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

December 2016


We currently have English alim as a singular with a plural alims, and then ulema as a plurale tantum. Does that make sense? Kolmiel (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick GBooks search and yeah, both alims and ulama are used as plurals to alim. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
So would you agree with me that ulema (and all the variant spellings thereof) should be non-lemma forms? (Because that's the point of my question. To be sure, I didn't mean to question the word "ulema" as such, just its being a plurale tantum rather than a plural.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have come across quite a few GBooks texts that use ulama but never alim, so maybe we can keep both as lemmas. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Course we could. But why should we if one is the plural of the other? The only argument would be that "ulema" is actually not used as a plural of "alim", but is a totally independent word in English. But you said it was used that way, and I think so too. Now, the plural is more common, that's true, because it refers to the Islamic "clergy" as a whole. But I don't think that counts as an argument. "Eyes" is more common than "eye", but it's still a non-lemma plural. Kolmiel (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Persian GulfEdit

I'm wondering whether gulfs like this can be categorised as seas even though they are named gulfs - there's no category for gulfs anyway, and on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula the Red Sea, which is similar, is categorised as a sea. DonnanZ (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Our definition of gulf says in part "a partially landlocked sea", so I don't see (ha-ha) why not. Gulfs are a particular kind of sea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was also looking at large bays like the Bay of Biscay, Bay of Bengal and Hudson Bay, which are all in Category:en:Seas so this is obviously the right treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

simple presentEdit

Can someone who knows a bit about English grammar improve the definition given here? It does not specify how simple present differs from present tense. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Should all the related "tenses" really have to word "tense" included? Don't we use, for instance, "the past historic" rather than "the past historic tense"? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the simple present is "I do", as opposed to "I am doing", which is present continuous.


Why no pronunciation? —This unsigned comment was added by Oldspring (talkcontribs) at 04:45, 2 December 2016.

  • It's not a common word, so it's not surprising. I wouldn't have a clue how to pronounce it anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

all that, all that and a bag of chipsEdit

Shouldn't the adjective senses be nouns? Equinox 09:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. But where are the citations? They would tell us a lot about the grammar. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

the word dividings applied to a waterwayEdit

In Georgia USA there is a part of the Cumberland River called the Cumberland Dividings. Why dividings? Are there any other waterways named thus? —This unsigned comment was added by Jcrcrabtree (talkcontribs) at 13:32, 2 December 2016.

It's pretty easy to find dividings in use in the sense involved on Google Books. For example:
  • 2005, Mary R. Bullard, Cumberland Island: A History, page 5:
    All the Sea Islands have what are called dividings, shoal areas behind the barrier islands where the tides meet and divide.
It looks regional in that use. There are other uses of dividings, including something to do with preventing mine cave-ins. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


Where to add a salute to The Guide when there is no noun entry in that Wikt page ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How would you have added it if there were a noun entry? --WikiTiki89 18:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
And is it actually used outside of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It has previously failed RFV. Equinox 14:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Is once really a homophone of one's as claimed on that page? It isn't the way I pronounce it. SpinningSpark 18:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nor the way I say it, nor the way I can recall hearing anyone else say it. Mihia (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it isn't. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've removed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


User:Sae1962 has added second-most-massive, third-most-massive and tenth-most-massive as derived terms to the massive page. These terms don't exist according to Ngrams. SpinningSpark 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

They're also SOP. This user has a tin ear when it comes to CFI- if they've seen it on their screen, they've tried to make an entry out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I did wonder why sources might discuss the tenth most massive something, but entirely ignore the fourth through ninth. SpinningSpark 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You could use these words, although they're not established words as such. The trouble is that if you list these as "words", then there are unlimited such words, eg "the third-most-beautiful woman in the world". Also, the style is overhyphenated here. Third most beautiful would be acceptable. The trend is to use fewer hyphens.


Where is the source for this Germanic root, if it exists, please? If there were more confirmed evidences than that in Old English and the Nordic remnants, the spelling would be correct. However, there are remants in the Celtic dialects of Breton and Welsh for "fireplace", that are closer to Old English, from a fabricated Celtic root *aith-l-ti.[Dr. Ken George; KESVA]. Andrew H. Gray 08:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andrew talk

transcendental critiqueEdit

The definition given does not seem to really define the word critique and when I went to the reference I could not find both words as the link allegedly defined 'transcendent' alone.(could not find either word) I am suggesting that we need the definition for critique and then add the transcendental perspective.Thank you Bobdog54 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

mind youEdit

  1. (literally archaic) Mind that you; be careful that you.

What does it mean by "literally archaic"? Mihia (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My best guess is that the two words are supposed to be separated by a comma (i.e. "literally, archaic"), since the pipe usually creates a comma (obviously, there must be an exception made for when it follows "literally"). Whoever added it must just have perceived it to be more literal than the current, more idiomatic sense, but it might not be helpful to label it as such. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for changing it. From a BrE perspective, even though it is not something one hears every day, I wonder whether it should be labelled "dated" in BrE. Am I right in discerning from your talk page that you are Canadian? Mihia (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed. It's not something I've ever heard in Canada, though I'm familiar with the usage from older (18th-19th century) books. (Also, I think it was Equinox who made the change, not me...) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't even think this sense should be there. It's not a stand-alone unit meriting an entry; it's a fragment, like "ensure she". Equinox 10:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's a fragment. I wonder, though, whether it might be kept simply for contrast with the idiomatic phrase? Mihia (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree. I will post it at Requests for Deletion. Mihia (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Not archaic. Mind you wear a scarf is perfectly normal British English.

fr:back of the neckEdit


In your opinion, should this sequence of words (created by bot) be considered as an expression in English? — Automatik (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To this native English speaker it does not seem to be an idiom. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
If you need a literal translation of the French term you could use "nape". DTLHS (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring that it is not an idiom, and therefore does not deserve its own entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The trouble with nape is that it is not necessarily understood by, say, the average voter. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Nape on its own is meaningless. It has to be "nape of the neck". —This comment was unsigned.
Of course, that isn't true. In addition to the numerous uses in the context of medicine and descriptions of animals, there are instances such as the following:
  • 1989, Carlos Fuentes, Christopher Unborn, page 114:
    She said nothing; but she did raise her veil over the comb she wore in her hair, thus revealing the rustic novelty of her perfumed nape. The nape was both annunciation and invitation. I had no idea that a nape, the beginning of her hair and the []
DCDuring TALK 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Any writer can help himself to any usage he wishes. I don't know who Carlos Fuentes is, but do you think he could show that he had heard "nape" used without "of the neck" in his life before he wrote that sentence? The fact that Carlos Fuentes -- which is not a native English name -- wrote a sentence does not show that is the idiomatic usage in English. You would struggle to find any real usages without a subsequent "of the neck", and maybe Carlos Fuentes just didn't know that.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Carlos Fuentes is a Mexican novelist. Cristóbal Nonato was translated by Alfred MacAdam, a professor at Barnard College. Is that sufficiently "native English" for you? Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You can find some usages but not common: [1]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  The entry has been deleted thanks to your help. — Automatik (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


at antidepression we show this as an adjective. this is also a noun, is it not ? Leasnam (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Everything I come up with has antidepression as a modifier, followed by legislation/act/medication/drug/program/meditation/bath/etc. I can find the existence of an article titled “Ferulic acid-induced anti-depression and prokinetics similar to Chaihu-Shugan-San via polypharmacology,”; that's maybe a noun use (and maybe an English use). It could possibly be cited from newsgroups, but it seemed more like sloppy English or typos (one case had antidepression where antidepressant would be correct).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I came across in this statement <<Serotonin is one of the principal neurotransmitters involved in happiness and anti-depression.>> which got me thinking about it. Honestly, I had never given it any thought before Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

savi pouchEdit

It seems this term has only been used in writing by the person who coined it. Is this a problem? Equinox 13:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Independent: there must be at least three independent uses, which means other authors besides the coiner have to use the term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

puerco no se rasca en javillaEdit

This Spanish idiom translates as "The pig doesn't scratch himself on the sandbox tree", the sandbox tree being as spiky as fuck, and means something like "people don't use arguments that can hurt them". Do we have a similar proverb in English? I can't think of any at this moment of time. Just pork scratchings, which wouldn't help me. And maybe don't shit in your own backyard, but that's not quite right either. Thanks in advance, fellow Wiktionarians. --Derrib9 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it anything like "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Equinox 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably something like that. --Derrib9 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't shoot oneself in the foot? —suzukaze (tc) 02:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't go looking for trouble? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If one doesn't remember this proverb, one may be said to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks fellow 'narians. I put a couple of the page. BTW, I quite enjoy using random English proverbs in Spanish, and vice versa. It confuses people and/or makes me look super wise. I tried this particular one out on my friends in Catalonia, but they had no idea what it meant. --Derrib9 (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In desperate need of a definitionEdit

Define ( Mechanifacationalism ) and if possible use it in a sentence

Not a real English word; no definition exists. Where did you see it? Equinox 01:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a good friend ask me to give him a description of Mechanifacationalism and use it in a sentence

Any ideas would be great but honestly I have no clue what exactly is the meaning

Well, it looks like it should really be "mechanificationalism", but that would still make no sense. Mechanification would be the process or result of mechanifying, which would presumably be the process of somehow making something mechanical. This is all hypothetical, because only mechanification out of all these forms is used at all, and it's not clear what most of the usage means. That still doesn't explain the "-alism" part, since I have no idea what it would mean for something or someone to be mechanificational, and without that, adding the "-ism" suffix just makes it a longer word with unknown meaning. You can look through our entries on all the possible pieces and try to figure it out for yourself: mechanic (adjective),-ify, -ate, -ation, -ification, -al, -ism. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Why does ASE article have empty brackets under initialism of?Edit

There are entries like this: # {{initialism of|[[ ]][http://studyabroadbath.org Advanced Studies in England]|lang=en}} there. What does [[ ]] mean? This must be an invalid syntax. Yurivict (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you take out the empty brackets, it breaks. Try it in preview mode. So this is a hack to get around that problem, when including a general Internet link (not a normal internal wiki link) within those templates. Equinox 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I removed the empty brackets and moved the links to the 2nd unnamed parameter. Apparently, this works too. I find this idea an improvement, because the empty brackets were ugly, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I find it an improvement too. Yurivict (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


At pickle we show 2 etymologies. The second is a dialect word used in the North of England and Scotland. I moved the duplicate sense of "bit, small amount" from Etym_1 to sense 2 of Etym_2 (replacing what was originally there). My question is in regards to Etym_1 sense 5 ("mischievous loved one"). Should this also be at Etym_2 ? I cannot see how we get a term of endearment from a brine soaked cucumber. It makes more sense to me that it evolved out of the "small amount" sense. Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Foods do sometimes seem to be used this way; I have no idea why. See sausage and French chou. Equinox 13:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


This can also mean "pan" as in "frying pan", right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Can also mean "Pan" with the same pronunciation.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A frying pan is usually called 후라이팬 (huraipaen). Pan is (pan). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That's right but I'm pretty sure these senses are attestable as well and they are in dictionaries.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

wise man#EnglishEdit

wise man lists three senses. Isn't the first "man who is wise" the same as the first part of the second sense, "a sage"; while the second part of the second sense "a seer" different from "a sage" and should be a separate sense? And the third sense uses "biblical magi", but those were astrologers, soothsayers, seers or viziers and not wizards, so that should not be glossed there. A separate sense could be provided for the Biblical sense (priest). This would then be rewritten as:

  1. A sage (a man who is wise)
  2. A seer
  3. A magus or wizard

-- 13:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


I noticed this entry for athem or eathem was made under modern English, but if it was only attested up to the 13th century as the entry notes, that would make it squarely Middle English still (and that has its own separate entry under ethem). Does anyone know of attestations into the early modern English period? Word dewd544 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

editorial office, editorial departmentEdit

Hello. Do these entries, created by bot on fr.wikt, are admissble? Looks like the same case as back of the neck. In advance, thanks for your kind help. — Automatik (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Bit suspicious about this since the creator has a bit of a track record of dubious things. I am wondering: 1. How come none of these books are in Google Books? How did the user find the cites? 2. How come, in all four citations, it always modifies the noun "course"? 3. Why is there a typo and a grammatical error in the third citation? I would like us to be clear that these citations aren't fake or anything. Equinox 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They're not fake, but they're from reviews of the books (or something like reviews)- [2], [3]. DTLHS (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
They read a bit like automatically generated spam text to me. DTLHS (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

calìgo vs caigoEdit

I was doing some personal research about the etymology of fog in various italian regional languages. Then I read that this wiktionary translates this in venetian as nebia f and not as caigo. then I found this wiktionary had calìgo f instead of caigo, unlike de:caigo. That is fine, but has this wiktionary any convention in place for writing Venetian? I'd like to understand if we are to consider caigo and calìgo two different words, or the first an error, or the latter an archaism, or simply the same word just with the convention to have mute l in some variants of venetian.--Nickanc (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Venetian spelling is not as centralised as Italian or other major languages. This word is spelt całìgo in standard orthography; the ł represents the diaphoneme that surfaces as /l/, ∅ or a glide, but some writers just spell it the way it sounds in their dialect. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hence, we move calìgo to całìgo and we leave an {{alternative spelling of}} in caigo. is it correct?--Nickanc (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Both calìgo and caigo are common. The ł (for the soft l) is a recent convention. However, in spite of the theoretical advantage of ł and other recent additions, they have not yet been very successful outside of academic circles. I hesitate to say that one form is an alternative spelling of another. I think they are more like English center versus centre, where each spelling is predominant among those who use that pronunciation and spelling. I think całìgo deserves an entry, though, with an explanation that it comes from a recent proposal to unify and standardize the script, but that it has not yet been widely accepted. —Stephen (Talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


Can this also mean 簡單? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

簡單 is 간단하다. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
간단 (gandan) as in 간단하다 (gandanhada) may also have a noun section (etymology 2) "simplicity; being simple", not sure what the exact definition it should be. The adverb is formed as 간단히 (gandanhi, “simply”)--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think 간단 (gandan) is used to mean “simplicity”. The use of adjective radicals in Korean is very limited compared to Japanese. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji. Thanks, I know it's limited but the usage is attestable in most cases and some kind of (rare/limited) definitions can be given, even for etymological purposes. BTW, re: diff kyūjitai entries are allowed, even if they are pain in the butt to make. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Stress in "tibetan"Edit

Currently, it's /ti.beˈtan/. Shouldn't the stress be before the stressed vowel, however?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the Rumanian entry is quite correct with final stress, though I don't really know. Kolmiel (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: Yes, it is: [4]. So no need to fix anything :) Kolmiel (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


I think there is an out-of-date sense here, a typed stencil, which could then be used to make printed copies on an office duplicator. I can remember them from the sixties and seventies, and was funnily enough reminded of them by an entry in DDO [5]. DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the mimeograph stencils that produced purple dittos were still around in the 80s. JulieKahan (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


The talk page contains a complaint that seems valid, but my incompetence at Albanian grammar and templates prevents me from even attempting a correction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as the template is concerned, you only have to delete the vertical bar and bardha. Kolmiel (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Etimo, can you help? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed to e bardhë!Etimo (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you, done now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


I recently created the entry for رُبَاع(rubāʿ, four at a time), but I am not sure how it is actually used. Wehr doesn't give examples. Is it a noun, adjective, or numeral? Does it modify nouns or does a noun modify it in idafa? — Eru·tuon 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's properly rubāʿa, diptote accusative. Almaany calls it an "invariable noun", but it should probably be called an adverb in western terms. Almaany gives the following example sentences: اصطف الجنود رباع (Iṣṭaffa l-junūdu rubā‘[a]. –"The soldiers formed up in lines of four.") جاء القوم رباع (Jā’a l-qawmu rubā‘[a]. – "The people came in groups of four.") [6] My translations. Kolmiel (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


Can this also mean "which"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It mainly means “what kind of”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:en:Responses to sneezingEdit

I don't feel that ew and yuck belong here: not sneeze-specific. Equinox 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise: bless you is a sort of social code used in response to a sneeze, whereas yuck is just a reaction to what came out of someone's nose. Equinox 14:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Lollypaloozer, lallapalootza, lollapaloozaEdit

Currently lollypaloozer, lallapalootza, and lollapalooza are separate entries. Until recently lollapalooza was said to be derived from the former two; I took the liberty of changing the etymology to "unknown but compare" those two. (Also la-la(something unusually good), which is roughly contemporaneous with lollypaloozer) It seems to me that these are variant spellings of the same slang word, no? The OED Online has a single headword spelled lallapaloosa, with lallapalootza, lollapaloosa, and lollapalooza in the quotations. It gives the etymology as simply "fanciful formation".

Etymology online gives no precursor for lollapalooza, but dates it from 1901. That seems wrong, since George Ade used lollypaloozer in 1896 – currently the oldest example I can find. I've collected citations with various spellings at Citations:lollapalooza.

Back-datings, etc. are welcome. Also, does anyone besides me feel like "resembling the Perry Farrell-founded music festivals" is developing as a separate sense? There seem to be an awful lot of references on the web comparing things to the tours or subsequent festivals. Cnilep (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


Could someone please check the Cantonese and Min Nan readings? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Done. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


Verb is defined incorrectly, as though it were a noun. How is it used? Equinox 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

doorway translationsEdit

Please, make 2 tables, one with "door passaedje" (fr= embrasure de porte, nl deuropening) and the other with "entrance way" (fr. porcha, corridor, vestibule; wa poice, tchapå)

--Lucyin (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


"Mispelling" is not the right word here. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{nonstandard form of}}, perhaps? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed according to Angr's suggestion Alázhlis (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Can't the verb also mean "to attack suddenly and swiftly"? Tharthan (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I modified sense 1 to include any such sudden or quick attack Leasnam (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


Does this word have a rough breathing mark? I would tend to think yes, since there's a guttural in both the etymon and the Vulgate Latin descendant Heva (never *Eva). KarikaSlayer (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@KarikaSlayer: It's written with a smooth breathing in the Septuagint at Genesis 4:1 and 4:25 and in the New Testament at 1 Timothy 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 11:3. I can't find it with a rough breathing in the Bible at all, but maybe it is in other works. As for the Latin, it's spelled Hava at Genesis 4:1 (her name isn't mentioned at 4:25 in the Vulgate) and Eva in the NT both times. I don't find Heva in the Vulgate, but again, maybe it's spelled that way in other works. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: There are different Vulgates which have different spellings, e.g. sometimes it's Raphael and sometimes Raphaël, Rafael and rather Middle Latin Rafahel.
Nova Vulgata (www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html) has Eva in Genesis 3:20 and 4:1 and in ad Corinthios II 11:3, Wikisource's Vulgata (la.wikisource.org/wiki/Biblia_Sacra_Vulgata_%28Stuttgartensia%29) has Hava in Genesis and Eva in ad Corinthios II, bibleserver's Vulgata (www.bibleserver.com/text/VUL/1.Mose3) has Heva in both (and also Mathusaël and Sellæ). - 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Can you try to check if this is the kanji for conger eel? It appears that this is a kokuji, so it needs more sources. Dingo1234555 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a reference but it says that dictionaries that list it cite the "Kokuji no Jiten" which itself has unclear sources for 𫙕. —suzukaze (tc)


As defined, a box-spring is part of a box spring: they are not synonyms. Can anyone confirm this? Equinox 05:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. It's just an alternative spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The WP article says that divan is sometimes used synonymously. I'd never heard that. Is it true? Or can a box spring be built into some divans? DCDuring TALK 15:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Usage example for njeriEdit

I just noticed the usage example for njeri has no translation. What does it mean?

MGorrone (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate says it means "Everyone knew it." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Regarding recent edits, please see Talk:fag#.22a_person_perceived_as....22. I don't want to wade in with edits on my own because gender identity is a touchy subject. Equinox 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole definition is way over-complicated in my opinion. It should just say "a homosexual man". Mihia (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No, effeminacy or some other conspicuous behaviour that comes across as "queer" is central to the idea, as amply demonstrated by the first two citations from the 1920s. The term doesn't refer to just any old straight-acting gay man. Same thing as a dyke is not just any lesbian woman. Both terms can refer to gender-conforming people too, but that's an extension of the original idea. Anyway, I've addressed Equinox's concern now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I somehow managed to miss the fact that my suggestion "a homosexual man" was in fact already the first definition, and the questioned definition was a supplementary. Mihia (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Coorne, suspect poor source checkingEdit

This word was reported as suspicious and unsupported. I found no sources supporting any cognacy with "crown" and put the following message into the talk page, but I see it is not a preferred channel, so I add it here:


I am sceptical of this claim and suspect faulty research unless the creator can refer us to a clearly and openly supportable source. I have done some superficial searching and found the word as a (sur)name in what looks like some Flanders regions, which proves nothing, but I also see several Ghent records in Google books, that suggest that it is cognate with a number of Germanic words for grain, such Afrikaans "koring", Dutch "koren", German "Korn" (Kluge traces it to preteutonic times and Latin).

A clear example of the word in seventeenth century official Flemish is visible here on page 633: [7] There I was confused by a string of titles in 17th century Flemish, but on more careful interpretation and correction of scannos, I am convinced that "Coorne en Graene" means precisely "corn(s) and grain(s)" I include part of the text in question in a hidden comment following this sentence, in case anyone would like to inspect it (apologies for my ignorance of correct practice; anyone wishing to tidy this entry is welcome!)

Alzo, or now then: The fact that in some low-Germanic dialect coorne pretty certainly meant corn, as in wheat, does not prove that it wasn't cognate with "crown", "coronet" or the like in middle English rather than say, "corn", but considering difficulties in finding supporting source material, I reckon that we cannot accept the interpretation as current evidence stands. JonRichfield (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

STOP PRESS found it where I belatedly thought of looking: OED,[1]

Coorne, coornel (l, obs. ff. Corn, Kernel.
And that is the entire entry, including lack of closing parenthesis. I'll have a look at modifying our entry accordingly. JonRichfield (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I checked the attestation of the Flemish usage, (considering "three examples etc") but only included one quote, because there are plenty of similar items in official documents and historical anecdotes of the time in Google books, so I don't think it necessary to elaborate. But if someone want to start an edit war about it, I'll add a few extra items for the sake of peace in the valley. JonRichfield (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Murray, J.A.H. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (2 vols). Publisher: Oxford University Press. 1971. ISBN: 978-0198611172

Proper reactions to vandalismEdit

I usually hang out at WP, where counter-vandalism mechanisms seem to differ somewhat. Consider — at bibliopole changes emanating from a couple of IP addresses (2601:681:402:5170:315F:671:91B:C702 and 2601:681:402:5170:c839:49ca:2c60:71c2) have successively been corrected, but no action taken. Is there no similar mechanism for reaction in Wiktionary? JonRichfield (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have a setup in Wiktionary similar to Wikipedia's. Different editors react differently. Usually I revert vandalism but take no further action unless I see that the same IP address has made multiple bad edits. In that case, I block them. If you see vandalism and need to report it, you can do that at Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress. —Stephen (Talk) 08:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I block all vandals that I notice. They normally get a one-day block for the first offense. If I didn't block them, how would I know they were repeat offenders - I can't keep a list of IP addresses in my head. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen. JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Need some input for "ex officio"Edit

It has been my impression by virtue of the contexts in which the adjective "ex officio" has been used, that it means "unofficially but pretty much with the same powers as the real thing". As and example, the guy who ran the hardware store in the little town near where I grew up was its "mayor ex officio" because he often took care of community matters that benefitted everyone, and in general looked after the welfare of the area despite no one electing him (including himself). The offered definition doesn't match this very closely. Any comments?

For what it's worth, how come the tilde doesn't work anymore? All it does is make four squiggly little dashes now without providing my name. —This unsigned comment was added by Linstrum (talkcontribs) at 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

I've never heard of that meaning. The normal sense is "by virtue of holding the office". In the case of your town, the guy running the hardware store would be considered "mayor ex officio" if his being "mayor" was due to his having the job of running the hardware store. Of course, the people in your town could be using it with the meaning you say, and so it would be correct in the context of your town- but anywhere else, no one would understand it that way. If you can find evidence that meets our Criteria for inclusion showing that the term is used with that meaning, feel free to add it as a second sense.
As for the problem with the 4 tildes, I'm not sure why it didn't work for you, because it woks for me just fine Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
4 tildes works for me unless I insert a space or other non-tilde into the string, or type 5 tildes. Oh, and I agree with Chuck about ex officio JonRichfield (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
What the guy who ran the hardware store in your town should have been called is de facto mayor. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

dirty greaseEdit

Definition doesn't seem to make sense. Equinox 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It clearly can be written better, but I think the original logic goes something like: "grease containing material from use, or dirt." We would just say "grease containing contaminants from use, or which contains particles of dirt" something along those lines. The second part would be SOP and could be removed Leasnam (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I've clarified it a bit, but I've left in the part about "dirt", as I am not sure if there is a technical use of this definition in existence which actually includes 'dirt' Leasnam (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems SoP to me. Mihia (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Only science fiction? I've been under the impression that the term is used in games, even outside a science fiction context. —CodeCat 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be used in computer games. Obviously an abbreviation of medical kit. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


@ topless we have an image of a topless woman. Granted, not a big deal in Europe, but I am thinking of school-aged children here in the states who might fancy looking up the meaning of topless a thousand times per day....to, uh, get a better understanding of the definition :\...is it appropriate to have ? Leasnam (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If it were a model photo, I'd find it less appropriate. The one we have seems all right. (I'm European, of course.) However, I do think it's unnecessary. So I'd be in favour of deleting it, but not passionate about it. Kolmiel (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a photo of a topless man would be less "offensive" or whatever. Equinox 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
There are also images at nipple and (horror of horrors) penis. What's the fuss about? DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The image didn't need to be so large, it's now scaled down. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not vehemently opposed to the image, but it doesn't seem necessary. The definition is clear enough and I'm generally opposed to having images for anything other than concrete nouns. So I say delete it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to superimpose a black rectangle over the nudy parts perhaps, so that the idea can still be conveyed without the, well, nudiness ? Leasnam (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The usual solution is to create an edited derivative of the original picture and replace the currently present picture in the article with the new one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Rather than spoil an image, it is possible to find a "less offensive" one. There's plenty of images available. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This is probably one of the least offensive images of toplessness at Commons, except maybe this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some of women sunbathing topless on their fronts. Keep looking. DonnanZ (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
For example, there's this, this, this, and this. DonnanZ (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Donnanz. The woman in that image already has her head cut off- let's not compound the indignity. IMO the real problem with this image is that it's not really about toplessness, but more about showing naked female breasts. I can understand wanting to oppose a taboo, but fixating on the object of the taboo is still letting the taboo control your thinking. If we're going to have an image here, it should be of a normal human being (whether breasts are showing or not) in a normal setting, not an anonymous half-body with everything but a certain area cut off so someone can, in effect, say "look everybody- BOOBS!!!!!". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'm being a bit prude but I always opt for paintings when depicting "risqué" subjects. Might this, this (of a male athlete...oh, the horror!) or this be more, ahem, modest? --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't use an image of a male, because the term topless almost always refers to women. The corresponding term referring to a male is shirtless. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons doesn't make that distiction (see this category), but I see what you mean. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer a painting, though I am somewhat opposed to having any image at all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So, I changed the image. Let's move on. Also, I added an entry for toplessly for brownie points. --Quadcont (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
We'll see how long that one survives. Nice derriere though...
The replaced image has already been added elsewhere prior to this, so it still survives. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The new image is an improvement in every respect. Mihia (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Thank you all for your contribution. Leasnam (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, a very elegant and aesthetic solution (although a painting could have achieved the same – my spontaneous thought was this, though that one features an unnecessary amount of nudity, I suppose –, this one manages it without actually showing the breasts, and still being natural), which avoids the objectification potential inherent in the picture of a topless, headless woman previously present. Excellent! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


The current definition of endogamous is suitable to describe a noun, not an adjective. Regards. -- 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

purée / pureeEdit

The definition for both says:

  1. A food that has been ground or crushed into a thick liquid

Given that the original method of producing a purée seems to have been running foods through a sieve, I'm not sure that the definition should specify the mechanical means used, beyond the fact that some kind of mechanical means is involved (thick liquids produced by partially melting or dissolving solids aren't purées, for instance). Any ideas? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge to start off with. —CodeCat 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You can redirect, but can't merge two spellings. Translations for the noun (but not the verb) are merged under purée. As for the definition, I think the modern way is to do it in a blender, isn't it? DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Or with an immersion blender. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Donnanz Are you saying the two spellings aren't synonymous? DTLHS (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they are synonymous, spelling variants in fact. You're free to choose the one you prefer. DonnanZ (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I was just wondering why you said they can't be merged. DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
It depends what is meant by merge. CodeCat didn't make that clear. DonnanZ (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say we can merge (in the sense of "put all the lexical information in one entry and leave the other as an {{alternative spelling of}}"), but we can't redirect because purée is also a French word, while puree isn't; puree is also an Italian word, while purée isn't; and puree and purée are apparently two distinct and unrelated words in Finnish. So a redirect is out of the question. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant redirect using {{alternative form of}}. Sorry, my turn to be vague. DonnanZ (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah. To me, "redirect" always means using #REDIRECT. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Now merged, unless someone thinks the main form should be at the other spelling. DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

to glow - Etymology wordingEdit

The section says it's disputed whether ME glowen comes from OE glowan because OSX has gloian. That does sound rather wrong. Does anyone have any idea what it's supposed to say there or shall I just delete that part? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it. Leasnam (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


Is there really a meaning 'coward'? Are dogs associated with cowardice? Is the ux really different from the general insult? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe there is, especially when meant as "dog (with its tail between its legs)" Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Searching for "you dog" "you coward" finds quite a lot, e.g. (2012, Wyatt, Lady Mechatronic on the Cannibal Island) “You dog,” snarled Bardon. “If you are a man, release me and face me in combat.” Okay, that could still be the generic insult, but it is used a lot near accusations of cowardice. Equinox 04:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

come on downEdit

"A catchphrase used on the television game show "The Price is Right," inviting a member of the audience to come to Contestant's Row to play the game." I was going to delete this, but should it be changed somehow, if used more generally in parody of the TV line? Equinox 06:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I have heard it used in parody years ago. Is the show still going? I don't watch TV any more. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


I'd like to add the past participle repu (which is, incidentally, the only form still in use, though as an adjective only). How am I supposed to do that? And paître has the same problem. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a template wiz, so I can't really help here, but as a stop-gap solution I've added repu and pu under "Related terms". OK? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


In the media I constantly hear the word "cowardly" used to disparage criminals and criminal acts that may be many bad things but do not seem the least bit "cowardly", in fact often the exact opposite. For example, someone punches someone in the face or blows up some people. How is that "cowardly"? Is this a new meaning of the word that has developed, or just a misuse? Mihia (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that it refers to the fact that they resort to violence to solve their problems, as opposed to resolving them within the law / societal norms. DTLHS (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a new meaning, it's just a different understanding of what constitutes cowardliness from yours. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It's considered cowardly to attack somebody unexpectedly without giving them a chance for a fair fight. Equinox 19:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I also have found it hard to swallow the application of cowardly to, say, a suicide bomber or gunman risking or giving their life for their cause. Just as I find it hard to accept the use of hero to, say, someone giving CPR to a person. Both are instances of semantic bleaching. At what point should we recognize that semantic bleaching has rendered a strong word weak. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Green’s Dictionary of SlangEdit

See here This work is now available online and has over 500 years of slang "Totaling 10.3 million words and over 53,000 entries, the collection provides the definitions of 100,000 words and over 413,000 citations." This seems like a great reference to link to with a R template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text stopEdit

this was deleted. it should be restored. the term "text stop" is used to refer to some rest areas, used to encourage people to pull in there to text and not text while driving. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22text+stop%22#q=%22text+stop%22+%22highway%22&tbm=bks&start=0 12:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@ These terms are sometimes called "hot words"--where they have the potential to really become a part of the language but they may just fizzle out. It's a fine line sometimes between slang, "hot words", neologisms, nonce words, etc. We need more attestations across different sources and time. Do you have more? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

one millionEdit

i've been trying to redirect one million to million and my edit has been disallowed as being "harmful". it should be redirected to million similar to how one hundred, one billion and one trillion redirect to hundred, billion and trillion. one thousand should not be redirect to thousand as it has another use. 13:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you felt the redirections were needed in the first place? IMHO, they're all redundant and should be deleted. I'll propopse them for deletion and open a discussion in WT:RFD. Feel free to participate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


One of the definitions here is "The term applied by Greeks to the head of a community of Jews in the diaspora." But what terms the Greeks use seems completely irrelevant to the English language. What does this term mean in English? —CodeCat 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's a historical term (which it appears to be), that is everything but irrelevant. Crom daba (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The term still refers to something in English, otherwise it's not a term in English and we shouldn't list it as a definition. What terms the Greeks used is not relevant for whether this meaning exists in English, as this is not a term the Greeks used. The Greeks spoke Greek, not English. —CodeCat 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm RFVing it (minus the Greek bit). Equinox 15:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The first definition looks sufficient to me. Also, (1) is רֹאשׁ גָּלוּת an actual Biblical phrase, and (2) are we sure that the Greek comes from the Hebrew, rather than from Aramaic ריש גלותא? JulieKahan (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the Hebrew; I just took it off Wikipedia. The answers to both your questions are "I don't know", so feel free to remove it or change it as necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Are there sufficient attestations of the first definition; parchment or paper (particularly for the latter)? Tharthan (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

extractible, extractableEdit

These are clearly different forms of the same, so how should this be handled? —CodeCat 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The -ible seems to be the alternative form of the -able. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've made it an alternative spelling. —CodeCat 15:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


I am not certain that the 'dingy' meaning belongs to the entry's current state etymology which says: "From Old French eschiu(shy, timid), from Frankish *sciuh(shy, timid, fearful), from Proto-Germanic *skeuhaz(shy, frightened)..." Besides common sense the information at skif#Etymology asserts me that this word's lineage is closer to Old High German. Any suggestions? I suppose WT:BOLD should apply if without input from other fellow Wiktionarians in some reasonable time period. I'm asking because I'm not that versed in Italian, but like always I'm keen to improve our project. Cheers everyone, --biblbroksдискашн 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Per the etymology given at skiff, the term was loaned via Lombardic, which I'd already come to suspect on my own. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the entry needs to be split into 2 etymologies Leasnam (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


Apparently incorrigible is often used in a softened, positive or only mildly reprobative, sense: "having character flaws or quirks that do not make one unlikeable or even make one downright likeable". Is this connotation or use worth mentioning?

This kind of mitigation is admittedly seen frequently in terms that used to have a strongly negative, critical tone, such as rascal or naughty, probably as a result of changing morals and opinions about parenting. A word such as rascal was, apparently, initially applied mainly to adults and adolescents, then children (initially as little rascal), and applying it to an adult (where little is now implied) is now felt to be meant in a cute, amusing and harmless way and does not cause offence anymore, as it is not perceived as a serious criticism. Essentially what we have here is an instance of melioration. I suspect the melioration actually happened in the little rascal stage, which was initially a serious complaint about children, but cultural changes and increased lenience then caused children's antics to be seen as rather amusing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our entry lacks what is now, IMO, the most common sense, the one you have identified. It may seem like a connotation only to some linguists. It seems like a denotation to me. Some of the other senses seem archaic or obsolete. Are some redundant? Should they be grouped? DCDuring TALK 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mythopoetic definition seems wrongEdit

The definition of mythopoetic does not give what I had thought was the usual meaning, "giving rise to myths". However, I notice that the synonym mythopoeic (no "t") does have that definition. I double checked a couple other dictionaries and I'm pretty sure the definition of mythopoetic should be updated. However, I'm new to wiktionary and am cautious to start willynilly. (I don't even know what order the definitions go: most common usage first or age of first known use?) Would someone with more experience please investigate and make the change, if it is warranted. Thanks! Hackerb9 (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hackerb9 Just so you know, there is no policy on whether oldest or most common definitions should go first, or if they should simply be in the order that they were added. There have been a few attempts to reach a consensus on this, but without success. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Could someone add the British English pronunciation? It differs vastly from its American counterpart. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the British pronunciation generally omits the "e", and adds a glottal stop (preglottalises the t): /ˈlɪˀtɹɘsi/
How does it differ? The one on the page is how I say it. Equinox 00:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the difference the above user means, but I do find intervocalic /t/ problematic in American transcriptions. That should be /d/ in my (possibly mistaken) opinion. Of course, it's a general thing. Kolmiel (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

twig and berriesEdit

Not quite sure how to "template" this one: it's already plural ("his twig and berries are"), but has a further plural, "twigs and berries", for more than one man's genitals. Equinox 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO: twigs and berries. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


The oldest reference on the page is 1984, but I heard it in an episode of The Goon Show from September 28, 1954, 'The Whistling Spy Enigma':

Hee-Hee. Look at Old Eccles. He has blown all his toothy pegs out of his mouth. Hee-Hee. What a funny! Hee-Hee

What proof do I need to put this as an etymology? Apparently my grandmother used to say it to my mother and she would have been listening around the same time, so I suspect it's another word similar to lurgy. —This unsigned comment was added by DoctorLore (talkcontribs).

@DoctorLore: You can cite audio/visual media--citations don't have to be print or Web. Are you wondering how to use a template to cite it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well, if it would just be a source then yeah I'd like the template but I was more wondering if the massive age difference plus anecdote would be enough to qualify it as an etymology like in lurgy rather than just a source/footnote? All the pages I've found about the etymology of the word link back here or just have the same information with no credit. DoctorLore (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@DoctorLore: In the case of "lurgy", there is another source which says this is the first usage. Do you have any sources which make this claim? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have heard the word used back as far as the 1950s. The OED has a usage from 1840. Feel free to add further usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I have changed it to a plural of the singular. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

but forEdit

This should be two broken into two separate definitions, right? "Except for" is not the same as "if it were not for". ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is women an adjective?Edit



I can’t tell if this is truly adjectival or simply a noun used as such. It sounds unusual to modern ears, though. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to me. It may sound a bit dated, but it's still possible to say. Compare women warriors. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Romanophile: To answer your question properly, the fact that the singular has woman warrior but the plural women warriors indicates that women is not an adjective, but a noun adjunct. Adjectives in English are not inflected at all.
A digression: Blond(e) and brunet(te) may seem like exceptions from the rule I've just posited, but the fact that people struggle with the gender distinction imported from French (I find that people usually simply write blonde, because the term is much more frequently used for women, and same with brunette), which doesn't even make sense in English (if a woman has blonde hair, does a man have blond hair, but why should the adjective agree with the sex of the – possibly not at all mentioned – possessor instead of with the noun hair as in French, which has no grammatical gender in English, and what if the sex of the possessor is not known, to say nothing of nonbinary gender identities?) indicates that the rule is effectively still in force (and likely would even if blond and blonde were not pronounced identically), and blonde should only be used as a noun.
That said, I'm puzzled by the tendency in Wikipedia to analyse (what looks like) noun adjuncts as adjectives. Is there a general syntactic test available? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If it can't be modified by an adverb, it's probably an attributive noun: *very women warriors, *more women warriors (i.e. [more women] warriors, not more [women warriors]), etc. And they have to be truly ungrammatical, not just difficult to understand; contrast those examples with the true adjective female. It's hard to understand what very female warriors and [more female] warriors might mean, since "female" is usually interpreted as something binary rather than gradated, but they're still grammatical. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that proves my point. I can't come up with any examples right now, but I definitely seem to remember cases where bog-standard nouns (like woman) were (suggested to be) analysed as adjectives (on Wiktionary or Wikipedia outside article space) just because they can be used attributively, as I recall great confusion on my part about this, and the fact that Romanophile even considered this analysis in this case does seem to support my observation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I can think of a different test in this case, namely whether the word can be used predicatively: This warrior is female vs. *This warrior is woman. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And shouldn't the question have been "Are women an adjective?" SemperBlotto (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. You'd say "is babies a word?", not "are babies a word?", unless you were very confused about the nature of things... Equinox 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

one's, someone's, somebody'sEdit

Shouldn't these be determiners, rather than pronouns or adjectives? Equinox 14:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but: Why? They're pronouns followed by a particle or case ending (whatever your definition is). How does that make them anything else than pronouns? Are man's or people's adjectives then? Kolmiel (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't any possessive a determiner?
What do dictionaries that have such terms call them?
If some dictionaries call them determiners and some call them pronouns or adjectives, then we might want to have both. I doubt that we can claim consistency as one of Wiktionary's strong points. DCDuring TALK 21:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do we even have these entries, if we agreed to disallow words suffixed with the possessive -'s? —CodeCat 00:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think one's is very similar in usage to possessive determiners of the kind his, her, its, so it might be worth of an exception. I don't know. But I do agree concerning somebody's and someone's; they don't seem be special at all. Kolmiel (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think these were considered special exceptions.
Collins COBUILD includes one's and calls it a possessive determiner. Longmans DCE does not include it. OED probably includes it, but I do not have convenient access. Neither ComprehensiveGEL nor CambridgeGEL mention one's specifically, but do count the determinative use of all possessives as first among the structures involving possessives. One's does not readily take part in some of the other constructions.
I think we don't have separate entries for any genitives other than these. Accordingly, we might call these determiners because the determinative function is their main one. DCDuring TALK 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Possessives For what it's worth, I think we should have possessives. Just make something like {{en-possessive|dog}} which would produce something like (plural [[dogs']] possessive form of [[dog]] at dog's. These are all valid words. But barring that, one's and his are definitely not simple standard constructions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never quite understood why we have banned possessives, but not plurals (not that I'm suggesting removing plurals from Wiktionary; I think it's quite useful to keep them). Entries for them could be used to document such usages as Jesus' vs. Jesus's, or boss' vs. boss's, making entries for them potentially no less useful than those for plurals. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
But aren't possessives totally predictable (i.e. you add 's, but if it ends in s you have the option of merely adding the apostrophe)? Plurals are far less predictable: stadia, cacti, amakosi... Equinox 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Almost always (minus pronoun-based "his", "your", etc.) But since this isn't print, it's not like it hurts to have a more complete list of all words. And since they are so predictable, they could be made by a bot. We could even have them made by one with admin rights who can lock the pages in case you are afraid of them being some breeding ground for nonsense. Seems like an idea which is impractical in print (of course, quadrupling the size of a dictionary needlessly is a bad idea) but one that is completely doable digitally. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case we might do better to have an automatic software extension that creates them "on demand" (i.e. dynamically, without an actual database record) where the noun exists. Creating actual page entries for them in the database seems a bit silly. Equinox 16:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the reason we decided against allowing entries for possessives in 's is that the 's can be added not only to the noun that's doing the possessing; it can be added to literally any word that can be final in a noun phrase. Consider The King of Ireland's Son, where it's actually king, not Ireland, that's in the possessive (he's the son of the king, not the son of Ireland), or the boy I was talking to's mother (very common in speech if avoided in writing). Examples like these prove that 's is really a word (a clitic) in its own right, not just as case ending the genitive -s of German and the Scandinavian languages is. So it would just as much be a violation of rules against SOP constructions to have entries for possessive 's forms as it is to have entries for any word followed by the 's that's a contraction of is/has (The boy I was talking to's interested in chess; The boy I was talking to's played cello for three years). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the -s of Scandinavian behaves similar to the English clitic. —CodeCat 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The King of Ireland's son is "Kongen af Irlands søn" in Danish. Kolmiel (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a good way of looking at it, thanks Angr. Arguably, something similar could be done with plurals though. For example: We don't need two Star Treks...I'm not sure why they decided to reboot it, where the plural applies to the whole title, not just the second word. This could conceivably occur with any title, in which a whole phrase would be essentially pluralized (and could end in any part of speech). Not exactly the same thing, but nonetheless similar. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Star Trek" is not a good example, is it? This would seem to be a spaced compound word: star trek = a trek along the stars. So it would be entirely regular to pluralize the defining component "trek" in order to pluralize the whole compound. -- But if you take another title like "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" or whatever, then yes, there would be a certain similarity with what Angr mentioned. Kolmiel (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[Spanish] SimilaridadEdit

I found the entry to the word "Similaridad" in Spanish, which is an incorrect translation/calque of "similarity", even though is commonly used. I don't know how to edit this to show that the correct translation is "similitud" or "semejanza".

Can you find any Spanish language authorities that specifically discourage usage of similaridad? If so, a label proscribed or sometimes proscribed may be added to the entry as needed. — Kleio (t · c) 22:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not in the RAE. It could be marked as nonstandard. I think it would easily pass an RFV. DTLHS (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This word is proscribed by the Diccionario de dudas and Hacia una gramática del español del Río de la Plata, which says it is used in “some technical language”. Indeed, the Google Books hits show that it is most often technical and scientific-looking works that use it; for this reason, I feel it’s better to use proscribed rather than nonstandard. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to improve it a little. It is becoming less used as time goes by. It's not real Spanish, and it only came about because of translating mistakes from English. Most -ity words can be translated by changing -ity to -idad, and that's what was done, but it was incorrect. I don't think it's really nonstandard today, but it should be discouraged in favor of similitud. —Stephen (Talk) 05:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


Does this word mean anything else in the non-Mandarin 'lects? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tooironic: I've added to the entry (mostly based on 漢語方言大詞典 and 漢語大詞典). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


In the entry for "to abscond", none of the quotations/examples under either sense marked as "reflexive" show the word used reflexively. Should new, accurate examples be found, or should the "reflexive" tag be removed? Dylanvt (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


The definition of shitpost (as a verb) is essentially a "worthless" post on an Internet discussion board.

I think this is correct and encompasses all uses of the word. But I am wondering if this would be worth splitting into two definitions. Because there are two different types of "worthless post."

For example, there is the Reddit post on /r/GetMotivated or such, that posts some trite overused and un-nuanced quote as an image and somebody will respond with the one-word commend "Shitpost." and get a ton of upvotes. The connotation here is that a sincere effort was made but that effort was in fact shitty.

Then there is the concept of deliberately "shitposting" which means something like, "in good nature to make a snarky comment or to mildly troll with a very short comment."

Both of these uses of the word fall under the current definition of "worthless" but I would argue that they are actually different things, and different uses of the word, and perhaps deserve different definitions. Mbarbier (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the "deliberately shitposting" definition you mention (which I'm also vaguely familiar with, though mainly deriving it from context) actually similar to the original sense of "trolling (for newbies)", which was more like an insider joke in the group where you would (typically) pretend to be a newbie and post a stereotypical newbie question (or statement), and this way provoke real newbies? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Heh, wikdictionaty; where's the word 'submissive' in your extensive list of sub words?

It's not in the prefix list because it wasn't formed in English as "sub-" + "missive". Equinox 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't "do" niceEdit

Wondering if do covers this meaning of the word. I'm not sure I can find it there. More examples: I don't "do" mornings. (I'm not a morning person, I can't stand them, I don't function well in the morning etc.) He doesn't "do" nice. (It doesn't suit him to be nice. It's not his natural personality.) I don't "do" boyfriends.

Always requires special emphasis on the word "do". Airelivre (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The closest sense is #12 "To perform the tasks or actions associated with (something)", but that doesn't seem to cover the informality of this usage. I think it might deserve a separate sense. Equinox 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Airelivre -- the classic example of "do" in this meaning was "I don't do windows" (i.e. a maid saying that she doesn't clean windows as part of her duties), which was kind of a catchphrase or standing joke in the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semantically definition 12 is OK IMO. But one distinctive characteristic of the use of do under review is that do is followed by an adjective. As many adjectives could appear after do, it seems silly to add noun definitions for each of them. Thus we might need a separate definition or subsense, possibly under 12, with a substitutable definition that in effect nominalizes the following adjective. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Validity of speechify?Edit

The word "speechify" bothers me a bit.

1) While I can find references to it in nearly every online dictionary, it simply doesn't feel like a proper word. 2) I can find some references to the word in use dating to "The Coryston Family" a novel published in 1913 and written by Mary Augusta Ward. The references I can find use the words in the context of speech by characters, not by the author to literate. 3) The word feels to have the legitimacy of making something up like "Discombobulatify". Maybe something Doofinschmertz would name one of his devices. It's certainly something Sarah Palin would use.

I'm not an expert in the English language, and I have to admit I would very much like to better understand whether this word would classify as slang and if not, then why not.

Additionally, I'm extremely interested in better understanding the origin of the word. I don't know how best to research this. I would imagine the word rears its ugly head occasionally from people trying "to be cute" or from people lacking the ability to express their thoughts intelligently. Therefore, I suspect the word probably has references dating quite far back.

- Does the use of a word in a novel published in a "Reader's Digest" style magazine justify the legitimacy of the word? - Is this word slang? Should it be? - Is there a way to research the origin of this word better? - When was it first added to the dictionary? - Does the word have to be used in the context of politics or can it be a presentation by a 2nd grade teacher?

Thank you to anyone reading.

P.S. - I far better enjoyed the page for this work on Wiktionary than I did in the other dictionaries I checked. All dictionaries felt as though "they were winging it" but at least Wiktionary winged it with effort.

What exactly does a "proper word" feel like ? Usage (by real human beings) dictates whether Wiktionary considers a term a word, not dictionaries necessarily. Languages are always evolving. Slang is definitely part of that process. Leasnam (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
As usual our definitions don't do the term justice. It usually conveys a denigration of the person doing the speechifying and of the output of the speechifying. In contrast very few people would use speechifying to characterize Nelson Mandela's delivery of his 1964 three-hour long I Am Prepared to Die speech. Our definition would not exclude that possibility. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Would simply labelling it "pejorative or humorous" solve the problem, or is that a misuse of the way we usually use pejorative? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No. The word carries a connotation of pomposity and hot air- speaking for the purpose of making a speech, not for actually saying anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


The IPA seems really, really dubious. —suzukaze (tc) 05:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Arktos, bear, Ursa Major, North, ArcticEdit

Hi, there seem to be several problems here, and there are several places where the etymology might be relevant. Greek arktos of course primarily means "bear", and only indirectly is the name of the constellation, so the entry for "ἄρκτος" seems to me somewhat misleading. Arktos is thought by some linguists to be cognate with Latin Ursa, but not by others; those who think so may derive "arctic" from arktos, while others derive it from the Proto-Indo-European root *Rtko that appears in Sanskrit rksas, "North": in which case the Greek for bear comes from the constellation, and not the other way around. (Becker, Carl J. (2004). A Modern Theory of Language Evolution. iUniverse. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-0-595-32710-2) The matter does not appear to be settled. Since Wiktionary does not seem to use either citations or entry discussion pages, it's not obvious how to document anything subtle or controversial. Perhaps there are linguists here who could clarify the etymologies for some of these terms. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sanskrit word, too, means "bear". Compare *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Reposting my response from my talk page:
I do not see any uncertainty in this issue, after looking up the Sanskrit word you mention. As you say, the Greek word ἄρκτος(árktos) is cognate with Latin ursus and Sanskrit ऋक्ष(ṛkṣa), derived from Proto-Indo-European *h₂ŕ̥tḱos. But according to the entries on the Sanskrit and Latin words, the words only have the meaning "bear", not "north". The meaning "north" only arose in the Greek word, presumably because of the constellation. I guess Sanskrit must call the constellation Ursa Major something other than "bear". According to the Translations table in the entry for the noun north, the Sanskrit word for "north" is उत्तर(uttara) (though there's no entry on that word yet).
Eru·tuon 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi all, I think we need to make this page "Translingual" - this acronym is used in many Cyrillic-based languages. This is the first Translingual page I'd like to make. Can someone please make it Translingual for me? I'm not quite sure how to put things in a Translingual page, and how to break things between the Translingual entry and the separate language entries. LAter on, I will use it as a model.Borovi4ok (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Al dente -> no Italian entry?!Edit

I would like to suggest that someone create the Italian entry for the expression [al dente]. Only English it there! Besides this expression being used in several countries and with that same meaning, it should surely have an entry in Italian, its natural language.

Rapidim (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It's probably sum of parts in Italian. Note - the Italian Wiktionary does not have an entry for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • If it has the same meaning in reference to pasta, I'm not sure that could be considered SoP. At least, I certainly wouldn't know from "to the tooth" that it referred to a specific consistency of pasta. —CodeCat 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Likewise. Looking at the English definition, I wonder if in Italian it is a shortening of a longer phrase: "firm to the tooth" (or "firm to the bite" if dente also means "bite"). — Eru·tuon 06:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


I was listening to an interview with a British reporter (Paul Wood, BBC) and he said the following when talking about the Trump dossier which has been in the news lately:

"This may be a classic example of provokácija (провокация?) ... a provocation which Russian intelligence services have been doing all the way back to Czarist times."

I was not familiar with this word. First of all, did I find the right word? Secondly, has anyone heard this used in an English context before? - TheDaveRoss 21:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

See Google books:provokatsiya. Crom daba (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is the right word. The case that you citing appears to be a one-off foreignism. Hope this helps. Borovi4ok (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
provokatsiya seems well attested in English, adding it would be a good idea. Crom daba (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks guys. I will add it when I have a moment, assuming no one beats me to it. - TheDaveRoss 17:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've heard "provokatsiya" used ironically a few times in the English speaking news with the meaning "provocation" in reference to overuse of the word in the Russian media and blogs. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Is there a sense in the context of sociology we are missing here? Compare imagology. DTLHS (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Imagology is also known as image studies, so the term is derived from image in the sense of reputation or perception (compare sense 4). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


I have long often noticed that Dutch wereld sounds more like /ˈʋi.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋiː.rəlt/ as opposed to /ˈʋeːrəlt/, especially in casual speech. Anyone who is a native Dutch speaker, can you confirm this ? Leasnam (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Spectrograms or bust. Crom daba (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I’ve been told that /eː/ is [ɪ:] in Netherlands Dutch. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case at least it is, /ˈʋɪ:.rəlt/ or even /ˈʋɪ:.rɔlt/ is how I and others I know tend to pronounce this word (Hollandic). But I think it is as CodeCat said, only in this position (before an r); in lezen for example it doesn't do that, but in leren it does. — Kleio (t · c) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It's an allophone. Long mid-vowels are raised to near-close before /r/. —CodeCat 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Should the allophonic pronunciation be shown ? Leasnam (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It could, but it's not always the same for every speaker. —CodeCat 15:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool. What then would be the best way to show it ? Would we add a tag or other such (I don't quite remember ever seeing labels like this); or just place it beside the current pronunciation ? Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
On Dutch wiktionary this showing of allophonic pronunciations seems to have led to a lot of inconsistency, ambiguity, and in some cases inaccuracy. This does not concern the matter discussed hereabove so much as the pronunciation of g, ch, r, as well as the diphthongization/monophthongization of ee, oo, eu, ei, ij, eu, ou. Also in German, I've always been in favour of giving regional pronunciations only when they are phonemically different. This is already complicated enough. Everything beyond is likely to lead to a mess. But that's just MHO.Kolmiel (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Like clockwork I must point out that there is no non-regional pronunciation of German. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true, of course. I've never denied that. (Actually it's something I always tell my wife, who is from Hannover.) But I mean differences from the standard you find in Duden and other dictionaries, which is well established and recognized, if slightly imprecise.... let's not get into this. Kolmiel (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't mean to start a discussion. Just helps to say it now and then since most active foreigners here don't have the overview you and I have. I'm not opposed to listing both Dutch variants. Raising of eːr to ɪːr seems to be common everywhere and in all registers. People might wonder, we can help 'em. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Is there an actual distinction between the first two senses? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


rfv-pronunciation, especially for Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly wrong, if it's 5-5-5, then the pronunciation listed at (5) is "ng" (Cantonese) and not "wu" (Mandarin); but it is an alt form for crying slang, so it should be originating from Mandarin, and would need a gloss and qualifiers, since it doesn't make sense unless it's Mainlander slang, as it wouldn't be for those who don't use Mandarin. It should be entered as "Mandarin" instead of "Chinese", since it isn't really anything except Mandarin. Other dialects would need etymology and explanations on why this make sense -- 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

bear (adjective)Edit

Bear as an adjective seems dubious to me. It seems to be based on the analysis of bear market as an adjective-noun phrase, and not a compound written as two words. The OED appears to consider it a compound: it does not label bear n.¹ as n. and adj.. Bear as adjective seems to originate from the Random House Dictionary at Dictionary.com.

I don't have a great grammatical sense of this meaning of the word bear, but it sounds ungrammatical if I try to use it in a predicate: *The market is bear right now, *Events are turning the market bear. The entry acknowledges that the term is not comparable (*more bear, *bearer, ...), but that doesn't exclude it from being an adjective.

Anyone have any thoughts? — Eru·tuon 22:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think bearish is the adjective used to describe something akin to a bear market. Bear sounds strange to me as well. Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Put "often attributive" on the financial noun sense of bear instead? Equinox 04:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I like that idea Leasnam (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


talk:wikipedia seems to indicate that this should be created as an alternate form entry. The page is edit protected -- 04:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Created a barebones entry. — Eru·tuon 05:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


My mother (Jewish, born mid-century, lived in New York City) calls the use of an immersion blender "to /ʒʊʒ/" (and the blender a "/ʒʊʒ/-er"). I always thought that was her idiosyncrasy until today, when I heard someone else (also Jewish, born mid-'90s, lived in Montreal), whom I'll call X, use "/ʒʊʒ/" for the action of stirring a pot. We got into a brief discussion about /ʒʊʒ/, and someone else wondered whether it's a Jewish (perhaps Hebrew- or Yiddish-influenced) word, to which X replied that she'd once heard a non-Jewish Briton use it with the same meaning. While of course it's onomatopoeic and could appear in individuals' lexicons completely independently, I wonder whether there's more to it than that. Anyone know (or have any ideas)?​—msh210 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Could it be related to zhuzh? — Ungoliant (falai) 11:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Possible (though I guess unlikely for the North Americans), and thanks for the link. But it seems very unlikely to be zhuzh ("To tweak, finesse or improve (something); to make more appealing or exciting. Usually with up"), as it's used with such a specific meaning (blending/stirring food).​—msh210 (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I've heard Americans use zhuzh/zhoosh in the sense of "spice up, make fancy" too, although it's possible I've only heard it from gay Americans, who probably got it from Polari. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A possibility: The Brit said zhuzh and X thought he/she was saying X's /ʒʊʒ/.​—msh210 (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would connect it to Russian жужжа́ть(žužžátʹ, to buzz, hum), through Yiddish, referring to the sound of the blender. In Yiddish, there seem to have been several variants of this word, including זשוזשן(zhuzhn). --WikiTiki89 16:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! זשוזשן itself gets no hits on bgc (or indeed Google's Web search), and I don't know enough Yiddish to be able to conjugate it for searching for forms. Why do you say it exists?​—msh210 (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@msh210: I guess the spelling זשוזשען(zhuzhen) is more common, which gets a good amount of hits. Anyway, I'd think this word would be much more common in the spoken language than the written language. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


I recently tried to get w:galvonic corrosion deleted on Wikipedia as an implausible redirect. However, so many examples of this have now been shown to me (including books, universities, government departments, and believe it or not, the proceedings of an international congress on corrosion) that I am starting to believe that not only is it plausible but it might actually be a proper word. Any thoughts? SpinningSpark 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I would still call it a (common) misspelling of galvanic. DTLHS (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

phonematize (phonematization)Edit

Could this word mean something along the lines of "to make out, to draw out the phonematic system of a language; to analyse which phones should be counted as phonemes in a given language"? --Barytonesis (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It could. I see exactly three uses of "phonematize" on Google books, so it's very rare. DTLHS (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The usual word is phonemicize; likewise the adjective is usually phonemic, not phonematic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Is this term also used outside of zoology, and does it refer to a computer mouse too? —CodeCat 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Judging by w:bg:Мишка_(хардуер), yes. Crom daba (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

連れきたる, 連れ来たるEdit

These are defined as alternative spellings of each other, while also having a definition. —CodeCat 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable in Buddhism could make some improvements to this entry I just made. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


The first point in the usage notes says "Usually pronounced letter by letter, not as rip." However, in sentences like "I've got two exams on the same day, RIP", it's often pronounced as rip. I think there should another sense as well. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a distinct slang sense that is pronounced /ɹɪp/. In fact, I just added that to my "words to add" list yesterday. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I can also attest to this. —suzukaze (tc) 23:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As can I. —JohnC5 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the responses here, we only have representation from North America. Is this used outside of North America by any chance? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A wife?! Huge problem with the Wiktionary definition of 'whore'.Edit

Noun change:

The problem with these tertiary definitions of 'whore' is that they confuse what a 'whoremonger' is. In the Bible, a 'whore'/'harlot' (Wiktionary agrees a harlot is a female prostitute) appears to be a female prostitute, unless about certain cities. The final definition of the noun 'whore' on Wiktionary is very off, a 'mistress or WIFE'?! Why would someone's wife necessarily be a whore? The quote from Shakespeare might be about a mistress, I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but it makes no sense to think all wives are whores. A whoremonger is one who has sex with prostitutes, female physical whores. The wiktionary entry about 'whoremonger' is basically right, though it is not just a British term, but is very much also American: (Britain, vulgar) A frequent customer of whores. Notice the word 'customer'. That implies 'whores' are 'prostitutes'; a 'prostitute'- a female who has sex with males for money or similar compensation. A pity whore, loot whore, an attention whore, etc isn't really a whore. The reason for the word 'whore' in those terms is that they are like prostitutes with many sources of pity, loot, and attention. For the same reason, a sand dollar isn't a dollar/currency, it's a sea urchin/sea creature. A sea monkey isn't a monkey/primate, it's a shrimp/crustacean. A dust bunny isn't a bunny/rabbit, it's dust.

Verb change:

I believe the verb 'whore' should be modified to include to have sex outside of marriage (to fornicate or to commit adultery). The verb isn't just about sex with a prostitute, similar to how 'the verb' is in Hebrew and Greek in the Bible. Evidence is seen in Webster's 1828, and 1913 dictionary. In Webster's 1913 dictionary are the words for the verb 'whore': 1. To have unlawful sexual intercourse; to practice lewdness.

Similar words: Whoreson/Hurensohn

I suggest 'whoreson' is possibly from a verb, 'whore'/'hore'/'horen' (see horcop/whoreson in Middle English), to commit fornication/adultery. The verb would then be used as an adjective. Why do I think this is the case? 'Whore' traditionally meant 'prostitute', and in the Bible 'whore'/'harlot' means female prostitute (the entry 'harlot' here agrees, a harlot is a 'female prostitute'), and the entry itself here says literally 'son of a prostitute'. However, a bastard is not necessarily a son of a prostitute, but rather a female who had sex outside of marriage. This etymology of 'whoreson' isn't necessarily right, but it makes more sense to believe 'whore' in this case came from a verb, not from the noun 'whore'. It is also possible that horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hore' meaning 'moral foulness'/'corruption'/'sin'. This is actually the suggestion here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=id&id=MED21181 . It is also possible horcop/whoreson came from the noun 'hor' meaning adultery/fornication. In German, Hurensohn is a synonym for whoreson in English, and 'huren' sounds quite similar to the Middle English verb 'horen' which means to commit adultery/fornication.

The only fully satisfactory way to check the validity of definitions is to examine citations. In the case of the "wife or mistress" sense (or senses) of whore, we have to try to find usages in older English texts as the definition is considered obsolete. The citation from Shakespeare does not unambiguously support that definition, IMO. It would also be useful to consult entries in older dictionaries, such as whore in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 and the OED. I have not yet found a dictionary that includes such a definition, though I have yet to consult the OED. DCDuring TALK 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
OED doesn't have it either, and I can't find it anywhere else. I've removed the definition, and moved the citation to the definition prostitute. Someone's wife can be aimed at when referring to someone's whore, but then it is simply a dysphemism meant to insult. Many vulgarities can be used as dysphemisms of other words, but those uses rarely deserve a mention, just like euphemistic uses of certain words rarely merit inclusion. — Kleio (t · c) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

of fame, of shameEdit

Are these actually productive adjectives? Where would they be used other than hall of fame / hall of shame? DTLHS (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's walk of shame and walk of fame, too, but otherwise I don't know any examples either. I don't see why those two would merit entries though, seems SOP to me (it's just of + [shame/fame]). — Kleio (t · c) 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean there are more of them like "wall of fame/shame". But I think this can be handled at [[fame]] and [[shame]] themselves. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


We have discussed with User:TAKASUGI Shinji some extended meanings of the Korean 어떻게 (eotteoke, “how”) at User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게. In my opinion, the term covers more than just "how" (and "what", added later) in various formal situations. Dictionaries don't cover these senses but real life examples show the term is used broadly. I'd like them to be added. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:Atitarev#어떻게:

I’m afraid I don’t understand your edit well. Could you explain it? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. My edit was inspired by a recent video I watched where 어떻게 was used to mean various questions. I can't find the exact moment now. Since you know Korean better than me, do you know cases where 어떻게 is used in the polite speech to replace various question words, also "what". If you strongly disagree, feel free to revert my edit. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just added an expression, which is probably what you learned. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji Thanks. The example from my Chinese-Korean video was 송호 씨는 가족이 어떻게 되요? (how many or how is made up??) [8] Other examples from the web where 어떻게 has different meanings: 이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?, 아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
They are all the same. 어떻게 되다 means “what is …?” or “what about …?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji I disagree. They seem like expanded meanings of 어떻게. In "이 컴퓨터는 가격이 어떻게 되지요?" it's "how much". 어떻게 = 얼마나. In "아버님은 연세가 어떻게 되세요?" it's "how old". "연세가 어떻게" = "몇살". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
어떻게 되다 is a set phrase. You can’t use other verbs. “연세가 어떻게 되세요?” is “what is his age?” — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@TAKASUGI Shinji (Moved the topic) Yes, it seems that these meanings are used with the verb 되다 (doeda). How should we handle this, add a new entry for 어떻게 되다 (eotteoke doeda), expand 어떻게 (eotteoke) or 되다 (doeda)? I think it can and should still be handled by the Wiktionary. @Wyang, KoreanQuoter, Eirikr - are you intersted in this topic? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I quite like the format at the moment - having a separate sense (어떻게 되다) for that. I'm not sure it on its own would merit an entry. We can redirect it to 어떻게. Wyang (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)