held". Thus maybe the definition should be "to be contained". However, all of the other Japanese English dictionaries I've seen have the same "backwards" definition, leading me to believe that the error might be in interpreting a Japanese dictionary or in the dictionary itself. And my Japanese is not good enough to check those. Also I could be wrong about this being an error. Does anyone more knowledgeable have insight on this?

Ex: Maggie Sensei


What is in this food?


The service charge is not included in the fee Rampagingcarrot (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Some editors at JM dict agreed with me, so I will go ahead and change these meanings to the passive form. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Eirikr if you have any input on this or the unrelated discussion of #Pages_with_duplicate_Japanese_L2s below. - -sche (discuss) 16:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Belatedly, thank you @-sche!
@Rampagingcarrot had suggested on the Talk:入る page that the senses are passive, but that's not quite it. This is not so much passive usage like "A has been entered by B" or "B has been put into A", but rather a difference of viewpoint. In English, we say things like "A has B in it", while in Japanese, we say things like A には B が入った (A ni wa B ga haitta, literally in A, B has entered) -- the topic is reversed between the languages.
I expect that a lot of confusion about how this verb works is due to overly idiomatic English translations that obscure how the Japanese verb and phrasing actually work. I've had a go at expanding somewhat and reworking the usexes to try to emphasize this difference. HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

lateral readingEdit

Worth an entry? It essentially means "to fact check a source while reading it" as far as I can tell. Is there a meaning of lateral that covers this? Vininn126 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This specific sense derives from the title of: Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew (2017), “Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information”, Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1.[23] However, the term is older and generally has the broader meaning of not just consuming a text by reading it straight through as it is presented, but expanding one’s view so to speak sideways, considering the material presented in relation to other relevant material, not specifically for checking veracity but mainly to get a fuller experience.[24][25][26][27]  --Lambiam 21:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A sharpEdit

I'm discussing whether we should include these definitions of A sharp, C sharp, D sharp, and G sharp.

You know that in standard music theory, the definition of A sharp is the note a chromatic semitone above A. However, in non-standard music theory (this definition is used by Internet sites with lyrics and guitar chords) A sharp is often used to mean the pitch a semitone above A regardless of its function. (That is, A sharp is used to mean the pitch between A and B regardless of whether it is a chromatic alteration of A or of B.)

Any thoughts on whether this definition should be included?? If possible, please improve it. (Note this holds for C sharp, D sharp, and G sharp.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We could define A-sharp as, “(music) A tone a semitone above A, intermediate between A and B, denoted A♯.” This is agnostic as to whether that semitone is chromatic or diatonic. (An issue with the present definition, “ten fifths above C in the cycle of fifths”, apart from the fact that readers not familiar with music theory may interpret “ten fifths” as 10/5, is that it is anachronistic: musicians had been using A-sharps for centuries before the cycle of fifths was conceived, and in many tuning systems this characterization does not really apply.)  --Lambiam 21:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, that seems like a better definition, and is also how e.g. Merriam-Webster defines A-sharp; indeed, we already define B-sharp in terms of semitones, not fifths. - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
We really need to make our entries consistent; B♯ points to B-sharp, but C-sharp functionally offloads its content to C♯ where the definition has a third wording... - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It turns out most of our pages already used the simple "one semitone above/below..." wording. I changed the few outliers. A couple entries had significant excess content: A♯ and C♯. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Audio in nigrulaj vivoj gravasEdit

It sounds like TTS to me. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure it is. Removed. Vininn126 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

all lives matterEdit

Saying that this phrase is "often offensive" without specifying who consider it offensive is intentionally misleading, but AG202 wants this term labeled offensive simply because he finds it offensive. He thinks he owns that entry.

In [28], he claims that "as seen by the sources cited, it's not solely supporters of BLM who find it offensive". This is a barefaced lie. All seven references are either written in support of the movement or to quote those who are:

  • Victor, Daniel (July 15, 2016), “Why 'All Lives Matter' Is Such a Perilous Phrase”, in The New York Times‎[1], retrieved November 20, 2016

To those who find it offensive or misguided, especially those sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement, the statement — particularly in a social media hashtag — is not seen as a Kumbaya sentiment but as a way to remove focus from the specific grievances of black Americans.

Those in the Black Lives Matter movement say black people are in immediate danger and need immediate attention, like the broken bone or house on fire. Saying “All Lives Matter” in response would suggest to them that all people are in equal danger, invalidating the specific concerns of black people."

  • May, Ashley (July 13, 2016), “AllLivesMatter hashtag is racist, critics say”, in USA Today‎[2], retrieved July 14, 2016 (every person quoted is a public supporter of the movement)

Some people are tired of the hashtag #alllivesmatter. The #alllivesmatter hashtag, which recently has been used alongside #blacklivesmatter is “erasing the vulnerability of and dehumanization of black people," said Carla Shedd, assistant professor of Sociology at Columbia University and author of Unequal City.

  • Mick Tsikas (January 13, 2021), “Why is it so offensive to say ‘all lives matter’?”, in The Conversation‎[3] (written in support, see quote)

Black Lives Matter is intended to promote the peaceful protest of racism against Black people, not only in the US, but worldwide. It also calls for immediate action against systemic and social racism.

  • German Lopez (July 11, 2016), “Why you should stop saying “all lives matter,” explained in 9 different ways”, in Vox‎[4] (written in support, see quote)

But the point of Black Lives Matter isn't to suggest that black lives should be or are more important than all other lives. Instead, it’s simply pointing out that black people's lives are relatively undervalued in the US — and more likely to be ended by police — and the country needs to recognize that inequity to bring an end to it.

  • Christina Capatides (July 8, 2020), “Why saying "all lives matter" communicates to Black people that their lives don't”, in CBS News‎[5], just quotes people who clearly support the movement.
  • Lizz Schumer (June 4, 2020), “What Black Lives Matter Means (and Why It's Problematic to Say "All Lives Matter")”, in Good Housekeeping‎[6] is a clearly opinionated article. Tell me anyone is writing neutrally when they write

Instead, it's important to understand what drives the BLM movement and how to support it

  • Sukriti Wahi (January 13, 2021), “How To Explain Why Saying 'All Lives Matter' Is Wrong To Someone You Care About”, in ELLE Australia‎[7], same case as above. It's talking about how "all lives matter" is an "argument" that one should reject:

So, what do you say to some you care about who espouses this argument?

—⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

An aside: IMHO we should generally not include political slogans anyway, even ones with a significant impact. They aren't proverbs and often have a simple literal meaning. Equinox 15:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Going by your argument for source 7, the only evidence you’d accept would be someone who simultaneously supports the slogan “all lives matter” while also finding it offensive. Not sure how that one adds up. Sources don’t need to be neutral, either - our evaluation of them does. Theknightwho (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
If an opinion piece proclaims that "all lives matter" should be considered offensive because X and Y, it is evident that the public does not see it as offensive. Why else would the author write it?
"People expressing an opinion means that most people don't hold that opinion" is one of the worst logical leaps I've seen in a while. Theknightwho (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Vininn126 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add a neutral evaluation to the entry, but I was reverted. It is a matter of fact that labeling the phrase offensive is taking a stance and not being neutral. It is politically charged, but so is "black lives matter". —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

When a term is considered offensive by some groups, but not by others, especially when it follows political lines, I think a usage note, rather than a label, is the best approach. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, someone in an edit summary suggested changing that part of the label to "see usage notes", and I think that'd work fine. - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
We'd still want the page to categorize correctly. Vininn126 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

criminal diplomacyEdit

Worthy of an entry? I'd say so, it can't be SOP because the diplomatic tactics described as such aren't criminal i.e. illegal but rather immoral from the POV of the speaker. I've encountered it here: w:Schellenberg smuggling incidentFytcha T | L | C 〉 14:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I would class this as SOP from the extended meaning (sense 4) of criminal personally. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

have someone in the palm of one's handEdit

Hi, Shouldn't it be "in the palm of one's hand" since it can be both used with objects and people? Tashi (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Dutch de nodige / het nodigeEdit

The literal meaning of Dutch de nodige / het nodige, when modifying a noun phrase, is “the necessary”:

  • Als je de nodige voorzorgsmaatregelen neemt, kun je jezelf preventief beschermen tegen inbrekers.[29]
    If you take the necessary precautions, you can preventively protect yourself against burglars.

Nothing special; this is totally SOP. But there is also a common use that is rather opaque:

  • Zoals gebruikelijk weer de nodige ongelukken dit weekend op de Curaçaose wegen.[30]
    Again, as usual, the necessary(?) accidents this weekend on the Curaçao roads.
  • Het was een vriendelijke man die in zijn leven de nodige tegenslagen te verwerken had gehad.[31]
    He was a kind man who had endured the necessary(?) setbacks in his life.
  • Al deze huizen werden in de jaren 1980 – onder het nodige protest – opgeofferd voor de bouw van appartementsgebouwen.[32]
    All these houses were sacrificed in the 1980s – under the necessary(?) protest – for the construction of apartment buildings.

Accidents, setbacks and protests may be expected, but it is strange to call them “necessary”. It appears that this use is basically a determiner, meaning “many” or “much”. Does this idiom merit a separate entry? I have the impression that this sense, which can hardly be called “figurative”, is reserved for items with a connotation of being unfortunate – another common collocation in which we see this sense is de nodige mislukkingen.  --Lambiam 21:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Mnemosientje, Rua, Thadh.  --Lambiam 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would rather translate them as "his/her/its fair share". I think "expected" is also pretty close. In any case, this would probably indeed deserve some kind of figurative sense, but definitely not a separate entry. Thadh (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd go for 'inevitable'. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Pages with duplicate Japanese L2sEdit

Can an editor comfortable editing Japanese please consolidate the duplicate Japanese entries on these pages?


Thank you! JeffDoozan (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@JeffDoozan, I've cleaned up the above entries. Thank you! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


In the French quotation, the adjective is used in the masculine form when the speaker was a woman talking about herself.

The term may also use etymology and alt forms. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I answered my own question. It can also be invariable. Still needs the etymology. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
According to the dictionary of the Académie française, it was borrowed from regional German schlass, meaning “lacking energy, tired”.[33] Presumably, that would be Low Alemannic German as spoken in the Alsace.  --Lambiam 09:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam: Thanks. I am having trouble understanding abbreviations. The first line in that source says
1. 1873 Slaze subst. « homme ivre » (d'apr. Esn.); ...
I only understand "a drunk man" (homme ivre). Did it have the noun meaning "drunk man" or that was some original language? I don't know what #2 says either. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Slaze subst. = substantif (noun) d'apr. Esn. = d'après (according to) Esn. perhaps "Esnault (Gaston), 1965. Dictionnaire historique des argots français" or some other work by Esnault, I couldn't find a list of abbreviations used. – Jberkel 11:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I think so. For example, the entry frichti also has the abbreviation “Esn.”,[[34] but because it once was their “word of the day” it has more extensive unabbreviated info, where we find Esnault, Argots, linking to a page with a full bibliographic description.  --Lambiam 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Schweizerisches Idiotikon has two fitting senses for Alemannic German schlass: "schlaff, matt" and "faul, träge". It's pretty certain that this is the donor. Further, it's obvious that it is related to German schlaff but I don't think the -ss can be satisfactorily explained if it really descended from Middle High German slaf too (Lexer doesn't have another candidate though). Interestingly, they also compare it to Danish slat (slatten, slattet). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 11:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

preke - pronunciationEdit

This word is obsolete. The OED (whose most recent citation is from 1758) does not give a pronunciation for it and neither does Merriam-Webster. Onelook.com has an entry from the Century Dictionary at https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Century_Dictionary/HW6gHMs_pxsC?hl=en&gbpv=1. The entry is on page 4690 and a pronunciation is given, but it's not very legible. There is an accent above the "e" that looks more like an acute accent than a macron, and if that is the case, the pronunciation would not be /priːk/, as we have given it. (The accents on the page for the pronunciation guide cannot be distinguished.) Can we confirm what the pronunciation was? If not, we should remove it. — Paul G (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You can zoom in here, it's clearly prēk. There are other scans/editions on the Internet Archive, and all of the ones that I checked had the macron. I agree that the scan you linked on Google Books looks like it has an acute accent if you zoom in. Hmm, the editions may be different, or the Google Books scan could just have too little resolution to discern it accurately. 04:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
As another line of evidence, the spelling Preek appears in the Journal of Conchology; normally ee represents the vowel /i/ (as would the vowel in preke, following the rule of CVCe discussed at Vowel length#In English). 05:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it must be a macron (even in that edition) : it's longer than a dot, and it's more connected (horizontally, albeit not vertically) than an umlaut, which are the only other diacritics Century uses over e AFAICT. The scan here, like the internet archive scans linked above, has a clearer macron, and this pronunciation is consistent with the alternative spellings preak and preek. I wonder if the etymology is connected to the immediately preceding entry, preke as an old pronunciation/form of prick. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Could be, though I'm not sure whether cephalopods really exhibit behavior that one would characterize as "pricking". Their most distinctive features are their tentacles, and I would've guessed that a more fitting verb would be "grab" or "suck". As an alternative theory, this source claims that the word preke is "doubtless" a reference to the shrill sound produced by the critter (onomatopoeia?). I wasn't able to find a recording to judge for myself how plausible that is. If I'm understanding the article, it's possible that the sound is only produced when they're out of the water, so maybe it's for the best that there aren't many recordings of that. 07:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

-KKK- & -kkk- Are these infixes?Edit

We don’t have entries (yet) for -KKK- or -kkk-, and I just wanted to check these definitely are infixes before I create them. They both get inserted into words to imply that something or someone supports white supremacy (e.g. Amerikkka, DemoKKKrat, RepubliKKKan etc.). They also seem to have seen a lot of use with the names of (particularly right-wing) US politicians/pundits: the first four I thought of were “John McKKKain”, “KKKandace Owens”, “Mitch McKKKonnell” & “Rickkk Scott”, and they all get a few hits each. Even if they don’t deserve their own entries (none meet CFI attestation requirements), it still suggests these are fully productive.

To me, that fits the definition of an infix (the insertion of a morpheme into a word to modify its meaning), but I just wanted to run it past people first, as I know there has been resistance to neologistic affixes in the past. Theknightwho (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

MW requires an infix to be an affix. Thus, "-bloody-" would not be a true infix. If -kkk- is just an inserted form of KKK, then it does not look like an affix and would not be infix in a narrow sense. Otherwise, -kkk- does look like an infix in the examples above, even though it does not get merely inserted but it actually replaces "K", "k" or "C", and it is unclear to me what its phonetic realization is, if any. Without phonetic realization, is it a true morpheme or just an orthographic artifact? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
A morpheme is a lexical unit that has some kind of semantic value of its own. In this case they clearly do, as they modify the meaning of the original term in a consistent manner. Phonetic realisation isn’t relevant to that (which is why null morphemes can exist). It also doesn’t matter if they modify the stem (as these do), as it is extremely common for affixes to do that in inflections, for example.
I don’t understand your point when you say if -kkk- is just an inserted form of KKK, then it does not look like an affix and would not be infix in a narrow sense. In what way does it not look like an affix? The fact it derives from an independent term doesn’t mean this can’t be an affix as well. Most proper nouns cannot be used like this, which means this use must be because it’s a different part of speech. Theknightwho (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
My point was that -kkk- looks like the free morpheme KKK, not a bound one, if it is a morpheme at all. It is disputable.
-kkk- is not really like a null morpheme: a null morpheme is empty both phonologically and orthographically. By contrast, -kkk- looks like an orthographic pseudo-infix. It is not merely inserted but rather replaces something, so it is not true infix either. To the extent that word morphology exists even without spelling, -kkk- is not a morpheme at all, empty or otherwise. It is then not true blending either in so far as blending is a morphological phenomenon, not a spelling phenomenon.
In WP, the -kkk- phenomenon is covered at W:Satiric misspelling. Following that article, one could ask whether $ in Micro$oft is an interfix -$-. I somehow doubt that spelling manipulations with no phonetic realization are true infixes. Spelling manipulation does not really have anything to do with morphology. ---Dan Polansky (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
It is a bound morpheme, though. One which derives from a proper noun. You cannot use KKK like this independently. It also very much is a morpheme, as it conveys meaning. As already explained, the fact that it modifies the stem is irrelevant, as that is very common with affixes; I did already explain that. Theknightwho (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd personally analyze them as blends, more precisely as overlapping blends. The reason being that infixes go into "slots" that the to-be-infixed-into word prescribes on the basis of higher-level morphological and/or phonological concepts whereas -kkk- is a morphologically oblivious substitution for /k/. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
They are visual puns. Was (-)purr- a prefix and an infix in Arm & Hammer's “Purrfectly Impurrfect” cat competition? Meh. Equinox 17:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This seems like x (* -x, -x-, x-) and @ (* -@, -@-, @-) that were discussed recently, including in that in KKKandace it's more like a prefix than an infix and in Rickkk it's more like a suffix, and in that it's not always just KKK that's added: in Candace, C is deleted like a disfix and replaced, and in Rickkk, if we consider it an affix, it looks like only -kk is added, and when replacing someone's middle initial of K with KKK, it's hard to see it as any affix. (It also reminds me a little of Talk:-k-.) I think that like x and @, it should be considered one substitution in all cases, not split across a prefix, suffix, infix, etc: so do we want to consider it an infix in all cases, even KKKandace or Rickkk, as you seem to suggest? Do we want to consider all xs and @s infixes, even in standalone @, in Latin@, etc? IMO no: while that would seem better to me than splitting it across a prefix, suffix, etc, it'd make etymology sections odd ("-KKK- +‎ Candace Owens"), and like Fytcha and Equinox said, it's ultimately not an affix, it's just replacing (or blending) KKK into something to invoke KKK. IMO the solution is leaving it at KKK and not using {{af}} but instead typing a few extra letters to use a different template to put in verbiage like "with the {{{2}}} of {{{3}}} replaced with KKK", e.g. "with the C of Candace replaced with KKK" (maybe, if we want to explain why, "...to suggest an affinity for the KKK or white supremacy"), and putting a usage note in KKK to mention that it's blended into words like this, similar to what I did for @ before one user felt we should split it across multiple affixes to get the {{af}} categories (a split I am inclined to undo soon). - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the variations you mention (where it looks like two Ks are added or the C is replaced) are particularly relevant, as that kind of variation is very common with affixes in order to make them fit a stem.
I also don't see how this is just a blend and not an affix. What, fundamentally, is the difference in this situation? It is a morpheme (as it adds meaning, unlike @Equinox's suggestion of "purr"), and it therefore seems to fit the definition of affix. I'm also unsure how you can simply put this use under the part of speech of "proper noun". Theknightwho (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
"Purr" does add meaning. "Perfect" on its own has no semantic element of cat. Equinox 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, if there's a semantic modification, that fits the definition of affix. Theknightwho (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
...no? Winterpeg semantically modifies Winnipeg to highlight its wintriness, and Shitcago and shitcoin add derogatoriness to Chicago and Bitcoin, but don't use an affix *winter- or *shit-, right? (Or do you think they do?) They're blends. I think it's easier, Occam's razor style, to take KKKandace, Rickkk, and AmeriKKKa to be using one phenomenon of blending or frankly just substitution (like $ and like various eye-dialect changes to words to indicate someone is rural, German, etc), rather than positing three new affixes (prefix, suffix, and infix, which I think you'd have to posit if you assume what's happening in affixation). I also think this is better from a usability standpoint, as anyone interested in looking up words into which KKK has been blended probably doesn't perceive cases where the initial /k/ was at the start of the word as different from cases where it's in the middle or end. - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Fytcha and -sche that it's most sensibly analysed as an (orthographic) blend, but I am a bit more sympathetic to the "infix" argument because in the literature (to the extent there's any agreement about this stuff) a distinguishing characteristic that makes e.g. Partygate party + -gate as opposed to a blend of party and Watergate is the fact that -gate is now productively and more or less arbitrarily applied to any base word; it "has acquired morpheme status" [35]. I think in terms of word-formation KKK is clearly in that sort of box at this point, since people aren't specifically and novelly blending each individual word with (the) KKK, but if it is a morpheme it also isn't an affix as generally understood, it's something purely orthographic and overlaid on the base word. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


From stave (in reference to the stem of a word, its onset) + rhyme, possibly a calque of Germanic.

We don't currently have such a definition at stave, is it real? The Danish word, stavrim/bogstavrim is most obviously interpreted as "letter-rhyme" (cf. Old Norse stafr, bókstafr). Same goes for German Stabreim.__Gamren (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It's probably just a case of a calque using a similar-sounding cognate that otherwise means something else. This source derives it from the poetry meaning of "stave" but doesn't look convincing. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, we don't exactly have a definition like "letter"/"sound" at stave, either; the closest we come is "sign, symbol or sigil [...] rune".
Stave-rhyme probably is a calque of one of the Germanic terms (it's interesting to realize staff in reference to a business's staff is apparently also a calque of German military jargon), but I think what I was referring to when I added this a decade ago is that when discussing rhyme, one sometimes speaks of the rhyming staves and AFAICT one always means the onset sounds as in folches ~ fehta; if "stave" just meant any letter, one would think the ending letters of e.g. cat ~ bat could also be called rhyming staves, but I haven't seen that. (See Citations:stave.) - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

progressive enhancementEdit

I am no expert on this subject, but the definition is clearly redundant:

"A philosophy where a website's functionality is enhanced by JavaScript, rather than wholly reliant on JavaScript."

Should the second "JavaScript" be changed to something else? I'm guessing "HTML". Tardigras (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the definition is correct as it stands, and changing it to "HTML" would be wrong.
Some websites rely so much on JavaScript that they are unusable without it (e.g., they are useless if JavaScript is disabled, if the browser version is old, if the JS just doesn't load for whatever reason, etc.). For example, the content of a page might not load at all without JavaScript. The point of progressive enhancement is to avoid this. A site with progressive enhancement is still usable at a basic level even without JavaScript, but the JavaScript does add some extra bells and whistles when it's available. 05:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

goodge out?Edit

In this very pleasant video about the amoeba, the narrator says "it's like a ball that can goodge out in any direction...that's right, goodge". Is that what non-linguistics refer to as real word? GreyishWorm (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the video is 1:04–1:11. There could be some kind of onomatopoeia or sound symbolism going on here. 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Im somewhat familiar with this channel and I would say that he aims to amuse his listeners and not everything he says should be taken seriously. He said IPA(key): /wɔmb/ for womb in one video. Soap 22:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"a second" = a second helping, seconds?Edit

second has "(usually in the plural) An additional helping of food. That was good barbecue. I hope I can get seconds." This suggests you can actually get "a second", which I've never heard. Is it true? Equinox 17:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, AHD allows for the possibility of singular usage in this sense, whereas MWOnline does not. It doesn't seem wrong to me. Awful to search for at Google Books. Maybe better at COCA. DCDuring (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This doesn’t feel lexicalised in the singular. “A second” can refer to anything, but “seconds” cannot. Theknightwho (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I would find "a second" quite strange, maybe referring to "a second helping" or something. So I agree with Theknightwho. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's not typical. That said attested is attested, but considering how most natives react to it we might want to add a "nonstandard" label if the quotes are out there. Vininn126 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I think saying "Can I have a second?" would be fine, but it would only be obvious from context what it was referring to as it's a form of ellipsis. "Seconds", on the other hand, doesn't require that context to be understood. Theknightwho (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I have access to COCA - what sort of keywords might go with this to see if it's attestable? Vininn126 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Good question. Searching Google, I find that have seconds of the (or inflected forms: having, had, etc), want seconds of the, and back for seconds of the bring up mostly food hits, whereas get seconds of the brings up unrelated javascript questions (but COCA might not include the very recent technical works that chaff is in, so get... might also work on COCA). However, when I try to compare the singulars of those phrases, I find that have a second of the brings up a lot of chaff, e.g. asking if a store has a second of a particular non-food item. Back for a second of the brings up what looks like a single hit about food by a non-native speaker. Perhaps singular use is too uncommon for there to be phrases that get enough relevant hits (without also getting a lot of irrelevant hits) to allow an easy frequency comparison. :/ It does feel like, as TKW says, the occasional use of second for food may be just one aspect of a general sense, whereas seconds has a food-specific sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
And a sense used in retailing, especially of apparel, meaning something like "goods with quality defects, but still merchantable".
I tried to use COCA, but they don't seem to have reliable PoS tagging. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

"What a Dame Durden it is to read a face"Edit

Since last month, we have at it "3. (dated) An affectionate third-person singular personal pronoun" with the quote above. I'm not sure I understand; what is dated or affectionate about this use of it, and how is it different from "9. The impersonal pronoun, used as a placeholder for a delayed subject, or less commonly, object"? - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a thing in early modern literature (expanding the OED's citation from Love's Labour's Lost, Act V, Scene 2: "Enter the Princess, ushered by Boyet, and her Ladies. Berowne: See where it comes!") But I agree that the quotation isn't an example. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No, "it" here indicates "she" (or "you"). So it's not the impersonal pronoun of sense 9. (I added this when reading the novel recently, so the context was very clear to me.) I'll add another example. Equinox 19:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure your reading is correct. He's claiming (a bit fatuously) that Esther is a habitual good reader of faces, i.e. "to read a face is so characteristic of a Dame Durden". If "it" meant her, it would seem a bit odd or even imply the opposite. Maybe. ("What an Equinox you are, to post a comment"?) But if this kind of disagreement is possible in the first place then it might not be a good example to use. The new one seems fine, though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
My default interpretation would have been Al-Muqanna's. Equinox's reading may also be possible. The example seems unclear at best. 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm absolutely certain that reading ("it" = the reading of a face) is wrong, and I would hate to lose this sense over confusion. Is there some way we can check for sure, e.g. with a Dickensian scholar? Note I added a second example showing the same thing, where "it" is a fond reference to a girl. Third citation now added. Equinox 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Your and Al-Muqanna's interpretation doesn't even work: "What a Dame Durden it is to read a face!" would be like "What a bully it is to strike a child!" The act of striking cannot be a bully; only the actor/doer can be. Equinox 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Neither is there any "disagreement" or contradiction as Al-Muqanna suggests. Compare: "you're jumping around instead of walking: what a silly boy you are"! No contradiction here. Equinox 12:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I am assuming an analogy to e.g. "What a dickens ...", which was used in the 19th century—of course neither of the suggested readings is fluent in contemporary English, so it needs to be read in context. I don't think your last use example is quite comparable, because to me, at least, "What a silly boy you are, to jump around" does not imply that they habitually jump around, just that they are silly for doing so. I say it could even imply the opposite because, for example, you can have something like "What a man you are, to cry like this" (implying "What kind of"). Jarndyce is (presumably) not saying that Esther is a Dame Durden this one time because she happened to read his face, or demanding to know what kind of Dame Durden she is for doing so: he is saying that she's good at reading faces. I did have a quick look at the scholarship on this line—there are a few books/articles referencing it—but they don't say much about the grammar. Anyway, this seems like rather too much exegesis for one possibly dubious quote, I think we have enough from other sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
In the book, "Dame Durden" is a habitual nickname they use for Esther all the time, because she is a good housewife. (For our purpose here: it doesn't matter whether face-reading is housewifely! It matters that "it" refers to Esther and not to her actions.) Equinox 13:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I know it is, that's precisely my point: you don't compare someone to their own name unless you're being sarky. But scholars interpret the line to mean that she's good at it, or at least as a coy joke. Like I said, though, even if it were intended to mean her this isn't a good example when it's so unclear. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
But as I said, it's like "you're such a silly boy". This can be said to a person who habitually, normally is silly. They call her "a Dame Durden": it's a sort of archetype. It's not like your "Equinox" example at all. Equinox 13:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Would you say, “what a silly boy it is”?  --Lambiam 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of the prior posts, which are about whether there is an implied contradiction or comparison or not. Equinox 19:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Check out the fourth citation from 1890. Very convincing I think. Equinox 14:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems like such a strange usage to us contemporary readers that even reasonably good evidence is hard to accept. If it is kept, IMHO it should be marked obsolete, not merely dated. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
OED? DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I would put the 'Dame Durden' citation ("DDC") for this sense onto the Citations page. From this discussion it should be clear DDC does not provide convincing evidence of the definition and is all too easily read as an example of another sense. OTOH, this discussion provides commentary that does support DDC's conformity to the definition (still def. 3). This discussion really wouldn't make any sense without DDC being available to a reader of the talk page, so it should not be deleted. DCDuring (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, the 1890 and 1905 citations are clearer, thank you; I see how it is being used affectionately of the second person there. Should that be incorporated into the definition, that a third-person pronoun is used to refer to the second person, in place of a second-person pronoun, like (with a different tone) your grace? Or do we have a sense of whether this could also be used to replace another third-person pronoun, like if Equinox said to DCDuring, about me, "-sche wasn't familiar with this usage? what a silly person it is, not not have understood this"? I hadn't interpreted the Dickens quote as meaning "you", and so hadn't interpreted it as affectionate or dated, because I interpreted it like various "what a (breach of trust / boon / etc) it is to (predict what someone is planning / do some verb)" phrases and didn't interpret it as meaning you. But I see how that's complicated by the comparand being a person (Dame Durden); I suppose one wouldn't normally say "there was another resignation? what a Boris Johnson it is [for someone] to resign". - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Your BoJo example doesn't seem strange to me, just unusual. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
DCDuring, what, even if it refers to the person? I can only conceivably see it working if we allow "(doing) a Boris Johnson" to stand for the act. Equinox 15:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I may be missing the point of some of the discussion. I was only commenting on "one wouldn't normally say ...". That sentence doesn't seem to me to involve the definition under discussion. "Do a Boris Johnson" seems like normal speech, though not a good dictionary entry. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I have zero doubt this sense exists, hence my "we have enough from other sources" comment, my concern was/is just the usefulness or clarity of the "DDC" as a quotation as DCDuring put it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, let's move the Dame Durden cite to the citations page; there are clearer cites now. - -sche (discuss) 09:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Abraham pronunciationEdit

Has anyone EVER heard the pronunciation /ˈɑː.bɹə.hæm/ for Abraham? We have it listed as rare but perhaps it should be removed? I suspect if this does exist it’s a Welsh or foreign language pronunciation. See my further musings at Talk:Abraham. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Chambers. Equinox 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It’s not in any of the OneLook dictionary entries either, nor does it appear in a YouGlish search, though half of the hits you get from searching, as always with YouGlish, are from the same Englishman - the one who does the ‘Top Ten Lists’ on YT. I shall delete the dubious pronunciation if no one convinces me of its validity before this time next week. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not in Century, which sometimes has older pronunciations; for all their Abrahamic, Abrahamite, etc words they have the first vowel as /eɪ/. If it were supposed to be mimicking or derived from the pronunciation of one of the etyma it seems odd that the first and last vowels would be different. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now deleted the odd pronunciation. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


The process by which not-loess ground becomes loess ground; the process of loess deposit formation; the transformation of a silty deposit into loess. Loessperson (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve just created loessification using the definition you’ve provided above. It may need tweaking, as we should probably create loessify (and loessifies/loessified), deloessify (and variants), deloessification and non-loess too. Many of these words, including loessification itself, are easily supportable by citations at GoogleBooks. We should probably add an etymology saying that this word comes from loessify but some hits on GoogleBooks say that it’s a Russian theory originally, so perhaps it’s actually a calque of a Russian word. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The Russian word may be облёссование (obljóssovanije). 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. There are a fair few hits when I copy-paste the above word into GoogleBooks and press search but I’ll leave it to a Russian speaker to create the entry, or add it as an etymology (to the loessification page) of loessification if that’s appropriate.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Maps and QuotationEdit

Has there ever been discussion as to how maps are treated in terms of attestation? I assume we would disregard as mentions - if there has not been discussion thus far we could establish this thread as precedence. Vininn126 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems worth a discussion. I suppose one's attitude towards entries for geographic entities will determine one's vote on the whether such occurrences are mentions or uses. The precedent might also apply to any term more likely to be found in a table or drawing than in running text. Is a name on a map like a caption on a photo, drawing, or table or, for that matter, an entry in a database? DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Personally I am of the opinion that it's more a mention - something worth including once other uses have been found. Vininn126 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It is basically a mention I think: it's performing the same function as a glossary, of matching a word to a referent. I could see arguments for a map use counting for attestation in some marginal cases, like ancient towns that are only named directly on a map (a real thing IIRC thanks to medieval maps based on lost sources). But that doesn't seem too different from how glossaries are treated. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Consider a table containing the names of villages and, 1., the county/shire/state/province/department/'elected representative district', 2., its latitude and longitude, or, 3., the average rainfall. Wouldn't any of those be the equivalent of sentences such as "The village X is, 1., in the 16th District, 2., located at 42 north latitude, 1 degree east longitude, or, 3., has an average annual rainfall of 24.5 inches." How different is that from the appearance of the village on a map of one kind or another? Neither appearance in a data table nor on a map seem like mentions to me. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It gets philosophical, but, being precise, it would depend on the data. It's true that a data table is technically predicating something of the place. But it goes back to what I said, I think: is it just matching a word to its referent? "Hobbiton - 20mm of rain yesterday" is an additional predication ("It was rainy in Hobbiton") rather than explaining what Hobbiton is. But, unless the town is moving, a table of longitudes and latitudes is more like a dictionary entry ("Hobbiton is a place at ..."). An ordinary map, at least, is essentially the latter in that sense: a representation of what the word refers to. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

crab, v.Edit

The entry has two senses for "to complain, find fault", one under etymology 1 (crustacean), the other under etymology 2 (wild apple). Which one is correct? Jberkel 19:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymonline.com seems to say that the verb could derive from the combativeness of the creature, the bitterness of the fruit, or possibly a conflation of both. 00:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Even if it's a conflation of both, the same meaning shouldn't be listed in both sections. Collins suggests a back-formation from crabbed, so maybe a new section is needed here. – Jberkel 08:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
On that note, our entry crabbed currently doesn't explain which meaning(s) of crab it's supposed to derived from; it just says "From Middle English crabbed; equivalent to crab +‎ -ed", and the etymology in the Middle English etymology section is similarly ambiguous. However, on the Middle English entry crabbe, it does list the adjective crabbed specifically as a derivative of the crustacean sense. OTOH, Etymonline says that the adjective has multiple senses, some of which are from the animal and some of which are from the plant. 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


The definition is currently given as Seeking infamy. but I don't think that's right. Infamy has to be sought through immoral or illicit means for this term to apply, right? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between ‘seeking infamy’ and ‘seeking fame through immoral or illicit means’? It does seem that there are some subtly different senses we could perhaps add to our entry on GoogleBooks though, like ‘of or relating to arson’/‘criminally destructive’/‘counter-revolutionary’. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
If there's somebody who tries to attain infamy through lying about acts that they've never committed, I don't think herostratic is a fitting adjective to describe them even though they are seeking infamy. They are, however, still potentially doing illicit or immoral things (by spreading falsehoods about themselves) so my originally proposed definition needs some tweaking. Maybe "seeking infamy by and for committing immoral and/or illicit acts"? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Why is such a term being defined without citations? DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
A second issue: it's not always "seeking infamy", sometimes it's something more like "pertaining to infamy", e.g. when books discuss someone's google books:"herostratic notoriety" or google books:"herostratic renown", the notoriety is not sentiently seeking infamy (what would that even mean, would it be like if your fame was famous for being famous?). So either the wording of our sense needs to be improved, or we're missing a second sense. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

yemista and gemistaEdit

I'm not sure about the plurality of these words, they could be uncountable or plural. An etymology and pronunciation could help, too. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Neither of the -s plurals seems to be in general use. I've made them uncountable, as that's what I think I'm mostly seeing in GBooks. Equinox 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The term is undoubtedly from Greek γεμιστά (gemistá), pronounced /ʝe.miˈsta/, derived from Ancient Greek γεμίζω (gemízō, I fill up, I stuff). In Greek, the term is plural, the neuter plural of the adjective γεμιστός (gemistós), used as a noun. Apparently, English speakers may be uncertain about the number, as shown by the question, “the gemista was a winner (or should that be ‘were winners’?)”.[36]  --Lambiam 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Pious Eterino (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

diptych sense 5Edit

What's going on here? The two subsenses (strangely formatted as "a" and "b") have nothing to do with their parent sense 5. It also smells like copyvio to me. Equinox 20:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Originally they were a badly-formatted separate sense, and they got pushed into "subsenses" when someone tried to clean up the formatting. Can't find anything to suggest it's a copyvio, though they've been there for ages so there are plenty of references back to Wiktionary. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I did some cleanup, split them out into separate senses and filled out proper references for the quotations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

dominium: should it have a plural?Edit

Sense 2 is: "(biology, taxonomy) The highest category in the classification of organisms, ranking above regnum. Synonym: domain." This suggests that there could be more than one, and so it shouldn't be uncountable, but should have a plural ("dominiums"? "dominia"?). @DCDuring any idea? Equinox 20:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Presumably, categorizations are human endeavors, not unique metaphysical entities which would have to be proper nouns, rarely pluralized. If this is determined to be attestable, the attestation might tell us whether it has a plural or is used uncountably. DCDuring (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Equinox, DCDuring I searched for "dominiums" and "dominia". The former exists as a plural to a third sense that I added. I've marked the word as countable and uncountable as the first sense would seem to be uncountable to me. Still not sure about the second sense. Buidhe (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

infinitesimal usage noteEdit

"Much colloquial usage undoubtedly emerges from the humorous hyperbole of declaring something impossibly small, by people aware of the mathematical meaning." Does it? How would we prove this? Equinox 23:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we could. I seriously doubt "much" is even a good qualifier, the only situations I could see us being able to prove that is in extremely specific quotes, which is definitely not "much" usage of it. It's probably best to strike it. Vininn126 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
What is the target audience for this (or this kind of) usage note (or, for that matter, the other, longer one? It looks like mere self-indulgence. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Ditch it IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It is plausible that some colloquial usage emerges from the hyperbolic use of the first sense listed (“Incalculably, exceedingly, or immeasurably minute; vanishingly small”), just like people mat say infinite while meaning “very large”, but I question the indubitability of even a modest amount of such colloquial usage being demonstrably ascribable to a nerdish sense of humour.  --Lambiam 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  Done Removed. Equinox 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

auf - a missing meaning?Edit

The page on by includes the following meaning: Used to separate dimensions when describing the size of something. (The room was about 4 foot by 6 foot.) Meanwhile, the page on auf does not mention it, although it apparently is used in this context? I wish someone looked into it. Adûnâi (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: I've added it: diffFytcha T | L | C 〉 14:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
What about mal? Can that be used in the same way to describe dimensions? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Overlordnat1: Yes, thanks for reminding me. I've added it as a synonym of auf: diff. I don't think it warrants a separate sense in mal though, I think it's just the multiplication sense. EDIT: To clarify, when describing room sizes, I've heard both auf and mal but when describing matrices/tensors, I've only ever heard mal. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you’ve added a translation section at by too. 👍 --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I have never heard this auf except perhaps on television and have not understood the quote until reading again your message that it equals mal, thinking it may mean bis. Definitely not used here in Ravensberg. Fay Freak (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: FWIW, I would also not use this sense of auf personally (I'd always say mal I think) but it is part of my passive vocabulary. It always sounded very Germany-German to me. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
In Turkish you put the first dimension in the dative; 6 by 8 metres becomes 6’ya 8 metre.[37] How to add this as a translation?  --Lambiam 15:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Lambiam: I've added this. Our current translation infrastructure can't really handle these kinds of "grammatical words" so that the result is 100% unambiguous and machine-parsable. There's an article out there somewhere where the translation box is full of example sentences. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

German soEdit

(Notifying Matthias Buchmeier, -sche, Jberkel, Mahagaja, Fay Freak): There's this (proscribed? at least at my school) colloquial usage that it reminiscent of って which is included by neither Duden nor DWDS. Examples: Ich so: "Na komm endlich!", Ich dachte mir so: "Wann kommt er endlich?" As already alluded to, I'd call this a quotative particle but the fact that neither of my two go-to dictionaries include it makes me a bit wary that it may just be another sense in disguise without me realizing. Thoughts? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think of it as the German equivalent of "be like", as in "I'm like, 'Come on!' and he's like, 'Where are we going?' and I'm like, 'To the beach, beyatch!'" I see it a lot in youth-targeted advertising ([38], [39]). I'm not surprised that stick-in-the-mud dictionaries like Duden and DWDS don't mention it. I agree with calling it a quotative particle. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This is relatively "old", there are some 90s hip hop lyrics which make prominent use of this. Maybe it's even older. But Duden is obv not into this sort of stuff :) – Jberkel 14:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It is entryworthy, but what part of speech is this: A “verb” like English be like? Fay Freak (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for the input. I added it now according to how I personally perceive this word but it may need further tweaking. Yes, stick-in-the-mud is very apt, though DWDS is usually more descriptive when it comes these kinds of terms than Duden so I was a bit surprised to learn that it is listed in neither. As for the PoS, I think it can't be a verb for morphological reasons. Further, if we analyzed it as a verb in predicate-less clauses, this means we would need a second sense for the clauses where it accompanies a predicate. Not impossible but my personal Sprachgefühl tells me they're one and the same sense. Feel free to disagree. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's not a verb. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
"Quotatitive particle" is a good description. A similar (or the same?) thing is also found in formal language (but with notably opposite order), mostly in somewhat old-fashioned news style (e.g. "Entscheidend ist, was hinten rauskommt", so Kohl). Traditionalists would probably consider it an adverb here (with ellipsis from "so sagte Kohl"). –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it's not a verb. "Particle" works; I see we treat the somewhat similar sense(s) of like as a particle, too. (Actually, that entry has its own issues, but I'll start a separate section about that.) It's disappointing other reference works haven't covered it so we could see what part of speech they take it to be, because I think a case could be made for it being an adverb, partly because of what Austronesier mentions. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Turkish saye; sayemde, sayende, sayesinde, sayemizde, sayenizde, sayelerindeEdit

Are we going to create 6 pages for this? {{R:TDK}} only has an entry for sayesinde but they're all pretty much common words with the meaning like "thanks to, credit goes to me/you/him, etc." Or a new sense for saye with sth like "with possessive suffix and in locative"? --Whitekiko (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The latter is IMO preferable, using a {{non-gloss definition}} and adding one or two illustrative {{usex}}es.  --Lambiam 01:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. But somehow it doesn't feel right. Is it even a noun? What part of speech is that? Looking at the definition on {{R:lugatim}}, it seems way more complicated. If we happy with the way this turned out I can do sth similar for yüz which is more accusative and said more blamingly. --Whitekiko (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Without having read the Lugatim reference, I'd say it has to be a noun because only nouns take the possessive. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 12:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The lugatim.com website says, “Opps[sic] Sorry! Unexcepted[sic] exception”, and I’m currently far away from home and the print edition of the MBTS, so I’ve no idea what the complication might be. These locative noun forms are similar to the English idiomatic prepositional phrases under someone’s aegis and under someone’s umbrella, which we only describe under the nouns aegis and umbrella. A difference is that the figurative senses on which these idioms are based are not obsolete in English.  --Lambiam 15:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
For me, half of the time {{R:lugatim}} works and sometimes it gives a error message which was another issue I wanted to bring up. When it fails, I manually look up the word. Anyway, I don't know their conventions but it looks like sayesinde, along with some other terms is derived from saye salmak.
And the thing I didn't like was how these words are prepositions but they sit under the noun header. I was going to suggest splitting it up but seeing the term "aegis", I'm ok with it now. I'll edit yüz similarly when I can. --Whitekiko (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I’ve made a change to the source code of {{R:lugatim}}. The website wanted to be addressed as ”Sayın www.lugatim.com“, and the honorific “www.” was missing.  --Lambiam 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
In English, figurative cast a shadow has a negative connotation, presumably because the English didn’t get enough sunshine, whereas figurative saye salmak has a positive connotation. Disregarding the connotation, if someone operates in the shade of an umbrella offering protection against the harsh sun, it is, obviously, in the shadow cast by that umbrella. So I don’t think the figurative (obsolete) sense of saye is derived from saye salmak; it is just that this is the verb of choice to use when casting a shadow – literally or figuratively.  --Lambiam 17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


Can we confirm that the conjugation includes "mishas" and "mishad", as stated? Modern "misbehave" obviously doesn't have "misbehas" or "misbehad". Equinox 22:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The old, out of copyright OED has one 1528 quote with "...had bene þt we had mishad", and a 1560 quote of mishaif and 1562 quote of mischawing, and a 1744 quote of mishaved. (Citations:mishave.) I might guess that -has and -had are obsolete forms, but we need more cites to be sure. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
After more digging, I can find enough cites of the mishaves, mishaved forms, but nothing but that one old Scottish cite of mishas, mishad. I've removed the latter forms, pending more cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

like#Particle, all#AdverbEdit

First issue: sense 4 of like#Particle says it has to be "preceded by any form of to be" (as if defining be like), but can't you use it without be? "A customer walked in like 'I demand to see the manager!'" (or) "So there was me like 'no, don't!', and John all like 'it's not safe!', and her like 'relax, it'll be fine!'"

Second issue: this use of like seems similar to all in "She was all, “Whatever”", which we cover as an adverb all (and not be all, because you can say "she walked in all 'we're through!' ") Should they be the same POS? Dictionary.com has quotative (be) like and (be) all as adverbial, MW weirdly has quotative like as a conjunction.

Third issue: is that use of all really an intensifier, as claimed? Is sense 2 of like#Particle, "She was, like, sooooo happy", really an intensifier? Fourth issue: I'm not seeing a major difference between "like, sooooo happy", sense 3's "Then he, like, got all angry", and my "customer walked in like..." example, but our entry seems to think they're three different definitions... - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Quotative like can also be used in combination with the verb to think: [40], [41], [42]. Perhaps quotative be all started out as a (meaningless) valspeak intensifier of be like (“I was all like ... and then he was all like”[43]), but the like part became optional and when dropped its quotative function jumped to all.  --Lambiam 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Re #3: I don't think the "all" is an intensifier. It doesn't make anything stronger. Equinox 16:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I've edited all to drop the intensifier, reassigning its quotes to the sense "wholly" (for "all quiet") and a placeholder sense for the quotative-ish particle (temporarily left under the Adverb header). I've also edited like to fold the "intensifier" into other senses, and to expand the quotative sense so it's not restricted to use with be. How do the entries look now, better? - -sche (discuss) 01:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

on mod berinnanEdit

Old English: Given as an adverb, but defined as a verb. This cleanup job is beyond my pay grade GreyishWorm (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary ("ang:verb") it looks like it might have just been a typo/script misclick. @HundwineAl-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's just a mistake. I'll change it to a verb Hundwine (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ghosting translationsEdit

The ghosting page lists 4 translations for a way to break relationship, including 1 red link (Catalan) and 3 links to pages that do not confirm that usage (ghosting#Polish, gelo#Portuguese, and espantada#Spanish). If these usages are correct, please add them to those pages. If they are incorrect, please remove them from the ghosting page. Thank you. -- 21:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


The definition was Does not bias by skill or ability, especially a team or club.. WTF does that mean, right??? GreyishWorm (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There was a TV sitcom in which a no-cut a cappella group made an appearance... this group was audition-free and accepted anyone who wished to join, making for some questionable singing. The allusion is that no-one is excluded (cut) on the basis of (in)ability. The form no-cut (the relevant sense si currently not in our entry) seems much more common; I can't find non-cut anywhere in a cursory search. This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  Done Equinox 16:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


tééh łį́į́ʼ means zebra not sea horse 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I already explained to you in my edit message here what you should do: provide a durably archived citation where tééh łį́į́ʼ is used to express the meaning of zebra. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
so you donʼt put the right meaning without citation but you put the wrong meaning without citation? or where is the "durably archived citation" for the meaning sea horse? 😕 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The sea horse sense hasn't been challenged, unlike the zebra sense. If you have doubts about the sea horse sense being correct, you can add {{rfv|nv}} to the page and then click on the little (+) in the yellow box and save again. Then, somebody will take care of either adding a durably archived citation for it or deleting the sea horse sense. At any rate, the zebra sense cannot be re-added unless you provide a fitting citation. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
It wonʼt let me add anyting 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Right, my bad, I've protected the entry beforehand because you kept changing it contrary to our policies, so I added a request myself which will be discussed here: Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#tééh_łį́į́ʼ. Let's see what will come out of it. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
ok. I donʼt what you want from me... you donʼt use normal dictionaries here? 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
We do use "normal dictionaries" here if what you mean by that is print dictionaries. Do you know of a print dictionary that includes information about the term tééh łį́į́ʼ? Also, I don't want anything from you, I'm merely telling you that, if you want to make certain changes, you are expected to provide certain evidence, at least in this case where the sense you're trying to add was removed previously. And yes, pointing to a print dictionary is sufficient evidence in the case of languages like Navajo, so if you could refer us to one, that would be helpful. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The Navajo Language page 1069, Analytical Lexicon of Navajo page 497, New Oxford Picture Dictionary page 66, saad ahaah sinial page 63
Is that enough? 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
sinil... sorry 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 02:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes, that's enough. I've added the first of which to the entry and removed the protection (so you can edit it again). Please don't remove the sea horse sense for the time being. Once some time passes without us being able to find a citation for it, it will be removed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
that was difficult. I wonder how many people tried to correct something and gave up 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that you found it difficult, but I feel compelled to point out that Navajo is sort of an outlier on Wiktionary in this regard because we've had problems with widespread word inventions in Navajo (you can read more about it here: Talk:Nahatʼeʼiitsoh bikéyahdę́ę́ʼ biyázhí neiyéhé), so now we're extra cautious. If you are knowledgeable in Navajo and want to work on it using real sources such as the ones you've provided, that would be most welcome! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I speak it almost every day and thatʼs an opossum from Australia. I donʼt even need to click on the link I understand what it says. But it really is too much of a hassle to follow all your rules. So no. I just saw something totally wrong here and just had to correct it. 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
If you're a fluent speaker that'd be even better. In general, it really isn't all that much of a hassle; citations are not required unless the word has been previously deleted, as was the case with the zebra sense of tééh łį́į́ʼ. So for all except these few deleted words, you could just add them directly without any citations: super easy! But if you are still not interested, that's of course totally fine and understandable, too. At any rate, thanks for the correction of tééh łį́į́ʼ. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
The meaning "sea-horse" is in the 1980 edition of Young & Morgan, page 705. Of course, if you're a fluent speaker then you are in a better position to say whether this sense is in widespread use. 03:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
the link shows that small fish-thing from the zoo. thatʼs táłtłʼááh łį́į́ʼ. maybe some people think of some monster in the ocean or whatever... 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:D7:98AA:78BB:EB67 03:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Italian elEdit

I think there may be a sense missing where el is a contraction for e il (and the). On this page, we see "molte volte è successo tra me, el Signor Gio: Domenico de Leonardis", i.e. "many times has occurred between me and Mr. Giovanni Domenico de Leonardis". Neither of the current definitions (il by itself, or the pronoun ello) fit there, it seemingly needs an e (and). The word occurs all over the place in the book, in contexts where e il fit. I'd like to check before adding this though because I haven't encountered this previously and I guess I could be interpreting it wrong. 07:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation is correct, I've seen this in old books as well. I've added the sense to the entry. Catonif (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


Oddly aggressive (and old—it was added by an IP in 2006) usage note here saying "by X-fold" is "grammatically poor", a "misconstruction", and pronouncing that "-fold takes no preposition". No doubt this is a prescriptive rule somewhere but I think this might need to be toned down? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've "softened" it a little. Please have a look and see if it still carries the same message adequately. Leasnam (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of apparentlyEdit

As I understand the term, apparently is the adverb for the adjective apparent and shares the almost opposite senses of the latter (see apparent § Usage notes). But among the adverbial senses given, the one best matching the adjective’s sense of “clear; clearly true” is labelled archaic. (However, as I see the term used, “clearly true” is too strong; while the use of the term indicates a fair amount of confidence in the truth of the qualified statement, it leaves the possibility open that this is not the whole story.) The sense of relative certainty is the sense implied in the sentence, “Apparently, we have underestimated the risk.” It appears not to be properly represented.  --Lambiam 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would, personally anyway, definitely not interpret that example as relative certainty (unless it's comedic understatement), it's equivalent to "It seems we have underestimated the risk". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Understatement in which direction? Could we paraphrase the sentence as, “Although it may seem as if we underestimated the risk, we all know that appearances can be deceptive”?  --Lambiam 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

primary source, secondary sourceEdit

I'm not particularly convinced by the current sense segmentation. PUC – 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... I see the distinction it's making, but I don't know if making that distinction in this entry is the best approach. If in early 2003 John Doe published a study on the effect of some medicine foobar on SARS, that'd be a primary source for information on the effects of foobar in the scholarly and e.g. Wikipedia sense, and if three months later Jane Doe wrote something analyzing John's and other people's studies of foobar, that'd be a secondary source in the scholarly and Wikipedia sense while still being just as much a primary source as John's in terms of being a text that originated during and documented aspects of the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, as the entry suggests... but arguably this is all SOP (Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com cover this at primary, not primary source, since you can speak of research or studies as primary, it's not limited to the phrase primary source), and it could even be argued the distinction between the two ideas of what's primary is not lexical but just that different sources are original/firsthand depending on what you're studying, like what counts as a large structure differs between mycology and astronomy. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge top (the toy) and spinning top translation boxesEdit

Not easy to do, but someone should. Catonif (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


This has a rather odd usage note that is perhaps better suited for the etymology? Vininn126 (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it makes perfect sense. It used to have a much broader application to people in all kinds of places, but now if you call someone an inmate, you're implying that they're either incarcerated or have been committed to a mental health facility. Of course, this has been true for quite a while, so it may have been rendered obsolete by complete disappearance of the wider usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
In older texts the meaning is often “[one’s] guest”, like Telemachos addressing a disguised Athene as “My inmate” (original Greek: “ξεῖνε φίλ’ ”) in the 1791 translation by William Cowper,[44] or someone biding his farewell to Dublin, saying, “Adieu for ever! I must no more be thy inmate”.[45] The term was also often used figuratively, such as for someone’s traits or dispositions, which metaphorically inhabit a person.[46]  --Lambiam 11:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

pasar por las horcas caudinasEdit

Spanish. Our definition says:

  1. (idiomatic) to face the music, bite the bullet

but the DRAE says: "Sufrir el sonrojo de hacer por fuerza lo que no quería.", which doesn't seem to mean the same thing, though I'm not sure I completely understand the DRAE's defininition. (Notifying Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge, Ultimateria, Koavf): Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a loose fit, but I've never encountered the phrase in the wild. I'll search for uses in context to see if it means something like being forced to do what you don't want to do or being held to account. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The Big Red Book of Spanish Idioms gives a definition in plain English.[47] Note that next to the definition as a verb, there is also a definition for its use as a (verbal) noun phrase used as the complement of ser. The etymology is rooted in the outcome of the Battle of the Caudine Forks, in which the defeated Roman army had to undergo the humiliating experience of having to pass under a yoke. A few uses in books: [48], [49], [50].  --Lambiam 09:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind the entry was created by Wonderfool, which means it was probably crap. GreyishWorm (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I've heard this a couple of times in Italy, passare sotto le Forche Caudine. As Lambiam said it refers to having to undergo a humiliating consequence of one's action. face the music and bite the bullet sound reasonable to me (I don't know the English idioms, I just read the defs we have here), since it's usually about acceptance of the fact that one deserves it, but we could be more specific. Catonif (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We could probably do with a thesaurus page for ‘be humiliated’ and expressions like eat humble pie, eat dirt, eat crow and possibly pass under the yoke (a phrase I’m not familiar with personally but which seems, intuitively, to be the best translation of the Spanish phrase under discussion) could be included there. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

star 69Edit

Apart from being my ex-wife's nickname, this entry links to the Reconstruction namespace, especially the translation section. How can this be fixed? GreyishWorm (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears someone used a colon in alt forms on the page star 69 to get around this. Vininn126 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it works fine with a colon in the code, I've made the change. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Phálam is not of proto Dravidian originEdit

Proto Dravidian is a completely reconstructed and speculative language, which means modern linguists created these words, which means there is no 1st source that has Paḷam as a fruit. Matter of fact meaning of Phálam in Sanskrit as fruit is only a part of it (abbreviations according to any model dictionary ; You'll see, in definition of Phála many words such as, Krishna, Ratnava, etc. They're to be prefixed with the main word Phála, i.e. Phálakrishna, Phálaratnava, etc.):-

फ - pha (only L.), mfn. manifest; m. a gale; swelling; gaping; gain ; ^vardhaka; =yak- s/ia-iiiil/iann ; n. flowing; bursting with a popping noise ; bubbling, boiling ; angry or idle speech.

फल् - Phal, cl. I. P. (Dhatup. xv, 9) pha- lati (ep. also A. te; pf. paphala, MBh., 3. pi. pheluh, Bhatt.; cf. PSn. vi. 4, 122 ; aor. aphdlit, Gr.; fut. phalishyati, MBh.; phalitd, Gr.), to burst, cleave open or asunder, split (intrans.), MBh. ; R. &c.; to rebound, be reflected, Kir.; BhP.; (Dhatup. xv, 23 ; but rather Nom. h.phala below) to bear or produce fruit, ripen (lit. and fig.), be fruitful, have results or consequences, be fulfilled, result, succeed, Mn. ; MBh.; Kav. &c. ; to fall to the share of (loc.), Hit. ; to obtain (fruit or reward), MBh.; to bring to maturity, fulfil, yield, grant, bestow (with ace., rarely instr.), MBh.; Kav. &c. ; to give out, emit' (heat), Kir.; (Dhatup. xx, 9) to go (cf. t/pal) Caus. phdlayati, aor. aplphalat, Gt.(cf.phdlita): ^>es,\A.piphalishati,Gt.: Intens. pamphulyate,pamphuliti,pamphulti, ib. [Cf. +/sphat, spkut; Germ, spalten; Eng. split^\

Now this:-Edit

long list of definitions

फल - Phála, n. (ifc. f. a or i) fruit (esp. of trees), RV.&c. &c.; the kernel or seed of a fruit, Amar.; a nut- meg, Susr.; the 3 myrobalans ( = tri-phala, q. v.), L. ; the menstrual discharge, L. (cf. pushpa) ; fruit (met.), consequence, effect, result, retribution (good or bad), gain or loss, reward or punishment, advantage or disadvantage, KitySr. ; MBh.; KSv. &c. j benefit, enjoyment, Pancat. ii, 70; compensa- tion, Yjjn.ii, 161; (in rhet.) the issue or end of an action, Das. ; Ssh. ; (in math.) the result of a calcu- lation, product or quotient &c., Suryas. ; corrective equation, ib. ; Gol.; area or superficial contents of a figure, Aryabh. ; interest on capital, ib. ; the third term in a rule of three sum, ib., Sch. ; a gift, dona- tion, L. ; a gaming board, MBh. [cf. Goth, spilda; Icel. spjald}; a blade (of a sword or knife), MBh. ; R.; Kum.; the point of an arrow, Kaus.; a shield, L. ; a ploughshare (p/idla), L.; a point or spot on a die, MBh. iv, 24 ; m. Wrightia Antidysenterica, L.; (a), (. a species of plant, Car.; w. r. for tufa, Heat.; (f), f. Aglaia Odorata, L.; a kind of fish ( =phali), L. - kaksha, m. N. of a Yaksha, MBh. kantaka, f. Asclepias Echinata, L. kalpa- lata, f. N. of wk. kankahin, mfn. desirous of reward, Kum. kama, m. desire of reward, Jaim. kamana, f. desire of a r'sult or consequence, W. -kSla, m. the time of fruits, MW. krishna, m. Carissa Carandas, L. ; -pdka, m. id., L. kesa- ra, m. ' having hairy fruit,' the cocoa-nut tree (the f of which is covered with a fibrous coat resembling hair), L. kosa (Susr.) or saka (L.), m. sg. and du. 'seed receptacle,' the scrotum. khandana, n. fruit destruction, frustration of results,MW. khau- dava, m. the pomegranate tree, L. khela, f. a quail (=phdla-kh), L. tjrantha, m. a work describing the effects (of celestial phenomena on the destinyof men),VarBrS.,Sch.; N.ofwks. trraha, mfn. ' receiving fruits,' deriving profit or advantage, BhP. ; m. the act of doing so, Satr. - grab! (TS. ; AitBr.; Kith.) or -irrahishnn (SSiikhSr.), mfn. fruit-bearing, fruitful. grahin, m. a fruit tree, L. ghrita, n. 'fruit-ghee,' a panic, aphrodisiac, SarngS. ; a medicament used in diseases of the uterus, ib. caudrika, f. N. of sev.wks. camasa, m. a cup containing pounded figs (with young leaves and sour milk instead of Soma), KatySr., Sch.; Jaim.; (others 'ground bark of the Indian fig-tree with sour milk'). caraka, m. 'fruit-distribution,' a panic, official in Buddhist monasteries, L. coraka, m. a kind of perfume, L. cchadaua, n. a house built of wooden boards, L. tantra, mfn. aiming only at one's own advantage, Kum., Comm. tas, ind. in relation to the reward or result, Apast. ; conse- quently, accordingly, virtually, MW. til, f. the being fruit, the state of f, Kathas. traya, n. 'f-triad,' the 3 myrobalans, L.; 3 sorts of f col- lectively (the f of the vine, of Grewia Asiatica or Xylacarpus Granatum and Gmelina Arborea), ib. trika, n. ' f-triad,' the 3 myrobalans, ib. tva, n. = -id, KathSs. da, mf(a)n. ' f-giving,' yield- ing or bearing f, Mn. ; bringing profit or gain, giving a reward, rewarding, giving anything (gen. or cqmp.) as a reward, BhP.; Bhartr.; Kathas. &c.; a f tree, tree, L. danta-vat, mfn. having fruit- teeth or fruit for teeth, Heat. d&trl or -dayin, mfn. 'f-giving,' yielding f, giving a result, MW. dipikS, f. N. of wk. dharman, mfn. 'hav- ing the nature of fruit,' ripening soon and then falling to the ground or perishing, MBh. nir- vrittt, f. = -nishpalti, KatySr. ; Jaim.; final con- sequence or result, W. nivritti, f. cessation of consequences, W. nishpatti, f. production of fruit, fulfilment of consequences, attainment of re- ward, Kap. m-dada, f. N. of a female Gan- dharva, Karand. pancamla, n. a collection of 5 kinds of acid vegetables and fruits, L. (cf. phal&mla- paiicaka). parinati, f. the ripeness of fruit, Megh. parinama, m. id., A. parivritti, f. a fruitful harvest, Ap. paka, m. the ripening of fruit (see below) ; the fulfilment of consequences, VarBrS. ; Carissa Carandas, L. (cf. pdka-phala and krishna-p-ph}; -nishlhd (Suir.), /W/o'(Mn..), kdvasdnd (L.), kdvasdnikd (L.), f. a plant end- ing or perishing with the ripening of f, an annual plant. pakin, m. Thespesia Populneoides, L. patana, n. knocking down or gathering f, Mn. padapa, m. a f tree, R. puccha, m. a partic. species of esculent root or bulb, L. para, n. N. of a city (=phalaka-p"), Rajat. -pu.sh.pa, (ibc.) fruits and flowers ; -vat, mfn. adorned with ft and fl, Heat. ; -uriddhi, f. increase or growth of fr & fl, MW.; 'pSpaiobhita, mfn. adorned with fr and fl, MW. pushpa, f. a species of date tree, L. ; Ipomoea Turpethum, L. pnshpita, mfn. covered with fr and fl, BrahmaP. -pushpi, f. Ipo- moea Turpethum, L. para, m. ' full of kernels,' the citron tree, L. puraka, m. id.,Bhpi.; (prob.) n, the citron, Car. pracayana, n. gathering fruits,ParGf. prajanana, n. the production of f,RSjat. prada, mfn. bringing profit or a reward, BhP. pradana, n. the giving of f (a marriage-cere- mony), BrArUp., Samk. pradlpa, m. N. of wk. prayukta, mfn. connected with or producing consequences, yielding fruit, W. prasuti, f. a growth of f, crop of r, Ragh. -prapti, f. obtain- ing (the desired) f or result, success, Ratnav. ; Ka. priya. f. Aglaia Odorata, L.; a species of crow, L. prepsu, mfn. wishing to obtain f, desirous of attaining results, R. bandhln, mfn. forming or developing f, Ragh. bhaksna, mfn. feeding on f; -id, f., Gaut. bhaga, m. a share in any product, shof advantage or profit, BhP. ; N. of wk. bhaffin, mfn. sharing in profit or advantage, par- taking of a reward, Mn. iii, 143. bhaj, mfn. re- ceiving fruit, sharing in a rew, MBh. bhnj, mfn. enjoying fruit, MW. ; m. a monkey, Prasannar. - bhuti, m. N. of a Brahman, Kathas. -bhumi, f. 'retribution-land,' place of reward or punishment (i.e. heaven or hell), Kathas. bhuyas-tva, n. a greater reward, AsvGr. bhrit, mfn. fruit-bearing, fruitful, KSv. bJioga, m. enjoyment of conse- quences ; possession of rent or profit, usufruct, W. bhogin, mfn. enjoying fruits or cons , receiving profits, ib. bhogfya, mfn. that of which one has the usufruct (a pledge), Yajn. - matsya, f. the aloe plant, L. maya, mf()n. consisting of fruits, Heat. mnkhya.f. a species ofplant ( = aja-moda), L. mudffarika, f. a kind of date tree, L. mula, n. sg. or du. or pi. fruits and toots, Mn. ; MBh.; R.; Kathas.; -maya, mf(f)n. formed of f and r, Heat. ; -vat, mfn. supplied with f and r, R. mnlin, mfn. having (edible) f and r, MarkP. yukta, mfn. connected with a reward, KatySr. yoga, m. the attainment of an object, Mudr. ; Sah. ; remuneration, reward, MBh. ; R.; (af), ind. because the reward falls to (his) share, KatySr. rajan, m. 'king of fruits,' a water-melon, L. rasi, m. the 3rd term in rule of three, Aryabh. Tat (phdla-), mfn. fruit-bearing, fructiferous, covered or laden with fruits, AV. ; VS. ; GrS. &c. ; yielding results, successful, profitable, advantageous, AV.;Apast.; Hit. (-id, f., Jaim.; Mcar. ; -tva, n., ChUp., Samk.; Sah.); having profit or advantage, Vop. ; (in dram.) containing the result or end of a plot, Sah. ; (ati), f. a twig of a partic. thorn tree ; (others' the plant/ry'a/cf./^a/'?),ShadvBr.; Gobh. ; N. of wk. vandhya, mfn. barren or desti- tute of fruits, not bearing f, L. (cf. phal&if). varti, f. (in med.) a suppository, SarngS. var- tula, m. Gardenia Latifolia, L. ; n. a water-melon, ib. valli.f. a series ofquotients, Aryabh. ,Comm.; Col. vakya, n. promise ofreward, KatySr., Comm. vikrayini, f. a female fruit-seller, BhP. vri- klha, m. a fruit tree, L. vrikahaka, m. the bread-fruit tree, L. iSdava, see -shadava. sa- lln, mfn. yielding wages, Kir. ; experiencing conse- quences, .sharing in results (//'-/f0, n.), L. sai- sira, m. Zizyphus Jujuba, L. sr eshtba, m. ' best of fruits,' the mango tree, L. shadava, m. the pomegranate tree, L. (written idf1 }. saip yukta, mfn. connected with a reward, KatySr. lam- yoga, m. the being conn with a r, Jaim. Bam- Itba, mfn. bearing fruit, MW. sampad, f. abun- dance of f, good result, success, prosperity, W. lambaddha, m. ' f-endowed,' the tree Ficus Glomerata, L. sambhava or -sambhS, mfn. produced in or by f, W. aambhfirS, f. ' having abundance of f,' the tree Ficus Oppositifolia, L. sahasra, n. a thousand fruits ; du. two thousand f, MW. _ B&mkarya-khandana, n. N. of wk. s&dhana, n. effecting any result, Kris, on Pan. ; a means of eff any r, W. siddhi, f. realising an object, success, a prosperous issue, Sah.; Kas. on Pan. stana-vati, f. (a female) having fruits for breasts, Heat. - stbana, n. the stage in which fruits or results are enjoyed, Buddh. sneha, m. 'having oil in its f ,' a walnut tree, L. haul, f. loss of f or profit, W. harm, mfn. f-seizing, stealing f, Pan. vi, 2, 79, Sch. -hari, f. N. of Kali (a form of DurgS), L. Una, mfn. ' yielding no fruits ' and ' giving no wages,' Pancat. hetu, mfn. one who has results for a motive, acting with a view to r, Bhag. PhalakankshS, f. hope or expectation of favourable consequences, ib. Phala- kaikshin, mfn. desirous of results, wishing for fa v" ons, ib. Phalagama, m. ' access of fruits,' pro- duction of f, load of f, Sak.; the fruit season, *utumn, R. Fualagra, n. 'f"-beginning," f-time, Hariv. ; -sdkhin, mfn. having fruits at the ends of its branches, ib. Phaladhya, mf(a)n. ' rich in f ,' covered with f, Mricch. ; Ragh.; (a), (. the wild plantain, L. Phaladana, m. ' f-eater,' a parrot, L. (cf. pkaldsana}. Fhaladhikara, m. a claim for wages, KatySr. Phaladnyaksha, m. ' super- intendent of f ,' Mimusops Kauki, L. Phalanu- bandha, m. sequence of results, the consequences or results of (comp.), SSntis. Phalanumeya, mfn. inferable from c or r, Ragh. Fhalanusarana, n. rate or aggregate of profits, MW. Plialanta, m. ' ending with fruit,' a bamboo, L. Fhalanve- shln, mfn. seeking f or results, looking for a re- ward, MW. Phalapurva, n. the mystic power which produces the consequences of a sacrificial act, Nyayam., Comm. Phalapeksha, f. regard to re- sults, expectation of cons , W. Phalapeta, mfn. deprived of fruit, unproductive, unfertile, ib. Pha- laphalikS, f., g. sdka-pdrthivddi. Phalabdhi, m. N. of wk. Fhalabhisheka, m. N. of wk. Phalabhoga, m. non-enjoyment of profits &c., MW. Fhalamla, m. Rumex Vericarius, L.; n. a tamarind, L. ; -pancaka, n. the 5 acid or sour fruits, viz. bergamot, orange, sorrel, tamarind and citron, L. (cf. amla-paftca 3.n& phala-pancdmla). Fha- lamlika, mfn. having anything made with sour fruit.Hariv. Phalftrama.m.afruit-garden, orchard, L. Fhalarthin, mfn. one who aims at fruits or reward, Pancat. ; thi-tva, n., Jaim. Fhalavan- dhya, mfn. not barren of f, bearing f, L. Fhala- sana, m. 'f"-eater ,' a parrot, L. (cf. phal&dana). Phalasin, mfn. feeding or living on f, Vishn. ; Susr. Phaiasakta, mfn. attached to f or results, acting for the sake of reward ; fond of f, seeking to pluck f, W. Phalssava, m. a decoction of f , Kathas. Phalasthi, n. 'having f with a hard rind,' a cocoa-nut, L. Fhalahara, m. feeding or living on f, Susr. Fhale-grahi, mfn. bearing f, fruitful, successful ( <=phala-j"), Malatim. ; Naish. (cf. Pan. iii, 3, 26). Phale-grahi or 'bin, mfn. b f, L. PhaUtara-ta, f. the being other than f, Da5. Pbal&ndra, f. a species of Jambu, Bhpr. Phale-paka, -pakS, -paku, g. nyahkv-ddi. Phale-pakin, m. Hibiscus Populneoides,L. Phale- pnshpB.f.Phlomis Zeylanica, Bhpr. Phale-ruha, f.Bignonia Suaveolens.ib. Phaloccaya,in. collecting or a collection of fruits,W. FhalottamS, f. ' best of f ,' a kind of grape without stones, L. ; the 3 myro- balans, L. ; the benefit arising from sacred study (?), W. ; a small sort of rope(?), W. Phalotpati(!), m. the mango tree, L. Phalotpatti, f. produc- tion of fruit, profit, gain, advantage, Pan., Sch. Fhalotpreksha, f. a kind of comparison, Kuval. Phalodaka, m. N. of a Yaksha, MBh. Phalo- daya, m. arising or appearance of consequences or results, recompense, reward, punishment (with gen. or loc. or comp.), Mn. ; Yajn.; R. &c. ; joy, L.; heaven, L. Phalodtrama, m. pi. development of fruits, Bhartr. Fhaloddesa, m. regard to results, W. Fb.alodbb.ava, mfn. obtained or derived from f, Susr. Phalonmukha, mfn. being about to give f, Mcar. Phalopagama, mfn. bearing f, Vishn. Fhalopajivin, mfn. living by the culti- vation or sale of f, R. Fhalopabhoga, m. enjoy- ment of f, partaking of reward or of the conse- quences of anything, Kap. Phalopeta, mfn. pos- sessing fruit, yielding fruit, MW. Pbalaka (ifc., f. ika)=phala, fruit, result, gain (-/z*fl, n.), Kull. on Mn. ii, 146; menstruation (cf. na-ua-phalika); (phdlaka), n. (m.,g.ardharcadi; ifc. f. a) a board, lath, plank, leaf, bench, Br. ; GrSrS., &c. ; a slab or tablet (for writing or painting on; also -= page, leaf), Kav. ; Yajn., Sch.; Lalit.; a picture ( = fitra-pV), Mricch. iv, J ; a gaming- board (cf. sdri-ph); a wooden bench, MBh.; a slab at the base (of a pedestal ; cf. sphatika-ph ) ; any fiat surface (often in comp. with parts of the body, applied to broad flat bones, cf. aysa-, phand-, laldta-ph &c.); the palm of the hand, SBr. ; the buttocks, L. ; the top or head of an arrow, Kull. on Mn. vii, 90; a shield, MBh.; bark (as a material for clothes), MBh. ; Hariv. ; the pericarp of a lotus, Sis.; -yantra, Gol. ; a layer, W. ; the stand on which a monk keeps his turban, Buddh. ; m. Mesua Roxburghii, L. ; (a or ika], {., see below. pari- dhana, n. putting on a bark garment, MBh. pani, m. a soldier armed with a shield, L. pura, n. N. of a town in the east of India, PSn. vi, 3, IOI (cf. phala-purct). yantra, n. an astronomical instru- ment invented by Bhas-kara, Gol. saktha, n. a thigh like a board, P5n. v, 4, 98, Sch. Fhalaka- khya-yantra, n.ka-yantra, Gol. Phalaka- vana, n. N. of a forest sacred to SarasvatI, Cat. ("ii-vana, MBh.) Pbalaka-sadana, n. the obtaining or reaching a plank (said of a drowning person), Ratnav.

Hope this gets seen. If action is taken then I'll post more words. Yeshehat 2 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You have presented the same line of argument in Wikipedia before. Why do you care about etymologies at all when at the same time you say that historical linguistic sucks ("Proto Dravidian is a completely reconstructed and speculative language, which means modern linguists created these words")? Do you in all earnestness believe that languages didn't exist before they were first attested in writing? There's no point in messing around in a space that you don't want to belong in in the first place. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian "так собі". Any thoughts?Edit

I'm thinking about how to create a page for the Ukrainian term "так собі", meaning "so-so", "middling", etc. - at least enough to give raw beginners an idea of its meaning.

Trawling around, I have seen it defined as a phrase or an adverb (and once as an interjection), whereas in some of the examples I've seen it has been used as a kind of two-word indeclinable adjective. More commonly I have seen it used as an (adverbial) response to a question...i.e. "How's it going? – So-so, meh, etc".

Any thoughts at all on usage and definitions would be appreciated. A phrase? An adverb? An interjection? An adjective phrase? Or something else entirely? Would it be at least safe to stick with "adverb"?

(I notice that the Russian (direct equivalent?) "так себе" is defined on its en.wiktionary page only as an adverb, although it is included in the translations of the English en.wiktionary page entry for "so-so" as both an adjective and an adverb.) Thanks, all. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by DaveyLiverpool (talkcontribs) at 00:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC).

так собі is defined here on Горох. Of the four senses listed there, the first two look adjectival (because of the juxtaposition to nouns in the usage examples), but there may be a way of parsing them as adverbial. The other two senses are clearly adverbial. See also Polish tak sobie which covers more-or-less the same ground. I would stick with adverb. This covers its use as a response to the question "як справи?" Voltaigne (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
tak sobie Vininn126 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


Is there a reason the page fell should not list simple past tense of fall first?

Does Wiktionary have a policy like Wikipedia uses for disambiguation pages, where a primary topic may be chosen based on what most people usually mean when using the term, even if something else with the same name came first?

-- 05:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes sense as a general rule for inflected form entries to be listed lower than the ones that are main lemmas. Also, if someone (at least a native English-speaker) looks up fell in a dictionary, they probably want to know about one or more of the latter, not that it's the past tense of fall. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
As Al-Muquanna said, listing non-lemmas first is generally frowned upon, as they are in essence soft redirects, and lemmas are where all the content is. The information is still there for the reader, they just have to be a little aware of what they are looking for. Vininn126 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

straight upEdit

Sense 1: "Truthfully; honestly; seriously. She told me straight up she did not want to go." To me, the meaning is instead "directly; in plain or unambiguous terms": at google:"told me straight up not", the remarks are blunt but sometimes not truthful, e.g. "RJ told me straight up not to get my hopes up about a proposal" (then proposed). But Dictionary.com says "straight up" does mean "honestly; truly" in British slang. Are there cites where it means "honestly" and not "directly/plainly", are there two meanings here? Or is our definition just wrong? - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Sense 1: I'd say that "She told me straight up" would usually (always, in fact, in my own experience around the UK) mean an unambiguous statement rather than a necessarily honest or correct one. On the other hand "I'm telling you straight up" or "That is straight up" would definitely mean truthfully/honestly/seriously. The meaning depends more upon who is using the term. DaveyLiverpool (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the senses "honestly" and "directly" tend to blend with each other: "I'm telling you straight up" means both to me, and if you look up examples on GBooks it's hard to disentangle them. The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang glosses it "openly, honestly" [51]. But something like "He was lying, but he said straight up that she was in love with him" also makes sense to me (as a Brit). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I think we could arguably have two definition lines, I have seen this used to mean both "bluntly" or "truthfully". The semantic shift isn't too hard to imagine, either. There will be quotes that sit on the line, but I believe we could probably find enough quotes to support two lines. Vininn126 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Truthfully; honestly" don't seem the same as "seriously" to me. (This is an example of the common problem with the "synonym cloud" approach to our definitions, possibly attributable to the evolution of the definitions of definiens since Webster 1911.)
I don't see 2 definitions for US English. My experience is similar to -sche's: truth or falsity is orthogonal to straight up. It seems synonymous with outright and straight out. Both of those have more to do with the manner of expression than with the truth value of what is said. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
What about the use case in e.g. "'Really?' 'Straight up.'"? There's also the problem of truth and frankness being generally conflated throughout conversational English; as our entry there notes "honestly" itself is often used to mean "speaking frankly", i.e. openly or bluntly, as is "to tell the truth", etc. I did notice the "seriously" part of the gloss sticking out, which seems to be the same sort of confusion. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that usage.
That most speakers more or less follow Paul Grice's maxims (eg, maxim of quality) in discourse doesn't change the meanings of the words used to characterize speech. One can find numerous instances in Google Books of "lie(-,s,d) straight up".
Occam's razor, among other principles, would suggest that we are better off excluding meanings supported by ambiguous usage examples, those involving irony, deceit, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
(@-sche) I think it's probably worth distinguishing the two senses, but this doesn't quite work to reject the gloss "truthfully, honestly" because the truth or falsehood in question is the speaker's own, not within the narrative frame, hence you can easily find "honestly lied" and even "truthfully lied" too (good example in this transcript, and truthfully). Regarding the isolate usage I mentioned, familiarity not a prerequisite:
  1. "'I'm a witness I am.' — 'Yeah?' — The grin was gone. 'Yeah, straight up.'" [52] (1999, British)
  2. "'Oh yeah?' I replied. — 'Oh yeah, straight up.'" [53] (2012, American)
  3. "'No giving or taking... any craps. Yes?' — 'Straight up.'" [54] (2020, American)
etc. Here it seems fairly unambiguously to relate to truth and not (just) frankness. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, could we redefine sense 1 more like "really, for real"? I think "truthfully, honestly" suggests some somewhat wrong things; if straight up mean "truthfully" I would think it could be used in a sentence like "he told me straight up that XYZ", but I can only see a meaning "frankly" there, not "truthfully"; "really" seems like a clearer definition for the uses above. (Should we fold sense 1 together with the recently-added sense 3, which has the usex "straight up delicious", dropping the "to the utmost extent" part of the definition which I think may not be quite right?)
I'm thinking about straight-up#Adjective, and Equinox's change to it in March 2020 and my change to it just now: it had been defined as "truthful, honest" with cites like "a straight-up patent troll", but while a straight-up patent troll is truthfully a patent troll, "straight-up" doesn't mean "truthful" (it's not "an honest, truthful patent troll" engaging honestly in dishonest practices), it has to do with being actually (unambiguously) X. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense to me. It has to do with truth (of the speaker), like "indeed", "really", etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Does it ever have that meaning in a narrative? It could be misleading to give it a definition or, worse, a one-polysemic-word gloss that implies it has the meaning(s) in most contexts. I suspect that slang is not restrictive enough. DCDuring (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, having just looked it up in the current OED, they also gloss it as "exact, true, honest, trustworthy; (also as quasi-adv.) truthfully, honestly" with plenty of examples, so while we can't just copy their ones I'm satisfied that the senses we have are correct and can be found if desired. If we want citations it might be worth tuning the search to earlier in the 20th century etc. since it looks fairly clear that the diachronic development was along the lines of straight-up (adj) "upright" > "trustworthy" > straight up (adv) "honestly" > "directly; really". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Do the OED examples include straight-up declarative sentences? DCDuring (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


I am not talking about the mistake of dord but there is a musical instrument called dord, wikipedia:dord (instrument). It might be hard to find cites but it does exist. 19:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it doesn't look like the instrument sense has been discussed here before so I created an entry with citations (dord). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


This follows a bit from the unethical RFV, and it seems the same IP was responsible for splitting senses in both cases, but I'm stumped on this one. How is sense 2 different from sense 1? What specifically separates conscience and divine law from other immutable principles? If the antithesis is supposed to be natural vs. divine law, what's conscience doing? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I've simply undone the IP's split of the definition. Some dictionaries do have a second sense, but it's for ~"violating sexual norms", like when immoral earings refers idiomatically to income from prostitution/sex work (as opposed to when it refers SOPly to any not-moral income). - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the bit about "timeless principles", since I don't think that's relevant to the definition. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Audio at marinerEdit

In my opinion the person says "marina". Or is that an alternative pronunciation for "mariner"? It's not the usual one at any rate. 20:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the pronunciation does seem wrong. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It was recorded by Wonderfool, a long-term vandal. Any edits made by that user should always be reverted mercilessly. Anyway, Wonderfool with a newer account has deleted the audio, and an even-newer Wonderfool account will soon add an improved audio after the present Wonderfool gets blocked. GreyishWorm (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
    Wonderfool is possibly the worst, least productive editor who has ever wiktionaried. Vininn126 (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    He's actually the worst, most productive editor. 05:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Either way, WF is delighted to be the most superlatived. GreyishWorm (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

constant function and constant problemEdit

Are these terms derived from the adjective or noun constant? Whatever way, I imagine there are some nerdy "constant problem" puns out there. Does anyone happen to know any good ones, just for fun? GreyishWorm (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The editor who asked for “constant problem” puns was a constant problem.  --Lambiam 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"die of shame", "die of fear", etc.Edit

Where should such figurative uses of the word "die" (as in, "feel an emotion very intensely") be covered? I cannot seem to find it on die#English anywhere unless I'm missing something. Are these figurative expressions that deserve their own wiktionary entries at die of shame, die of fear, etc.? Buidhe (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this verb sense 7?
7. (figuratively, intransitive, hyperbolic) To be so overcome with emotion or laughter as to be incapacitated. 05:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we have both "To be mortified or shocked by a situation. If anyone sees me wearing this ridiculous outfit, I'll die." for negative emotions as well as, right after it, the modern hyperbole which may be used for positive or negative emotions, "To be so overcome with emotion [...] as to be incapacitated. When I found out my two favorite musicians would be recording an album together, I literally planned my own funeral arrangements and died." If these don't cover die of fear, google books:"die from shame", etc. yet, let's improve the wording. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Are senses 6 and 7 distinct enough to deserve separate treatment? I can see a case for it if 6 is supposed to be for negative emotions and 7 for positive ones. Regardless, I would say that "mortified" generally implies "so overcome with emotion [...] as to be incapacitated". 05:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


Does the definition in its current state make sense to anybody? Could it safely be substituted by a more focused definition capturing the artistic and architectural meaning? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The "before the Romans had existed" stuff is just nonsense—I removed that part and gave it chronological limits, but the definition can probably still be improved. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

sta vs stàEdit

In the inflection table at stare, the 3rd person m. singular is listed as stà, but it redirects to sta. Both stà and sta indicate that the former is a misspelling. Can the inflection table be corrected? Are there any other mistakes in it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Those diacritics are there to indicate stress; they are not actually part of the orthography, unlike for example the à in parlerà. It seems like all Italian conjugation tables have them, e.g. on essere we have sóno, sèi, siàmo, siète, none of which are normally written with diacritics, and the same goes for parlare which has pàrlo, pàrli, etc. There's no indication in the tables of which accent marks are supposed to be written.
(Edit: Not all Italian conjugation tables. I went to a few random Italian verbs and found some that didn't have accent marks in the table, e.g. sfuggire, imbrodare.) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I mentioned this problem a while ago in the BP discussion about putting accents on all headwords. The head and conjugation templates here display the accent, because usually (in words stressed on the penult) they can display it. On plurisyllabic words stressed on the last syllable they must (which is also in the entry title), and in monosyllables, it sometimes must, sometimes must not depending on the word. The templates should not then display the accent on words like sta, fa, va, ho (stays, does, goes, I have) and it must go on è, (is, gives). There are also words like do (I give), which can also be spelled . In conclusion, the templates shouldn't put the accent automatically on monosyllables, but rather get that info from the input. Catonif (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fine to put those accents in headwords, but why on earth are we including them in conjugation tables? That just seems confusing to me... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The idea I assume is to make the pronunciation of the inflected forms clear (by showing the position of the stress and the quality of E and O) without either wasting space by having an extra line in the table for phonetic transcriptions, or forcing the reader to click through on every separate form to see its pronunciation. Although in the case of monosyllables with vowels other than E or O, such as stà, it doesn't add any meaningful information about the pronunciation, so I guess the only reason for using it is for consistency.--Urszag (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Not only it doesn't add any information, it gives wrong information. Catonif (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems very confusing to me if it's both an optional or required orthographic feature and, separately, a feature purely of pronunciation. My Italian is pretty basic but based on Catonif's description I would support getting rid of it where it's straightforward and orthographically proscribed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing, SemperBlotto, would you consider modifying the template so that it doesn't include these proscribed forms? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

German furzen vs. pupsenEdit

Curious if usage of these contrasts at all similarly to English fart and poot, where the former is mildly vulgar and the latter is more diminutive? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Just posting to point out two things .... 1) the quote template on poot isnt working and I dont know how to fix it; 2) i wonder if it's worth comparing with pump as well? Ive heard it means "fart noiselessly" but it could also be a euphemism for farting in general in mixed company. Soap 05:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
(I've fixed the poot quote, GreyishWorm had removed the passage parameter from the template but it's not inherited otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC))


Shouldn't the syllabification be æ.nju.əl because the a is actually pronounced [æ] in some accents of American English and I don't think [æ] is allowed in a closed syllable unless it's the end of a word and even those are weird exceptions. Dngweh2s (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure it is. ant, anti-, anther, and so on. The general rule, although we dont follow it consistently, is that a single consonant after a stressed vowel will pair with that preceding vowel. I think the reason we dont follow it consistently is that it's not fully agreed on by scholars, and can have exceptions, as seen (debatably, of course), in the Florida thread at the Beer Parlour. Hence why all my examples used /n/ .... I would say apricot has /æ/ in a closed syllable as well, but we actually have the syllable boundary before the /p/. Soap 05:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
There is definitely no rule forbidding [æ] in a closed syllable: cat, bad, fact are easy counterexamples. Linguists disagree about many aspects of syllabification, including whether a single consonant between vowels is always syllabified with the following vowel in English, or whether stress and the identity of the preceding vowel play a role. In the case of annual, the /n/ is not actually between vowels, but before the consonant /j/: it can be argued that /nj/ does not occur at the start of a syllable in normal American English vocabulary.--Urszag (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Soap, @Urszag Sorry. I was talking about the American phenomenon of a-tensing. In General American English it is always tense before m and n, for example man [mɛə̯n], manner [ˈmɛə̯nɚ]. However, in most accents with nonstandard a-tensing it is lax before m and n in an open syllable: manner [ˈmænɚ]. There are exceptions, and and am (which I think are just a result of artificial annunciation because they are almost always reduced) and some past tense verbs ran, swam, began. I am saying that the reason these accents always keep [æ] in words like annual, manual, and January is that the sequence /i̯u/ is being analyzed as a diphthong which leaves the /æ/ in an open syllable. I think this is pretty plausible given the existence of words like new [ni̯u] in British English where it is obviously all the same syllable. Dngweh2s (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I see, that argument makes sense to me, although it doesn't seem completely irrefutable, since you've mentioned that there are some exceptions to the use of [ɛə̯] in closed syllables. Also, I am not sure it should be regarded as evidence for the syllabification of annual outside of those particular accents. What is a good resource for finding out which words have which vowel in accents with contrastive ash-tensing? I know that in RP a-broadening, which to me seems somewhat similar as a split affecting original TRAP, there are a large number of polysyllabic words where /æ/ is retained, such as ample, trample, antler, cancer, fancy, rancid, pedantic, fantasy (Wikipedia); is there no similarly large category of exceptions to ash-tensing in syllables closed by /m/ or /n/?--Urszag (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article /æ/ raising has a good table with the general rules although it doesn't get into the minutae. It's kind of impossible though because these accents were all on continuums geographically and in terms of markedness. They are also all basically extinct anyway. The exceptions that retain [æ] are the words and, an, and am which are probably just a result of being unreduced. The true exceptions are the words ran, swam, began, and randomly exam. The other group is contracted words where the syllable used to be open like family and camera. I've also heard amnesty with [æ] probably as a result of the contracted words being reanalyzed as words where the next syllable starts with a sonorant. Anyways, I think it's fair to say words like annual retain the [æ] more because of similarity to words with an open syllable than to any of the other exceptions. I also have to say that [ænjuɫ̩] comes off a lot less marked-sounding than the exceptions which tend to seem more marked. This makes me think it is part of the original open-closed rule because exceptions to dialectical sound shifts require a higher degree of deviancy, at least in situations like this where the exception is actually different from the standard accent Dngweh2s (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Checking examples on Youglish, and Cambridge, Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster, the /n/ is always part of the first syllable; the idea a syllable can't end in /æn/ is mistaken; in fact, quite the opposite, /æ/ typically requires a following consonant, syllables ending in bare [æ] are the weird exception. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, dictionaries are less consistent in their analysis of apricot: Cambridge and Dictionary.com say it's /ˈæp.r-/ but /ˈeɪ.pr-/, whereas Merriam-Webster puts the first vowel in a different syllable than /p/ in both cases. To some extent it's an academic distinction; the problem, as Mahagaja put it in a prior discussion, is that there's no convenient way to show ambisyllabicity or ambiguous syllabicity of a consonant when showing that a word consists of multiple syllables. We have entries where a vowel that'd normally attract the following consonant to be part of its syllable, such as /ɛ/, is shown as ending its (mid-word) syllable instead because the consonant is best considered to start its own syllable for etymological/morphological or phonetic reasons. - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
For me (US, Los Angeles area), the first vowel in apricot is definitely /ˈeɪ/, and if I hear /ˈæ/ I know the speaker isn't from around here. I'm not sure which syllable the consonants in between belong to. In this particular case, it may have something to do with a "long a" vs. a "short a". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the /ˈæn.jəl/ pronunciation is not rare in the US, so perhaps the distinct line for US pronunciation should be eliminated. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

soy boy and masculinity, femininityEdit

See [55]. I'll leave this to the gender experts. Equinox 07:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Thesaurus talk:effeminate man. 11:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, google books:"(unmasculine|unmanly|not manly)" "soy boys" turns up zilch (and one of the two hits for the singular is a book saying "A soy boy (or soyboi) is a man who is woman-like or not manly enough"), vs references to soy boys as effeminate or feminine, though there are google:"unmasculine" "soy boys" on the web. I see no problem with adding unmasculine / unmanly to the def ("an effeminate or unmanly man"), but while there are situations in which it'd make sense to distinguish "unmanly" and "effeminate", an insult based on the idea that soy estrogen feminizes people doesn't seem (based on the cites) to be one of them, lol. We're not so exacting about linking to synonyms, anyway; the connotations of insober and obliterated also differ, but they're reasonably crosslinked as words for drunk... - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

this is it = this is the life?Edit

Can this is it mean this is the life? PUC – 19:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean this is it ? Leasnam (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. PUC – 20:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Potentially, it can refer to anything, and yes, even the life. However, if this needs a definition, I wouldn't say that's the most common use of the phrase. I imagine this is the end would rank much higher. Leasnam (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I think this has more to do with "it" than this particular phrasing (look up "this was it") on Google Books). For "it" to be used without a prior referent would require that it would be something that anyone would anticipate, or the epitome of somethings- the something par excellence. That could be the end, or the ultimate of whatever is being discussed. Similarly, the phrase "is this it" can mean "is that all there is?" or "is this the best we can expect?". We do have a sense of it that covers "the end" (currently sense 10 of the Pronoun section).
There was a running gag in Sanford and Son where the character Fred Sanford would feign a heart attack and say "this is the Big One". If memory serves, this was often preceded by "this is it". In war movies, someone will say "this is it" when some anticipated major event like an enemy offensive starts.
I don't know how we should cover it (it seems almost like a matter of pragmatics or philosophy), but I think the entry for "it" is the best place for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I’ve been considering creating ‘this is me’ with a sense defined as something like ‘this is my stop/turning’, such as when alighting public transport or to announce your intention to a group of friends that you’re walking with of stopping and turning into your property. In the process I was considering idiomatic uses of ‘this is it’, which also feels (just about) idiomatic enough to warrant an entry. Do you think we should have an entry for ‘this is me’ or should we cover it under ‘me’ instead? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Your answer reminds me of Lambiam's here. PUC – 10:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Pimpernel" quote: source clueEdit

pimpernel definition 5 is:

(figuratively) Someone resembling the fictional Scarlet Pimpernel; a gallant dashing resourceful man given to remarkable feats of bravery and derring-do in liberating victims of tyranny and injustice. [from 20th c.]

which has an undated quote credited to Hal Lehrman: "Lined up solidly with the Pimpernels and with the persecuted."

I have not found that particular quote. However, Lehrman wrote an article for Commentary (December 1946) -- "Austria: Way-Station of Exodus" in which there's a section titled "Pimpernels of Zion" and it begins:

T—, who gives every impression of being a Salzburg merchant, turns out to be the chief Jewish Pimpernel of this area. He lived through the war in a Latvian village, protected by blond hair, green eyes, and forged Aryan papers. He told me only what he wanted me to know: “Money? When I need it, I have a place where I can get it. . . . Name of our organization? We have many. Names aren’t important. Boris was the name of the man who first handled the movements here. Long after he left, refugees kept asking for Boris. . . . How do they get across all the closed borders before they reach Austria? Look. Here is a frontier. And a guard. So we drive them up to a mile from the guard. Then the people go around him, through a forest or across a river. If they get caught, they get caught. Finally they get sent back. So they try again, on the second night, and the third night, and they get across. Sometimes we have a nice paper with many stamps and we drive right up to the guard . . ."

Lehrman wrote quite a few articles on similar topics for Commentary but I think they are all online so the dictionary quote can't be from one of them or it'd turn up. Maybe he wrote for other publications around the same time? --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

monosemic, monosemousEdit

monosemy informs us that the derived adjectives monosemic and monosemous "are interchangeable variants", and yet the definitions on their respective entries are different:

While savouring the irony of the polysemy exhibited by these entries, may I request clarification from any semanticians out there? Are they truly interchangeable (exact synonyms)? Voltaigne (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

(See also Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#monoseme. monoseme is defined here as an exact synonym of monosemic (and features on monosemic#Alternative forms)). Voltaigne (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Mc- and McRefugeeEdit

It is immediately clear that McRefugee is from Mc-, but it does not match any of the senses on that entry. Is a sense along the lines of "pertaining to McDonald's" missing? – Wpi31 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Since it's just calquing the Japanese part マック I'd be hesitant to draw an English sense from it. It's not a regular English formation with the Mc- prefix at any rate. Are there any non-calque examples of Mc as "pertaining to McDonald's" in a way that's neither derogatory nor a product trademark? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing sense of 'for'Edit

In a statement like: She's kinda cute, for a librarian. what sense of for does this use ? Sense 17 looks to be the closest I could find, but is it a perfect match (= She's kinda cute despite being a librarian; or for the fact that she's a librarian) ? Leasnam (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is "despite"; "for" makes it a relative statement whereas "despite" doesn't (compare "he's very smart for a child" vs. "he's very smart despite being a child"). This is a separate sense of its own (#27) in the OED (see the 2nd edn. entry free here). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
But it's missing from ours, yes (?) Leasnam (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I originally missed it when reading through the entry but it looks to be covered by sense 15. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I did as well. Somehow I read spry as "spy". I've merged the one I had added with this. Leasnam (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of /ɹ/ after /θ/ in EnglishEdit

I just added a phonetic pronunciation at thrill, which I think matches both the audio clip and my own pronunciation. Note that it should also be dental, but I couldn't find a way to add both the devoicing and the dental indicators. Is my transcription accurate? Is there a reason the allophone of /ɹ/ after /θ/ always seems to be [ɾ̪̊]? It came as a surprise to me to see it, since I'm pretty sure I don't generally pronounce it that way. But I also think it's possible I just maintain the voicing of /ɹ/ (I can't tell now that I've been thinking about it too much). What do the rest of you hear in the audio example? Because I think that reflects my own pronunciation as well, and it doesn't sound like [θɾ̪̊ɪɫ] to me. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Quotations : niephling/niefling, alternate form of nephlingEdit

Here are "niephling"/"niefling" in print [that is the same word for niece+nephew that I have been using for a few years]. That word doesn't seem to be in the dictionary, only nephling.

"[W]hile writing this book, I thought a lot about the future I hope my nieflings ... will see and help to make." Imagining the Future of Climate Change: World-Making Through Science Fiction and Activism (Shelley Streeby, 2018) [collective of multiple genders]

"... your parents, siblings, grandchildren, grandparents, nieflings, the siblings of your parents, and so on ..." Do I Have to Wear Black? Rituals, Customs & Funerary Etiquette for Modern Pagans (Mortellus, 2021)

"'Congratulations on your future uncle-ship.' ... 'Indeed. A half-human niephling.'" novel: The King of Faerie (A.J. Lancaster, 2021) [Used to refer to a person of as-yet-unknown gender]

"Eparch Aranha ... was easier to steer clear of, for they only occasionally attended Rainday culture nights with their niephling Lir ..." novel: Saint Death's Daughter (C.S.E. Cooney, 2022) [Used to refer to a nonbinary person]

--Levana Taylor (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW, it's interesting that Mortellus doesn't know a satisfactory collective for "the siblings of your parents" -- my impression is that hardly anyone has solved that. In Saint Death's Daughter, C.S.E. Cooney uses ommer. --Levana Taylor (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I have created niefling. J3133 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
(I could not find a third quotation for niephiling.) J3133 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are more quotes for niephling with some nice antedatings, from 2013 and 2014: [56] The first, from December 2013, is "Excitingly, by the time we arrive for Christmas, the newest niephling, who's due in about a week courtesy of my other sister, will also be there." quoted from Françoise Harvey, "Hanky PANKy," Bookworms and Coffee Monsters, December 8, 2013 [a post that is no longer online].
Then, from Barbarella Fokos, "Children, children everywhere," San Diego Reader, October 3, 2014 "Oh, and one important difference with the zoo's kid freebies is that the cutoff is 11 years old. So no tweens here, please. On the upside, parents can now inform their eager 12-year-olds that they are "too grown up" to be considered kids. I know a few of my niephlings would dig that."
There are even earlier web hits for niefling:
"If you have an unborn niece or nephew, and you don’t know their gender, they are your niefling." -- Quoted from a Reddit post [date not stated, link broken] by Timmy Parker, "30 Random, Interesting Facts That Will Cheer You Up," Thought Catalog, October 5, 2013.
"I come from a very large family (three brothers, three sisters, about as many aunts and uncles, and loads more cousins and nieflings)" "Penny Arcade" forums April 2013
--Levana Taylor (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
niephling added. --Uh, actually, I created it as a totally separate entry from niefling but should one be a variant of the other? --Levana Taylor (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Latin ruberEdit

According to red#Translations 2, the Latin translation of the English noun 'red' is ruber. However, ruber only shows an adjective. Is Latin ruber also a noun or not? Nosferattus (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, to express an English colour noun in Latin you would write color X, so color ruber in this case (or color rufus, color russus, etc. with other words for "red"). This remained the case in New Latin, e.g. at the top here. I've corrected the translation—the fact that no gender was specified suggests they might have been thinking of the adjective and added it mistakenly. Actually this confusion seems to extend to plenty of other colours as well, e.g. adjectives meaning "blue" have been listed as translations for the noun blue, the adjective viridis for the noun green, etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

locative, vocativeEdit

We say these are pronounced with /ɑ/, which is indeed the only pronunciation I've spotted in other dictionaries, but on Youglish and in my experience more speakers say /oʊ/~/əʊ/ like location, vocation: of 23 videos of locative, 4 have the vowel of lock, 5 have the vowel of location e.g. 43:23, 3:19, 1:08:06, 26:36, 1 is geolocative with /oʊ/ like geolocation, 1 (about Catholics, and which seems to be /oʊ/) may be a different word, 12 are duplicates. Likewise, I find vocative with /oʊ/ like vocation, e.g. 0:36. How should I label this? Just another pronunciation? Nonstandard? - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be distinguished as being a newer and/or "less educated" pronunciation. How that is indicated matters less. I've personally never heard "vocative" with /oʊ/, so I don't think it's a typical pronunciation. Not sure about "locative," since I've encountered it less, though my instinct is to pronounce it with /oʊ/, oddly inconsistent with "vocative". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I’d pronounce either /oʊ̯/, apparently a function of not having lived in an English-speaking environment and speaking with natives about grammar, which, with the position of the vowel to be pronounced, makes man expect this vowel, so these are spelling pronunciations. By which rule in traditional English pronunciation of Latin do we get /ɒ/ anyway, is it regular? (We don’t really learn this “traditional English pronunciation of Latin”, I just pedantically pronounce all muscle names like a Roman, as some English-native nerds living on the internet also do.) Fay Freak (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The traditional English pronunciation of Latin doesn't always exactly apply to words of Latin origin with anglicized endings, but the use of the LOT vowel in vocative and locative can be explained as an example of so-called "trisyllabic laxing": the vowel in the stressed syllable is short because it is followed by more than one unstressed syllable.--Urszag (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
@Urszag: 🧉 So we have the solution and actual reason why we have this and that pronunciation: A system for native words, wherein the word vocative may have been inherited from Middle English or the still effective trisyllabic shortening applied anew as on a native word, and another (semi-)educated one designed to avoid vowel reduction in Latin phrases (and those of other languages in general), the more likely applied as for a thing that does not exist natively in English-speaking countries, making the terms vocative and locative liable to being reborrowed. Fay Freak (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence: I asked native speakers I know how they pronounce it; the responses so far are two Americans who pronounce both words with /oʊ/, one Briton who doesn't encounter either word enough to know, and no respondents who use the lock vowel. It's not new; I was going to cite William Phyfe's 1914 Eighteen Thousand Words Often Mispronounced, which reports that it was so often pronounced with /oʊ/ at that time that he had to specify it should be "lŏk´-ȧ-tĭv, not lō´-kȧ-tĭv" (with the "ŏ" of loch not the "ō" of locale "lō-kȧl´"), but I notice his 1910 edition says "locative - lok´-ȧ-tĭv. The New Imperial and Stormonth say lŏk´-ȧ-tĭv.", which led me to check the Imperial Dictionary (1883 and 1892 editions) and see it indeed has locative only with the "ō" of location, not the "o" of loch / lock. Seemingly /oʊ/ was accepted before being proscribed but has remained common, an interestingly common linguistic phenomenon. (BTW, Phyfe's book also says logos should be with both vowels like lock.) - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised the "standard" pronunciation is apparently so uncommon; having studied Latin formally in various places in England over the last two decades I've only ever heard it with /ɒ/. The long-o pronunciation might be more of a US phenomenon though I don't see an obvious reason why it would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 24 November 2022
It's always been /ɒ/ for me, but, then I never took any classes in Latin so I may have never heard anyone else pronounce it until after my pronunciation was already set. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talkcontribs) at 01:08, 24 November 2022.
  • Grew up close to Washington, DC, with parents from upstate NY and the upper Midwest. I pronounce both with /oʊ/ as the first vowel, and have never personally heard either with /ɑ/.
Somewhere along the way, I learned that "open" syllables (without a coda consonant) are more commonly pronounced with the "long" vowel (as in ⟨ō⟩), while "closed" syllables (with a coda consonant) are more commonly pronounced with the "short" vowel (as in ⟨ŏ⟩). I also dimly recall this as an explanation for the "silent E" used in English spelling (like in bite), as a kind of indicator that the preceding syllable, even if it is closed and has a coda consonant, should have the vowel pronounced as if the syllable were open.
Couldn't tell you where I learned this, but perhaps it might be a helpful nugget.
In the context of locative and vocative, my immediate lect members (that use this word) all apparently parse these as '[lv]o·ca·tive, with an open first syllable and accordingly a "long" initial vowel. This stands in contrast to pro·'voc·a·tive, where the second "o" belongs to a closed syllable and is thus a "short" vowel. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
My view is that an explanation in terms of syllable structure would be circular: it would be saying the first syllable has a long vowel because they parse it with an open first syllable, and we know they parse it with an open first syllable because it has a long vowel. That would leave us with the question of why the o in vocative would be parsed as being in an open syllable while the o's in provocative, ocular, velocity, document, jocular are parsed as being in closed syllables. Rather than bringing syllable structure into it, it seems more promising to me to just appeal directly to spelling patterns or to analogy with related words like location and vocation.--Urszag (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I am personally prejudiced against the pronunciations with /oʊ/, but I don't really know how to phrase an objective label describing what distinguishes them from the ones with the LOT vowel. So it might be better to just omit any label. The pronunciations with /oʊ/ come across to me as spelling pronunciations, which are of course not uncommon for less frequent words, but I guess the particular attitude that I have is that they are pronunciations that I would expect to be used more frequently by people who use the words infrequently. But I could be off base here: putting out another speculative scenario, it could be that in e.g. the area of Latin instruction, the influence of Latin's reconstructed pronunciation has caused students and experts alike to shift towards using vowel qualities here that are closer to the ones that they're used to using for the letter O in Latin (or in foreign languages more generally). Compare the use of pronunciations like "PLOW-tus" or "OWE-vid" vs traditional "PLAW-tus" and "OV-id".--Urszag (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Learning Latin in Australia we already pronounced it with the short vowel, VOCK-a-tiv and LOCK-a-tiv. The long o pronounciation strikes me as an Americanism, although I don't know why. This, that and the other (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've always said them with /o/, but the argument that vocative should rhyme with provocative makes perfect sense, since they're the same root, and it would be odd for locative not to rhyme with vocative, so I guess I was just wrong on this one. It certainly wouldnt be the first linguistics term Ive gotten wrong, and I can probably think of a dozen others (velar and alveolar both for example). I guess that happens when I only ever come across the terms in print and never spoken out loud. Soap 22:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the previous British and Australian commenters, ‘LOH-ka-Tiv’ sounds distinctly American. I’m surprised that no one’s mentioned the fact that there’s a large group of words that are said with a short ‘o’ in Britain and with an ‘oh’ in America. Most Americans automatically pronounce words of foreign origin using this pattern and say adios, Ayatollah, Rosh Hashanah, cognac, pathos and Tolstoy (and risotto even becomes ‘ri-zoh-doh’ with a flapped t) but they also do the same for many English words such as compost, yoghurt, professorial and even shone (the pronunciation of scone is fiercely debated in England but I’m in the ‘o’ camp and Americans use ‘oh’ for that too). The reverse process is rarer but includes Adonis and codify (and in Scotland and for a minority of people in Northern England project). See the list on Wikipedia[57] (though this is incomplete as it misses ‘risotto’ and it erroneously claims that ‘proh-ject’ is the main British pronunciation of ‘project’). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
As (possibly) an additional wrinkle, I'm used to hearing /ˈpɹɑ.d͡ʒɛkt/ as the noun, and /pɹoʊ.ˈd͡ʒɛkt/ as the verb. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Unless you’re a thesp over-enunciating his lines, pɹəˈd͡ʒɛkt would be more usual for the verb than pɹoʊ.ˈd͡ʒɛkt. The main difference is in the noun form of the word which, in Scotland and Northern England, many people say as something like ˈpɹoʊ.d͡ʒɛkt rather than something closer to ˈpɹɑ.d͡ʒɛkt (though the exact nature of the first syllable can vary). I can certainly see why it’s tagged as a rare pronunciation in RP as it’s more of a regional British pronunciation, though I suppose there probably are, or were, some Scottish or Northern English people who’ve learnt to sound posh and succeed in every respect other than the way they say certain words like ‘project’. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Scribal abbreviations in quotationsEdit

Should they be kept as they are on the original source? For example, if an Italian source has (representing the preposition per), should it be kept as it is, or written as per for legibility? — GianWiki (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In quotations I would "modernize" scribal abbreviations, just like also the long s, the u/v, and apostrophes (’/'), as those are typographic decisions rather than orthographical ones. Catonif (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
That's my approach as well, and certainly what you'll find in dictionaries of Medieval Latin and the like. Antiquarianism shouldn't get in the way of readers understanding the quotation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I see. Would you say this M.O. should be extended (another Italian example) to things like the ending -zione being spelled as -tione? GianWiki (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that's an orthographical decision, so I'd keep that as the original, with the -t-. Catonif (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
As an clarification, I believe the -t- should be kept in quotations, but in actual entry titles I think we're safe to normalize it: that is, I wouldn't create definitione as an alternative spelling of definizione, but rather have such quotes under the -z- page. Same thing goes for a -zione noun, that is so old that we can only find attestation with the -t-: I'd say we can make the page under the unattested -zione form. Catonif (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't create definitione as an alternative spelling of definizione
Why not though? That seems like a pretty standard example of an alt/obsolete form.
Same thing goes for a -zione noun, that is so old that we can only find attestation with the -t-: I'd say we can make the page under the unattested -zione form.
I personally don't agree with this policy, but I'm curious what others think. If you're going to do this, at least add {{normalized}} and make it clear what the real form is. 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
What I meant was: a quotation that has definitione can easily go directly under definizione. And also you're right in bringing up {{normalized}}, which I implied. Catonif (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Generally orthographic variants should be reproduced as is (see WT:Quotations#Spelling). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I would keep the text as is, but link to the word, but I think the practice varies on Wiktionary. We don't usually use all caps for Latin quotations, for instance, though I do think it's common to maintain long s. I would suggest leaving an unaltered copy of the text on the citations page, since that's less for your average user and more to document the language as it was written. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Tbf, all caps would only be relevant for inscriptions and I have seen Latin inscriptions on Wiktionary cited in all caps (though I can't find an example off the top of my head). The prose and poetry come to us through a manuscript tradition and aren't going to be in all caps in the source. Anyway, I can see the argument to leave an unaltered copy on the citations page, though if there's a link to the original in the citation I tend to think that's sufficient. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that each language should have it's own rules on what to normalize and what to leave as is. Italian should follow the rules expressed in the Italian Wikisource, that is:
  • normalize: spaces before and after punctuation, long s, u/v, scribal abbreviations
  • keep as is, don't normalize: spaces between words and apostrophes (or lack thereof), obsolete etymological h- and -ti-, diacritics, obsolete etymological ligatures -æ-, -œ-
I won't express myself on Latin as that is not my field. Catonif (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I would say it's a matter of readability vs. loss of information. Scribal abbreviations are a big obstacle to readability, while not really conveying information that would be useful to anyone but scholars- who would consult the originals, anyway. The same with obsolete letters like wen and thorn in Old English, that map precisely into specific letters or combinations of letters in the modern alphabet. There are edge cases such as long s that some editors like to use in quotes to give an archaic feeling to old texts. In that particular case, most readers know enough English to be able to figure them out.
Things like -ti vs -zi feel to me like they balance more on the loss-of-information side: I'm sure there are contexts where "ti" doesn't map to "zi". I think we should treat those as alternative spellings.
Another consideration is modern editions of those same texts: how much (unfootnoted) normalization occurs? Would someone be able to easily go back and forth between the same passage in a normalized version and in our version?
I'm not sure if anyone has ever done this, but in some cases it might be nice to have links to both a source with images of the original document and to a normalized modern edition. That way our readers can choose for themselves between authenticity and readability.
As for lemmatization, the practice in other dictionaries should be considered. There again, will someone be able to go back and forth between our entry and entries elsewhere? If all the other dictionaries have lemmas at the normalized spelling, we might want to do the same (but have alternative-spelling entries, as well). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In practice, you'll find both approaches: some users think we should be reproducing all the scribal abbreviations and long ſs as much as Unicode allows (and then some), others normalize. If you retain scribal abbreviations, it's helpful to use Template:abbr or put a [bracketed note] after to indicate what the abbreviated word is, or at least link it. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know about {{abbr}}, and I would like to thank you for bringing it to my attention.
This is the quote from St. Francis' Canticle of the Sun that gave birth to my question, as it looks in the source material (you can find the original text here, lines 5–7):
  • Laudato ſi miſignore ꝑ ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite ⁊ p̄tioſe ⁊ belle.
Now, supposing the original spacing, punctuation and apostrophes (or lack thereof) are to be maintained, which version would you say looks best among the ones below?
  1. Laudato si misignore per sora luna ele stelle. in celu lai formate clarite et pretiose et belle.
  2. Laudato ſi miſignore ꝑ [per] ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite ⁊ [et] p̄tioſe [pretiose] ⁊ [et] belle.
  3. Laudato ſi miſignore ſora luna ele ſtelle. in celu lai foꝛmate clarite p̄tioſe belle.
Also, if you think you can suggest different ones, please do. GianWiki (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Per the Wikisource formatting rules I'd vote for the first one, also because {{abbr}} doesn't work from mobile, and the repeated words in brackets don't grant a fluid reading. Catonif (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


I've recently heard the word Kellogg's used with the meaning of "crazy", "off one's rocker" (I believe from a shortening of reference to the Kellogg's slogan "Cuckoo for cocoa puffs"), but I am having a hard time verifying if this exists enough durably to warrant the creation of an entry. Has anyone else ever heard or used Kellogg's in this way, or does anyone perhaps know any more about it ? Leasnam (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

There's also fruit loops (from Froot Loops). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention the recreational drug Special K GreyishWorm (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
While we're all on the topic of cereal words, I was disappointed to not see an entry for frosties. I've heard this being used for frost or cold weather - "the frosties are coming so wear a scarf", but perhaps this was just in the Wonderfool household, like gobbler GreyishWorm (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
That reminds me of how, in my family, we use the term blockers for the cubes of meat (whether pancetta, lardons, gammon or, in a restaurant, guanciale) or squares of sliced bacon used in ‘carbonara’ (though technically it’s not a carbonara if it isn’t made with guanciale). The idea being that after twirling your spaghetti you stab a blocker with the fork to keep it on there. I doubt that’s attestable either though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I found no relevant Twitter results for "totally Kellogg's" or "gone Kellogg's". Where did you hear this? Equinox 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I heard this from a YouTuber in the UK. Manchester/Altrincham area. I think what was said was along the lines of "He's proper Kellogg's" Leasnam (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
No video link? (If you misheard the word, I'm not sure what else it would be, but I am smelling XY problem.) Equinox 09:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Equinox: get your nose checked. Leasnam (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd have to pore over days' worth of watched videos...but I quickly checked Urban Dictionary (for grins) and found this: sometimes my friends can be so flaky. Thier[sic] all a bunch of kelloggs. so apparently some form of Kellogg or kellogg(s) is known to mean "flaky" or "crazy"...I'll keep looking. You, DBAD ! Leasnam (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@Leasnam I checked and no corn flakes are up there. Justify your term as Madonna sang, oh, she looked good in that video. And (re "DBAD") I'm not fighting with you here (I know we've had disagreements before over some strange Anglish verbs); I'm literally just asking for the most basic reasonable evidence that anybody would require. Good luck. Equinox 19:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I found it. [[58]] @ 3:01. Leasnam (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Independent of whether this particular word is one person's idiosyncrasy or more general slang, it's somewhat surprising that we don't encounter more personal idiosyncratic turns of phrase, allusions, etc. (I checked Urban Dictionary when you posted this, but the reference to people being flaky like Kellogg's frosted flakes seems like a different thing from the reference to being cuckoo like for cocoa puffs.) - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I don't think there is enough to go on, which was the goal of my query to start with. I was hoping that this might be a Northern UK thing, but it's not appearing to be turning out that way Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

list of errors in Module:zh-glyph/phonetic/listEdit

Apparently, the only two characters that have the phonetic 吳 are 吳 and 蜈. 鋘, 麌, 祦, 誤, 悞, 娛, 虞, 澞, 鸆, 俣, and 噳, characters which obviously contain 吳 as a phonetic, are instead listed under the phonetic 吴, which makes no sense as 吴 is a variant of 吳. 俣 is also the simplified form of 俁, which is confusingly is not in Module:zh-glyph/phonetic. & Though the former is also its own character, both are confusingly deemed separate characters in the phonetic series 沿 despite obviously being variants of 鉛 and 船 respectively, both of which are included in the phonetic series with the exact same readings. This does not occur with other variant forms such as 説, showing this is obviously a mistake. 攅 and 攢 are both in the phonetic series 贊 despite being variant forms. This time however, they have different OC readings for whatever reason, being *zoːns and *ʔsaːns, *ʔsoːnʔ respectively. This occurs again with 鄼(OC *ʔsoːnʔ) and 酇(OC *ʔsaːns) for no explainable reason. Middle Chinese even gets in the action, with /t͡suɑnX/ and /t͡sɑnH/ being erroneously attributed to 鄼 instead of 酇 despite those fanqie readings being listed under 酇 in the kangxi dictionary. 濽 also needs to be changed to 灒. & Obvious variants of each other with the same reading. In the same phonetic series, 滚 also needs to be changed to 滾. 三河孝達(雝之) (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sabukawa takanobu: I fixed everything mentioned except the 贊s. I can't explain why they have different reconstructions either. The related data is:
You can check whether they are correct. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

never mindEdit

Labelling never mind as only a verb is wrong. Needs tagging GreyishWorm (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Having it as "hortative" is a really weird way to do that. Wouldn't it just be better as an interjection? I've never seen it used as "he never minded the issue" or some such. And also the last definition is a preposition, is it not? Vininn126 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd say "never minded" is reasonably common—think "he never minded the issue until you complained"—but it's never + mind and not quite the same as "never mind" used as an interjection. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
As a hortative it takes an object: Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Never Mind the Bollocks, never mind my forgetting,[59] never mind the other viewpoints,[60] ... . Interjections don’t take objects.  --Lambiam 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
True, and it can take an emphatic subject "Never you mind". There's an argument to be made that imperatives are a type of interjection, but I suppose verb does make the most sense. It doesn't change the fact that one of these uses is a preposition, no? Vininn126 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

English bulbEdit

I'm not sure the ordering of this entry makes much sense. I understand that Wiktionary's ordering is often arbitrary, but it seems pretty clear that sense 3 is primary, and that senses 1 and 2 (and I guess 4 and 5 also) are derived from sense 3. (In which case I don't think sense 3 should include the phrase "bulb-shaped"...) 2603:8080:C6F0:1280:7459:4FD2:8BB6:9FDF 05:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should be rectified now. Graham11 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

polutaca, quimicpaltanEdit

Does anyone know what species these terms refer to, or their etymologies? The first word is ostensibly Spanish. I'm guessing the second word is from Nahuatl. They occur here. It looks as if both would fail to meet CFI (whether in Spanish or English). 08:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

nasal cavityEdit

Do we need such a detailed definition? PUC – 14:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's good for a laugh at least - when I first saw it I almost snorted my coffee through my nasal cavity. I reckon that everything after "vertebrates" could be safely removed. Voltaigne (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Or simply (from Wikipedia article): "a large, air-filled space above and behind the nose in the middle of the face." Voltaigne (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Would be odd to not mention the nose somewhere. And is the term "vaulted chamber" used in anatomy? Just Googling '"vaulted chamber" anatomy' gets me architecture stuff, and some etymological info about other anatomical terms on Google Books. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Too encyclopedic. I cut that sucker down. Vininn126 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The version we had before this edit was better, but you may recognize it from the Wikipedia description (I wonder who copied it from whom?). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
This is indeed better and I don't really have a problem with it being from 'pedia. If we want to tweak that version, that'd be good. Vininn126 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I restored that version basically as was, but kept "in higher vertebrates" from the more recent one as a potentially useful qualification. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

尾高型 in 入れる, 行く etc.Edit

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria):

It is my understanding that, in 東京弁, verbs and い-adjectives (in their dictionary form) are either 平板式 or 起伏式, and if they are 起伏式 the drop is between the penultimate and the ultimate mora. In this framework, odaka is an impossible pitch pattern. We don't have any odaka い-adjectives: [61] (I fixed the formerly only result 勘定高い just now by adding the missing mora in {{ja-pron}}). As for verbs, it seems like many of our odaka pitches reference Shin Meikai kokugo jiten and were added by @Eirikr. Is Shin Meikai kokugo jiten an authoritative source about 東京弁? If it is, how do we reconcile the fact that it suggests seemingly impossible pitches that are not corroborated by other sources? — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it doesn't have any sense to distinguish the drop after the 終止形 coda, because they are at the end of sentence anytime.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think having odaka in a verb is a strange concept, at least in terms of tokyo dialect. Shen233 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I did find 伏す (fusu, to bow down; to lie prostrate), listed in Daijirin, the SMK5, and the NHK Hatsuon Dictionary as having pitch patterns 1 and 2 (i.e. a downstep after the first or second mora). Likewise for verb 吹く (fuku, to blow). Given that various things can follow a verb even in Tokyo dialect, the concept of odaka for a verb doesn't strike me as all that strange. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


English. This is about the sense:

  1. Composed of a mix of sand, clay and earth.

First of all, "earth" doesn't really make sense here, because there are many types of earth that contain sand and clay, so I'm not really sure what that word refers to here. Second, what little usage I can find seems to refer to a type of soil with certain qualities. I'm sure there are lots of soils that might fit the definition but don't have the qualities that the usage seems to require. I didn't want to just revert this, since there is a soil-related sense and since this is the first mainspace edit for this account. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

According to the USDA's soil texture triangle, the only type of soil that can mix with sand and clay is loam, which is itself a mixture of those other two types with silt. In other words, either hazelly soil is another word for loam, or it means a mixture of loam with sand and clay. I know that doesnt help much, sorry. The creator states on their userpage that they're adding entries from four different dictionaries, perhaps paper ones that may be out of step with modern definitions. A quick google search for hazelly soil showed me no results more recent than the mid-1800s, though perhaps your search was more broad. Even if we are able to find a precise definition for this term I'd say it is certainly obsolete. Soap 07:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

bachelor's fareEdit

I've come across many entries recently which give pronunciations ending in /-s/ where I'd expect /-z/ (examples here). The frequency of it and fact that this one was added by a veteran editor makes me want to double-check: shouldn't this be /-z/? - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

According to all standard accounts of the phonology of present-day English, it should be /z/. I have on occasion read things from native English speakers, even including some with experience in linguistics, that indicate that they perceive something like /s/ at the end of plurals that really have /z/. I don't know whether this is related to the spelling, or caused by the allophonic devoicing that can affect word-final obstruents in English (a phenomenon that does not regularly cause a total neutralization of the contrast between underlyingly voiced and voiceless phonemes because they still affect the duration of preceding segments differently--some people argue this means that the "voiced" vs. "voiceless" contrast in English phonology is really something else like "lenis" vs. "fortis", but I am not a fan of those terms). In bachelor's fare, the following voiceless [f] might contribute further to the phonetic devoicing of the preceding /z/. But I am pretty sure it is still /z/ in terms of the actual system of sound contrasts, which is what our phonemic transcriptions are meant to indicate. Admittedly, the functional load of the contrast between /s/ and /z/ is low in many contexts, and nonexistent in word-final position after an obstruent (e.g. in /kɪdz/ or /ɡlʌvz/), and I would say that it is often possible for /s/ and /z/ to not sound very distinct to an English speaker's ear. Some dictionaries do recognize lexicalized examples of phonemic devoicing of /z/ (as in American English has to /ˈhæstu/) in certain expressions, such as newspaper.--Urszag (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)