Wiktionary:Tea room

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Tea room

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

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

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

Tea room archives edit

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

Oldest tagged RFTs

May 2016


I came across this word and was surprised to find it has two oddly different meanings. Can anyone elucidate the etymology in particular? This, that and the other (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The two "-opic"s of each definition are definitely unrelated. The "partially blind" meaning is from μέρος ‎(méros) + ὤψ ‎(ṓps). I believe the "able to speak" meaning is derived from ὄψ ‎(óps) (voice) or some relative. Hillcrest98 (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Is there any classical usage of either the noun or the adjective? DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lewis and Short lists some uses, though I wouldn’t use the terms Spanish and Spaniard. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


I can't figure out what the entry is trying to convey here. The headword line says the noun is masculine, but the definitions are split between masculine and feminine senses. Is the noun really both genders? And what does the female equivalent parella mean? A "pair" is not something that is naturally gendered, so this seems like a misuse of the parameter. —CodeCat 23:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@UltimateriaCodeCat 17:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a peculiarity of Ibero-Romance dictionary formatting. "Parell" and "parella" are two distinct lemmas but are both listed under "parell" in dictionaries. "Parella" isn't a separate entry and doesn't even redirect to "parell". 90% of the time this makes sense as the masculine form has a feminine equivalent (e.g."pescador"/"pescadora") but obviously it can lead to confusion too. Ultimateria (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

door prizes redirect?Edit

i'm new here. Is there a reason door prizes has its own page instead of redirecting to door prize? Thanks. 23:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't do redirects like Wikipedia does. Separate terms, even inflected terms, get their own entry. See WT:REDIRECTS for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Inflected forms, such as English plurals, have a minimal entry that amounts to a soft redirect. As the headword of an entry page may be a word in more than one language, a single hard redirect is not a general solution. See Category:English plurals for examples like [[abaisses]] (English and French inflected forms) and [[convives]] (English, Latin, Spanish). DCDuring TALK 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Should sensu lato et al. be Translingual?Edit

Are Latin-derived phrases like sensu lato or sensu stricto really Translingual? I realize that they can be used in more or less any language, but they almost certainly have different pronunciations in different languages (unlike, for example, IPA symbols), could conceivably have synonyms/antonyms in various languages, and might have language-specific usage notes (e.g. their use could be broader in one language than another, or a phrase/word native to that language might be preferred, etc.).

It may seem obvious to some that it belongs under Translingual, but one of the most common reasons I use dictionaries is for finding pronunciation (though not in this specific case). A Translingual entry doesn't really have room for that information. If, for example, I wanted to know if the pronunciation of sensu stricto remained similar to the Latin one in Portuguese contexts, or if it was pronounced like a Portuguese phrase, our entry would not help me as it stands. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, Homo sapiens#Pronunciation does have foreign pronunciations. —suzukaze (tc) 06:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC))
These pronunciations are ridiculous. No one is going to claim that "Homo sapiens" is Korean or Japanese. What's next? Pronunciation of "Homo sapiens" in Chinese? There is too much Eurocentrism and Latin Script-centrism here. Wyang (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang We use Translingual for any entry that spans multiple languages. Hence the large number of entries for CJKV characters. Accommodating the description of pronunciations of pronounceable Translingual terms would lead us to large pronunciation sections comparable to translation sections, presumably reflecting the most common pronunciation of the terms within groups of native speakers of each language. We don't seem to have a consensus for - or against - such sections.
English Wiktionary is, by intention, Anglophone and therefore "biased" toward Latin script. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This is why "Translingual" is so problematic, as it is in CJKV characters. On CJKV character pages, "Translingual" also includes Etymology's, which are more properly "Glyph origin"s that mostly belong in the Chinese sections. The pronunciations are not Korean and Japanese pronunciations of "Homo sapiens"; they are pronunciations of the Korean and Japanese borrowings of the Latin term (호모 사피엔스 and ホモ・サピエンス). Wyang (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
We have decided that taxonomic names are NOT Latin. They are used in running text in many languages, including some not in Latin script. Whether some or most linguists would deem them "borrowings" is not determinative of how we present them, which is or ought be a matter of attempting to help users, within the limits of our technology, skills, and numbers. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Taxonomic names are only valid when written in the Latin script, according to the taxonomic codes agreed to by taxonomists worldwide, including in Japan. It's a simple matter to find plenty of occurrences of Latin-script taxonomic names in texts of just about any modern non-Latin-script language. Homo sapiens isn't a good example, because it's so basic that it's been borrowed into and naturalized into a number of languages, including English. Let's look at a more obscure name that I picked at random, Callianthemum miyabeanum. I sincerely doubt it's been borrowed into Japanese due to Japanese phonotactic constraints, and the fact that the plant already has a Japanese name. And yet, Japanese scientists, if nobody else, must have a pronunciation for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy What pronunciation(s) should appear in a Translingual entry's pronunciation section? As we are in principle descriptive, it would seem that we would have the pronunciation actually used by native speakers of different languages. That seems a bit silly, not to mention overambitious.
I would favor, say, Latin or Latinate pronunciations for taxonomic names. We could possibly justify "English" pronunciations as we are English Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For taxonomic names I would support having proscribed Latinate pronunciations. There's too much variation in the way people pronounce scientific names for us to try to include all the different ways or even to try to find a standard pronunciation. For entries like the one under discussion, I think a pronunciation section like that at Homo sapiens would be best. I didn't realize that there was precedent for this, but it's good to know there is.
I can't think of other types of entries that would need pronunciation, besides IPA symbols, which is pretty uncontroversial. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
At some point, I actually have asked for people to add multiple pronunciations in Homo sapiens, and they kindly did it. I support having multiple pronunciation sections for taxonomic names. (In other words, oppose removing the pronunciations if it ever has been proposed.) In fact, if one wants us to have Translingual sections for Latin phrases with multiple language pronunciations, then we are already working with the notion that it's possible for different languages to speak something in Latin using different pronunciations. Being a descriptive dictionary, it makes sense to me helping to pronounce each word as a speaker of each language would. Example: the "sap-" part in English is /seɪp/, which does not exactly seem to make sense in all languages.
It should make sense for us to have some form of attestation, though. Any TV shows or documentaries that mention taxonomic names and are durably archived? I'm pretty sure Callianthemum miyabeanum in Portuguese would be said by many people in my São Paulo, Brazil accent approximately as /kaliãj̃'temũ miabe'anũ/ (mind you, I'm not 100% good in IPA yet) though that transcription is prescriptive by definition unless it can be attested somehow, but the same would be said for multilanguage pronunciations of Latin phrases.
On a separate topic, I support using Translingual sections for the Latin phrases, regardless of what we actually do with taxonomic names. I think the notion that "we need separate language sections to keep the pronunciations!" has already been pretty much disproved. If fact, a single Translingual Pronunciation section would take much less space than having whole separate language sections just for the sake of their pronunciations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Defined and categorised as a noun, but the definition is a verb. Which is it? —CodeCat 21:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Nuked on sight as SOP for 実る ‎(minoru, to bear fruit) in the conjunctive 実って ‎(minotte) conjugation + present-progressive auxiliary いる ‎(iru).


As above. —CodeCat 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • This is an idiom, literally meaning "it has flowers and fruit", but basically meaning that something is positive in both name and deed. I'll rework it at some point. (I was in the middle of doing so, and was nearly finished, when I ran into the keyboard shortcut issue mentioned here.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but there's still the issue that a noun is being defined as a verb. —CodeCat 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Can this also be used as a noun? —suzukaze (tc) 04:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. We already had the plural, but I've added a singular as well. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't think of checking the plural page. It says "‎(plural only)" though, which now seems contradictory. —suzukaze (tc) 06:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    It may be that we need an inflection-line label usually plural in addition to plural only. The modules supporting {{en-noun}} should be able to handle it. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

red IPA in euvelEdit

I just added IPA to the page for the dutch word euvel and when I saved it some of the transcription is in red, can someone help? How do I make it black? 2WR1 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this discussion to be added (it's May, y'know), but whatever. It claims that the IPA character ø is not allowed, which is complete bollocks. I'm going to guess this is an undiscussed change by one of our module editors. @CodeCat, Kc kennylauΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The module controlling this behaviour is at Module:IPA/data. DTLHS (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It's more specific than that. It's tagging an invalid phoneme. Short /ø/ is not a Dutch phoneme, long /øː/ is. —CodeCat 01:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's good to know from a linguistic standpoint, but I guess this means that I'm right that this was never discussed? Seems like something that should be, given that last I checked, there were a whole lot of entries with faulty IPA that now have unexplained red characters. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense, but oddly, when I was double checking the pronunciation on nl.wiktionary.org, that was the IPA transcription given. Thanks! And sorry about posting in the wrong place, I didn't realise that the most recent were supposed to be at the bottom and I wasn't thinking about the month. I'll move it to the correct place. 2WR1 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Spell offEdit

Posting here instead of at spell off per instructions.

"Goodale said plans are in place to spell off firefighters who have been battling the blaze this week." http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/growing-fort-mcmurray-wildfire-could-double-in-size-today-and-reach-the-saskatchewan-border

Please explain this usage of "spell off". The only usage on the spell off page has to do with bees. CapnZapp (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

to replace a tired worker with a fresh worker in turns to allow a rest period; to spell (rest) firefighters with fresh firefighters in alternating shifts. —Stephen (Talk) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this usage must be specific to Canada or North America. I don't think it would be understood in the UK. 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Added a sense at spell off. It may need a regional gloss. Equinox 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And it's not spell ‎(to work in place of (someone)" or "to rest (someone or something)) + off ‎(so as to be removed or separated)? DCDuring TALK 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Since it's transitive (relieving someone) it could only be the second, but "spell" alone doesn't guarantee its existence (e.g. you can't "relieve someone off"); phrasal verbs are notoriously difficult for L2 English learners and are not obvious SoPs. Equinox 22:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We label both definitions as transitive, as the parenthesized placeholders above and in the entry redundantly show. You seem to have bought the argument that we shouldn't limit Wiktionary to decoding English, but we should allow for the possibility that someone might be able to find the entry for the purpose of encoding (or that we should have the entry whether or not anyone who might use could find it). If so, we're doomed. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. It feels like push off or wake up to me. It's a not a verb construction that I recognise and I don't see how I could have known it was part of English by intuition. For example: if I let my cat go outside for a while, do I thereby "spell out" the cat? I doubt that is acceptable English, but it could (ignoring actual usage) be constructed along the same lines. Equinox 13:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox That seems like a problem with one's understanding of the meaning or usage of spell which applies usually to people engaged in a task or having assumed to a duty. I find it a good deal easier to apply spell to a dog than to a cat. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Is it common in Canadian English? I don't think it would be understood in the U.S. either; at least, I require context to understand the sentence quoted above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've not heard it before, and I've lived in Alberta almost all my life (I'm young yet, though, so that's not saying a whole lot). It's not something one would be likely to hear in everyday conversation where I live. I don't know what province the author of the article is from, though, and it's possible it's used more often out East. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. O-f-f. bd2412 T 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


- The first IPA listing on the autochtone wiktionay page (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/autochtone) , in French, is not rigth. It shoun't be /o.tɔk.tɔn/, but /o.tok.ton/. It's associated audio file is right, though, alhtough its creator has added the worh "un" (article) to it. - The second audio file listed on the same autochtone page is not right. We are expecting /ɔ.tɔk.tɔn/ but we hear /o.tok.ton/.

References: dictionnaire Le Robert (2003)

Hm, I'd expect /otoktɔn/. My Robert (1973) has /ɔ(o)tɔktɔn/; it gives /ɔ(o)–/, whatever that means, for many au– words. — 08:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


The character 𩷆 is kinda look a Japanese shinjitai form to me (simplified from ), but is only from Vietnamese source. Can anyone clarify this? Dingo1234555 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

GlyphWiki lists few Japanese sources (only one, which seems [to me] to contain all sort of wacky characters). Maybe it would be used in personal handwriting but it doesn't seem to be something Japanese variant-crazy character encodings have cared about, which suggests to me that it's probably not common. —suzukaze (tc) 05:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Google searches for expected ja combinations like 𩷆は, 𩷆が, 𩷆の, の𩷆, 𩷆とは yield zero real usages that I can see. 00:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


All these "plural senses" are a bit problematic. I would have thought that "plural of comic" covered the lot. Equinox 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't mix lemmas and non-lemmas. —CodeCat 20:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to find senses 3 and 4 ("A collection of comic strips" and "the page of a newspaper especially devoted to comic strips") every in a usage that is incompatible with sense 1 ("plural of comic").
Sense 2 ("an artistic medium ....") can be used with both singular and plural verbs. I haven't found any use of senses 3 and 4 with a singular verb. Instead there are uses like "The comics are on Page 51."
I'd be inclined to challenge senses 3 and 4 as either non-existent used with a singular verb or, in the case of 3, transparently the plural of comic and, in the case of 4, merely reflecting that one physical form of distribution of multiple comic strips was on a newspaper page. "Comics" also refers to comic books, comic strips appearing distributed on several pages of a newspaper or magazine mixed with other content, comic strips appearing as a separate section of a weekend newspaper, and possibly to other forms. Neither collectively nor separately do these forms warrant a dictionary entry.
Also, what would be better wording for the the label "singular or plural in construction", that is, agreeing with either a singular or plural verb or pronoun form? DCDuring TALK 22:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've been horribly bold and deleted the senses other than "plural of comic". Equinox 00:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


Is the recently added sense "To use the features of the Caucasian ethnic group as a standard of beauty" distinct from the (recently merged, rather broad) sense right before it? I can't think of a usex so I can't tell. Equinox added "for (a TV show)", but if I heard someone say "they whitewashed The Foobar Show", it would suggest to me that they cast white actors in all the roles, rather than that they held non-white actors to white ideals of beauty. "Whitewashing beauty" would similarly suggest "making [the ideal of beauty] more white". - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is (i) work out the transitivity of each sense (which might catch any issues); (ii) find citations for each sense; (iii) possibly gather senses under a heading. It certainly seems a bit weird to have four separate racial senses. Equinox 05:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I hope that no one catches this act of microaggression. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

sangre (Mexico)Edit

How do Mexicans pronounce sangre? --Romanophile (contributions) 07:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't they pronounce it [ˈsaŋ.ɡɾe], same as virtually all other Spanish speakers? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: yes, but there’s a tendency in Mexico to drop the final e’s in speech. That’s why I asked. --Romanophile (contributions) 15:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

mʉr - Normalising medieval handwritingEdit

The usage note is correct. But is the character used an adæquate rendering of a diagonally slashed u/v? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a Unicode V with diagonal stroke (Ꝟ ꝟ), but I don't think there's a diagonally slashed U anywhere in Unicode. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no rule saying we have to use only precomposed characters. We can use U+0337 COMBINING SHORT SOLIDUS OVERLAY to create u̷ or U+0338 COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY to create u̸. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a question about how to represent the appearance of the character, but whether anyone would need or use such an entry. Does any other online source use such a character or character sequence for this letter? Would anyone ever search for the entry? If they did, would they know to use our representation in the search box?
Also, how does using a character in the IPA Extensions block of Unicode affect script detection, sorting, and other functions of our code? Would it require adding or modifying things in the data modules?
I vaguely remember we had discussions about using spacing modifier letters that look like superscript letters to represent abbreviations like Mr. and Wm. when the some letters are written smaller and higher that the rest of the letters in the word. I'm not sure how those discussions ended up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall how the spacing modifier letters ended up either. I do stand by my opinion that we should use them if and only if we have a born-digital source that uses them.
IPA extensions should be recognized as Latin, and combining characters shouldn't affect the script of the surrounding characters, provided all things are working as per the standard. Sorting should be relatively fine, again, if everything is per standard.
As always, I think we should be referring to published works only. Instead of trying to transcribe medieval handwriting, we should be using published copies, which use a normalized script with a limited set, that in almost all cases will be in Unicode. We could get quite creative trying to record w:Sütterlin or Pepys' unusual shorthand, but instead we record what's printed. I don't see any difference here; if medieval German linguists are using a u with diagonal stroke here, then we should, otherwise, we should use what they're using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The character in question (slashed U) was the standard way to render the sound in an important region for a certain time. It is however not used in modern editions since the normalised script uses ü. So this might be a case of precedence for spellings of the category standard at the time, made invisible in modern prints. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The shape, a u with a diagonal slash, may have been the standard way to render the sound, but does that shape denote a separate character?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
As much as Danish O and Ø, yes. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

devoir surveilléEdit

Currently a redlink, and I'm not sure whether it's SOP or not. @Renard Migrant, Romanophile — thoughts? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

My inclination is that it is not SOP. Why don't we ping actual French speakers: @Fsojic, Lmaltier, JackPotte, Jerome Charles Potts. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you mean L1 speakers. I just wanted to ping a couple people who I think would want to see; there are so many Francophones around here that I don't have to bother people who may not be active or interested just to get an opinion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not yet present in fr.wikt, but it's worth an entry: this phrase belongs to the French school jargon (at least in France, I cannot tell for other countries), and it's abbreviated as DS. w:fr:Devoir surveillé provides a number of synonyms in several contexts: DS, devoir sur table, DST, contrôle, partiel, épreuve partielle, interrogation écrite, interrogation surprise. Lmaltier (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Some of those are clearly not exact synonyms (in anglophone schools, the boundary between test and exam is ill-defined, but a pop quiz is something very different). I'll create a basic entry, and you can feel free to improve it as you see fit. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Another question to consider is that each noun might go with a different verb. In Russian for example, you say сдава́ть экза́мен ‎(sdavátʹ ekzámen), but писа́ть контро́льную ‎(pisátʹ kontrólʹnuju). In English I think you just use the word take for all of them. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Glottal stopsEdit

See recent changes to Batman [1] and atmosphere [2], where glottal-stop versions have been added. I don't think this is a good idea; other dictionaries don't do it, and while the glottal stop is one possible realisation of a t, it's not conventionally listed among the phonemes of English, AFAIK. Thoughts? Equinox 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a phoneme, but an allophone of /t/. So it doesn't belong in a phonemic representation. —CodeCat 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It is the predominant pronunciation in North America and some other places. Please consider how even our logo has undue RP (UK) bias; shows a pronunciation for Wiktionary foreign to most North Americans and most English-speakers (2nd+ language speakers included). Outside of UK and some speakers in au/nz/za, 'dictionary' has 4 syllables; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 01:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
As CodeCat says, it shouldn't be listed in /slashes/ because it's not phonemic. It could be listed in [brackets] as a narrow transcription after the phonemic transcription, similar to what's done at cat. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The phenomenon is so well-known that most lessons on the w:glottal stop specifically mention the pre-consonantal, word-medial t of GA the same way most classes on /x/ specifically mention the word-final velar fricative in Scottish 'loch'. According to w:allophone theory, an instance of w:t-glottalization from tʰ → t → ʔt → ʔ is complete enough to be considered a separate w:phoneme if the sounds exhibit complementary distribution and the sounds are phonetically dissimilar. RP audiences commonly refuse to accept the GA unaspirated word-medial t; they interpret it strictly as a /d/ unless the GA speaker unnaturally affects a /tʰ/. Please consider the pair 'sorted' and 'sordid'. Note that an aspirated alveolar /tʰ/ is certainly physically quite distant from a glottal /ʔ/ https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/The_International_Phonetic_Alphabet_%28revised_to_2015%29.pdf . Please listen to genuine ordinary GA pronunciations of 'Batman' and I'm sure You'll spot the /ʔ/ . Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 10:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
But the sounds do not exhibit complementary distribution, so they aren't separate phonemes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I do pronounce the glottal stop, but then, I also add j to most front vowels and aspirate word-initial p,t and k. It's just part of the phonetic detail. We don't indicate the difference between the alveolar stop and diphthongized vowel in English dose vs. the dental stop and pure vowel in Spanish dos, so why should be indicate this difference? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll just point out that the distinction between what is a phoneme and what is an allophone is very subjective and open to interpretation. The correct thing to say is that we treat [ʔ] as an allophone of the phoneme /t/ (and I'm not saying we shouldn't, but only that we shouldn't pretend that our way is the only way). --WikiTiki89 15:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
First if we remove anything, it should be the /t/ version since the /ʔ/ version is the standard; the copyrighted word was coined in GA, and the plethora of media produced by the copyright owner(s) is all in GA. The /t/ version is incorrect; a minority relegated to other dialects. Please take a moment to view a short summary on http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2604 .
Aɴɢʀ, have You ever been a GA speaker living in an RP land? Perhaps You're an RP speaker in an RP land with RP dictionaries and your lack of broad experience may be producing tunnel vision. One friend, a Northern English immigrant in Australia broke down in tears because every single staff member they approached in Target to help them find a battery /ˈbæ.tə.ɹi/ heard their /ˈbæʔ.tʰɹi/ as 'bat tree' /ˈbæʔt.tɹi/, even though they were a Target employee. One GA immigrant relative was offended in Australia by hearing something they'd completed being called 'sorted' /ˈsɔː.tɪd/, an unfamiliar slang term they heard as sordid /ˈsɔɹɾɨd/. Then trying to incorporate the new term, they said sorted /ˈsɔːr.ɾɪd/ but it was heard as sordid /ˈsɔː.dɪd/. Beyond the complementary distribution, the ability to change the meaning by substituting one word-medial t sound for the other marks separate phonemes. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I've never been accused of being an RP speaker before! No, I'm American and a speaker of GenAm. I also have a Ph.D. in linguistics with a specialization in phonology, and I know that GA (like RP) has no phoneme /ʔ/, but /t/ has an allophone [ʔ]. Batman can be pronounced [ˈbæʔmæn] with a glottal stop, or [ˈbæt̚mæn] with an unreleased [t], or even [ˈbæp̚mæn] with an unreleased [p] (likewise, atmosphere can be pronounced with [ˈæʔmə-], [ˈæt̚mə-], or [ˈæp̚mə-]), but the fact that debuccalization is not obligatory and an alveolar stop is always possible (and not only in careful speech but even in casual speech!) establishes pretty clearly that these words still have /t/ in their underlying representation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Aɴɢʀ, I really stuck my foot down my throat this time; I'm pulling my head in and apologizing. Am I also wrong about /ʔ/ being involved in the majority GA pronunciation of 'Batman'? Do You have any thoughts on the aforementioned short info-graphic? Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 00:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I said myself that Batman can be pronounced with a glottal stop. I'm not denying that for a moment. All I'm denying is that the glottal stop is phonemic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like I hurt your feelings; I didn't mean to but I'll apologize again. Perhaps You think I'm being sarcastic; I'm not. I kowtowed and actually wanted You to teach me if my experience of most GA pronunciations having glottal stops is unrepresentative. I also wanted the benefit of your expert's-eye-view on a text that I find influential. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 08:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Shows how bad the Internet is at conveying emotions. My feelings weren't hurt at all, I just wanted you to understand that you are right that words like Batman and atmosphere are (often) pronounced with a glottal stop, but that doesn't mean the glottal stop is phonemic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank You. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


How did /tɪˈtɑːniə/ take hold elsewhere if a vast majority of -ania words have /eɪniə/ (and thus came the AmE pronunciation)? Hillcrest98 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Surely it’s an attempt to sound more similar to Latin. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
To differentiate it further from titanium (/taɪˈteɪniəm/)? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way of knowing how Shakespeare himself intended it to be pronounced? Or at least how performers of his plays pronounced it throughout the centuries? --WikiTiki89 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
English speakers have always traditionally pronounced Latin long vowels like English, up to about 1900. The [i:] and [a:] of Latin would have been well into the Great Vowel Shift in 1600, so [təɪ'te:nɪə] or perhaps [təɪ'tɛ:nɪə], giving rise to modern (traditional) [taɪ'teɪnɪə]. --Hiztegilari (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
But it's not so simple. If an Italian woman walked up to Shakespeare and said her name was [tiˈtan.ja], Shakespeare would more likely have approximated it as /tɪˈtɑːnɪə/, don't you think? It's not as though we suddenly became aware of the Great Vowel Shift in 1900; England was not isolated from the outside world. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this ever used independently without "principle"? If not does it pass CFI? --Dixtosa (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

google books:"don't forget k.i.s.s." returns some relevant hits (among all the irrelevant ones). However, it seems that each one that actually explains the acronym uses a different word for the last S. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


In cot, two IPA pronunciations are given at the top level - UK, Australia, Boston: /kɒt/ and US: /kɑt/, but then below these, different pronunciations are given - Received Pronunciation: [kʰɒt], Australia: [kʰɔt], Boston: [kʰɒːt] and General American: [kʰɑt] and US-Northern Cities Vowel Shift: [kʰat]. That seems confusing. Why not separate UK, Australia, Boston into UK, Boston: [kʰɒːt] and Australia: [kʰɔt] (and remove the separate UK and Boston pronunciations), and at least change US: /kɑt/ into [kʰɑt] since the ʰ is in both of the entries below (General American: [kʰɑt] and Vowel Shift: [kʰat])? --V111P (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a /phonemic/ and a [phonetic] transcription? (I just thought that this might be the problem. However, you might be a professional phonetician or something. In that case I'm sorry because it's probably me whod doesn't properly understand your question :)) Kolmiel (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Kolmiel, I'm not a phonetician, and I'm also not a native English speaker, so I really didn't understand what is going on there, but now I do. :) --V111P (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reichenau GlossesEdit

What do we consider the language of the glosses in the Reichenau Glosses to be? Late Latin? Medieval Latin? Proto-Gallo-Romance? KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


"The state or quality of being assimilate.". Can assimilate be used as an adjective? I don't see much if any usage. DTLHS (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in Sheridan's old (1700s) Complete Dictionary of the English Language, where it is defined as "likeness". Actual usage seems hard to find. No such adjective as "assimilate" in Chambers. Equinox 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I can find assimilate as a noun, and have added that POS. I can't find much evidence of it as an adjective, and in the later examples I can find, it's not always clear if it's a typo for "assimilated" or not. The 1898 one, however, does use "assimilate" twice in places where an adjective is natural, and uses "assimilated" once elsewhere, so it at least does seem to attest the adjective. Whereas, a different page of the 1971 citation has "These acts are assimilated to...", suggesting that its use is a typo; likewise, the 1985 citation elsewhere frequently speaks of things like rain and mana being "assimilated" to the feet, the sky, etc. I assume the 2007 one is also a typo.
  • 1898, The United Service Magazine, volume 17, page 96 and 103:
    The Prince made known to me that he was exceeding interested in the matter—the details of which were assimilate to those herein published, having reference to the four points already distinguished—and himself suggested [...]
    [...] concentration of this energetic devotion in a department assimilate to that serving each of the other sections of the United Kingdoms.
  • 1971, U.S. Assistance Programs in Vietnam: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-second Congress, First Session, volumes 74-77, page 205:
    Then it [some other text which is being quoted] says:
    Shall be considered as Pro-Communist Neutralist a person who commits acts of propaganda for and incitement of Neutralism: these acts are assimilate to acts of jeopardizing public security.
  • 1985, Valerio Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii (ISBN 0226845605), page 93:
    Thus two ali'i of the same rank, their regalia, and whatever they put "under the shadow" of their kapu, that is assimilate to their persons, are noa to one another because they have the same position in the social syntagm, because they are equivalent.
  • 2007, Елена Наумовна Зарецкая, Rhetoric: The Theory and Practice of Speech Communication (ISBN 1893552454):
    [...] thinking by timorous steps (O. Mandelshtam) - in all enlisted metaphors the various characteristics (those which the object and its characteristics are assimilate to) [...]
I also find this one where Google won't show me the snippet and I suspect the sentence the search engine provides (below) is a conflation fragments of each column on the page:
  • 1960, The Numismatic Scrapbook Magazine, volume 26, page 2741:
    The Emperor, being all-powerful, was assimilate to the gods; with many in. fact, be soon replaced them.
- -sche (discuss) 01:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I suppose assimilateness needs a better definition. It seems to be very rare. DTLHS (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Assimilateness seems to be almost as rare as adjectival use of assimilate. Still, I suppose it's best to use a more comprehensible definition and relegate assimilate ‎(adj) to "Related terms" or the etymology ("From the rare adjective assimilate +‎ -ness"). - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


What does pared mean in Occitan? --Romanophile (contributions) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

couch (verb)Edit

We currently show 2 etymologies for the verb couch: 1). to recline on a couch, and 2). to embed or conceal (in a word, statement, etc.) a hidden meaning. But isn't the furtive sense just the an extension of the literal sense(s) ? Leasnam (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Further, I would suggest moving all verb senses to Etymology 2 and split the Etymologies by POS. Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Our entry for couchier#Old French doesn't provide what is needed for the verb etymology. The required content is probably in Robert's entry for coucher, for which my French is inadequate. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I follow. I will look to see if the split occurred further back... If not, and it occurs in English, then I suppose I will proceed with the above, if that's acceptable Leasnam (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no objections. What you propose is consistent with “couch” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001)., a generally good source. I don't have access to OED. DCDuring TALK 21:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Yes, it looks like that meaning developed in English (early 16c). Leasnam (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Leasnam (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Is it a general consensus that the English word "leg" excludes the feet (as our definition says)? -- (I added a note that the German Bein (see there) often or usually includes the feet, but I'm wondering if there's a real difference there between the German and English words, because - I s'pose - some Germans might also exclude the feet from their understanding of "Bein".) -- So, is it an obvious thing that the feet are excluded or might our definition of "leg" be too narrow and subjective? Kolmiel (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that it is used both ways, though it may be more commonly used excluding foot. Most definitions focus on use "a limb used for locomotion" A couple have something like "a human limb; commonly used to refer to a whole limb but technically only the part of the limb between the knee and ankle". DCDuring TALK 00:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The medical/anatomical/zoological definition excludes both foot and thigh. I don't know how ankle and knee are treated. If limb is used as the hypernym in the definiens, as it often is, leg would presumably inherit its scope, though it is often defined as "arm or leg". DCDuring TALK 00:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. So there's no substantial difference, as I had supposed. Well, thanks! You guys must know whether to change the definition in the lemma "leg". (I think it may be useful.) Kolmiel (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

About "menhir"Edit

I have removed the German word "Hinkelstein", since "Hinkel" appears neither here nor in the Cassell's German Dictionary. I have added instead the words "Druidenstein' and "Hünenstein" from Cassell's. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please put it back on. It's the commonest word, though probably not scientific. See this: [3]. Kolmiel (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way: Hinkel is a dialectal word that means "chicken". I don't think it has anything to do with this. But a Hinkelstein is a Hinkelstein. You can't delete a compound just because you can't attest one of its parts on its own. Kolmiel (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think Hinkelstein is the usual word for menhir in the German translations of the Asterix comics, in case someone wants to look for attestation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. That's where you'll come across it most often. But I don't think there can be much doubt about it even outside of Asterix. If we did need to look for attestations it would be for "Druidenstin" and "Hünenstein", which I have never heard, nor would have understood. Kolmiel (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I had a quick look. They are both attestable. Nothing much in recent decades, however. Kolmiel (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

trade cropEdit

Is this the same as a cash crop? —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And market crop AFAICT. Contrast with cover crop and subsistence crop. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Is the declension table correct? After looking into

  • Eduard Sievers: Angelsächsische Grammatik. Dritte Auflage. 2. unveränderter Abdruck. Volume 3 of the series Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte edited by Wilhelm Braune. Halle, 1921, p. 183


  • Joseph Wright, Elizabeth Mary Wright: Old English Grammar. 1908, p. 232

the declension should be like this:

m n
Nom. hwā, hwa hwæt
Gen. hwæs hwæs
Dat. hwǣm, hwām hwǣm, hwām
Acc. hwone
Instr. hwȳ, hwī


  • The masculine nominative can also be hwa with a short vowel.
  • Only the neuter has instrumental forms, the masculine hasn't.
  • There is another instrumental form, hwī.

Also Wiktionary might miss the following information:

  • The accusative hwæne is younger.
  • The instrumental hwon only occurs in adverbial phrases like tō hwon and for whon.
  • There is also the instrumental form with the adverbial meaning how.
  • There were other dialectal forms like Kentish neuter hwet.

-Ikiaika (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1). Old English didn't adequately represent vowel length orthographically, so it's possible that an unstressed form hwa could have existed in speech...
2). The masculine and neuter agree in declension, save in the nominative and accusative, since PIE times, so, the masculine instrumental is accurately shown to be hwȳ/hwon (hwon = suppletive?)/and yes hwī (same as hwȳ). Now, whether it was ever attested to mean "by/for/with that (masc) person or object" outside of just a general meaning of "why" or "for what (reason)" remains to be explored.
3). Yes, just an alternative form of normalised hwȳ. Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
4). There is also an alternative to hwon: hwan Leasnam (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply!
1) I've read that Anglosaxon sometimes marked long vowels, as huus or hús for modern hús, hûs or hūs. So maybe the vowel sometimes was marked. Or maybe one could find out the length from poems.
Wright states (p. 232, and p. 35 and 44): "On the vowel in hwā, see § 79." and "The Short Vowels of Accented Syllables. [...] § 79. Final a was lengthened to ā in monosyllables, as hwā (Goth. [..]), who, swā (Goth. swa), so." In context of the personal pronouns he writes (p. 225, and p. 49): "In forms marked with both long and short vowels, as in [...], those with short vowels were the unaccented forms, see § 95." and "§ 95. Final e was lengthened to ē in monosyllables as hē, he [...]". So the length should depend on accentuation.
2) It could be that Anglosaxon used the dative hwǣm and not the instrumental for persons or masculine nouns, while the neuter could have preserved the instrumental, at least in some fixed expressions or in certain circumstances.
Wright writes in another context (p. 161): "OE. nouns have [...] five cases: Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, Dative, and Instrumental. The dat. is generally used for the instr. in OE., so that this case is omitted in the paradigms, see § 334."
3) I'd guess that Wright uses a normalised orthography, so both hwȳ and hwī should be normalised spellings.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ihne, weneEdit

German dative forms like deme, ihme, weme can be explained by Middle High German forms like dëme and ime. But how about German accusative forms like ihne and wene? Such forms seem not to existed in Middle High German. Two possible explanations came into my mind but they are just poor guessings:
(a) Maybe that are Upper German forms like jedwederer for jedweder, and maybe some words were prolonged for prestige in Upper German regions.
(b) Middle Low German forms are these:

m n
Dat. deme, dem, den
Acc. dene, den dat
m n
Dat. eme, ome, en eme, em, ome, en
Acc. ene, en, one, on it, et
m n
Dat. weme, wem
Acc. wene, wen wat
  • Source: Agathe Lasch: Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Volume 9 of the series Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte edited by Wilhelm Braune. Halle a. S., 1914, pp. 216, 218, 220.

The source also mentions that dative and accusative sometimes got mixed up which might explain the the Middle Low German accusative -e: Having a dative -e and mixing up dative and accusative could result in an accusative -e. Maybe Low German speakers then used their accusative -e in High German too.
Hopefully someone can enlighten me and explain to me where the High German accusative -e comes from. -Ikiaika (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Middle Low German accusative forms with -e are a regular development and did not intrude from the dative. The mixup mainly concerns writing -m for -n. It could very well be that the accusative-e in High German is a dialectal development from northern (High German) regions with similar forms or that the E is merely written, because in the dialects employing these forms, /ə/ had already become silent. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply!
  • Silent letters are common in English (island, shine), but in German? b in for example umb was or became silent, but no other example comes into my mind. In gedencken, Schrifft, Kaufleuth there were unnecessary consonant letters, but I wouldn't call them silent letters.
  • I just found the additions to Lexer's MHG dictionary. He mentions the accusative wene and gives a single source from Austria for this ("westen di luite, an wene si solten glouben, wen si solten haben zeinem vater"). Compared with the cites for wene from München and Dilingen (Dillingen an der Donau?), it might be a southern German or Upper German form, in some way similar to jedwederer for jedweder, seynd for sind, gesyn for seyn. I would explain such forms by prestige, that longer and older forms might look more elevated, noble, courtly. That might be an incorrect and poor explanation, but until now I've not seen a better one.
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


This page lists massager as a hyponym of masseuse. Shouldn't it be a hypernym? A masseuse is a female massager. Troyp (talk)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"entre los Ceibos estorba un Quebracho"Edit

Wiktionary has no entry for ceibo, but it is defined at w:ceibo as the national flower/tree of Argentina and Uruguay. Quebracho is apparently a tree with very hard wood. I have no idea why they are capitalized in the Spanish phrase above, but it comes in a communication from the Organization of American States, so should be accounted for in our dictionary. Here is the OAS release (also Spanish) and what I think is the original song with video. (I suppose someone on Wikipedia would give me flack over a 'prohibited' external link with that, but frankly, the big lyrics sites have been up for 20 years now, they look like Fair Use, and I don't believe their 'illegality' is anything but a propertarian-fringe fiction at this point. I don't know Wiktionary's policy though)


1) create ceibo
2) Do we need Ceibo? And why?
3) The phrase itself is being used with clear political significance here, and I think an entry on the whole thing entre los Ceibos estorba un Quebracho may be in order. I still have no idea what it means in the context of the OAS letter, at least.
4) also Quebracho???
5) explain this sense in quebracho.

Wnt (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it at the moment, but see if ceiba is helpful. Linking to a website in a discussion to illustrate a point is different from including it in an entry. See WT:CFI for our policies on inclusion and citation. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Wnt: The only reasonable request is your first one, which I have fulfilled. We do not include capitalised versions of words unless they are always capitalised, and we do not include quotes, no matter how much metaphorical weight those quotes may have, because we are not Wikiquote. As Chuck said, you can read more about what we do include at WT:CFI.
Chuck: Spanish is crazy when it comes to biological nomenclature. Unfortunately, the ceiba and the ceibo are completely different (although there may be some dialect where that's not the case). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

refrain#Verb: an example is present for two sensesEdit

In the page about refrain, senses 1 and 3 share the example “Refrain thy foot from their path.” --Anareth (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


There's a footnote in the conjugation section that the verb also has the past participle nīsus. Can this be added to the conjugation table and headword line as well? —CodeCat 18:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ultimately, second senseEdit

The definition: “Indicating the most important action.” An example: “[…] the ultimately luckless Hennessey, who was […]” The example does not match the definition.

It seems to mean "in the end". Equinox 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Both of the definitions now in the entry are awful. They are neither substitutable nor worded clearly as non-gloss definitions.
The second definition could be worded as "Most importantly".
The word is sometimes used to mean "originally" as in "The word is ultimately from Latin." That is, the implied sequence or order can be either forward or backward from the reference time. For the backward use in the end is not right; it might be in the beginning. This suggests that we need two usage examples if not two definitions
The first definition might be better as "Eventually" or "Finally" or we may need something more extensive. The existing usage example seems phony to me. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


  • Predicative forms like "er ist selbig" and mixed forms like "ein selbiger" should be nonexistent.
  • Weak forms should be complicated: While spellings like "der selbige" exist, modern prescribed forms with the definte article should be derselbige etc.

-Ikiaika (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You can create derselbige, of course. But I don't agree that "ein selbiger" shouldn't exist. Google it, it has a lot of justified hits, like: "Wo kein Markt ist, kann ein selbiger sich auch nicht bereinigen." I wouldn't write that, personally, but it sounds okay to me. Kolmiel (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies! I googled it at books.google, but maybe not good enough. Your example can be found at radioforen.de, but with "Selbiger". I don't think that that is a good example (also compare with *ein selber), but let's put it aside for now. [A small PS: As selbig means the same, ein selbiger would mean a the same which makes no sense, and for the same reason there should be no *ein selber.]
What about the predicative forms, do they exist? And what about the spellings with the definite article? Of course one can create entries for derselbige etc., but the template just mentions "der selbige". I'd guess, that it at least requires a note like "Spellings like der selbige are nowadays proscribed, while spellings like derselbige are prescribed." (compare with der selbe and derselbe, e.g. korrekturen.de, lektor.at). Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 00:22, 00:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, they used it. To me personally it even sounds grammatical, but it needn't be grammatical as long as it's used. And selbig doesn't mean "the same" but "same", so ein selbiger is "a same", which might (is it?) still be ungrammatical in English, but need not be in German. Generally, things don't have to make sense, they just have to be attested. A better wording, of course, would be "ein solcher", but that's not the question. --- As far as template and programming questions are concerned, I can't help you unfortunately. Kolmiel (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: You also find relevant hits on google.books. E.g.: "Er kann sich in diesen vergegenwärtigen gemäß der jeweiligen Bestimmtheit ihres Seins, so daß seine Ausdrucksformen sehr verschiedene sind, während er selbst doch ein selbiger ist." Obviously there's nothing to be "put aside for now". It's part of our language whether we like or not. Kolmiel (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
German Wiktionary says there also was "der jener" (which developed into derjenige). So indeed, strange forms could have been used. But if incorrect forms were or are used, then it requires a note. For example, "Ich muss gehen, weil die Geschäfte machen gleich zu." is incorrect it normal German, even if it is used colloquially.
  • How about predicative forms? Till now I can't see any example for that. Examples from books.google for "ist selbig":
    • "... das 'Was etwas ist' [...] ist selbig mit ihm ..." — there selbig should mean identical and not the same, that is, it should have another sense.
    • "sondern ist selbig mit sich selbst" — as above, and the meaning identical should be philosophical.
    • "... so ist selbig den Zöllnern ..." — there selbig should be short for selbiges (similar to "unser täglich Brot" besides "unser tägliches Brot").
    • "Herzog Hand Ernst [...] ist selbig 16[line break]26. Jar [...], als er [...] erkranckt, den 15. December todts verfahren" — that should mean "ist selbiges 1626ste Jahr", that is "he died in the same 1626th year".
    • "Nachdem Martin [...] baden wollen, ist selbig ertuncken" — that should mean "ist selbiger ertrunken".
    • "... aber ist selbig nit wegen sein, sonder ..." — there selbig should be short for selbiges
So while selbig exists, I can't find any example like "er ist selbig" meaning "he is the same".
  • As for ein selbiger:
    • The example from radioforen.de is not durably archived, spells it Selbiger and might be colloquial.
    • The example with "ein selbiger ist" is from a philosophical book out of the 1970s or 1980s. (a) Sometimes philosophers redefine words, so it could have a different meaning. (b) Some sources (e.g. DWDS) say that selbig is "veraltet", so the author could have used it incorrectly.
  • Comparison with selber/selbe: selber and selbiger have the same meaning, (the) same. But ein selber and er ist selber shouldn't exist, and same should be true for selbig.
To sum up, ist selbig (or more complete: ist selbig mit) and ein selbiger might exist. But both should have another meaning: ist selbig mit should mean is identisch mit or is identical with, and ein selbiger should mean ein solcher or such a. Also these meanings might be less common, younger (from the 20th century), and philosophical or colloquial. -- Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we could add a note that these forms are rather uncommon, why not. They definitely aren't colloquial because the word selbig is by itself elevated and archaic. (And the word as such is actually uncommon in contemporary German.) However, we don't say that things said and written by native speakers are "incorrect". We do say that such things may be "proscribed", but in that case I think you'd have to produce a source that proscribes it, and you'll hardly find that, because no one has probably ever written anything about "ein selbiger". Kolmiel (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Older grammarians like Gottsched and Adelung already criticised or even proscribed some words or usages (e.g. in case of was in front of nouns like was Volk), so they could have proscribed ein selbiger. Also there might be another way to justify a label "proscribed". If a grammarian declined selbig and only has (no article) selbiger and der selbige or derselbige, it could mean that ein selbiger does not exist or is incorrect.
But IMHO it's not a matter of proscribed or not, but of the meaning. selbig meaning the same shouldn't have forms like "er ist selbig" and "ein selbiger". selbig with the rare meaning solcher or such has forms like "ein selbiger", and selbig with the rare meaning identisch or identical has forms like "ist selbig (mit)". This would also explain why there is ein selbiger but no ein selber: selber simply doesn't have these other meanings. But I'm not sure if these other meanings really are attestable.
PS: Well, ein selber might also exist as in: "Folglich bezieht sich das Endliche auf ein selber endliches oder verendlichtes Nichtendliches." But there it should have another meaning too. Also ATM these mixed forms aren't mentioned in selbe or selber. -- Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "the word shouldn't have these forms". It's not the way we work here. Who decides what forms a word should have? It yourself who say that it shouldn't have them. I say it should. (And neither is important.) And as far as "proscribed" is concerned: I don't see how something can be proscribed when no one has ever proscribed it. You may discuss that with someone else, I personally think it's ridiculous. What we can say is something along the lines of "some language users may find this use abnormal", which is a safe call. -- So, and that's it for me concerning this topic. Kolmiel (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

selber, selbeEdit

There should be two words selber and not just one: (a) A word meaning himself etc., and (b) an inflected form of selbe. Compare for example:

  • "er selber hat" (a) and "selber Tag" (strong form of b in the nominative)
  • "am selben Tag[e]" (weak form of b) and "an selbem Tag[e]" (strong form of b)
  • "und gab demselben den Rath" (weak form of b) and "und gab selbem den gewöhnlichen Segen" (strong form of b).

So word (a) is uninflectable and placed after another word, while word (b) is inflectable and a form of selbe. Also, maybe the declension tables from the entries selber and selbe should be in the same entry. -Ikiaika (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

So create etymology 1 for the adverb, and etymology 2 for the inflected form. Kolmiel (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The etymology could be the same or at least similar, and I can't say anything about it. I slightly changed the entries (see selber, selbe), but IMHO both tables should be in one entry. Greetings, -Ikiaika (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
They should be two etymologies, I think. We generally put inflected forms in a separate etymology, as far as I'm aware. "Selber" (= -self) is a lemma, while the inflected form is not. Strictly speaking you're right, but this is more a question of layout. (I'm not a huge expert on our layout though. You might want to ask someone else.) Kolmiel (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, one could also say that selber (= the same) is a lemma too. In case of Alter, Beamter, Kleiner the strong form is used, while the weak is just an inflected form. So selbe could point to selber. On the other hand, the weak form selbe might be more common, at least nowadays. For comparision, German Wiktionary missed the strong forms completely. -Ikiaika (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the Dutch approach could be used as a comparison. Dutch also has the same distinction, but since neither word inflects it's much easier. See zelf, zelfde. —CodeCat 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, true. Since there is no "selb", in this case "selber" would be the lemma. (In adjectives without predicative form we always use the er-form as lemma.) Make it one etymology then, or make it two, whatever you like. ---- Comparing with Dutch, the difference is that German "selber" can both be zelf and zelfde, so while there is a semantic distinction the two occasionally overlap formally. Kolmiel (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


apertus is already the past participle of aperiō. Can this be looked at? —CodeCat 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Could it be a frequentive like spectō? I don't see the problem. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a frequentative. The problem is that apertō, like all frequentatives, is a 1st conjugation verb, so the expected participle is apertātus. —CodeCat 21:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, you knew the problem, but were unable to fix it? I fixed it for you, anyhow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I knew there was a problem, didn't know what the correct fix was. Maybe apertātus was also wrong, for all I know. —CodeCat 00:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

apo, apio, apiscorEdit

De Vaan gives apiō while we have apō. The derived verb coepiō preserves the -i-, as does apīscor. So is the verb actually attested only as apō, or is apiō also found, as De Vaan indicates? —CodeCat 20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tonsillas apiunt [not apunt], configunt litus, aduncas, or They fasten the hooked poles, they grip the shore, from Ennius in Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, 19.14: Tonsilia uncinus ferreus vel ligneus ad quem in litore defixum funes navium inligantur. De quo Ennius (Ann. 499): Tonsillas apiunt, configunt litus, aduncas. As before, I don't know the manuscript tradition and possibly my editions are mistaken, but Ennius is one's first hope for this sort of problem. Isomorphyc (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


' (easier to click link) is used in English distinctly from the suffix -' in words like talkin'. We have no entry. Also, is this 'punctuation' or what? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's punctuation in the sense that it is a mark that is not a letter. I guess we should define it as something like Indicates that a letter has been omitted from the word. Perhaps it should even be translingual. --WikiTiki89 21:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
(Not a suffix, of course, as it occurs in other places like shan't and 'phone.) Equinox 21:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this adequate? - -sche (discuss) 14:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Does no one else think this should be translingual? I know it at least applies to English and French, but I guess I'm not sure to what it extent it applies to other Latin script languages. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Except from "often [...] they are no longer pronounced" it also applies to German: Katz' (also Katz) for Katze, Leut' (also Leut) for Leute, freud'ger for freudiger, geh' (also geh) for gehe, Baum's (also Baums) for Baumes. However, there might be different views about when to use an apostroph. Forms like Baum's were rare, forms like Katz' might be younger, forms like geh' might nowadays be questioned. Also the apostrophe might be restricted to just replace a few letters in a word. I can't remember to have seen something like "fo'c's'le" (three apostrophes) in German. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
An apostrophe is certainly used to mark elision in Italian as well. Still, this seems to be an eye-dialect marker more than a mark of elision because the g isn't actually pronounced in -ing: it's just an orthographic device used to distinguish a velar nasal from an alveolar one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If "ng" means /ŋ/ and "n" means /n/, then pronouncing "ng" as /n/ is dropping the "g". Otherwise, you're taking technicalities too far. --WikiTiki89 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, either interpretation requires playing games with abstractions, since we're talking about dropping a written "g" in pronunciation. After all, I doubt pronouncing thing as "ting" would be called "dropping the 'h'". Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the definition as "Replaces one or more letters which have been removed from a written word, often but not always because they are not being pronounced", I don't see how that can possibly be interpreted as excluding talkin’. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that -in' represents the vast majority of uses (I can't think of any others off the top of my head), "often" wouldn't seem to be correct if this isn't a case of "because they are not being pronounced". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not convinced that -in’ represents any kind of majority or plurality of uses (I would think contractions like -'s and don't would take that title). Secondly, I will still maintain that the distinction between /ŋ/ and /n/ is commonly referred to as pronouncing or not pronouncing the "g". If you really want a more technical justification, you can say that the "g" is a velarization marker when following the letter "n", and in talkin’, the velarization marker "g" is not pronounced. --WikiTiki89 19:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot we were talking about ' rather than -'. My bad. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Even in those examples, the apostrophe is replacing a letter that is not being pronounced. (Leute: /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/, Leut’: /ˈlɔʏ̯t/.) - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
But it is being pronounced- as a schwa. To be analogous, you would have to be talking about the difference between /ˈlɔʏ̯te/ and /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not being pronounced: Leut’ is /ˈlɔʏ̯t/, and rhymes in songs with freut and other such things. In Leute, the final letter is pronounced (/ˈlɔʏ̯tə/), and thus in that pronunciation the apostrophe (which replaces unpronounced letters) is not used. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
My point was that the g isn't pronounced in either the alveolar or the velar variant. In the Leute vs. Leut' example, on the other hand, the e is pronounced in Leute, but not pronounced in Leut'. The German example fits the definition where the English one doesn't. My "/ˈlɔʏ̯te/ and /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/" hyothetical doesn't quite work, but it was just an aside. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I see your point now. I forgot that Leute can represent either /ˈlɔʏ̯t/ or /ˈlɔʏ̯tə/, depending on the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
There were a number of usage notes about German use of ', located at ’ (the curly version), which have become casualties of the move to translingual. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Do we need both "Cereal plants, Oryza sativa of the grass family whose seeds are used as food." and "A specific variety of this plant."? I am unsure of how to distinguish cites of the two senses, if that is even possible. DTLHS (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It was probably intended to be the countable sense. I've added the label and corrected the inflection line. Is that OK? Arguably something similar would apply to many vernacular names of plants: "The forest contained much pine/many pines (types of pine or indvidual trees)." DCDuring TALK 22:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


The inflections need to be looked at. The verb comes from incidō with a short i, rather than incīdō with a long vowel. So a short vowel would also be expected in the derivative, and the expected participle would be coincāsum. —CodeCat 23:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't in Lewis and Short or Oxford, so it seems not to be Classical Latin at all. Maybe someone with access to a Medieval Latin dictionary could look it up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources has an entry for coincidō. Du Cange doesn't. KarikaSlayer (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the entry you linked to above doesn't provide any information about what the third and fourth principal parts would be. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


This clearly has another use, but it’s difficult to define since it’s applied so loosely. I originally suggested ‘[a] man who respects women and girls and sees them as people,’ but that’s probably either an exaggeration or exceedingly specific. One possible solution is to simply use {{non-gloss definition|A term of abuse}}, but even that may be too broad. Perhaps we could use ‘a weakling with progressive views.’ --Romanophile (contributions) 19:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Given your disinterest in this matter, I’ll be forced to resolve it by myself. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, the new def seems better. And you have to be patient. Sometimes an entry sits at RFV for months before it gets cited. You don't have to put "delete, no-one cares" on a talk page just because nobody replied in a week, etc. Equinox 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The verb "to be"Edit

I was trying to check the Sanskrit verb "to be" (as listed in w:Russian grammar), so I thought the "Translations" section under be would help. But oh dear... Well, "translation" is really the wrong word, because this is about "corresponding words", and yes, a traditional (mis)conception of translation is that it is about replacing words by their corresponding words, then patching up the grammar. But really and truly, translation is about writing something in a second language which has the same required functional effect as something already written in a first language. But leave that aside for now.

In any Indo-European language, saying "the verb to be" normally means something. In (any?) non-Indo-European language it probably means nothing at all. But it really would help for all IE languages just to give the verb to be. It might be labelled as such, and only IE languages included, or it might be labelled as "the copula" (not sure quite how general this term is).

But currently, there is a whole string of supposed uses, and I think the closest to "the copula" is probably: "used to indicate that the subject plays the role of the predicate nominative". What on earth is this supposed to mean (particularly, for example, in the case of Japanese, which does not have subjects or cases)?? I have looked through the Japanese "translations" given: in most cases it really is unclear what the target is supposed to mean, and in many cases the word given is utterly wrong. But it is unreasonable to expect any fluent speaker of Japanese to be able to guess what the heading is supposed to mean. I particularly scratched my head over "occur, take place": how is this the verb to be?

I suggest that this is an unsalvageable disaster, and invite comments. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a disaster at all. Indeed it is quite good. The sense of to be that you are looking for is probably (7), a copula "used to indicate that the subject and object are the same." In the translation section for that sense, the Sanskrit is अस्ति ‎(asti). The entry for अस्ति ‎(asti) needs a lot more work, but I believe it’s what you were searching for.
Note that English Wiktionary is not intended for the use of native Japanese, it is for native speakers of English. Native speakers of Japanese should avail themselves of ja:いる and ja:ある instead. Also, the various senses of the verb are not for Japanese or other languages, they are for the English verb. Sense (8) is a copula that is "used to indicate that the subject plays the role of the predicate nominal." That is a description of the English sense, and has nothing to do with Japanese. In the translation section for this sense, the various languages, including Japanese, show a common word in each language that is used to translate this particular sense of the English verb. Any description of the Japanese verb will be found on the entry for the Japanese verb, that is, at である. —Stephen (Talk) 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


   IMO, use of "IMHO" is, as likely as not, will convey (at best)

"I'm in on the [post-?]post-modernist joke that claims that the act of typing 'IMHO' is inherently arrogant, and i
  • don't care whether i offend you."

for which reason i would never use it where it might be construed that "humble" was meant sincerely. That's too meta to go into a dictdef, but shouldn't there be some sort of "subject to ironic use or misinterpreation" annotation?
--Jerzyt 12:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO, no. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Yeah, I don't know why this article is locked. The oldest attestations of this name date to the 8th century CE (cf Förstemann ibid., Col. 596). There are also sources from the 9th Century Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch(Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch, p.126: Vuolfkanc am unteren Ende der rechten Spalte.)So it is clearly impossible that the 10th century Catholics were the first to use this name. This is in addition to it being a pagan name.

There seems to be a consensus on this, but for some reason, one user has had this page locked. There are also random useless sections on there. Like Wolfgang in Portuguese is Wolfgang. Wow. That was hard to figure out. Shouldn't there only be variations listed that are actually different? And, why Portuguese? It's not like the name is popular there.

How do we fix this page? What is the purpose of locking pages? Isn't that pretty much against everything wiki?DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The page was locked because one user decided to rearrange the page contrary to Wiktionary's standard format, which was arrived at by the community over more than a decade and a series of votes, then edit-warred with several others when corrected. This same editor then proceeded to post a series of belligerent demands to add to their empty accusations of vandalism, showing a blatant disrespect for all the other contributors to the article and for the Wiktionary community.
But then, you already know that, because you're continuing the same bombastic tirade, just using an account rather than an IP. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
They did the same thing at Wikipedia. —CodeCat 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this perhaps a typo for crēbrēscō? The latter is listed at crēber under related terms. —CodeCat 22:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a genuine mediaeval and renaissance usage, a frequent manuscript variant, and incrēbēscunt appears in at least some good editions of Catullus. I can't speak to the transmission history which led to this reading. I wouldn't guess that /r/ is a terrible candidate for hapology, like nutritrix > nutrix, but I don't know anything specific here. Edited: possibly I misunderstand what you are asking. Isomorphyc (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

get betterEdit

Can someone please fix the past participles. I tried but the template doesn't want to co-operate. Gotten better is obviously American, got better is used in Britain. DonnanZ (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I was trying the other way round. Cheers! DonnanZ (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, feel free to swap them. At least you know how to do it now. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I tried to copy from get and ran into trouble. Actually I don't think there's any need for "head=" now, things have changed since the entry was created. DonnanZ (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


According to De Vaan, there's another synonymous verb meaning "worsen", from peius. Can anyone confirm this and include an entry if it exists? —CodeCat 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

go or be hard in the paintEdit

What is the origin of this phrase and what does it mean? - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In basketball, to play hard (physically) in the painted area between free-throw line and the basket. "Go" is mostly used for the offense, "be" for defense. To me only the sense of paint (which we already have) is dictionary-worthy. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha! But I see some use which isn't referring to any literal painted area; e.g.:
  • 2013, Danette M. Verchér, As The Spirit Leads: An Apostolic & Prophetic Discipleship, ... (ISBN 1491814438):
    He may not ever know that this little power packed lady in the Holy Ghost, in Hughson, California, was “going hard in the paint on his behalf.”
And (although I haven't found a durable example yet) uses like "Toni Morrison Went Hard in the Paint for Angela Davis". - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sports is often is source of good popular metaphors. To the paint and in the paint are used without go or be. See this for the source of the metaphor. Urban Dictionary would be a convenient source for this kind of thing, but we are too good for that. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

infatuation: merge definitions?Edit

Here are the current definitions:

  1. The act of infatuating; the state of being infatuated; folly; that which infatuates.
  2. An unreasoning love for or sexual attraction to.

According to the pages infatuating and folly, I fail to perceive the first meaning as distinct from the second one. If they are indeed identical, the definitions should be merged (I suggest simply deleting the first one, because the second seems much clearer). However, if the meanings are distinct, clarifications should be made. --Anareth (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ‘shew’Edit

There is no complete pronunciation listed at shew, although at least the rhyme -əʊ is noted. However, one of the definitions, the East Anglia past tense, has a different pronunciation, with the rhyme -uː. (See [4], for example, which cites the OED). I'm not a Wiktionary regular, and I don't know how to properly record this in the entry, but its Talk page told me to come here. —Toby Bartels (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I have added {{rfp|lang=en}}. I'd be surprised if it isn't usually pronounced to rhyme with eschew in US classrooms. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneAɴɢʀ (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't the dialectal past tense be /ʃjuː/? --WikiTiki89 14:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Do any varieties of English allow /ʃj-/? Certainly RP doesn't, and I thought East Anglian was famous for reducing /juː/ to /uː/ everywhere, in even more contexts than American English. For example, I thought the stereotypical East Anglian pronunciation of beautiful was /ˈbuːtɪfəl/ (cf. w:Phonological history of English consonant clusters#Yod-dropping). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right. --WikiTiki89 15:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

opetustaulu - teaching poster?Edit

Opetustaulu' on metric system.
Opetustaulu on papermaking.

What are these teaching aids called in English? For the Finnish entry opetustaulu I defined them as "type of poster or placard formerly used in schools as teaching aid, consisting of an educative image fixed on stiff cardboard". From Wikipedia I learned that they are Schulwandbild in German, skolplansch in Swedish and schoolplaat i Dutch. I'm pretty sure these tables have been used in the English speaking world as well. I tried "school poster", "educating poster", "teaching poster", "school display" etc. in Google image search, but the results didn't look quite the same. All searches produce pictures of self-made boards. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be tempted to simply call them diagrams, though that doesn't refer to a poster, but rather the image on the poster. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a wallchart. Equinox 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think English really has a common fixed name for them. I've certainly never heard "wallchart" used. They're posters, with an appropriate adjective if the distinction is necessary. Or diagrams, as Andrew suggested.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I 100% agree with Prosfilaes' every word here. --WikiTiki89 21:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Search for "educational poster" produces the type of result I was looking for. Thanks again for help. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


On the Wikipedia talk page of w:Prime (symbol), it is mentioned that this symbol is also sometimes called a dash, at least in some contexts, in various varieties of English. Can this use be verified? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Some Borderline-SOP entriesEdit

There are several entries by the same IP user (geolocating to Montreal), that are marked by a restricted definition for an otherwise-SOP term.They all are composed of <adjective for a nationality> + <name of a food> all have the same cookie-cutter etymology: {{compound|lang=<language code for the entry>|<adjective for an nationality>|<name of a food>}}, from being the stereotypical, common, and most frequently encountered type of <name of a food> in <adjective for a nationality> cuisine. These include:

  1. Chinese mushroom
  2. Chinese sausage
  3. Italian sausage
  4. Italian tomato
  1. champignon chinois
  2. saucisse chinoise
  3. saucisse italienne
  4. tomate italienne

I'm not really sure how to deal with these: it's true that one can go to a supermarket and find products for sale labeled with these terms with contents that agree with the descriptions in the definitions. The hard part is figuring out if the restriction to this specific sense is part of the language, or just the result of the current relative availability of such things. For instance, most of us outside of the tropics will think of a w:Cavendish banana when someone says "banana", but that's just because that's the type that dominates the mainstream market. How do we tell whether something has become a lexical distinction? Do we look for quotes that say "when I said Italian tomatoes, I didn't mean w:San Marzano tomatoes, I meant w:Roma tomatoes"? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

google books:"Chinese mushroom" finds as many hits where it's used as a name of Volvariella volvacea as hits where it's used of Lentinula edodes, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it might be idiomatic with multiple senses. Uses like Some studies on the cultivation of Chinese mushroom (Volvariella volvacea (Fr.) Singer) on sugarcane industrial by-products seem to treat it as a proper name. There are also a few hits where it refers to Ganoderma tsugae or to the wood ear, and a few where it is unambiguously SOP, e.g. "Cordyceps is a Chinese mushroom". There are a number of cookbooks that call for e.g. "100 g of Chinese mushroom", but again I'm not sure if that suggests idiomaticity (identification of it as a specific thing) or not, since a recipe for Chinese food might call for any (edible) Chinese mushroom.
The idiomaticity of "Italian sausage" is clearer, since it is frequently found as such right next to other Italian sausages such as salami. Compare "Italian beef".
"Italian tomato", on the other hand, seems SOP. all the hits for google books:"of Italian tomato" and google books:"g Italian tomato", which I hoped would find hits of recipes calling for it in a potentially idiomatic way, are SOP.
- -sche (discuss) 07:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of indirectEdit

For any native:

  • IPA(key): /ɪndɪˈɹɛkt/, /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, /ɪndəˈɹɛkt/

Is that this way? Inferred from direct and indication. Sobreira (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We could probably stand to separate them out by accent. I don't think Americans would usually say /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, nor Brits /ɪndəˈɹɛkt/. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone separates them by region, note that both pronunciations are common in Canada. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I checked Cambridge: indirect and direct, and they don't match with what you say.... Sobreira (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, they agree with me that Brits are unlikely to say /ɪndəˈɹɛkt/ (with /ə/, as opposed to /ɪndɪˈɹɛkt/ with /ɪ/). I stand by my statement that Americans would not usually say /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, but perhaps it's not totally unheard of. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage do both list /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/, but if I ever heard an American say it, I'd probably think he had been living in Britain for a while. (Or was actually Canadian and not American after all.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm odd, but I prefer the US pronunciation in Cambridge (listen to the audio). Oxford has the same pronunciation on both sides “indirect” (US) / “indirect” (UK) in Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press.. DonnanZ (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this indirect#Pronunciation? No stated preference but order marks "frequency of use". I don't know why ʌ in Oxford (=a?, different?), as the brevis and macron of American Heritage (I guess is the schwa and the dyphthong), but I reflected it as well. Sobreira (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no difference between /ʌɪ/ and /aɪ/; they're just two different ways to transcribe the same sound. The convention at Wiktionary is to use the latter, while the convention in Oxford dictionaries is to use the former. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
IME, /ɪndaɪˈɹɛkt/ is common among Americans in academic settings (like processes ending in /iz/, although that one's spurious). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

for cryin' out loudEdit

What's the feeling about this kind of thing? On Google Books I found "fer cryin' out loud", "fer crying out loud", "for crying oot loud", and "for cryin' oot lood" (the last two presumably representing Scottish accents). Having entries for every permutation of a longish proverb with dialect-variable words could get very silly. Equinox 06:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd favor having a lot of them as alternative forms in the entry for the mainstream-spelling version, but not with separate entries for each form. This would let the search engine do its work. The alternative forms could also be concealed "under" a show-hide bar. DCDuring TALK 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it would get very silly if every possible combination of variant spellings within a multi-word expression were listed. I don't think it should be attempted. If someone encounters "for crying oot lood" they can look up "oot" and "lood" and then put two and two together. 02:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a case where we can get away with a hard redirect to for crying out loud. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I didn't think Wiktionary allowed those. The couple of times I have tried to create a redirect I think it has been converted to a full entry, even if the definition ultimately pointed the reader to the original redirect target. 19:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't use hard redirects a lot, but in cases where it's unlikely that the page would ever be used for another language (as is the case here), we do use them sometimes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maroon (case issue)Edit

A definition on the page maroon makes use of the word with a majuscule (Maroon). Is this usage incorrect, or should the page Maroon be created?--Anareth (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:English terms derived from Dickensian worksEdit

Hey all. I just made Category:English terms derived from Dickensian works and added a bunch. Not sure how best to name the cat (or cat the cat, as catting has got way to complex in the last decade). Also, is there a similar Shakespearian cat? --J19idf (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I see Category:en:A Christmas Carol. I don't like that cat's name, personally. But it should have some connection to the aforemensht --J19idf (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The name is pretty bad. Why not the simpler "derived from works of Dickens"? —CodeCat 20:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Clam means (among other things) female genitalia. This meaning is not included in the Clam article.

We have bearded clam. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English also has hairy clam. I'm not sure about "clam" alone. Equinox 21:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I can find some uses:
  • 1999, Richard Price, The Wanderers (ISBN 0547940610):
    "[And] in fifteen minutes I was back in my place, an' in twenty, I'd say twentyseven minutes, I was gobblin' her clam like it was the last supper."
- -sche (discuss) 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

accommodate (on an internet dating site)Edit

What does the word accommodate mean on an internet dating site. Here is an example. "OK I'm married for starters so if you don't approve read no further, so discretion is a must so can't meet evenings or weekends, if you can accommodate even better, I don't really 'do it' in cars, I do like my comforts."

It means to offer accommodation, i.e. to provide a place for meetings. The writer would prefer to go to the other person's place. Equinox 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I would say it's sense 8: "To adapt one's self; to be conformable or adapted; become adjusted."--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A Google search finds usage like "able to accommodate at a normal time not 2am", "able to accommodate in Swansea city centre & discreet", so it seems to relate to time and place. Equinox 22:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the same ordinary sense of "accommodate" as in "if you can accommodate my needs", just with the object elided. I suppose we need a sense to cover that, or else need to remove the "rare" tag from sense 8 if it already covers that. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


I haven't heard of this being used to refer to anything other than MikuMikuDance itself... —suzukaze (tc) 08:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Are these really two different verbs? It looks more like it's one verb with two alternative perfect stems. —CodeCat 16:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Does one see discrepav* more than once in Varro (Lingua Latina 8.38) and here and there in Mediaeval and newer sources? Perhaps this only warrants a small note, more than its own conjugation table, unless there is a possibility such a usage is very frequent in Mediaeval writings? L&S does not mention this variant at all, though of course L&S is only classical. I wish I knew why it had been listed here as an independent verb. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Most of the two-syllable rhymes here are wrong, aren't they? (SOY-milk, not soy-MILK.) Equinox 16:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

But don't they have a secondary stress that still makes them rhyme when the stress patterns match? Like: "cornsilk" and "breastmilk"? I think it's chiefly a question of definition. If our rhymes have to be first class, then they're probably wrong. Kolmiel (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Currently "contoured" is listed as being the simple past of "contour" (as well as being an adjective in its own right), but "contour" is only listed as a noun. I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is - I guess someone should add a verb meaning for contour. (The adj. meaning of "contoured" is "smoothly shaped" - would adding a verb meaning to "contour" as "to smoothly shape" then render that separate adjective definition redundant?

I don't know a verb contour, though of course it could well exist. I would take contoured to be taken directly from the noun, like bearded. This is an original function of this affix and goes right back: Latin does the same thing with the equivalent, barbatus, and it's common in English in parasynthetic compounds like long-tailed, white-eared, and red-haired, where there's no question of going through a verb. --Hiztegilari (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
There's definitely a verb contour in reference to makeup ("In Asia they don't contour their cheeks", "I could tell that he contoured his cheeks and wore mascara too", "Although most women think that contouring the nose is strictly to make it look smaller or narrower or longer, ..."), and I found several other uses on b.g.c where the verb seems to mean something like "trace the contour of, follow the contour of". Unfortunately I'm not sure how exactly to define the makeup sense, so I don't feel able to add it myself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be more like "apply makeup to (part of the face) to improve its contour", e.g. to make a wide nose look slimmer. Equinox 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
For the makeup sense, yes; but it's also used as a verb in non-makeup senses, and there it seems to mean "trace the contour of, follow the contour of". In the makeup sense, I think (but I'm not positive) I've heard "to contour" used in contrast to "to highlight", where "to contour" means "to apply darker makeup to make something less prominent" while "to highlight" means "to apply lighter makeup to make something more prominent". For example, I saw a video with two drag queens where one recommended to the other one that she should "contour your Adam's apple", where the idea is not to improve the contour of the Adam's apple but to make it less prominent. Though you could say the idea is to improve the overall contour of the throat. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

เจ๊ก, Pākē, Intsik, amoi,Edit

Thai: เจ๊ก (n): Chinese, from the Min Nan 叔 ‎(zêg4, “father's younger brother”)
Hawaiian: Pākē (n, v-s): Chinese, from the Cantonese 伯爺 ‎(baak3 je1, “(other's) father; term of address for a man”)
Tagalog: intsik (n): Chinese, supposedly from the Hokkien 引叔 (ín chek your uncle) I am not sure if this etymology is entirely correct
Indonesian: amoi (n): Chinese girl, said to be from either the Hakka or Hokkien 阿妹 (younger sister)
I'm sure that there are more words like this in other languages, but these are all that I have found. Does anyone have any insight as to why the words for Chinese in quite a few languages arose from Chinese words referring to familial relations? DerekWinters (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, w:Filial piety is a core value of w:Confucianism, and society is seen as an extension of the family, so referring to someone from a Confucian background as an elder relative would be a good way to show respect. I'm not sure how that applies to calling someone a younger sister. Perhaps it has to do with the well-known linguistic relationship between respect/distance and informality/closeness: referring to someone as younger might be a way of expressing affection for them. Anyway, this is just abstract theoretical musing. To know for sure, you'd have to talk to someone familiar with the culture. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

German wie meaning "what"Edit

Should we somehow work this meaning in? Like how English "What's your name/number?" would be German "Wie ist dein(e) Name/Nummer?" Wyverald (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, especially if you can figure how to specify when it's appropriate to use wie this way, since normally "What is X?" in German uses was. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Normally, German uses the very common (most Romance and Slavic languages, several Germanic languages) European formulation: "how are you called/named?". Maybe this is transferred from that in similar semantic environments. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. It also occurs to me that you can say "Wie ist X" whenever it's synonymous with "Wie lautet X": "Wie lautet dein Name?"/"Wie ist dein Name?" (alongside the more usual "Wie heißt du") and "Wie lautet deine Nummer?"/"Wie ist deine Nummber?". There are probably counterexamples, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"wie" is also used to indicate measurements as in "Wie spät ist es?"/"Wie viel Uhr ist es?" = "What time is it?", "Wie viel ist sechs mal zwei?" = "What's six multplied by two?" — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz If I'm not mistaken one can say both in English "How are you called?" and "What are you called?". Or are there nuances here? — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"How are you called?" sounds like foreigners' English to me, but I may be mistaken. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think "What are you called?" is equally strange. But you can ask both "How do they call you?" and "What do they call you?", especially when "they" refers to a specific person or group of people. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"How are you called?" seems to merit an answer like "by telephone"! I consider "what are you called?" to be okay, though. Equinox 16:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, both "how are you called?" and "how do they call you?" sound awkward to me, unless you're being interrogated about how people get in touch with you. ("They call me." - "How do they call you? I don't see a telephone in here.") FWIW, "What are you called?" gets 10 relevant hits at COCA (i.e. excluding "What are you called to do that's an unmet need"); "how are you called" gets 3 (and one duplicate), "what/how are you named" gets none, and none get any hits in the BNC. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wie spät ist es?" means "How late is it?" And "wie viel" is "how much". So these two examples have no peculiarities compared to English. --- Otherwise I think that "wie ist..." instead of "was ist..." most often implies a more precise answer. For example, you'll hear "Wie ist Ihr Name?" chiefly in official or business contexts, where it's about a precise name (given name, family name, exact spelling). The same is obviously true for "Wie ist deine Nummer?" Or when you ask me "Wie ist deine Meinung zu XY" ("What's your opinion about...") I'd probably think that you want a few details, while "Was ist deine Meinung..." might require less detail, just "good" or "bad". This is a tendency at least. --- ANGR's idea with "wie lautet..." also seems to be a tendency, but there may indeed be counterexamples. Like "Wie lautet dein Lieblingslied?" ("What's your favourite song?"), which sounds formal but still idiomatic, whereas "Wie ist dein Lieblingslied?" sounds doubtful (though not quite impossible). Kolmiel (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, "Wie spät ist es?" can mean both depending on what you're refering to: To me "How late is it?" merits an answer like "It's already very late.", "It's almost midnight." (But maybe I'm mistaken here since I'm not an English native speaker.) in contrast to "What's the time?".
I was obviously speaking about the syntactic construction. Kolmiel (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, "wie viel" literary means "how much" or "how many", depending on the context, and in myriads of phrases such as "Wie viel Personen sind wir?" ("How many persons are we?"), "Wie viel jünger bist du?" ("How much younger are you?") etc. it can be translated this way. But in the above-mentioned example I don't think you could say "How much is six times two?" in English, do you? That even sounds strange to me. What do the native speakers think hereof? Is "How much is six times two?" a correct wording?
As to your assumption "wie ist..." implying a more precise answer: To be honest I don't think you have a point here. First of all, IMHO there is no "instead" because in the context of asking for the name or number "Was ist Ihr Name?" or "Was ist deine Nummer?" is wrong in Standard German, and I think in most German dialects as well. (Would it be possible to say "Wat ess dinge Name?" in Kölsch, though?) I could only imagine these wordings correct in contexts like for instance when you want to know the characterization of the name or number given: "Was ist Ihr Name?" "Mein Name ist falsch geschrieben." ("Your name is what?" "My name is misspelled."), "Was ist deine Nummer?" "Meine Nummer ist nicht gültig." ("Your number is what?" "My number isn't valid.") I think the precision of the answer has rather more to do with the conversational situation you're in than with using "wie".
As to "Wie ist deine Meinung..." and "Was ist deine Meinung...": I simply think the latter is colloquial whereas the former is standard. It might even be an Anglicism. Who knows... — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 23:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It's your obvious right to reject my point. But you should refrain from calling nonstandard everything that you don't like, or that is contrary to your personal "Sprachgefühl". In my opinion, "Was ist dein(e) Name/Nummer/Meinung" are all perfectly correct and perfectly common. You might want to look them up on google as well as google books to find a multitude of examples. Kolmiel (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
And just to clarify: I didn't say (or at least didn't mean) that there's always a noticeable difference between "was ist..." and "wie ist...", just that "wie" has a tendency to be used when the answer requires precision. Kolmiel (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"How much is six times two" is natural English AFAICT; e.g. google books:"how much is six times" turns up plenty of uses stretching from the 1800s through the present day. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Language names in JapaneseEdit

@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr What are names of languages (nihongo, eigo) linguistically grammatically classified as in traditional Japanese grammar/vocabulary? Common nouns or proper nouns? Are there any consensus among scholars? Should we capitalized those names on Wiktionary? ばかFumikotalk 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In traditional grammar the boundary between common nouns and proper nouns is not very clear. I’ll check. As for romanization, they must be capitalized because a suffix doesn’t change the original capitalization. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev What do you think of TAKASUGI Shinji's suggestion? ばかFumikotalk 14:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, Haplology, Fumiko Take "The boundary between common nouns and proper nouns is not very clear". Very true and it's very common for languages, which don't distinguish between capital and small letters but capitalisation of country names is not disputed in Japanese.
  1. There is no clear rule for capitalisation in romaji of language names or ethnicities. Dictionaries may use both nihongo/nihonjin and Nihongo/Nihonjin. ("Nihongo" in English would apparently be capitalised). Dictionary publishers sometimes use English conventions for capitalisations but the don't have to. Names of the weekdays, months, etc. don't follow this, e.g. "nichiyōbi", "ichigatsu".
  2. I don't agree that "a suffix doesn’t change the original capitalization". Suffixes turn proper nouns into nouns, just like they do in other languages: (French) Japon->japonais (adj., language name (n.)).
  3. If there is a rule for capitalisation of language names or ethnicities in Japanese romanisation, let's use it. I don't really oppose the capitalisation, if it's standard.
  4. In my opinion if capitalisation of certain groups of words is not clearly defined, it's better to stick to default (lower case). I have been consistent with this.
  5. If the majority of editors decides to use capitalisation, I'll oblige. It's the personal choice of dictionary editors. I see both types of capitalisations in published dictionaries. There is no right or wrong answer. Let's vote?
  6. Do you agree that the same question can be asked about Chinese (Mandarin) pinyin? Chinese editors have shown little interest in discussing pinyin capitalisation in the past. It's because romanisation of non-Latin based languages is not a proper language script. @Wyang, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Kc kennylau. What do you think of pinyin capitalisations for language names/ethnicities? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I know we have a problem on Wiktionary with capitalisation of pinyin, in the sense that we are not consistent - sometimes we capitalise, other times we don't. But I don't see it as a major problem. Essentially, we have bigger fish to fry. But if someone could be bothered to come up with some guidelines to be voted on, that would be a step in the right direction I suppose. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In many other languages, yes, they change capitalization (Japonjaponais), but in English, no (JapanJapanese). Most Japanese people know only English spelling rules. For example, all the words in a proper noun are capitalized, such as Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai. Compare it with its English name Japan Broadcasting Corporation and its French name Compagnie de diffusion du Japon. When it is not clear, we should follow English rules. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji Thanks, Shinji, but this is an opinion, you don't explain why "we should". E.g. "When it is not clear, we should follow English rules." Why? The majority of published dictionaries don't even capitalise proper nouns, despite some known rules, mainly from Wikipedia. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Capitalization of proper nouns is clearly indicated in the Romanization Rules by the Ministry of Education. I don’t know why dictionaries don’t capitalize proper nouns. If so, we shouldn’t follow those dictionaries. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji I think you misunderstand my question or the topic. I am not arguing that country names, city names or people names should be capitalised (yes for capitalised Nihon, Tōkyō, Shinji, etc.). There's no controversy here and the consensus is that they ARE proper nouns. Your examples above show only attributive usage of proper nouns, not language or ethnicity names (like nihongo or nihonjin).
The questions remain - are nihongo/nihonjin proper nouns and therefore they should be capitalised? Is there a rule for that?
From your link I can see something useful: "なお、固有名詞以外の名詞の語頭を大文字で書いてもよい。" The key here is "it's also okey" to capitalise words with suffixes. So it can go both ways, even according to your link? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no official rule, but I think capitalizing language names and ethnicity names is natural. I have found a set of detailed capitalization rules by a small company of cataloguing, and it explicitly states that ethnicity names and language names are capitalized:
日本人 Nihonjin
アメリカ人 Amerikajin
日本語 Nihongo
英語 Eigo
Those are their rules, not necessarily ours, but I think you can see my point. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji It's a good document, thank you. If everyone thinks the same way and for you this capitalisation seems the most natural, then we can adopt that as well. User:Haplology probably thinks the same way, not sure about User:Eirikr. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, these guidelines are pretty cool. We should definitely base ours on these. ばかFumikotalk 01:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
For Chinese, I've always advocated for following the guidelines set out by the PRC MOE in the Basic Rules of the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet Orthography (漢語拼音正詞法基本規則). In section 6.3.3 (which says that proper nouns composed of a proper noun and a common noun are capitalized), 漢語, 粵語 and 廣東話 are listed with capitalization. Should we follow 漢語拼音正詞法基本規則 and consider languages as proper nouns, thus legitimizing capitalization? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I'm sorry but I don't understand the base of your arguments. At one point, you said something like "Japanese is an independent language and should not follow rules of English", and here you point out how capitalization works in French. So we don't have to follow English examples, but we should follow French then?
Yes, I think we're all aware of those facts. In Russian, French, Portuguese, etc. words like "francais" or "ingles" aren't capitalized. But there are counter-examples too: while "francais" (adjective; French language) is not capitalized in French, "Français" (French person) is, despite the fact that "French person" is just a "common noun". Also, beware that Japanese doesn't work like French or Russian: it's an agglunative language, and suffixes like -go or -jin should not modify the stems in any ways; therefore there's no point in decapitalizing the stems. On the other hand, I'd like to know what dictionaries you're referring to. I wouldn't even take well-known dictionaries like Kenkyusha seriously, if they don't capitalized anything, including "proper nouns" like "amerika". —This unsigned comment was added by Fumiko Take (talkcontribs).
@Fumiko Take No, I am not saying that Japanese (or Chinese) romanisation should follow English or French or whatever rules. I still don't see any rule describing that language names, ethnicity names should be capitalised in Japanese Hepburn romanisation. What does agglutinative language has to do with this if -go and -jin are considered suffixes, not inflection endings or separate words? Don't get me wrong, if we agree on something I'll follow but nobody explained yet the rules. If there ARE no rules, then it's a decision of dictionary editors, then we can vote. Even Wiktionary editors haven't been consistent on capitalisation. I have. Is there anything else, which confused you? I only use Kenkyusha dictionaries based on kana, no idea how they capitalise romaji. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev You said "Suffixes turn proper nouns into nouns, just like they do in other languages: (French) Japon->japonais (adj., language name (n.))." That gave me an impression that you thought Japanese suffixes worked in the same way as other languages where suffixes can modify the stems, so it might be reasonable to apply a different rule of capitalization. Compare Spanish España > español.
"What does agglutinative language has to do with this if -go and -jin are considered suffixes, not inflection endings or separate words?" Due to its agglunative nature, by which stems are relatively independent in compounds (not modified by affixes as in fusional languages such as French or Spanish), it's not that easy to determine whether items like -go and -jin should be considered suffixes or not. It might be even possible to analyze Nihongo, Nihonjin not as "proper nouns turned into common nouns by suffixes" like you said, but simply as noun phrases, to which artificial English phrases like "Japan language", "Japan human" might be equivalent. In fact, I just looked up -go and -jin, and most dictionaries give entries to them just like they do with katarai, katari, nin, hito, ri, without notations as to what part of speech they're identified as. ばかFumikotalk 10:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Theoretically yes, we can analyse these suffixes as separate nouns but this logic is still flawed because 1) these kango are not considered as independent nouns, so they are just suffixes, called so by grammarians 2) if we do decide to call them nouns, then the spellings should be "Nihon go" and "Nihon jin" respectively (cf. "Nihon keizai"), not "nihongo" and "nihonjin". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know what grammarians you're referring to, who specifically call go and jin suffixes. Well you may argue with something like, "well, it's obvious, because go and jin can't survive on their own". But then what about zame, guma and buro as in aozame, Hyokkokuguma and rotenburo? They can't survive on their own either, so are they suffixes too?
And why should the romanization be "Nihon go" and "Nihon jin" if go and jin were to be free morphemes? Should we write "suzume dai" and "kin tama" too, then? I'm inclined to believe the reason why "Nihon Keizai" is used is because Nihon and keizai both contain up to three kanji, so it's more intuitive and harmonic (at least for a speaker of a language that employs Sinitic vocabulary items like me; except cases where rendaku comes into effect like rotenburo because rendaku makes the second part (buro) inseparable from the compound) to break 日本経済 into Nihon Keizai rather than Nihonkeizai, not because they're "independent words" (well maybe "independent words" is one of the many factors, but not the decisive one). Well, maybe it's just me. ばかFumikotalk 01:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
My opinion: if reputable publications use capitalization, we should follow them and use capitalization. If 日本語 is commonly found as Nihongo, and 粵語 is commonly found in pinyin as Yueyu and in Peh-oe-ji as Oat-gi, those are the romanized forms we should use.
Also, a question: grammatically, is there a distinction between normal and proper nouns in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc? —suzukaze (tc) 08:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Min Nan POJ seems to follow English rules for capitalisations, yes we could adopt that convention for Mandarin pinyin as well if it's a group decision. No clarity on proper noun/common noun distinct in East Asian languages, they are perhaps identical. Cantonese romanisation is never capitalised, "Yue" is also an English word and Korean dictionaries use even less capitalisations than Japanese or Chinese. Apparently proper nouns (e.g. country names) are capitalised but that rule may have been borrowed from Wikipedia, which uses capitalisations for all romanisations. Yes, we could use a list of reputable dictionaries.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
God, this case is gonna be difficult to settle. I just found out that even Hepburn himself was not consistent about the whole capitalization thing[5]. "English" is "E-go", "Japanese" is "Wa-go", but "French" is "futsu-go". Then again, he did transcribe ポルトガル as *Horutogaru, so maybe his dictionary isn't that reliable. ばかFumikotalk 09:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Relax, Fumiko-san :) We can vote and decide as dictionary editors. Do you simply hate to see spelling "nihongo" or you think it's incorrect because ... ? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
No I don't "hate" anything, just like I don't hate "francais" or "espanol". I'm not saying it's incorrect. If there's an official source that says "nihongo" is the only correct romanization, I won't oppose it. It just doesn't feel right to me to use such a form, so I'd like us to discuss in further depth and establish some sort of guideline or standard. ばかFumikotalk 10:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


Isn't a cuckoldress actually a woman who cuckolded her husband (in other words, the wife is an adulteress, and the husband a cuckold)? The meaning on the page right now states the opposite (the husband is an adulterer and the wife a female cuckold, a cuckquean). 03:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the OED but it's not there. Equinox 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


The final adjective definition is currently worded as if it were defining a noun. I'm not sure if it was placed under the wrong POS header, or if it just isn't worded right. Could someone with a subscription to the OED check the reference and make the necessary changes? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox. I see from the above section that you have access to the OED. Would you mind checking the reference for me? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
OED has an adjective: "slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). With reference to sexual activity: consisting of or involving fellatio or (sometimes) cunnilingus. Of a person (esp. a prostitute): that performs oral sex." Examples of "French broad", "French girl", "French love". Also a verb sense we are missing: "perform fellatio or cunnilingus on". Equinox 18:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

email and e-mailEdit

I see that, according to the existing Wiktionary articles, e-mail is the standard spelling of the word and email is an alternative spelling! This seems wrong, as the hyphenated spelling is very rarely used nowadays. For example, this Google Trends graph shows that "email" was three times as common as "e-mail" in 2005; but as of 2016, "email" is about 30 times as common as "e-mail".
Therefore, I would recommend changing the entry for e-mail to "Archaic spelling of email.", and moving the definition, example usage, and etymology information over to the email article. Would there be any objections to this? Chessrat (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not archaic (which would mean a few centuries ago). I wouldn't even put "dated", since the whole technology of e-mail (yes, I always write it that way) is still relatively modern. I don't personally care which entry is the main form, however. Equinox 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I would at least make a usage note explaining that e-mail is rarely used by younger people (probably about 25 and under). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I spell it as email, if that's any help (and I'm no spring chicken). DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

English pronunciation of Maine (French province)Edit

Currently says /mɛːn/, but English doesn't have a long /ɛː/ phoneme. So is it /mɛn/ or /meɪn/? --WikiTiki89 19:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary gives /mɛn/ for the French river and province. I wouldn't be surprised if /meɪn/ is also attestable, though, not only because of the influence of the U.S. state but also because of the way English speakers tend to handle French /ɛː/ (compare Seine, which fluctuates between /sɛn/ and /seɪn/). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

et al.Edit

Etymology 1 is listed as a phrase, while etymology 2 is listed as an abbreviation. In addition to us no longer using "Abbreviation" as a POS header, I wouldn't call et al. a phrase, and I would think that both uses of it belong to the same POS. Are they pronouns then? Or would others disagree with my opinion that they aren't phrases? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Within Latin, I would call it a phrase because the combination of et and alii doesn't itself have a well-defined part of speech. In English, however, since you can't break it apart, I don't know if we can call it a phrase. --WikiTiki89 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
From its syntax and semantics in English I'd either call it a phrase or a postposition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess it wouldn't be a pronoun, as that doesn't apply to the et part, but it doesn't seem accurate to call it a phrase (in English). However, if it's the consensus to use "phrases" to label those borrowed from Latin (I see that this is the case for etc.), then I'll just change the "Abbrevitions" header to match that, and leave the other one as is. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
To be fixed as well: the jumble of different POS headers for different languages at etc. and et al. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


I mean no offense, but is it really necessary to have quotes beneath each and every definition for the word? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sanctify It makes it difficult to parse which line is the definition. I think it would be better if they were in a separate collapsible javascript link, if at all. And also, why must it link offsite to a bible website? Am I being proselytized here, haha? It makes me trust the definition a little less. Sorry if this is in the wrong place!!

The quotations are in fact collapsed by default. I'm not sure why they aren't showing up for you that way (under the section "Visibility" in the sidebar, you should be able to click "Hide quotations" to fix this). As for the quotations from the Bible: most books using the word sanctify are going to be religious in nature, so it's hardly surprising that quotations have been drawn from the King James, which is the most famous and historically significant translation of the Bible. It has great linguistic value as well, as it is a large corpus written in archaic English, exemplifying many words that might be harder to find elsewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

bonafide: alternative form of bona fide?Edit

If bonafide is merely an alternative form of bona fide, I think the content of the page bonafide should be replaced with a corresponding mention. Before doing so, relevant information present on the page bonafide should be moved to the page bona fide.--Anareth (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 16:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sound of typewriterEdit

Video showing the operation of a typewriter

Which verb and/or noun would you use to describe the sound of a mechanical typewriter [6]? In Finnish we would say raksuttaa ‎(to tick) or nakuttaa ‎(to knock) but I find scarce usage of these English words in the context of typewriting. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say clack. "Typewriter clacking" gets a bunch of hits on b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
How about tapping? DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
In some cases, you could use clicketyclack, but usually I would use something like "sound of typing". "I knew Kate was here because I could hear the sound of typing coming from her office." —Stephen (Talk) 12:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

British spellingEdit

Isn't this purely encyclopaedic information? And look at the awe-inspiring list of see alsos! Equinox 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be of dictionary interest. As for New Zealand spellings, they're almost always the same as British, the only exception I can think of is fiord. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It might make a lovely appendix, which might be useful if the WP article is not up to snuff. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Somebody (not me!) has since put this up for deletion; see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#British_spelling. Equinox 00:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
RFD also for American spelling. I added See also * For a list of examples, see Category:British English forms, as it is lexico info. Sobreira (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


What exactly is the distinction between the two definitions? I don't know enough about electronics to judge. Is the second a subsense of the first? DTLHS (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right, second definition is subsense of the first, describing the currently most common technique for making a diode.

founder as a verbEdit

Anyone to make sense of the following sense of the verb founder, as used by by Robert Louis Stevenson in his Underwoods of 1887, chapter 28 ?

And bright on the lone isle, the foundered reef,
The long, resounding foreland, Pharos stands.

…and update the definitions accordingly ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd never alter a definition based solely on poetic usage. In this case, for example, I think the idea is that the reef is or is like the foundered hull of a ship, which would suggest why the lighthouse was located there. Even if we found three figurative uses like this in literary works, I think we should concede to the creative writers the right to use words metaphorically without fear that lexicographers would convert their poetry to definition. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility is that some completely different reading could be made, ie, the passage is ambiguous.
Finally, founder in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has a transitive sense of founder#Verb ("To cause to fill and sink, as a ship"), which also fits. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added Century's transitive definition with cites, none from poetry, though one is from a review of a poem by a poet. I still think the RLS usage is not a good one for a dictonary to rely on. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional examples and the advice on being suspicious of poetry as a reference: i should've thought of that myself.
Concerning your added sense, wouldn't it be simpler to merge two senses when the only difference is that one is transitive, and the other not?, as in:
(intransitive) Of a ship, to fill with water and sink.
(transitive, archaic, nautical) To cause to fill and sink, as a ship.
which i would combine into
(archaic, nautical) To fill with water and sink, as a ship.
and keep the in/transitive tags for when there is a restriction such as "transitive only".
Thoughts ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I intensely dislike combining sharply distinct categories, such as grammatical ones. They make it harder to connect definition-writing with citations. There is a great amount of subjectivity or, at least, arbitrariness in producing definitions for polysemous terms. Distinguishing usage based on the type of complements is very helpful in sorting usage into coherent groupings. Sorting by collocations is arguably more useful, but we don't have unlimited access to the databases that support such sorting.
I think that what is good for definition writers is also good for definition readers, definition revisers, etc. These are all efforts to understand meanings abstracted from real-life context. As we can't sort by real-life context very adequately, we need to use other categories. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


If this phrase means "fashionable" and means "time" and means "bangs of a child", can't an alternate etymology be provided for the phrase's meaning? Thanks in advance, Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The current etymology says "Phono-semantic matching of English smart", which I understand to mean that 時髦 is pronounced (roughly) like "smart", while 髦 has connotations of the meaning of "smart". What alternative etymology did you have in mind? 02:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"Hair of the time". Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

what does eminant boot agreement meanEdit

what does eminant boot agreement mean

I understand it to mean "agreement on boots, Eminent style". Perhaps a shoe store is making an agreement to buy some "Eminent" style boots. —Stephen (Talk) 12:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to know the context. Also to be confident in the spelling of what was heard as "eminant". I can find no usage on Google's search for eminant/eminent boot agreement. BOOT agreement can refer to contracts covering Buy/Build Operate Own Transfer arrangements for facilities such as mines, waste-management operations, and power plants. If that is the context than perhaps imminent ("about to be finalized/signed") is the correct spelling of the first word. Thanks for providing the puzzle. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Or eminent domain. Equinox 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

complete withEdit

Defined as an adverb. Is that right? Equinox 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a preposition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Equinox 01:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What's it called?Edit

In the UK, I see people with dogs using a long plastic thing to throw a ball for the dog to retrieve. The thing is then used to pick up the returned ball and throw it again. What is the thing called? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

thrower or launcher. Equinox 06:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Googling Semper's description of the thing turns up various products for sale as "dog tennis ball launchers" or "ball throwers". A xistera is a similar device used in jai alai. I suppose a woomera might be (mis)used for that purpose in a pinch. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Some call it a Chuck-it after the brand of the market leader in the US. It may be on the path to genericizaton, but I doubt it's there yet. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Does anyone know what this word means? I'm desperate. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Across an isthmus, especially in anatomical contexts. DTLHS (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, a lifesaver! ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Congujation states: Note that pluperfect active indicative pepulerat has the alternative form pulserat and that the perfect active indicative pepulī has the alternative form polsī.

  • Is this only for 3rd and 1st person respectively? Or for the whole person-number paradigm and then pulseram, polsisti? Sobreira (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think these alternative forms should be simply included in the table rather than presented as a usage note. —CodeCat 01:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Are taboo collocations therefore idiomatic?Edit

Taboos have been on my mind. Islamic terrorism is a term that has been removed from at least one official US video and is pointedly not used in US White House statements. Whatever the validity of the rationale (avoiding inflaming public opinion, etc), does such a taboo imply that the term in idiomatic? There is an obvious inclusion problem for Wiktionary in that a truly taboo term would not have much durably archived evidence of use, however abundant the mentions might be. A partisan-taboo term would have evidence.

Is a taboo lexical information that justifies or contributes to justifying an entry for an SoP term?DCDuring TALK 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Islamic terrorism is still just Islamic + terrorism, even if some politicians avoid using it so as not to antagonize people they think may still be useful to them in the future. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Is "forname" an alternate spelling or a misspelling of "forename?" It is linked at "wikipedia:forname," but I can't find any other usages. Presumably the spelling (correct or not) is a backformation by comparison from the spelling of "surname," its antonym. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's just a misspelling. Wikipedia has a lot of silly redirects. Equinox 18:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Hm, what about this one? To me it seems like a multilingual SoP, so can't properly be entered as either English or French. Equinox 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The hi part could just be a loanword, and then the whole expression is French. Reminds me of German-speaking Switzerland, where you hear people say merci schön. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this, but I suspect it's a conscious attempt to say hi in French and English at the same time. This is unlike merci schön, because merci is the default word for "thank you" in German-speaking Switzerland (it reminds me of the equivalent ميرسي كتير ‎(mērsī ktīr) in Lebanese Arabic). The equivalent would be if they said something like "danke/merci". Anyway, "bonjour/hi" is either SOP code-switching or it is idiomatic Montrealese, in which case we would probably need an entry for both French and English. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Isn't really relevant here, but another nice example from Lebanese is bonjourēn as an answer to bonjour (like you say ahlēn as an answer to ahlan, giving back a better, i.e. doubled, greeting). Don't know if you've heard that. Kolmiel (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I've heard of it, but yeah, once bonjour is borrowed into Lebanese Arabic, it can be modified with any Lebanese Arabic words or morphemes. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A Google search suggests that it's used e.g. in shops to greet customers before their preferred language is apparent. Equinox 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I read about it a little and it seems that it specifically expresses that the (for example) shopkeeper is capable of serving the customer in either French or English. This makes it idiomatic in my book. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That is indeed how I've heard it used, though I've usually heard it as "hello/bonjour." I've also encountered it in Manitoba and every province east of it. It's used throughout Canada. For instance, at national historic sites, anyone working there will typically greet guests with a "hello, bonjour" (or "bonjour, hello," but that seems to be less common) so that both Anglophones and Francophones feel comfortable using their native language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: This blog post claims that it's different in the rest of Canada from the way it is used in Montreal:
This etiquette is apparently not followed by service providers throughout Canada. I was amused to find, for example, an incensed letter-to-the-editor to Montreal's Le Devoir by a disgruntled francophone writing to complain about his travels to Nova Scotia. It appears that, upon registering at a Parks Canada campground, he was greeted with a sincere "bonjour/hi". Naturally, the letter-writer took this to be an invitation to use either official language and launched into "la langue de Molière" only to be told "Sorry. I don't speak French."
--WikiTiki89 15:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
That may well be the case, though I think most Parks Canada employees are required to speak both languages. TBH, I'm not too sure how likely one is to run into a bilingual greeting outside of Montreal. It is standard at all Parks Canada locations I have been to (of which there are a fair number), and can be heard at other federal sites, like Parliament Hill. Ottawa is a fairly bilingual city too, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's in use there. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Minute, the synonym for tinyEdit

Wikisaurus:tiny lists minute as a synonym, but minute describes the wrong word. Also, minute links back to Wikisaurus:tiny, which is wrong because it's the wrong "minute". It just happens to be spelled the same. The "minute" which is a synonym for "tiny" is pronounced very differently to the "minute" which is a division of the hour or the details of a meeting. Emphasis is on the second sylable and it sounds rather like saying "my newt!" Minute is also a big confusing page already, without adding another meaning with different pronunciations.

I don't know how this is normally handled on Wiktionary. Perhaps half of what I wrote above is unnecessary, but it's a short note overall. I haven't time to look into how things are done in the Wiktionary world right now, and as may be obvious already, I'm considerably better at using words than talking about them, but I wanted to mention the problem. Eekee (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you just need to scroll down. We split words by etymology. Equinox 00:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Four new chemical elementsEdit

Elements 113, 115, 117, 118 have been officially named nihonium, moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson. They could be entered as hot words for now, but it seems pointless. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well semi-officially I guess, they will officially be named in November. DTLHS (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
These are the names that have been submitted, but not yet approved for use. They are not going to widespread scientific use until IUPAC approves them. There is no reasonable defence for them being hot words until that point. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
So create 'em in a user sandbox and flip them across when they get the kiss of science. Heh. Some of the best useless dictionary-words are element names that didn't stick, like kurchatovium and emanation. Or minerals that turned out to be not a mineral, but a mixture of two minerals. This really makes you realise that "having a name" isn't the same as "being a thing". semiotics. shut up Equinox. Equinox 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Also oganesson sounds like a monster. I thought we had agreed that all new elements will end with -ium. Equinox 00:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
If there are news articles discussing them I don't see why they couldn't be entered with "proposed name for element X" as hot words. DTLHS (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't enter hot words that have a good chance of disappearing. IUPAC initially said that all new chemical elements had to end in -ium, so they might cite that as a reason to choose oganessium in the end, and then nobody will ever use oganesson after 2016. We just can't know until they become official. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Too bad we can't create the entries yet. I have been itching to add the etymology of oganesson, the first element with Armenian roots. --Vahag (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
"oganesson, n. obsolete name for the chemical element georgium, when it was believed that Armenians and not Georgians found it." Equinox 08:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Georgians are not good at exact sciences. They have humanitarian brains. --Vahag (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge oganesson follows the naming convention of other noble gasses, group 18 elements (-on). DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Why should we wait until most of the interest in these words has waned to include them? NOW is a good time. We have "hot words" and a review tickler for them a year or so after the first durably archived use. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Go for it! If they get RfVed, they will be easy to verify - there are articles in most of today's newspapers for instance. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You've got a point. This is exactly what the hot-word template is meant for. Do it! Equinox 11:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

measure for measureEdit

Is this an idiom in English? If so, what does it mean? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

an eye for an eye, quid pro quo, tit for tat, let the punishment fit the crime? In any event it seems to be obsolete or perhaps archaic. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


Someone keeps changing it. And there's a sort of semi-plaintive semi-plausible thing at Talk:aracial. Can we attest whatever John Doe is going for? Equinox 11:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about attesting it, but the definition he's going for but is too ignorant of English vocabulary to write is something like "Not identifying with any particular race". It's parallel to the equally new term agender ‎(not identifying with any particular gender); both of them are probably formed by analogy with asexual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

head in the cloudsEdit

This is clearly not an adverb, and is clearly defined grammatically wrong. --J19idf (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

So sorry! Only the English Majors can control the words? You seem "uppity". Is that a verb? No I think it is an adjective? Why do you feel the need to be above the populace?

up·pi·ty ˈəpətē/ adjectiveinformal adjective: uppity self-important; arrogant.


On to my quest: Wasn't sure if this was the place to start a discussion, or the beer parlor, but ended up deciding on this discussion (seemed to make sense). Even though the term Skrump is sexual in nature, and a synonym of sex, it was designed to be less offensive than many other vulgar terms describing a passionate and pleasurable experience between two human beings, thus, the Tea Room. (I don't want to disenfranchise the Beer Parlor though).

Can anyone here help me induct this term (originally coined by my deceased friend and I, after a serious nights discussion) regarding "tasteful" terms for an enjoyable act.

After 30 years, multiple friends, multiple States, Countries, etc. it went viral, and became an "Urban" term. We (I speak for Donnie as well) don't want "RIMJOB" or any other ugly terms attached to it's definition.

We know "Scrump" (diff. spelling) has been used as a synonym as well, but it's real origin is "Stealing Apples", or shriveling up. Our word is unique, and innocuous.

Thank you for your patience with me. —This unsigned comment was added by 00aughtbuck (talkcontribs).

At Wiktionary, we create entries for words that have real-world usage by multiple authors, independently of each other, over the space of more than a year, in durably archived sources (which usually means published books and periodicals, though there are some exceptions). We don't have entries for words that our editors and their friends made up one night and that no one else uses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Christmas spiritEdit

There's no entry (of course), but what would be the best definition - the happy mood prevailing at Christmas? I imagine it's uncountable but I haven't checked. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Christian generosity as well? (Think of Scrooge's change of heart.) Equinox 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, it's a long time since I read Dickens' books. Maybe "the right mood, or frame of mind, for celebrating Christmas" would be better. DonnanZ (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Gift-giving seems to be essential. People say (or used to say) Merry Christmas to complete strangers. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say cheerfulness, as well as benevolence and generosity toward all are the main ingredients.Chuck Entz (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
My Christmas spirit of choice is brandy. But other spirits are available. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Er, yes, but not quite what I had in mind! DonnanZ (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that's described as Christmas cheer. DonnanZ (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest a def beginning with something like, "the frame of mind and associated behaviour traditionally associated with the celebration of Christmas, such as ...." and tack on some of the attributes mentioned above. And yes, traditionally uncountable. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think "expected" might even be better than "associated with". One is 'supposed' to show Christmas spirit at Christmas. Bah humbug. Equinox 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Kui and "walrus"Edit

"Walrus" is definitely a mistranslation, even though it's in Unihan Database. The WP Kui 夔 article (full disclosure: which I started) explains the mistake. Hǎixiàng 海象 (lit. "sea elephant") is the Chinese word for "walrus". Keahapana (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to nuke the Unihan definition from the page. —suzukaze (tc) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Pleco dictionary mentions several figures from Chinese mythology that are associated with this character, but nothing about walruses. So it does seem to be a mistranslation. Though oddly zdic.net, for it's Chinese translations mentions nothing about 海象, but again gives "walrus" for it's English translations. 2WR1 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


This is a baseball term in Spanish. Wikipedia's definition is "a la pelota bateada cuya trayectoria es rastrera y no se eleva en ningún momento del terreno de juego. Un toque de bola no es considerado como rolling." I tried briefly to find the English equivalent of it. Perhaps a roller or a rolling, but no success. --J19idf (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sort of like a ground ball. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I would think that we would do an enormous service if we had Translation sections for all English baseball words and specifically had Spanish translations. There must be websites that have such translations.
Indeed there are some. Downloadable is Insigna's Baseball Dictionary. They show roleta to mean ground ball. The "Notes on Usage" however say that Caribbean Spanishes are not explicitly included. Japanese translations would have an audience too. DCDuring TALK 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Turnedlessef (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish pronunciation of ia sound (IPA)Edit

What is the correct way of writing Polish ia sounds? (ia, ie, io, iu follow the same scheme generally - 'i' indicates the softening and is not read) English entry for miasto gives /ˈmjastɔ/, which is wrong, imho, as there is no /j/ sound before /a/. Polish entry adds palatalization of the first consonant - [ˈmʲjastɔ], but still preserves that /j/. My understanding is that is should be /ˈmʲastɔ/ (that is what I hear - soft m, followed by a, like in this entry for место). Still, I see this in almost all Polish entries. Do I misunderstand something fundamental about IPA or were those pronunciations added by some erroneous bot? --One half 3544 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@One half 3544. You're right. Fixed miasto. The pronunciation is [ˈmʲa.stɔ] (automatic). I would just use [ˈmʲastɔ]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Based on what I've read about Polish phonology, after labials (/p/, /b/, /m/, and /v/), palatalization manifests itself as an actual [j] sound. Thus, you could phonemically say it's /ˈmʲastɔ/, but phonetically it's actually [ˈmʲjastɔ]. This is also what Polish Wiktionary had as its pronunciation at pl:miasto until User:One half 3544 just changed it. I would think we should trust the native Polish speakers over a couple confused Russian speakers. See also pl:wiatr, pl:biały, pl:Piotr. --WikiTiki89 14:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried listening to pronunciations of all those words? I trust their pronunciation, and that is why I doubt what is written in IPA section. My understanding is that [ˈmʲjastɔ] corresponds to this. --One half 3544 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
File:pl-miasto.ogg sounds like [ˈmʲjastɔ] to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you hear the difference between File:pl-miasto.ogg and File:Mjjasto.ogg? --One half 3544 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're audio has a much more distinct [j], which is how a Russian would pronounce **мья́сто ‎(**mʹjásto), but that doesn't mean that the real Polish audio doesn't have [j]. IPA cannot necessarily be directly compared between languages. --WikiTiki89 21:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that utterly defeat the purpose of IPA? It won't be *International* any more... --One half 3544 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It's international because it's the alphabet of the the International Phonetic Association. This blog post by John C. Wells provides important insight into the obligatory vagueness of IPA symbols. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Something else to consider is w:Categorical perception. Sounds aren't discrete, isolated entities, but points on a continuum (or, really, multiple continua). Our brains learn to divide up this continuum by perceiving everything within certain limits on the continuum as the same sound, and anything past the limits as other sounds. This is the same kind of thing that lets us see things around us as stationary when we move our heads- it's so basic, we don't even realize we're doing it. Different languages often divide up the continuum differently, especially if they recognize a different number of phonemes, and speakers learn to match their perception to the phonological structure of the language. It takes considerable training to overcome this unconscious neurological process enough to transcribe sounds objectively, and I doubt anyone is completely free of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is confused here but that's the way I learned Polish and I could pass for a Polish person when I was in Poland many years ago (not with my vocabulary but pronunciation). I have just talked with a Polish colleague - he says that "miasto" is DEFINITELY pronounced just like Russian would pronounce "мя́сто" /ˈmʲastɔ/ (not "мья́сто"). If this is incorrect, then the automatic IPA module should also be corrected. Are Polish editors still here? @Kephir? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89, Angr I wonder if you guys are having difficulties distinguishing palatalised sounds "-ʲ" from consonant + "j". I know many Westerners have this problem when learning Russian, other Slavic languages, Japanese, etc. Just asking. I listened to File:pl-miasto.ogg several times and it's pronounced /ˈmʲastɔ/ to my ear. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I do have that difficulty. I'm most accustomed to palatalized consonants in Irish, where (depending on dialect) phonemic /bʲoː/ can surface as phonetic [bʲjoː]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Polish has many dialects/accents as well. I just searched for miasto and biały in Forvo and listened to various pronunciations by different people (you have to listen to the various compound words, because miasto itself only has one audio sample). Some of the speakers say something that sounds almost exactly (other than quality of the final -o) like Russian **място ‎(**mjasto) and even like место ‎(mesto). However, most of the speakers did say something close to **мьясто ‎(**mʹjasto), some with a more distinct [j] than others. I still maintain that File:pl-miasto.ogg does have a very slight [j] in it, and same with File:pl-biały.ogg. --WikiTiki89 14:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
But also note that the transcription system that the Polish Wiktionary uses is much more phonetic than ours, for example, they transcribe państwo as [ˈpãj̃stfɔ], while we transcribe it as /ˈpaɲstfɔ/. Thus, I think /mʲastɔ/ is fine and is more broadly applicable across dialects, but we should mark it with slashes rather than brackets. --WikiTiki89 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Current dialect differences in Poland proper are insignificant and don't affect palatalisation of these consonants. Standard Polish is spoken by the overwhelming majority. In eastern dialects, Lithuania they pronounce ś, ź, ć, dź and ł quite differently from standard. There's also "język sceniczny". In these variants the letters are pronounced like Russian/Ukrainian сь, зь, ць, дзь and л. My Polish colleague said "the guy is talking bollocks" ... "or suffers from speech impairment". Do you also hear "a very slight j" in File:Ru-мясо.ogg? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, like Wikitiki I've heard the claim that Polish mia (and similar with other labials) is /mja/ rather than /mʲa/, but I wonder if that isn't simply a phonemic analysis. I suspect that most languages with /CjV/ where there aren't phonemic palatalized consonants actually pronounce them as /CʲV/; this is to be expected as it's normal for adjacent sounds to overlap temporally. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Quoting the Polish colleague (reworded) who told me earlier this week - "there are no words in Polish, which are pronounced with /mja/ rather than /mʲa/". Even loanwords, like armia, which I mistakenly suspected would have /mja/. So, the first syllable in Polish "miasto", Bulgarian "място" and Russian "мясо" are pronounced identically. I will check it again with Audacity - a tool, which allows to listen to sounds in various speeds (BTW, it was very useful in learning some tonal languages). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In File:Ru-мясо.ogg don't hear any [j] at all. But like I said, don't get hung up on the one recording File:pl-miasto.ogg; try listening to all the recordings in my Forvo links above. --WikiTiki89 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

exalt: transitive?Edit

There are currently two definitions for “exalt”; the first one mentions that it is transitive, but the second does not. Is it because in the second sense, “exalt” must be used in the passive voice? Actually, can it be used in the active voice? I think that examples, a mention or usage notes should be added to clarify these points. --Anareth (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Both are transitive. The passive voice is more common for the second sense, but I've seen it used in the active voice. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
maybe confused with similar sounding exult, which I believe is intransitive ( ? ) Leasnam (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

rezident, rezidentura in EnglishEdit

rezident, rezidentura - I can see these words are used in English to refer to the Soviet/Russian KGB/FSB activities in the USA. I have started watching "The Americans", which use these terms quite often without a translation into English in this spelling, usually capitalised. Russian spellings: резиде́нт m ‎(rezidént) (fem: резиде́нтка m ‎(rezidéntka)); резиденту́ра f ‎(rezidentúra) - see [7].--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Why an abbreviation (as tr, intr., and intr) is instead a Noun, Adjective and Verb? Because of the noun plural? Of the biblio? Doesn't make it weird then having them subclassified as Not comparable and mixed Countable and not countable? I changed the other three, but I don't know, I feel guilty changing all these. Sobreira (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the terms function grammatically in sentences more or less as the spelled out version of those terms do. It would be good to have each noun abbreviation definition marked individually as countable or uncountable (or as both), presumably inheriting these attributes from the spelled-out version. DCDuring TALK 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


I found in a description of a business project the phrase "Onboarding OEs". Looking at the OE entry here https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/OE did not yield any plausible results. My suspicion was that OE stands for Organizational Entity, and this was confirmed by finding Google results like this: "Align and agree integration solution blueprint with Organizational Entities (OEs)". I suggest that this meaning be added. —This comment was unsigned.

This is a wiki. You could add it yourself. Your sample justification or an even better one should appear as a usage example, or better yet, you could find durably archived examples of usage. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

potato crisp, potato chipEdit

As I understand it, these are exactly the same product, just named differently in the UK and US. We even share some brands (e.g. Lays owns Walkers). Our entries suggest, though, that they are only "similar". If that is true, what is the difference? —This unsigned comment was added by Equinox (talkcontribs) at 01:29, 15 June 2016.

Due to climate differences between the US and the UK, the exact composition of the air in the room US chips and UK crisps are made in is slightly different. This naturally means there are slightly different levels of oxygen and nitrogen and whatnot trapped in the US chips and UK crisps. However, these differences are indistinguishable to the average chemist equipped with top-of-the-line laboratory equipment. Thus, many people mistakenly think that US chips and UK crisps are exactly the same. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That of course applies to any food. I've changed the entries to suggest the two things are identical. Equinox 15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

just sayin'Edit

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think so. And also just saying. I prefer the latter as the main entry, but others may disagree. There are more raw Google Books hits for the latter (198K vs. 21.3K). I don't take those numbers literally or even as giving the true ratio, but as an indicator of which is more common. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any way of separating it from ordinary usage with explicit subjects and/or objects, as in "I'm just saying what everyone else is saying"? If not, that test is meaningless. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I dunno. Seems similar to e.g. "just thinking", "just wondering" and perhaps even "just looking". Equinox 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be right. But it has become a rather common collocation, appearing in many current book titles and Urban Dictionary. One of UD's definitions reads like one of our non-gloss definitions: "This term is used after you inject your statement/opinion into a conversation. Generally, this statement/opinion is non-factual, so by saying "just sayin'", you are clarifying that this statement/opinion is unprovable and it is just a thought off the top of your head."
Further, that UD definition had:
"During an IM conversation, this term can be abbreviated with "JS"."
The existence of an abbreviation is evidence (not conclusive) of idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
My own experience of this expression is that it is used pragmatically to point out to someone that they have made a blunder or have missed something obvious, in a polite way. E.g. P1: "I can't get any work done because of all these junk emails!" P2: "You could set your inbox to only allow emails from people in your address book. Just sayin'." - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
But also as a way to soften a criticism, i.e. show that one is merely making an observation and not trying to be "judgy". Equinox 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

pre-war vs. prewarEdit

These are claimed to be different. I don't believe it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • No, one is an alternative form of the other. Google NGRAM viewer suggests that "prewar" took over from the other shortly after WWII.SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So it isn't really open to editing, is it? You decide what something means. —This unsigned comment was added by Praxeolog (talkcontribs) at 13:18, 2016 June 16‎ (UTC).

  • Oxford has pre-war on the British side and prewar on the American side - “pre-war” (US) / “pre-war” (UK) in Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press., “prewar” (US) / “prewar” (UK) in Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press.. DonnanZ (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I made "prewar" an alternative form of pre-war as the latter had a more fleshed-out entry. Feel free to reverse it. @Donnanz You may be right about American vs. British usage but it would only be a vague tendency; I'm American and neither one looks obviously better or more preferred to me. I think in general the Brits use more hyphens but that's only a tendency as well. Benwing2 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I think these two forms may be interchangeable between Am. and Br. English; I don't think there is any hard and fast rule in British English despite the Oxford treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

once or twiceEdit

Usage notes: "This is often used figuratively, to mean many, many times." 1. How is that a figurative use? 2. I've never come across such use; does it truly exist? Equinox 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"figuratively" makes no sense to me. I wonder whether it should say "ironically" instead. I can envisage a usage such as "Have you complained about it?" / "Yes, just once or twice", meaning "I have complained over and over again". Whether "often" is justified, or whether it is necessary to mention this given that almost every word or phrase of a suitable nature can be used ironically, I'm not sure. 02:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Presumably what was intended was the ironic use: "Oh, you could say Equinox has helped improve Wiktionary entries once or twice." As you say, many terms can be used ironically, I guess we'd only want to add a usage note about it if it was commonly used so. My feeling is that in this case it is worthwhile to note. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of proditorEdit

Can anyone find a confirmation of the pronunciation of proditor, I've looked everywhere. I'm guessing either /ˈpɹɘʊ.dɪ.tə/ or /ˈpɹɒ.dɪ.tə/, I found the pronunciation of prodition to be /pɹəʊˈdɪ.ʃən/. 2WR1 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The link to webster1913.com provided on the page shows Prod"i*tor, which I take to indicate stress on the first syllable and the /d/ belonging to the previous syllable. Most dictionaries only show a consonant between two vowels as belonging to the syllable of the preceding vowel if that vowel is short (lax), so I would interpret Prod"i*tor as representing RP /ˈpɹɒdɪtə/ and GA /ˈpɹɑdɪtɚ/. If RP /ˈpɹəʊdɪtə/ ~ GA /ˈpɹoʊdɪtɚ/ had been intended, they probably would have written Pro"di*tor instead. Since it's an obsolete word, though, it will be very different to find anyone who intuitively knows how to pronounce it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that makes sense, thank you so much! 2WR1 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Chambers has it as /ˈpɹɒ.dɪ.tə/ (though they use their own notation). Equinox 18:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I personally pronounce it /ˈtreɪ.tɚ/. And I even spell it differently: traitor. But in all seriousness, does it even make sense to have pronunciations for obsolete terms? Our pronunciations are modern, and if the term has never been used in modern times, it doesn't have a modern pronunciation. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it does, just because we no longer use it today doesn't mean that it's not a word we could come across, and when we do it's good to know how it's meant to be pronounced. All English words have a pronunciation and I think it's important to document that, even for the ones we don't use anymore. Though the pronunciation in it's time period may have varied slightly with their accent, a modern equivalent pronunciation is still a good thing to have, and maybe this term wasn't even used all that long ago anyway. 2WR1 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be useful, but that it simply doesn't have one. We don't know how it would have been pronounced if it had survived until today, and it's not our job to make random guesses about it, even if other dictionaries have done so. If it fell out of use relatively recently, then I'm not sure we should even label it "obsolete". When did it fall out of use? --WikiTiki89 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm, that's a point. But you could say that some obsolete terms do have modern pronunciations (think obsolete conjugations like 'hath', 'hast', 'doth', 'dost') when we read Shakespeare or whatever, we have pronunciations for these anyway (/hæθ/, /hæst/, /dʌθ/, /dʌst/). But maybe it make sense that if there's no real documented pronunciation at all, it's hard to tell. But also, because it's a Latin derived word, you could say that Latin words have a pretty predictable anglicized pronunciation. I guess it's just tricky. 2WR1 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
But hath, hast, doth, dost, etc. are still sometimes used today in limited circumstances, such as poetry, which is why we call them "archaic" rather than "obsolete". And clearly there is a question of whether the first o in proditor is long or short, so it's not predictable (my instinct would be that it's short, but that isn't proof of anything). --WikiTiki89 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If the pronunciation of an obsolete word can be reasonably deduced I see no reason not to add it. There's any number of reasons why a text including obsolete words would be read aloud. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ya, that's a good point too. 2WR1 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If it can be reasonably deduced, then the person reading it can reasonably deduce it. But in this case, there is an uncertainty anyway, and there is no reason to assume that Webster's 1913 dictionary knew any more than we do. --WikiTiki89 21:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure there is. The editors of Webster's 1913 may very well have known how actors and poets pronounced the word when they were reading old texts aloud. And being reasonably deducible is no grounds for omitting a pronunciation section, or we wouldn't have a pronunciation section for pit. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume that actors and poets in 1913 knew how to pronounce it any better than actors and poets today. But no one has answered my question of when this word fell out of use anyway, which is a crucial piece of information. And I didn't say being reasonably deducible is a reason to omit the pronunciation, I said it is not a reason to include the pronunciation (i.e. it shouldn't be a factor at all). --WikiTiki89 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
A small number of authors seem to be making use of the common noun even now, presumably aware that it is archaic / very literary, e.g. T. M. Nielsen, Proditor : Book 5 of the Heku Series (2010). Other than that, I can find it in John Mackinnon Robertson's 1913 The Baconian Heresy: A Confutation: "Lord Cobham suggests that semi-punning phrases about proditors had long been current." It's moderately common in works from the mid-to-late 1800s, which however all seem to be writing about (summarizing or in many cases reproducing) works from the 1600s, which is when it last seems to have been used commonly.
"Proditor" is also the name of a character in a play who continues to be mentioned in works right up to the present day, which strongly suggests that it continues to be pronounced. E.g.: Anthony Covatta, Thomas Middleton's city comedies (1973), page 69: "Proditor, the lecherous, bloody courtier, is more responsible for this than any other character." Essays in Literature, volume 7 (1980), page 188: "Phoenix then exposes the crimes hidden behind Proditor's mask."
Use of the Latin term in italics within English texts also continues even in the present, as in Alan Watson, Legal Origins and Legal Change (1991), page 213: "The fidelis can also leave in good conscience when he fears for his life, whether from his spouse or from others, for the infidelis is then not only a desertor but a proditor." It also appears to be used in taxonomic names. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I think one could adduce a rule for why prone and bonus are Anglicised with different vowels than promontory and proverb; to me this should be like promontory. In any case, it is in Henry VI part 1, I.iii.31, and per the metre, the accent is on the first syllable. One should be able to find any number of recordings, but one is here with the pronunciation I think one should expect, given the thespian American accent adopted by the actor, near 20 minutes and 50 seconds : [GreenAudioBooks-YouTube] Isomorphyc (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Century has prodition as prō-dish´o̤n, proditor as prod´i-to̤r, proditorious as prod-i-tō´ri-us, and proditory as prod´i-tọ̄-ri. For comparison, they have prodigal (which is /ˈpɹɑd.ɪ.ɡəl/) as prod'i-ga̤l, prodigious (/pɹəˈdɪdʒ.əs/) as prọ̄-dij´us, prodigy (/ˈpɹɒd.ɪ.dʒi/) as prod´i-ji, produce as prọ̄-dūs, prodrome (/ˈpɹoʊ.dɹoʊm/) as prō´drōm, and procuration ending in /-sho̤n/. From this, I conclude that proditor /ˈpɹɑd.ɪ.təɹ/, which is also equivalent what Equinox says Chambers says. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

skitter#Verb: circular definitionEdit

The second definition is:

To make a skittering noise.

But nothing is said about the meaning of the word as applied to sounds; the definition should thus perhaps be clarified.--Anareth (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:English combining formsEdit

This very small category is rather odd. How is it supposed to differ from normal prefixes and suffixes that don't stand alone (e.g. psycho-, tele-)? It contains only a handful of these (e.g. Judeo-, noso-) along with an odd one out, the archetypical cranberry morpheme cran-. What's to be done? Equinox 23:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


Just created this entry. Would appreciate help tweaking the definitions. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Currently we only list the pronunciation that rhymes with Ms. We are missing the pronunciations that rhyme with bus and voice. Could someone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Where do people pronounce "tortoise" to rhyme with "voice"? DTLHS (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary lists /ˈtɔːtɔɪs/ and /ˈtɔːtɔɪz/ as British non-RP pronunciations. The pronunciation we currently list, however, does not rhyme with Ms., even if we're only talking about the second syllable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some people in Britain do indeed pronounce it to rhyme with "voice", but I would call this an idiosyncratic pronunciation. I have never heard it pronounced to rhyme with "bus". 11:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


Currently looking for an etymological source for the Asturian noun corazu.

Do you know of any? --Romanophile (contributions) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Romanophile: Looks from Latin (like Spanish) or from Spanish. Sobreira (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

eastside, westside, northside, southsideEdit

Are these standard spellings in US English, or are they a figment of the contributor's imagination? (contributor currently blocked) I always render them as two words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I can only find them capitalized as the names of specific neighborhoods in specific cities. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me. So what shall we do? DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
rfv them- including the one that wasn't created by Verbo. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
They are all easily citeable, although more commonly capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


Do we have a word for this in English - like fumigation but in liquid. ? "La abatización se hace mediante un insecticida sólido, en polvo, que se echa en depósitos de agua, como los tanques de los domicilios, y mata las larvas." --Turnedlessef (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To me it means "application of Abate (temephos)". I think the word was coined from the trade name "Abate", which is temephos. —Stephen (Talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
We would probably use disinfection when treating standing water. Not sure if there is a more specific term. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

IPA in ὁρίζωνEdit

I'm by no means an IPA expert, but wondering if someone who is can verify the IPA on this page. All entries appear to contain a diacritic that I have never seen used in IPA, the "acute accent", over the /i/--for example, /oɾízon/. Does this seem accurate, and does it represent a sound other than /i/?

It represents /i/ with a high pitch accent. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

For more about IPA diacritics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Diacritics_and_prosodic_notation. Acute accent (í) indicates high pitch. Grave (ì) is low pitch. Macron (ī) is mid pitch. Double acute (ı̋) is extra high pitch. Double grave (ı̏) is extra low. Caron (ǐ) is low rising. Circumflex (î) is high falling. There is an alternate notation with symbols: extra high ˥, high ˦, mid ˧, low ˨, extra low ˩, rising ˩˥ or /| (the two tone symbols should combine to a slash attached to a vertical bar, but they don't combine here) and falling ˥˩ or \| (similar non-combination). MGorrone (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether the two tone symbols combine or not depends on what font you use, I think. At any rate, on my computer they're combined in your comment above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template for cmn-3Edit

I don't know whether this is on-topic here in the TR, but why is the cmn-3 template in English? Currently, my user page has cmn-3 This user has advanced knowledge of Mandarin Chinese. Shouldn't it be translated to Mandarin? Something like the template from the French Wiktionary, «zh-3 这位用户的中文达到高级水平。»? Oh btw, why is it cmn over here and zh on French Wiktionary? And is this question in the appropriate place or is there a better place to ask questions about the Wiktionary as opposed to questions about words which are what this TR is for?

MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That’s because you have used the centralized WikiMedia {{#babel:}} template. That’s not a local template, and we have nothing to do with it. Our local template is {{Babel|}}, and if you used this, your Babel notation would be cmn-3 該用戶能以熟練的普通話/國語進行交流。 该用户能以熟练的普通话/国语进行交流。 There is a bit of confusion over zh and cmn. Zh could be Mandarin, Hakka, Min Nan, etc., while cmn means Chinese Mandarin specifically. —Stephen (Talk) 22:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

meaning of 'cam' in bridge cam gaugeEdit

What is the meaning of "cam" in "bridge cam gauge" ("cam type gauge") and is this sense of the word covered in Wiktionary? --CopperKettle (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

you can find that here [[9]] Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I was answered on Engineering StackExchange and finally understood. That was so unintuitive for me. The flat rotating plate with a beak turned out to be the "cam". ---05:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


I have recently come across a narrower definition of a tense recently, stating that the future is not a tense because it does not inflect, but uses the modal will instead. (googling "is the future a tense" returns stuff). Should the grammatical definition be split into a common definition and the narrow one? Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the language. In the Romance languages, Slavic languages, Hellenic languages, and most Germanic languages, the future is considered a tense. Traditionally the English future is also called a tense. In Athabaskan languages, the future is more properly a mood, like the subjunctive, indicative, and so on. The difference is just a slight variation in the definition of tense (that is, whether tenses must be indicated by inflection only, of if a periphrastic verb is also allowed). See The LINGUIST List. —Stephen (Talk) 23:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally on the looser side, with languages as a whole having so many ways to express grammatical functions that cannot be translated too well to other languages' systems that simply do something else entirely. e.g. English and its auxiliaries. Wondering how other Wiktionarians feel about what a tense is. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've come across that understanding of it as well, more than once. We should probably include it alongside the main one. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've put the narrow sense as a usage note already. Hillcrest98 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


A user has been redefining the entries for non-medical slang phobias like queerphobia from "fear of hatred of..." to "irrational or delusional fear or hatred of...", "an unreasonable fear of...", etc, including in cases like Islamophobia where every other reference I find offhand does not restrict the term in that way but defines it simply as "fear or hatred of...". is this appropriate? As I noted in my edit summary at Islamophobia, most of our non-medical phobia entries are not restricted in that way, either in our definitions nor AFAICT in real-world use. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It has become clear to me that political phobias require more precision to protect criticism from undue abuse. The words Islamophobe and Islamophobia in particular have been wielded as blunt weapons to silence criticism of Islam. If these words are to stay true to their form, the meaning of phobia must be held onto, that is adjacent to the medical terms whence they sprang. This requires a narrowing of their meaning into the case of irrational fear. The suffix -phobia indicates an irrational or disproportionate fear or loathing and a lack of sound mental health in the one, the phobe, who is so unusually, inexplicably afraid or angry. When applied politically and socially rather than medically, the suffix -phobe intends itself as a kind of condemnation, a statement that the person who holds the phobia is a bigot and unfair minded. Thus a phobe allegedly finds himself wallowing in fears and hatreds that are beyond his own faculties to explain. Phobe thereby draws on its related medical meaning. If publishers have not made qualifications such as "irrational" or "delusional", they have simply failed to account for vital nuance, perhaps out of cowardice. Wiktionary is a part of the ecosystem of ideas, likely more than many a publisher. That is why it is important that political phobias be specified and distinctions laid out as to the source of the fear and the kind of fear. Otherwise, irrationality and prejudice will be implied but not explicitly stated, leaving an opening for pejorative use of the words. This ambiguity must be split.
Try an analogy. If a murderous truck driver makes up the word Collisionalsemitruckophobia on the spot, does this excuse the trucker when he creams into your Prius head on? Are you a mad fool for fearing the collision and taking all measures necessary to swerve away from the oncoming threat? The saying that Collisionalsemitruckophobia is simply a vague or nonspecific fear or hate of semitrucks or their drivers, or that the Collisionalsemitruckophobe lacks mental faculties or has some form of prejudice is clearly absurd. The fear is of the hostile intent and the events that are unfolding before the Prius driver's eyes, not an abnormal, delusional, or irrational prejudice against trucks or truckdrivers. The Prius driver's fear is a rational response, a result of a critical assessment of the situation imposed upon him. When a person loaded with ideas approaches you with the purpose of unfolding all the consequences of his ideas, the person about to suffer the consequences of somebody else's ideology should not be called a unhinged person for loudly expressing his suffering or his fear of further suffering. If all truckers had collision manuals in their glove compartments that authorized and encouraged them to plough into electric cars such as the Prius, then Collisionalsemitruckophobia could be applied to all electric car drivers who criticized truck drivers before they got on the road. Thus is the situation with Islamophobia and Islamophobe.
One must distinguish between natural or physical characteristic phobias and ideological phobias. Homophobia is politicized, but it is not an ideological phobia (which means my queerphobia edit was a bit overzealous). A homosexual is not an idea, or a person defined by an ideological association. He is defined by a biological association, that is a birth characteristic. One cannot convince a homosexual to stop being a homosexual. Thus, criticism of homosexuals is at best a misdirected criticism of Darwinian evolution and quantitative genetics, not the people who happen to be homosexual. In other words, the homosexuals are no more answerable for their characteristic sexuality than is a heterosexual for his characteristic sexuality. It is not a matter of debate.
More English equivalents to Homophobia and Homophobe are Samesexfright and Samesexfearer respectively. Those forms show the true nature of the words better. Likewise, English has failed us miserably, for the more English equivalents to Islamophobia and Islamophobe are Submissionfright and Submissionfearer respectively. English's failings are simply an aside however.
True political, or ideological phobias are ones where ideas and their consequences form the basis of the fear. Whether or not somebody has examined the given ideas in the given ideology before becoming afraid thereof, or has become afraid before witnessing any consequences of the given ideology, is a critical distinction. If the ideology were neither examined nor witnessed, then fear or hate thereof would be irrational and fear of those who possess belief in the ideology would be prejudiced. I simply ask that Wiktionary do what publishers have failed to do, that is make distinctions in political phobia definitions to account for the difference between criticism and prejudice, between nature and ideology, between rationality and irrationality, between measured responses and disproportionate attacks. If fear and its cases of criticism and prejudice are not distinguished, then the -phobe and -phobia words will suffer from their conflations and political and social critics will suffer from their application.—Williamclayton (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thing is, we need to define words by how they are actually used, and not how they "should" be used. This is the same old issue of trying to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Your rant isn't that much different from our grandfathers complaining that "gay" should mean "happy". We can argue etymologies all day but it definitely does mean "homosexual" in the 21st century. Equinox 01:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
You have it backward. Think about this scenario: someone sees the word "Islamophobe" in the news. They go to Wiktionary to find out what the word means, and see that it's "a person who has irrational or delusional fears or hatred for Muslims." They come away from this thinking that the news item is talking about a dangerously abnormal individual rather than someone who merely dislikes Islam and Muslims. Congratulations! You've just used the authority of our dictionary to reinforce the very attitudes you're trying to discourage. Trying to use a dictionary to reprogram people's minds will never work the way you intend, and will create more distortion rather than the clarity that's needed. Honest, impartial information is the only effective way to deal with ignorance- once you start to play games, people recognize it and you've lost your credibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
If the words "irrational" and "abnormal" simply mired the words deeper in the direction of a psychological disorder, then consider clear cut cases for the definitions that would maintain their breadths. Another case besides the current, deliberately vague definition for Islamophobia should be "criticism of Islamic doctrine and fundamentalist Muslims". Likewise, for Islamophobe, "a critic of Islamic doctrine and doctrinaire Muslims". This covers the actual usage in more detail. How are these meanings accounted for by an unqualified "fear or hatred"? They are swamped by the association to medical disorders and forms of bigotry such as homophobia. You see, the word is already mired in confusion and in dire need of resolution. The cases of phobia have to do with medicine, identity, and ideology. Why not make them all explicit? Likewise, the three types of phobes would therefore fall into the mentally ill, bigots, and critics. Critics must share the same room as lunatics and bigots! That is what makes this word so problematic. The way the word is now, the casual hearer or reader simply understands that all those meanings share same room together. It is deliberate guilt by association, especially if the definition leaves those distinctions up in the air.--Williamclayton (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Good night" as interjectionEdit

I have seen "good night" used as a general mild exclamation, and in fact use it myself; for instance, in an argument on gun control on the Catholic Answers forum (of all places). Is this an acceptable entry? -- 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Good night !" as in "I give up !", "I'm out/done/spent/finito !", or "Holy Sh*t !" ? --yeah, I would tend to think so Leasnam (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The linked post uses it more like good grief. Equinox 02:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more of an expression of shocked disbelief and/or total exasperation. It's only mild in the sense of not being vulgar or blasphemous. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised we don't have it already. I've heard/seen it many times before. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ne piirtää joilla on liituaEdit

There appears to be a proverb in Finnish: ne piirtää joilla on liitua, which literally means something like "they who have chalk draw". I suppose it has a more nuanced idiomatic meaning to Finnish speakers, so it might be worth an entry. But I'm struggling to figure out why it is "ne piirtää", which seems to have a wrong subject-verb agreement, and not "ne piirtävät". This, that and the other (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Colloquial Finnish has lost 3rd person number marking for verbs and regularly uses forms like piirtää for both singular and plural. "Ne piirtävät" would be a register mismatch similar to "you drawest". --Tropylium (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tropylium Thanks, it makes sense now. It might be worth mentioning this in our entry for ne, and possibly even at w:Finnish verb conjugation#Type I verbs, which mentions "ne tietävät" as a possible form. This, that and the other (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

herhim, herhis, sheheEdit

2016 June 12, “How to be a moral filmmaker”, in The Times of India[10]:
Somehow by a freak of nature when a comet makes love to an asteroid you find a star who just did a very successful but a very hollow commercial project, hence wants a quick temporary makeover or maybe shehe genuinely wants to juggle the edgy with the fluffy , all possible miracles like these and you happen to meet herhim, or some trusted friend of herhis says, "he is a good guy , meet him," after which she he hears you out and says yes to your partly sanitized but still very risky-by-Bollywood-standards film, holy mother of comet astroid union, your $80 bill was accepted.

Is this common usage in India? DTLHS (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • This almost looks like an automated text processing or conversion goof that accidentally stripped out the / that I would normally expect to see. I notice one instance of she he with whitespace, for instance, suggesting inconsistent handling, at a minimum. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


"Checker" can also be a noun, referring to a checkered pattern, right? We seem to be missing this sense currently. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Is it really so nonstandard to use candelabra as a singular noun? I'm not sure I've ever even heard candelabrum before today; certainly in my own speech candelabra is the normal word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In Ngrams "a candelabrum" and "a candelabra" are about equally common. Incidentally, the word is rarely (nonstandardly?) respelled candleabrum, candleabra, and almost all of the citations of candleabra are singular and most of the ones which aren't unambiguously singular are ambiguous and could be either singular or plural, like "the candleabra of intellect blazed more or less brightly". - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"high" in "two-high mill"Edit

What is the etymology of "high" in "two-high mill" (metal rolling) and does Wiktionary have a relevant entry? --15:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "having a specified elevation", now sense 3 at high, covers it. "Rolls" are the units of elevation. Thanks for asking. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

over: article structure is irregularEdit

I fixed the article over which has 'Etymology' and 'Etymology 2' combination, but the user Robbie SWE rolled it back. Why is this ok that the first 'Etymology' doesn't have '1'? Doesn't it make it more readable? Also with multiple etymologies child categories are always on the deeper level. Now over is the only article that has 'Etymology' and 'Etymology 2' combination (multiple etymologies aren't numbered). I think Robbie SWE commit should be reverted. 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The revert seems to have been in error, I restored your edit which seems entirely fine indeed. — Kleio (t · c) 18:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! After discussing it with Kleio, I appologise for reverting your changes. I was clearly in the wrong, but hey, I got to learn something new today :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


We have an English word pre-heart attack, sure, but I'm sure there's a better phrase for it. --Turnedlessef (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it preinfarction? Equinox 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
We have that as an adjective only. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That sounds really odd to me, and the example given looks more like the attributive use of a noun. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And, FWIW, there's evidence of the expected adjectival form google books:"preinfarctive". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding any unambiguous use of "preinfarction" as a noun in bgc. "Preinfaction syndrome" may actually be the English term for preinfarto. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Limiting just to Google Books finds what looks like enough evidence for a noun, as at google books:"a preinfarction" or google books:"preinfarctions". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

pronunciation: carter vs. carderEdit

These are claimed to be homophones in accents with flapping. My accent has flapping but I'm pretty sure these aren't (quite) homophones for me: the quality of the a differs, similarly to writer vs. rider. Anyone else notice this, or is this a strange idiosyncrasy of my speech? Benwing2 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I notice it too, although for me it is the length of the a, which is slightly longer in carder, and is barely noticeable. I do not doubt, however, that for many people this distinction does not exist, as also for writer and rider. --WikiTiki89 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there’re probably many possible patterns of distinction here; I have carter and carder as homophones [kʰäɻɾɻ̩], but writer [ɻʷɜe̽ɾɻ̩] and rider [ɻʷäeɾɻ̩] distinguished by a mild variant of Canadian raising. —Vorziblix (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language