WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet
Find a definition : 
Home

definition of the word Wiktionary:Tea_room

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Wiktionary:Tea room - Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Tea room

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search
Wikimedia Commons logo Start a new discussion

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.

Archives

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


{{rft}}s

autogenic
birthday present
baggy
baggie
decommission
accountable officer
bridezilla
alienans
despondence
somesuch
discobolus
pray tell
carpetbagger
clumsy
dryth
orientation
orient
de la
yardstick
whatsay
web
for all
catacomb
hinterland
pull a Homer
punter
links
said
if pigs had wings
Heinz 57
garner
ramen
feckless
paradox
caliber
police
mails
month of
spare
trivia
update
abiogenic
give me
hot dog
uncountable noun
stoutness
V-1
fiscal
garage
ur-


Contents

From this article, I believe we are missing a sense at calculus. I'll fill it in tomorrow if nobody else does. Nadando 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Added what I think the article means (via the OED). SemperBlotto 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the phrase "pour féliciter" or its initialism "PF" used on New Year's greeting cards in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia or other English speaking countries? Or is it at least used in speech?

The entry pour féliciter has the phrase as a term used in English, while the Czech Wikipedia tells me the phrase is used only in Czech; that's why the question. --Dan Polansky 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's used in English. I've never seen it in Britain. Ƿidsiþ 10:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never seen it in English but I've been speaking English for 41 years and in the book I'm reading I've seen at least three other words that I've also never seen before. So me not having seeing it is not a perfect metric. Try Google Books or looking in other dictionaries. — hippietrail 11:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for that particular kind of gambling machine, found in seaside arcades, that has a moving shelf that pushes coins forward? The player drops coins in at the top and attempts to create a sufficiently large heap to cause more coins to drop out at the bottom. I've heard coin pusher and penny pusher, but they aren't in Google Books. (Perhaps nobody has written books about these arcades?! Hard to believe.) Equinox 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty in Google images. "penny pusher".
in the trade, simply "pusher". Variants are "quarter pusher" etc. Also "slider", and (e.g.) "penny falls". Robert Ullmann 13:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a sanity check that there is no more common terms for this fairly common French term than the rather technical run-off-roadway accident. It is NOT a roadside accident, which is much more broader in meaning (cf. a sortie de route stops being one when barrel rolls begin). Circeus 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is a good word for this in English (I've actually never heard "run-off-roadway accident"). Normally in English you would word this differently, eg French J'ai fait une sortie de route = English I came off the road. Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • As I said, the term is very technical (it's found primarily in e.g. road safety and pavement research). The w:OQLF gave "ram-off roadway accident", which lead to this term. It is a useful term to quantify different type of accidents, much like how CFIT might sound ridiculously euphemistic while remaining a relevant term to aviation specialists. You hear about sorties de route a lot in Quebec during winter storms. Circeus 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But sortie de route isn't technical (or at least, it's used a lot in common speech as well – 7.5 million g-hits, compared to fewer than 1500 for "run-off-roadway accident"). I would say it's best translated using some sort of periphrasis in English – we would say I came off the road or even my car came off the road rather than using a noun to describe the accident. Ƿidsiþ 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this usually capitalized in all senses? --EncycloPetey 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently mostly yes when used a noun, but mostly not when used as an adj., derived terms mostly not, per MWOnline. It seemed that way from a quick look at books, too. Their reputation for having an alphabet but no literature is possibly undeserved. Apparently they wrote on a kind of material that lasted not very long compared to parchment and papyrus. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The word is slated to be WOTD on the 16th of this month. It could use cleanup for that. --EncycloPetey 02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering making entries for some common mnemonic phrases such as every good boy deserves favour, and Richard of York gained battle in vain etc. But then I thought ..."Do we really need these?". Opinions please? -- ALGRIF talk 13:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but the mnemonic you’re thinking of is Richard of York gave battle in vain.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
and the derived: Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly (for 10 silver or 5 gold) ... Robert Ullmann 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps an appendix listing the really common ones? Equinox 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose we need them, but IMO they add some interest and value and there should be no problem with adding them (assuming they are attestable, etc.). -- Visviva 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Visviva. It seems to me that at least some of them are set phrases, certainly more than sum of parts, and generally meaningful phrases which should be citable. Also, I think that the translations sections would be particularly interesting. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we missing a noun sense - some sort of leaf that is chewed by people in North Africa and the Middle East? SemperBlotto 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean khat. It's from Arabic قات, so there are lots of alternative spellings depending on the transliteration. I don't know if chat is one of them, probably though. Nadando 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Is there any way to track the edits on a particular word. I continue to post a logical, researched and widely accepted etymology for "abet" and it continues to be edited out. Thanks. CraigSalvay

Usually you'd just add the page to your watchlist (which happens automatically when you edit it), and monitor that. If you dispute the currently given etymology, you could use the rfv-etymology template to set up a discussion for it. Equinox 03:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain where I get more complete instructions about editing and how to present source material? I have read the "Help" section of wikipedia.org. and am unable to find a comprehensive roadmap to the process by which words are edited and sources are given. Thank you CraigSalvay

Also, Equinox, how do I message you about abet? I would be grateful to learn the ropes on this word. Thank you.

I have suggested an alternative etymology and asked that someone please tell me what criteria an entry must meet in order to be included. It appears that those comments have been edited out of this discussion altogether. So, again, I submit an alternative etymology for ABET and ask that someone (perhaps User:Equinox) explain what additional information I need to adduce in order for the inclusion of my research into this word. CraigSalvay 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Alternative etymology without loss of meaning from Semitic languages to present-day English. From Hebrew עבד (Ahbed) “to work” “to serve.” Biblical Aramaic, Aramaic and Syriac all use the word in the sense of either “slave” or “servant.” Hence, the meaning of abet as “assist [in the manner of servant].” Compare Aramaic and Syriac avdah (slave, servant) and Arabic ’abada (he served, worshipped, obeyed) and Ethiopian ’abbata, meaning "he imposed forced labor" and Akkadian abdu, meaning "slave." NOTE: Modern Ethiopian still uses the word “abet” as a response to one’s being hailed by name, in the sense of, “At your service.”

The problem is that, while your research is entertaining — it's always cool when unrelated languages happen to have words that sound similar and have similar meanings — see http://web.archive.org/web/20070227031854/http://members.aol.com/yahyam/coincidence.html for a bunch of examples — it is known that abet doesn't come from these Semitic roots, so no amount of information adduction will make this research relevant to [[abet#Etymology]]. —RuakhTALK 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: this was originally a separate section, below. I've brought it up here for clarity. —RuakhTALK 16:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Craigsalvay has an alternate etymology for abet that has been reverted a few times due to lack of sources. I suggested that he put it up for discussion instead of repeatedly adding the same text. He sent me his ety suggestions by e-mail, so I am reproducing them here where they can be discussed. (Everything after this paragraph is from Craig. I hope e-mail hasn't trashed any important non-standard characters.) Could somebody with specific knowledge of abet take a look at this, so we can either integrate it into the entry or make a permanent, properly evidenced decision to reject it? Equinox 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology that appears in the "old" sources, OED and Century Dictionary, for example, appear to derive from the similarity in sound between ABET and the words (ME. abetten", OF. "abetter" and "abeter" [bait, as a bear], Icel. "beita" [bait, cause to bite]. While the Europeans who conjured these etymologies surely had good intentions, they largely overlooked Semitic language word origins; perhaps, they were unfamiliar with the languages - Ancient Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian, Syriac, Aramaic, Hittite - or perhaps their Euro-centric view did not permit them to imagine that some words have been in continuous use, with their meanings virtually unchanged, for more than 5,000 years. One such word is ABET. I have provided the following information about the Semitic language origins of the word, namely: Alternative etymology without loss of meaning from Semitic languages to present-day English. From Hebrew עבד (Ahbed) "to work" "to serve." Biblical Aramaic, Aramaic and Syriac all use the word in the sense of either "slave" or "servant." Hence, the meaning of abet as "assist [in the manner of servant]." Compare Aramaic and Syriac avdah (slave, servant) and Arabic abada (he served, worshipped, obeyed) and Ethiopian abbata, meaning "he imposed forced labor" and Akkadian abdu, meaning "slave." NOTE: Modern Ethiopian still uses the word "abet" as a response to one's being hailed by name, in the sense of, "At your service."

You indicated that there needs to be additional information about the source of this information. Can you tell me how (in what format) I enter that source information? My point of departure for my etymology was a book by Ernest Klein, "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of Hebrew Language for Readers of English," MacMillan Publishing Company (NYC), 1987, at page 461.

—This comment was unsigned.

Hebrew עֶבֶד (`ebhedh, éved), slave) does exist, but Craig's conspiracy theory has no basis: there are plenty of words with accepted Semitic etymologies. I see no reason to diverge from accepted scholarship about this word. —RuakhTALK 23:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A quick glance at the OED suggests that his etymology is probably wrong. Their earliest citation for the word (the etymology of which agrees with our current text) is 1380. Considering that there was significant contact between Old French and English at that point in time, the etymology is perfectly reasonable. Additionally, the citation shows a meaning close to what would be expected from the Old French. The alternative etymology is that much less likely as the original meaning was something like "bait, hound on". Further, if I have my history right, Semitic influence in English would have been very sparse in the 1300s. Besides that, for a borrowed word like that to have no semantic shift at all for such a period of time would be highly unlikely. That all points to the alternative suggestion as being a wrong assumption. —Leftmostcat 00:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, I find the expression the Europeans who conjured these etymologies outrageous and the theory aptly described as conspiracy - dismissible. I disprove adding such kind of original research no less than I disprove the theory about the Korean origin of cub. I really think that we should adapt some rule in accordance with the one in Wikipedia about original research. Bogorm 16:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
First to the conspiracy theory. Repeated review of the OED shows that its compilation, while masterful, based its etymologies only on predecessor words that appeared in writings that were submitted and classified in the famous "Scriptorium." However, there was little or no inquiry into sources for the English words that pre-dated Latin, Greek and middle and high Teutonic languages. Notable exceptions to this practice of compilation by the editors of the OED were those words appearing in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) which were preserved in that book and continuously used by their reference in biblical exposition; for example, there remains the word Behemoth cited as coming directly from the Hebrew, for which no intermediate Latin or Greek citation is given.
Leftmostcat says his history suggests "Semitic influence in English would have been very sparse in the 1300s [AD]." This assertion is not correct; Phoenician traders (from the Levant, modern-day Lebanon/Syria, have been traveling the Mediterranean for more than 3,000 years; for example, the traditional year given for the founding of Cadiz, Spain (originally Gehdehr) by the Phoenicians is 1104 BC. Further, the concept of indentured servant and slave were both prevalent in Phoenician society and were expressed by a word similar to Ehvehd in Phoenician. Also, of great interest to me in recent research of the word "abet" has been my correspondence with a professor in Ethiopia who, in her last email, told me that Modern Ethiopian still uses the word 'abada' as a response to one's being hailed by name, and that response is understood to mean 'At your service'. craigsalvay 04:36 UTC
I'm not disputing the use of Semitic languages, but the amount of contact they'd have had with English. I very much doubt that English was in common use by Mediterranean traders before 1340. It wasn't until a number of years later that English even regained status as a language of government in England. From around the Norman invasion of 1066, Old French was the prestige language for a few hundred years. Additionally, as Widsith mentions below and as I mentioned above, the original use of the word abet was quite different in meaning. It is through semantic shift, another of the arguments for the unlikelihood of your claim, that it comes to have any connotations of servitude at all. Regardless of whether the OED is eurocentric or not, they still have a much more solid case in this instance. —Leftmostcat 08:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The modern meaning of abet might be "assist (in the manner of a servant)" (although personally I dispute that), but that is certainly not what the word meant originally. The root is Old French beter (bait, hound on) and its original meaning in English was ‘encourage, urge on’, as in Fleming's “The Scottish queene did not onelie advise them, but also direct, comfort, and abbet them, with persuasion, counsell, promise of reward, and earnest obtestation.” The idea that abet means just "help" or "assist" is fairly modern and has probably come about from the usual legal collocation of "aiding and abetting", which always used to mean "helping and inciting". Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
First, the interpretation of the word "abett" in Fleming's work does not seem inconsistent with the definition "serve;" I posit that the word "abet" originally meant and still broadly means "serve" or "assist." Further, English law has often uses tautology to express an all-encompassing concept. You cite, "aiding and abetting." You might also cite, "rest, residue, and remainder." In the latter, all the words generally mean that which is left from a set. So the same, "aid and abet" is likely a tautology.

QUESTION: As a new user of Wiktionary, what is sufficient proof in order to add a possible etymology to Wiktionary such as the one I have proposed for abet? craigsalvay 04:51 01 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Should this be surrebuttal? Or is that a synonym? Nadando 02:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Restoring section blanked by Craigsalvay. -- Visviva 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a (less-præferred) synonym, it seems.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi want to know what will be the common name for View,Configure and Backup ??

Specifically the pronominal senses. Hamaryns rfc'd this awhile back (rightly so, in my opinion), but it's a bit tricky. My first instinct was to simply merge the senses and translations and be done with it, as English does not distinguish between the nominative and accusative case, and the distinction seems purely morphological for other languages, not worth splitting up translation sections. However, I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps there are two meaningful senses (which, btw, are not correctly distinguished by the defs nor by the example sentences). The first sense is simply an indefinite referential pronoun: "I want the green one". It can (but doesn't have to) take determiners. The other is.....a little trickier: "One should always remember to bring an umbrella when rain is possible". It can't take determiners, and is far more prevalent as the subject, but it can be the object (especially if the subject is also "one"). It's often used in moral platitudes. Additionally, there are other problems with the entry (e.g. I'm troubled by the fourth adjectival sense and its example sentence). Can someone with more sophisticated grammar skills look at this please? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The second sense you describe "One should always remember..." is sometimes called the impersonal pronoun, and sometimes called "fourth person". Something like it exists in Spanish as well. Yes, there are many, many problems with the entry for one, in part because it's an extremely complicated little word. I'll take a look, but I expect it will take the efforts of half a dozen of our best contributors here, and even then it may fall short. --EncycloPetey 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Annoyingly, the term impersonal pronoun is used both in reference to this sense of one/you (and FL counterparts), and in reference to expletive uses of it (ditto). The term indefinite personal pronoun, which seems to be used only in reference to this sense of one/you (and FL counterparts), might be better. —RuakhTALK 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at this, but I lack confidence in my skills in this matter. I would greatly appreciate a review by someone more skilled than I. In any case, I feel that the example sentences are properly sorted, even if the definitions are.....wanting. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if maybe it should be split into two POS sections? Only sense #1 has a plural ("The big ones look good", "I want the green ones"), and only sense #2 has a reflexive (oneself). Also, while one's can have either sense, only for sense #2 does it seem to be a possessive pronoun like my etc.; for sense #1 it looks like normal one + 's. —RuakhTALK 14:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have this nice quote here, but I am unsure under which definition to put it. Seems to me it would justify an ‘Adjective’ section:

    • 2003, Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides, Logics of Conversation, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 65058 5, p. 46
      [Discourse Representation Theory] is a paradigm example of a dynamic semantic theory, […]

Can somebody make sure this finds its suitable place? Cheers! H. (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... paradigmatic might be better suited for the sentence, but nevertheless it seems just like a noun being used attributively. No drama. Pingku 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As Pingku says, this is an example of attributive use of a noun. It does not require an additional part of speech section, since this is a regular feature of English grammar. Witness: "computer table", "printer paper", "economics class", "refrigerator magnet", "soccer game", "train ticket", etc. Practically any English noun can be used atributively in front of some other noun to create a compound expression, so this does not justify an Adjecitve section. --EncycloPetey 18:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What I want to say is:

The main quality of every human being is to be a human being. The whole sentence is ment as a statement for tolerance in the sense that every human being is first of all a human being.

I browsed some dictionaries and thesaurus to find the appropriate words for the meaning of this sentence but am not quiet sure how good they match. Is it:

- main - primary - first - or any other word? The meaning should be: the first and most important of different characteristics or qualities

- quality - characteristic - maybe nature? or any other word?

- human being or man?

How do you like the sentence?

Thank you for your help and feedback! Jack

Clearly this is a matter of taste and intent, but if I were to write such a sentence, I think it would run something like, "The fundamental essence of every human, is to simply be human." -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Atelaes for your answer! Although it sounds maybe too sophisticated for just a lot of people (I thought of writing this sentence in a public ad or so... Just an idea ;-) ) I like it in the use as something like a "quotation". But is "fundamental essence" not like saying a thing twice? I mean, is an essence not anyway fundamental because it's the essence of something? Or can there be several essences of one thing? I mean this as real questions. What do you think about "The essence of every human is to be human". How does the meaning change when you write "to simply be human" instead of "to be human" (my native language is german...)? I'm looking forward to your reply and/or other suggestions! -- Jack-72 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm.....I think you have a point. Essence is necessarily fundamental, so it is a bit redundant. "The essence" would probably get the same information across more concisely. As for "simply," I think I inserted it for metrical reasons more than anything. I suppose it does change the meaning of the sentence a bit, but I just feel like there should be more of a pause between the two "humans." -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think I got my sentence now. Be it with simple or without, I've not decided yet but it's not so important ;-). Thanks, Atelaes - Jack-72 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The "to be" makes it sound to me like the sentence is a moral lesson: you, O human being, should be a human being! In fact, you're saying that each human is a human being, so how about, instead of "is to (simply) be (a) human (being)", "is that he is (a) human (being)"?—msh210 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Entry says countable. True?—msh210 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The type style is both countable and uncountable. I'll add some citations. Michael Z. 2009-01-05 23:21 z
Surely the type is the proper noun Blackletter, whilst one can also say “there’s some blackletter [the text as a mass]”, “it’s written using blackletters [referring to the individual characters]”, &c (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Als Auslandsdeutscher ist mir der Begriff Zocken bzw. Zocker neu. Ich wuerde gerne die Wurzeln des Wortes kennen - und wie man es denn am besten auf Englisch uebersetzen koennte, denn die oberflaechliche Uebersetung (gamble, gambler) wird der eigentliochen Bedeutung nicht gerecht.
Danke fuer den Input.

for feedback please use <e-mail address redacted>

Thanks
RainerK
—This unsigned comment was added by 202.73.61.114 (talkcontribs) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Is dowse a synonym or alternative spelling? Is it transitive or intransitive or both? Wikipedia claims one can also throw a bucket of water over oneself, and that it is always with cold water. H. (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(to become blue presently ...)

Good new word. This is from a film review [2]:

«L'ultima frontiera della rivoluzione sessuale», ha commentato il quotidiano Die Tageszeitung sotto il titolo obamiano «Yes, we can».
"the ultimate frontier of the sexual revolution" commented the daily Die Tageszeitung under the Obamian title "Yes, we can." (my translation)

If it is good enough for Corriere della Sera to use in print today, it is good enough for me! Robert Ullmann 11:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that they're only calling it the latest frontier, not the ultimate one. I'll be happy to be wrong, though. :-)   (BTW, is "over 70" standard in Italian, or is the headline just using English for fun?) —RuakhTALK 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Judging from n.g.c., this won't technically meet CFI for another month or so -- the first cite I saw was from early March 08 -- but I don't think there's any room for reasonable doubt that it will pass (the papers aren't just going to suddenly stop using it, though it may acquire new meanings). :-) Seems that it is sometimes capitalized? -- Visviva 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, there are a lot of senses missing. Probably, the etymology needs to be split up (from unruly crowd to criminal organization is an extra step). H. (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The uses I can find don't seem to match the given definition, but I can't quite express the senses I'm finding, such as on b.g.c. --EncycloPetey 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading "Gaspar brought a curiously chased flask of myrrh, a royal embalming oil. " This from a text relating to yesterday (the holiday Epiphany). I cannot find any sense of this word that sheds meaning to this quote. Anyone? __meco 09:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Etymology 3, Verb, sense 3 under chase. An unfortunate casualty of our layout conventions? -- Visviva 10:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated! I missed that one. __meco 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here User:Drago spells Old High German sound k as ch. This is also the case with Deutsches Wörterbuch (vide kratzen < chrazzon), the greatest dictionary of the German language. However, Ordbog over det danske sprog shows a propensity towards k (krazzon here) as does Online Etymology Dictionary ("grate" in the Online Etymology Dictionary, Douglas Harper, 2001). I am perplexed by such a dissonance and would like to ask which orthography is to be præferred. Despite being able to speak fluently German, I am by no means conversant with Old High German, but strongly doubt that condoning a policy of laissez-faire and shunning unification of the spelling would be laudable. Bogorm 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That user's spellings of Old high German words were not always the best. The German wiktionary prefers k (see e.g. de:Kraft), as does Köbler, so I advocate k. Only the contrary preference of the Deutsches Wörterbuch gives me pause... — Beobach972 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kluge's Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache seems to prefer "k". --EncycloPetey 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While wading through the cognates of lind in Deutsches Wörterbuch, I noticed that the Old English word is spelt lyðe (Angelsachsisch ebenso lyðe = OE idem lyðe ) [3]. I skip these cognates usually, but this time I was surprised by the discrepancy and given that the entry's main contributor is User:Drago, I would like to request someone who is conversant with that language to check whether it is ð or þ. Bogorm 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Wiktionary:About Old English#Þ and Ð might be illuminating on this topic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The OED Online gives only <ð> and <th> spellings, but a number of its quotations have it with <þ>. —RuakhTALK 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The two letters are semantically identical. We use thorns here, but the Anglo-Saxons used both interchangeably, with no apparent rhyme or reason. Ƿidsiþ 15:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean?? I've heard it being used several times, but can't work out what it means. If anyone knows that would be helpful, I can add it in the ball article, where it's relevant. AC --Sunstar NW XP 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The action is an assertion of one's power to get out of a situation that has turned to one's disadvantage. From the point of view of others engaged in the game so brought to an end it might be seen as an act of selfishness. I'm not 100% sure it merits inclusion as a separate entry. Perhaps you can find a quotation to place at the appropriate figurative sense of ball (which might well be missing). DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think take one's ball and go home deserves an entry. It's one I hear often enough and which is highly idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at the verb section, there is a sentence that does not seem to belong to anywhere, I wasn't sure what to do with it. Thanks. --Panda10 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved + PoS corrections. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Defined as "The womb or vulva, or a symbol of it..." etc. I feel that I want to take out "womb", because although the Sanskrit word can have that meaning, I'm not sure it's ever used that way in English. But maybe someone else knows otherwise...? Ƿidsiþ 23:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it sure that this entry deserves to be considered (modern) English, given that it is not present in Webster 1913 and that in Deutsches Wörterbuch from the first half of the 19th century it is not even mentioned. If the word was obsolete in 1850 and has never been used after Chaucer, then it is probably Middle English. Would anyone check this, please. Bogorm 09:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Currently, the OED's last citation is from 1507, which is rather after the Middle English period. Ƿidsiþ 10:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

if a relationship is uninhibited, what exactly does this mean ? —This comment was unsigned.

Assuming a two-person relationship, Uninhibited with respect to:
  1. Relationship and behavior between the partners
OR
  1. Relationship and behavior between each partner and others.
I'd say you would want more information to make that kind of distinction. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New to this, I'm a carpenter who was looking up "dote" to find the spelling of doty, both of which mean rot or incipient decay in wood.

I found a spelling of doty here; http://www.answers.com/topic/doty-1 The US Forest Products Labs (a recognized industry authority) mentions the use of Dote, or Doze, in a pdf here; http://usasearch.gov/search?affiliate=fpl.fs.fed.us&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=dote

Sorry I don't know enough about the parts of speech, or whether this is too specific, to edit a dictionary, thanks and best luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.104.237 (talkcontribs) 04:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry could do with a review from another pair of eyes. I haven't really described this right - I mean, how people say this when they expect differential treatment for some reason, and they don't get it (I'm sure there's a word for this). There's tonnes of great potential citations around on the web, but my brain isn't up to adding citations or usage notes at the moment. --Jackofclubs 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Could equally be don't you know who I am?. I don't entirely like the definition given, because it's not directly an arrogant expression of one's importance, is it? They do literally mean to ask whether you are aware of their identity; the preferential treatment is just something to be deduced from that awareness. Equinox 16:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, of course - "don't..." is probably better. I guess it's a question of intonation, too. If I asked you just now "do you know who I am", then you would probably say, "yes, you are Jackofclubs, it says so on your profile" and not think too much about it, but if I said "don't you know who I am" then we can assume that I consider myself superior, and you stupid scum who should do as I wish. Also, we could add something like "if someone says this, he is deemed to have lost the moral argument" - ach, my brain isn't in the right state to express myself at the moment. --Jackofclubs 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Jackofclubs, do you not recognise me? Can you not see what is before your eyes? Dost thou not recognise the sum of parts? Pingku 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The question is as nothing: the rhetorical point is your implied stupidity in not knowing the answer. Pingku 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it not highly likely that this and all forms using it are actually not English but rather Middle English? Generally, a significant proportion of the English senses marked "archaic" and "obsolete" seem to be more conveniently treated as Middle English. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think yclept is occasionally found in Modern English. —Stephen 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is many of these forms, though not survivng to modern English, outlasted the M iddle English epriod by some way. As Stephen says, yclept and a couple of others are still sometimes used as deliberate archaisms. Ƿidsiþ 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually the only thing I dislike is showing the "y-" and other mostly Middle English forms on inflection lines, where they add clutter and no value to all but a tiny number of users. I agree that we need some way of referencing the Middle English forms in the English entry. To some extent, including the Middle English lemma in the etymology, even when its spelling is identical to the Modern English, would provide the required link. I'm sure there are cases like "yclept" and "ycumen" that might warrant a full Modern English entry. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think I understand you. Where else would they be if not the inflection line? They're words, after all.... Ƿidsiþ 20:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. They would have their own entries as inflected forms, with both English and Middle English language sections.
  2. They would also appear on the inflection line for the identically spelled Middle English form as well as any other appropriate Middle English spellings.
  3. The Middle English lemma would be in the Modern English etymology.
Thus any experienced user and most enwikt-newbie scholars of early modern English would readily find the inflected forms. The gain would be a less confusing, misleading, and antiquarian appearance of the inflection line for "ordinary" users, including especially language learners. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
See the newly-created lend a helping hand. You can see that the arch. 3rd-pers. sing. præs. act. ind. form and the rare past form are both clearly marked with the appropriate context tags; this is what we do wherever forms needing comment appear — why ought conjugation and inflexion lines be any different?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, right....well if this is what DCDuring meant, then I agree with him. Not that this is ME, but it certainly seems unnecessarily messy to me. Ƿidsiþ 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
(Returning to margin for examples’ sake):

Not that I think it’s messy, but I agree that the situation is less than ideal. Lendeth a helping hand should really go a the end of the conjugation (after the past forms), and ditto *lendest a helping hand; however, the way that {{en-verb}} is set up at præsent doesn’t really allow that. (I could write in the past forms’ parameter:

'''[[lent a helping hand]]''' ''or'' (''rare'') '''[[lended a helping hand]]''', ''archaic second-person singular simple present'' [[*]]'''lendest a helping hand''', ''archaic third-person singular simple present'' '''[[lendeth a helping hand]]'''

to give the conjugation line as:

lend a helping hand (third-person singular simple present lends a helping hand, present participle lending a helping hand, simple past and past participle lent a helping hand or (rare) lended a helping hand, archaic second-person singular simple present *lendest a helping hand, archaic third-person singular simple present lendeth a helping hand)

but that code would be very messy.) Ideally, we’d have named parameters such as arch2= and arch3= for these forms which, if not specified, would simply display nothing. Thoughts?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholly embrace this proposal, since the second person sg. pronoun thou should undoubtedly be included as should the archaic ending -eth for he/she/it. Bogorm 16:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to make a strong case for using {{infl}} for verbal idioms. I dread the appearance of even lend under this proposal (if it is indeed a proper proposal). OTOH, keeping ordinary users away to the greatest extent possible might reduce the need for patrolling and would certainly reduce the load on the servers. I'm sure that those who use our content for their own on-line dictionaries will not have any serious trouble stripping out what they don't need. I know also that language learners also need to be encouraged to use other on-line resources beside enwikt. So, by all means, we should have a template that facilitates placing more obscurantist content on the inflection line. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that today is Sarcasm Day, but in fact it's Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Don't feel bad; J. Edgar Hoover made the same mistake. —RuakhTALK 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Moi? DCDuring TALK 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
DCDuring, this is not an attempt at obscurantism; please try to suggest ways that this information (which is perhaps of more historical interest) can be clearly præsented without detracting from information which aids learners. E.g., would it be possible for the end of the conjugation line to feature a button — similar in function to rel-tables’ show/hide toggles (but instead with the text [more]/[less]) — by default set not to show the additional, more academic content, which could be clicked by users with an interest in these archaic and other forms?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
IMO this is one of many excellent uses for Usage notes -- in this case, to describe certain historical aspects of usage. (With a usage note, we could even, if we wished, note the specific historical periods in which a particular inflection was current.) -- Visviva 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree obsolete forms do not belong in an inflection line where a corresponding form is currently used. (In other words, if the word currently has no third-person present, then by all means list the obsolete form, marking it as such. But if it does, don't.)—msh210 17:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
True current and fairly recent (19th century? older?) alternative forms should appear on the inflection line.
  1. Visviva's suggestion of Usage notes covers more cases. We may need to have some more structure for Usage notes as we have more content that we place there.
  2. My original proposal stands: Put forms prevalent in Middle English under Middle English entries, referencing the Middle English in the English Etymology, even if the forms were used in the Early Modern English period. This is admittedly not 100% accurate, but offers practical advantages. I guess it is true of many Middle English forms that they survived into Early Modern.
It is rare, obsolete, and archaic forms that we would want to remove from the inflection line (not, I hasten to add, remove their entries nor exclude them altogether from the English lemma). I don't know whether something similar to the Middle English trick would work for any dialect forms. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Nota the quotation from 1852 in our entry for lendeth — from the mid-19th century — 482 years after the traditional date when Middle English became Early Modern English (circa 1470) and 202 years after Early Modern English became Modern English (circa 1650, according to Wikipedia).
One may quæstion the utility of specifying the arch. 3rd-pers. sing. præs. act. ind. form, seeing as it is formed so regularly (+(e)th); however, the same, of course, goes for both the non-arch. 3rd-pers. sing. præs. act. ind. form and especially the præsent participle (though not the past forms, which display irregularity with far greater frequency). This form is often misused (sometimes so much as to be used for all three persons and for both numbers, as well as sometimes being applied to tenses other than the præs. ind.), so it could be argued that we’re teaching more people something they didn’t know already by specifying the archaic third-person yaddy rather than the non-archaic third-person yadda (not, of course, that I’m advocating the absurdity of leaving out the current common form).
FWIW, I see specifying the arch. 2nd-pers. sing. præs. act. ind. form as more important than doing so for the 3rd, since while the latter is pretty much solely used for archaism nowadays, the former still has applications for shorthand translations of languages that still distinguish the singular and plural 2nd-person pronouns as well as English dialects that also maintain the distinction (such as the Yorkshire dialect); furthermore, the arch. 2nd-pers. sing. forms seem a lot more anomalous than the arch. 3rd-pers. sing. forms, often featuring markedly distinct indicative and subjunctive, and præsent and past forms (e.g., art, wast, wert, hast, hadst, shalt, shouldest, shouldst, thinkest[4], thoughtest[5], &c.).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. And let's not forget the added benefit, that we can show everyone exactly how smart we are. (By "everyone", I mean of course "us", since no one else would likely bother to use Wiktionary if this approach became standard.) :-P Hmm... perhaps part of my unease at this proposal is that I don't want people to know exactly how smart I am. Much, much better to keep them guessing. -- Visviva 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the the definition? I cannot find it.

Where did you encounter it? It looks like a first-person singular perfect active indicative verb form, but if it is then I don't recognize the base verb. It could also be a compound from ipse (himself), meaning something like "all himself". However, the -i ending would make it dative "wholly to himself", and impossible to determine the gender. --EncycloPetey 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's Latin; I suspect it might be English omni- + psi "all-psychic". It doesn't seem to meet our criteria for inclusion, though. —RuakhTALK 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

balkanise or Balkanise? Either? RJFJR 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

google books:intext:balkanise shows a clear preference for lowercase, especially among uses, but capitalized is not uncommon. google books:intext:balkanize (with a Z) is less clear, but still seems to prefer lowercase. —RuakhTALK 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As usual I'll chip in with Chambers' rendition: Bal'kanize or Bal'kanise, vt (also without cap) to reduce to the condition of the Balkan peninsula, which was divided in the late 19th and early 20th centuries into a number of mutually hostile territories. In any case it's pretty clear that we are talking about the Balkans, which are generally capitalised, so any lower-case variant is a sort of assimilation of the original upper-case one. Equinox 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder about the meaning of the word wave in this snippet from the Gnostic text "The Exegesis on the Soul": "It is therefore fitting to pray to the father and to call on him with all our soul - not externally with the lips, but with the spirit, which is inward, which came forth from the depth - sighing; repenting for the life we lived; confessing our sins; perceiving the empty deception we were in, and the empty zeal; weeping over how we were in darkness and in the wave; mourning for ourselves, that he might have pity on us; hating ourselves for how we are now. " __meco 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be suspicious of the translation. "In the wave" probably is a literal translation that should be better translated by "in the waves", "at sea", or "lost". DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, "lost at sea" is a metaphor which fits very well into the context. __meco 15:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was about to create the entry for sadi, but then there was a warning that the page was previously deleted. sadi is listed as an alternative spelling for sadhe. I was going to create an entry very similar to sade, another alternative spelling. I'm not sure if this is related, but Sadi with capital "S" redirects to sadhe. sadi is listed on the Association of British Scrabble Players website: http://www.absp.org.uk/words/4s.html Any reason why I should not create this entry? Disclaimer: I have no expertise on the Hebrew alphabet, but was hunting for anagrams for "said".  :*) --AZard 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The capital version Sadi is left over debris from the case conversion; it should have been left at lc; the lc (also a redirect) was subsequently deleted. I've deleted Sadi, you should go ahead and create sadi again as alt-spell of sahde. Robert Ullmann 11:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus on a good, comprehensive arrangement and wording of definitions. See also WT:RFC#nationality, Appendix:Dictionary notes/nationality. The discussion has gotten a bit long and bogged down, so I'm moving it here.

User:Chelentano has made rather ingenious use of the dictionary notes to prepare a sort of consensus ordering of definitions, to wit:

1) Membership of individual or organization in a particular state, by origin, birth, naturalization, ownership, allegiance, etc. See citizenship
2) Membership of individual in a particiular nation by origin or birth. See ethnicity
3) A people sharing a common origin, culture, language, etc.
4) Existence of a region or people as a distinct nation or state
5) An emotional attachment to one's nation; patriotism

Do folks have any further thoughts about how best to order and word these, for maximal clarity and minimal confusion? I'm inclined to think that the last two should at least be labeled {{dated}}. -- Visviva 04:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to myself :-) A good bit of the earlier discussion turned on the relationship between "nationality" and "citizenship". Turning to Black's, I note that it has definitions 3 and 1 above, followed by the "nationality of a ship" definition. Curiously, it defines #1 above solely in terms of the relationship between a citizen and a state, and also notes that this is sometimes used as a straightforward synonym for citizenship. Unlike some other dictionaries, Black's does not indicate that this term can be used for the relationship between a non-citizen national and a state. This seems odd, but I'm hardly in a position to argue with the dictionary of Anglo-American law. Would anyone with legal training care to weigh in? -- Visviva 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Black's or US law, so I'm speculating, but it seems to me that general US law would only be concerned with legally-defined nationality and citizenship. Since US justice is blind, ethnicity would be omitted, since any mention of it in legal proceedings might represent prejudice being applied. We could add a specific definition which is restricted to (US law).
This would be country-specific. In Canada, for example, various rights and equity laws recognize visible minorities, Aboriginal and First Nations status, minority languages, and multiculturalism. Michael Z. 2009-01-16 19:54 z
2) Membership of individual in a particiular nation by origin or birth. See ethnicity - Where did you guys get this? This is not a common definition in our Appendix? Besides, the word particiular spelled wrong. The #2 must be removed. I specifically oppose the 'ethnicity' part. "origin or birth" is not the same as ethnicity. Also the 'ethnicity' ranked #9 (the last place) in the Appendix table. We should not accommodate all 9, but pick the top 4 or 5, not more. Chelentano 04:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. State or quality of belonging to a nation by origin, birth, or naturalization; citizenship.
  2. Patriotism/nationalism
  3. Race or people; nation; ethnic group; traditions
  4. Relationship of property, holdings, etc., to a particular nation, or to its members: the nationality of a ship.
  5. National integrity/independence
This version does not involve unusual definitions and should be fair for everyone. -Chelentano 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually the "ethnicity" part of the definition is a very important part of the ambiguous meaning of "nationality" in English. It is exactly what is meant by "membership in a nation, ethnic, cultural group, etc." It is the ambiguity of meaning that "nationality" has between citizenship and ethnicity that sparked this discussion in the first place at the Taras Shevchenko page in Wikipedia--one of the adversaries was treating the word "nationality" as citizenship (so that the grumpy mustachioed one was Russian) while the other was treating the word "nationality" as ethnicity (so that he was Ukrainian). BOTH parts of the definition are important components of nationality. (Didn't Taras ever smile? I never saw a statue of him in Ukraine with a smile on his face--except his portait on the banknotes.) Just because no dictionary has divided up the "nationality" pie in this particular way does not mean that the pie isn't divided this way. Every dictionary has citizenship definitions and ethnicity definitions. 1 and 2 above are simply clarifications of the two meanings. (Taivo 05:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
Ah, if this is overflow from a 'pedia dispute, the tenor of discussion makes a bit more sense. We tend to be fairly low-key over here. -- Visviva 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It was copied verbatim from your posting on RFC. :-) -- Visviva 05:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my comment related to Chelentano's revision where he de-emphasizes the ethnicity component of the definition. It should not be de-emphasized, but citizenship and ethnicity should be equal partners. (Taivo 06:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
However, since Mzajac as an administrator has complete control over the editing of the entry at this time, he doesn't seem to be interested in participating in the discussion. It's unfortunate since he is one of the two original parties to the dispute over the relationship of citizenship and ethnicity to the definition of nationality. I will assume that he is just unable to get to a computer and spend time right now. (Taivo 06:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I took little break from this. There are lots of other editors who can edit the entry.
I don't think the average rank of each entry is the best way to determine the order. It's skewed because some dictionaries with restricted scope have only one sense, while others appear to have as many as seven or eight subsenses. Someone smarter than me may develop a more complex formula, but I'm not sure if the results would have any meaning at all except as the best possible facsimile of the average dictionary, since different dictionaries seem to order these senses by different criteria.
The table is also rather inexact in lumping together senses without reference to the full text of the original dictionary entries.
Better to use these dictionaries as a guide, identify factors that make individual senses more or less prominent for us, and order them logically on this basis. An order based on any single logical framework would better serve the reader than one mathematically derived from an inexact equation between several orders derived by unknown but obviously different frameworks. Michael Z. 2009-01-16 19:54 z
I think more definitions (than 5) are fine, as long as they are clearly and unambiguously distinguished, and make things more clear rather than less so. I could see a plausible case for at least 10... -- Visviva 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Subdivision of senses should be done cautiously. Typical use of the word depends on its inclusiveness (or “ambiguity” if you like, without a negative connotation). For example, although a particular nationality (=nation) may be delineated by its religion (e.g. Mennonites), a mention of nationality encompassing this nation is unlikely to be restricted to this definition only. Michael Z. 2009-01-16 19:54 z
I would prefer one of two solutions to the citizenship/ethnicity issue. 1) Divide the senses into two definitions as I did above with cross-references, or 2) Reword the first definition to "nation or state" rather than just "nation". That way we either 1) specify the different senses or 2) make the ambiguity between ethnicity and citizenship clear by using both terms "nation" and "state". Since the article is currently blocked, not everyone can edit this. (Taivo 01:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC))


  • Mr. Taivo, I have to strongly disagree. Citizenship and ethnicity should NOT be equal partners. Ethnicity definition is used rarely while Citizenship used most of the time. The citizenship definition has the highest ranking in the Appendix, while ethnicity is the lowest: number nine, so it would not be fair squeezing it into the second spot. If they are equal, I’d like to see some substation evidence. I agree with you, though, that Mr. Mzajac has complete control and basically blocks the process. The Admin status is abused here. --Chelentano 06:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Mr. Mzajac, you scraped the original definition the “Citizenship” while making a reference to a dictionary. Now when Citizenship is ranked number 1 and Ethnicity is number 9 among all dictionaries, you are trying to dismiss inconvenient truth: “less prominent for us”, “restricted scope”, “mathematically derived from an inexact equation”, “rather inexact in lumping together senses “, “nationality may be delineated by its religion“, “senses more or less prominent for us”, bla-bla-bla... You also dismiss examples of real-life usage/meaning of the word Nationality found on collaborative sites, Yahoo answers, and Wiktionary itself. Everything is dismissed: the respected dictionaries as well as real-world examples, and nothing substantial is offered as alternative. To your credit, you did attempt to be fair and invited me to the discussion, but still you are very biased. The ‘ethnicity’ is promoted from the 9th spot to the second, which is an obvious bias and lack of verifiable evidence. And the worst is that you abuse your admin status. --Chelentano 07:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well then, blah, blah, blah to you, too. Michael Z. 2009-01-17 16:23 z
Actually, Chelentano, the very origins of this dispute illustrate the inherent ambiguity between the citizenship and ethnicity definitions of "nationality". You wanted Taras Shevchenko's nationality to be Russian, Mzajac wanted his nationality to be Ukrainian. In fact, you were both correct and the problem had to be solved by writing his citizenship as Russian and his ethnicity as Ukrainian. That very conflict, in and of itself, should show that the first definition here (or the first two in my original solution) should give equal footing to the two notions of citizenship and ethnicity. My problem with the currently published solution (which Mzajac has complete control over as an admin) is that it does not give equal weight to the citizenship aspect. I have given my proposals for a solution in my previous post. (Taivo 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
Folks, I didn't protect the article, and I'm not the King of Wiktionary, so please stop implying that I'm responsible for all of your frustrations. I've put as much energy into discussing this entry as anyone. When there's a consensus for changes which improve the entry, I'm sure they can be made without trouble. Michael Z. 2009-01-17 16:23 z
No, you didn't protect the article, Stephen Brown did. Chelentano is off-base for implying that you are somehow abusing your power. I actually think that Brown acted inappropriately for blocking the article without any discussion of what I thought were improvements. His argument was basically, "That's not the way it was and you wrote more than one sentence on the Talk page so I'm not going to bother to read your input". (Taivo 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC))
  • Taivo, I agree with you that citizenship aspect is unfairly removed. Mr. Mzajac is ignoring here opinion we both expressed. I disagree however that citizenship and ethnicity should be given equal place in defining nationality. Ethnicity definition is mentioned only in 3 (BTW none are accessible online) out of 16 dictionaries, number 9 ranking overall. The same situation exists when we look into informal, collaborative online sources: no ethnicity definition. There is no equality. The meaning of nationality pretty much straight forward: in English it’s basically a membership in a state or nation, commonly defined as citizenship. If you believe opposite, please offer some evidence in support of your notion that citizenship and ethnicity should be given equal place defining nationality. I have not seen a sufficient evidence yet to dismiss 16 dictionaries. --Chelentano 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sometimes nationality is defined as ‘national character’, but never the way it’s offered by Mzajac: ‘National or ethnic character’. This phrase is another attempt to imply that nation and ethnicity are the same concept: they are not. --Chelentano 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Taivo, I did not say that Mr. Mzajac protected the article, did I? I did say though that he is abusing his admin status: he is the only one, who takes advantage of it being protected: he is making his edits, while ignoring other facts and opinions, and while keeping the article blocked from us. A reasonable admin should revert to the original definition and stop making his own edits until we come to agreement – that’s the way I see it. --Chelentano 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Mzajac is not abusing his admin status. He has made only minor edits to the definition as it existed before the block was placed on it, and those edits were actually the result of discussion (he moved an archaic definition to the bottom at my suggestion). He is not keeping the article blocked. The block was placed by Stephen Brown until the 26th. (Taivo 08:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
  • There are no ANY other online dictionary which use “ethnic” / ”ethnicity” to define "nationality" in any way, and if you find otherwise, please provide a link. For now, let’s not make stuff up artificially extending English. Chelentano 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
It's in the MW3, definition 5b ("a group of people ... forming one constituent element of a larger group (as a nation ): an ethnic group"), and OED Online definition 3b ("...a nation; an ethnic or racial group"); unfortunately both of these are accessible by subscription only. More to the point, many other dictionaries clearly refer to ethnic/racial groups without using that exact word; since this isn't Wikipedia, we are allowed to exercise a measure of common sense. ;-) -- Visviva 04:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Subscription only" is not good enough: I'd like to see it. I am not talking about Wikipedia, I am talking about Webster, Collins, Cambridge, Princenton, etc. If "other dictionaries refer to ethnic groups without using that exact word", why we are smarter then all these respected dictionaries? A common sense to me is when we use a real life meaning of this word in the English-speaking world rather in some Slavic country. Trying to bloat and overextend this word by dozens of useless "synonyms" is not a measure of common sense. :-)
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=nationality
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nationality
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationality
http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=nationality
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/nationality
http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/N0027800.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559423/Nationality.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=52976&dict=CALD
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/nationality.html
Chelentano 04:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • NOAD nationality
    • 1 b “distinctive national or ethnic character”
    • 2 “an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations”
  • CanOD nationality
    • 3 “an ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations”
  • M–W Online nationality
    • 5 b “an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation)”
 Michael Z. 2009-02-03 06:50 z
If you'd like to see it, feel free to fork over the subscription fee (quite reasonable for the MW3, somewhat less so for the OED). Or just waltz down to your nearest public library. Or -- here's a thought -- you could try engaging in this discussion as a collaborative effort, instead of a dogfight in which you try to show your own superiority. I'm done with this discussion. There is far too much actual work to be done on Wiktionary for any of us to be wasting our time on this juvenile crap. I have reverted your non-constructive edits to the entry. Ciao, -- Visviva 07:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "present active" but isn't that incomplete? Shouldn't it indicate either "present active infinitive" or "present active participle"? __meco 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's incorrect. It's the second-person singular future active indicative. I have corrected the entry. --EncycloPetey 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This entries needs etymological information but there are many versions of the origin of this word.

The Zingarelli Italian dictionary gives another (and not precise) etymology.

  • from Arab, probably similar to Late Latin cūfia, bonnet.

I check also in the Robert (French) dictionary and it gives Arab original names.

  • from Arab kaffiyah, Literary Arab kuffiyah.

Do anyone has other sources? I think there are enough info but I've not the level of English for explain all this. Thanks. --Pharamp 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. All sources seem to agree that it comes from Arabic كوفية, so I've added that information to the entry. The differences seem to be in where the Arabic word came from; the French Wikipedia article and the Zingarelli Italian dictionary seem to agree that it comes from a Western word (Latin cūfia, Italian cuffia, etc.), whereas the Italian Wiktionary says it comes from the name of the Iraqi city of Kufa. Of the three, only the French Wiktionary sounds very sure of itself; make of that what you will. —RuakhTALK 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"The player was trying to push on the student and he wouldn't have any part of it. He got what he deserved! Hook-um"

This is an excerpt from a Yahoo sports commentary chat -- does the last word mean anything?

By the way, could the page not found section also mention the Tea room, and offering a link perhaps, instead of only proffering the possibility of making a new entry?--219.69.81.128 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

maybe Hook 'em Horns or Hook 'em - both connected to the University of Texas at Austin. --Jackofclubs 11:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks so much! Sometimes such, err is Americanisms the right word?, can really throw me poor old middle European! Smiley--219.69.81.128 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this be added as an entry? Or as a separate sense under canteen or cup? --Panda10 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but it looks like it's a pretty specific thing, much more than I would have imagined from canteen + cup. So yeah, I'd go with creating it as a separate entry. -- Visviva 15:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought that dictionaries in general and Wiktionary in particular are about "words" not "things", as in "all words in all languages".
This seems like attributive use of the noun canteen. I would contrast this to dixie cup and loving cup. If distinctive thinginess is what counts, then we need to adjust cfi more along the lines of an encyclopedic dictionary, lest we include, say, computer monitor and magazine article. DCDuring TALK 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I follow... judging from the images -- which are all I have to go on at the moment -- this refers to a particular kind of funny-looking metal cup. How does that follow from the meaning of "canteen"? Is it a cup used at a canteen? Or made from an old canteen? Puzzledly, -- Visviva 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that the entry has been created, I am somewhat less clueless. Still, it's not a canteen, or part of a canteen; it's a cup that is located near and in a unique relationship to the canteen. Since I don't think of canteens as being associated with cups, I would have had no idea what someone writing about a "canteen cup" was referring to. (I probably would have assumed it was one of those little metal mugs that backpackers carry.) -- Visviva 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
A good dictionary is a book about the "words" for "things", even things that have more than one word in their names. As an example, some languages (polysynthetic) have an infinite number of single-word verbs, the vast majority of which correspond to a complex notion in English (such as "we gave those two dead animals to these beautiful young girl yesterday"), while other languages have rather few simple verbs at all (Chechen, for example, like to make verbs with a noun and the verb дан, to do), so that if only single words are entered, a Chechen dictionary would have few verbs in it. Abstract and concrete "things" should always have entries, even when they take more than one word. Individual words may not always merit an entry because their meanings are too complex (e.g., Spanish explicándoselo, "explaining it to him", or Finnish tottelemattomuudestansa, "because of his lack of obedience", or Ojibwe enihtaagwaashkwebijibii'igeng, "knowing how to write syllabics"). —Stephen 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Visviva: Then would the rule be that: if any admin didn't get any of the extant meanings of the collocation, then the collocation should be included? I don't see how the considerations you mention are part of the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps they should be.
SGBrown: I can't speak to the best rules inclusion for Chechen Wiktionary, which might well be exactly as you say. Of course we have many entries that for multiple-word units of meaning, for which we have criteria for inclusion. If our essential purpose is to create target entries for other languages, then our criteria for inclusion should definitely be so amended.
Both of these lines of discussion would seem to warrant a BP discussion of the criteria for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
But it's more than a collocation; it's an idiom. If our definition is correct, then it's a specific term with a specific meaning that cannot be guessed from the meanings of its components, even knowing which is the relevant sense for each component. —RuakhTALK 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm slightly bewildered by this turn of discussion. All I'm saying is that this term appears, to me, to meet the fried egg test; it has a meaning that is more specific than the combination of its parts. If that's not the case, our definition is in error. -- Visviva 01:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making explicit the rationale. I think I understand the "fried egg" test. The idiomatic fried egg is a only a subset of eggs that are fried, the SoP meaning of the collocation. I don't see how this applies here. A canteen cup is a cup for a canteen or a cup that accompanies a canteen or a cup that is issued with a canteen. I believe that all and only "canteen cups" fit that and that there is no other extant or even plausible SoP meaning. There may be some other rationale, but I am not convinced of this one. DCDuring TALK 04:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I interpreted “canteen cup” to mean something synonymous with “cafeteria cup”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have only a quick scan of Google Images (and Books) to go on, but all of the images seem to depict the same type of cup -- which, not being a military person, I can't recall having seen before. The Books hits generally seemed consistent with the images, though it's hard to be sure; they are also overwhelmingly military in nature. Many Books hits use "canteen cup" independent of any reference to a canteen, e.g. [6], which suggests they are referring to a specific, known type of cup. I would be interested to know if there are cases of canteen cup used to refer to some other type of canteen-associated cup, such as a hiking mug (or whatever you call those things). -- Visviva 05:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The context of use plus the meanings of the component words provides the definition in the usage I have looked at. All the usage that I looked at was military/outdoorsy and in no way depended on any specific aspect of cup design (except that it be fire-resistant and plausibly present in the setting). If one didn't know what a canteen was or expected another type of canteen, one would be quickly set on the right path by looking up canteen. I would would have thought that this would be deemed encyclopedic except for its triviality. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
How can you tell that in the citation above the writer wasn't referring to a cup he took from the canteen (cafeteria) down the road, or a plastic cup he keeps in his canteen (compartmented box), or a ceramic mug he packs in a bag next to his canteen (water bottle)? How can you tell that he's referring to a cup designed to nest with his water bottle and fit into a purpose-made pouch on his military web gear? Michael Z. 2009-01-20 19:27 z
If such specificity were required, we would be hard-pressed indeed to find attestation citations that confirmed that the specific definition of "canteen cup" in fact corresponded to the "canteen cup" in the citation. In the fifty or so citations I looked at, there was nothing much that would have precluded any of the meanings except plausibility: ceramics in combat?, plastics in a fire?, "canteen" (vs. "mess" or "field kitchen") in a combat environment?. There was nothing in any of the citations (except for congressional testimony about a redesign of the canteen/cup system) where the specifics of the design in any way mattered. US military designs probably differ from those of other militaries, from civilian models, and designs differ by era. The constant element is that the cup is designed to suitable for use with and in the same conditions as the canteen it accompanies.
I suppose that, in an adversarial setting, a speaker or writer might try to mislead one about the meaning. But speech is normally more cooperative, so it is left for punning humorists to play against our usually legitimate and rarely disappointed linguistic expectations. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I don't think these things are self-evident, and the job of the definition is to make them explicit. But I suppose to do a thorough job, we ought to find attestations which do prove these relationships. I really can't prove that canteen cup is not etymologically related to the canteen (mess kit) or canteen (field kitchen).
But also don't make any unjustified assumptions. Soldiers do carry other cups around in the field, including plastic (melmac) cups and plates they've been issued, and ceramic cups hoisted from a base mess. The Squadron Sergeant Major does set up a canteen (snack shop, not mess or kitchen) in the back of a truck where the men can buy chips, coke, and possibly beer during field operations. And, at least to me, a canteen cup is designed so that one can use it to eat a whole meal out of, when he has lost or broken his issue plate. Don't know if the dictionary should agree, as this is all from my own experience.
And I suppose a civilian camper can carry a tin cup or a canteen cup.
I should look over more attestations. Did you use books.G.c, or other sources too? Michael Z. 2009-01-20 23:45 z
I always start with b.g.c. because it provides high-quality text with plenty of context (as opposed to Usenet) with no disappointment due to need for a subscription (Scholar and News). I really wish we had less debatable "rules" with respect to includable noun phrases. Many of the "easings" lead to way too much inclusion. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the photos show the US style of canteen cup. There are at least a few other kinds: similar designs,[7][8] German ones in which the cup nests on top,[9][10] and at least one non-military imitation.[11] It is a cup specifically made to fit the canteen, and is part of the kit including canteen, cup, and holder for the web belt. If I took a cup from my kitchen and stuck it in with the canteen, it still wouldn't be a canteen cup (although I may call it my “canteen cup”, quotation marks sic).

Perhaps this needs a (military) or (camping) context label. If you say “canteen cup” to a North American soldier, outdoorsman, or boy scout, he will have a very specific image in his head. Michael Z. 2009-01-19 15:29 z

I added the context labels and the second sense. Please correct if needed. Thanks. --Panda10 15:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that these are two different senses. These are the main groups I can think of who would use the term, perhaps also including hunters, rangers, etc; anyone who spends time living in the field. Michael Z. 2009-01-20 16:18 z

Interesting, after scanning the first few results pages in Google books, I notice that a significant number refer to the cup's capacity: including recipes, estimations of water for sustenance, etc. One German culinary dictionary even provides a measurement: “canteen cup US = 710 ml (Kükchenmaß)” (1.5 pints).[12] I don't know if this is prominent enough to add a sense, but I suppose the name of any standard container is also a measure of what it holds.

Is canteen cup only an American (and Canadian) usage? I didn't notice any which were obviously British. Michael Z. 2009-01-22 23:16 z

Now that this is becoming a life-or-death matter, perhaps we need the "canteen cup" entry for a UK user who, stranded in the desert, with his netbook's last bit of battery life connects wirelessly to Wiktionary to help decipher the potentially life-saving note left by a US soldier in North Africa that he has just discovered which measures everything in canteen cups. One can only hope that a German cookbook author is using a captured vintage American canteen of the same specification. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How would the Hindi word for "dancer" be written in English script? —This unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.180 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Narthak for male dancer and narthaki for female dancer. --Satish 05:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adding {{trreq|Hindi}} to dancer for you. This is the way to request a translation of a particular word into a particular language. — hippietrail 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how/where to ask this so I'll ask it here. Could someone please add pronunciation info on gecko? I wonder if the 'g' is pronounced as 'j' (as in 'jail') or 'g' (as in 'guild'). Thanks, Malafaya 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been added. It’s a hard 'g' as in guild. —Stephen 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


In the wiktionary entry for tulla there is the following entry:

2) (intransitive) To become, get, go, turn — translative + 3rd-pers. sg. + noun/adjective in nominative or partitive or tulla by person + translative. Hänestä (elat.) tuli (3rd-pers.) rikas (nominat.). S/he became rich. He tulivat hulluiksi (translat.). They got crazy.


Given the examples, I think it should read

....... go, turn - elative + 3rd-pers. sg. + noun/adjective in nominative or partitive......

I am not a native Finnish speaker so will defer to the more knowledgeable!

--Satish 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This wikisaurus entry mixes up two or three different things, and probably belongs under a less US-centric headword.

The indigenous, native, or Aboriginal peoples of the Americas include not only Indians, but also Inuit and Eskimo, Aleut, and Métis.

Indians live in both North and South America. American Indian, Native American, Amerindian or Amerind often refer to people specifically in the USA. In Canada, First Nations is more acceptable than Indian in formal writing. Sometimes Indio is used in a Latin-American context. Michael Z. 2009-01-19 15:02 z

I am interested in the dialectal words of English in the Old World (Eurasia and Africa) and I just read in one grammar that in East African English Slim means AIDS. Can someone with appropriate background or acquaintances verify this? Bogorm 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a medical background, with a certificate in tropical medicine, and indeed seem to have heard such too, probably because of the weight loss in the later stages of the disease, though I have no sources is at hand.--219.69.81.128 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
google books:slim aids agrees. It also pulls up occurrences of the fuller form "slim disease", though most of those seem to be mentions. Mentions of slim itself seem divided between specific reference to said weight loss, and general reference to AIDS as the disease that causes it. Uses seem mostly to have latter sense, I think. The latter certainly meets our criteria for inclusion, and the former may, though I'm not sure. (We can sidestep this issue by putting both senses in one sense line, something like "AIDS, or the weight loss associated with its later stages.") —RuakhTALK 02:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

as in: "To mark the anniversary festivities of the founding of the People’s Republic, the authorities will pull out every stop to ensure a trouble-free capital."

The meaning seems clear from context, is this standard usage? If so, should an entry be created?--219.69.81.128 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's standard. It's definitely not as common as pull out all the stops. —RuakhTALK 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly to me, almost as common on bgc as [[pull out all the stops]] is [[pull out the stops]]. A larger portion of the hits for this less emphatic form seem to be of the more literal meaning having to do with making music (organ? piano?). DCDuring TALK 00:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NEED DEF NNNOOOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —This unsigned comment was added by Jimb-chipeta (talkcontribs).

DEF PROVIDED NNNOOOWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 —This comment was unsigned.

I am extremely skeptical of the present voluminous etymology entry for the word. The fact that some of it verges on the incredible and no attested sources or authorities are included is completely unacceptable. Also, no mention of any cognateness with German ficken is acknowledged, and that word states in its etymology that it originates at least back to Middle High German (1050 – 1350). In general I find our lack of referenced atymology entries untenable. We really should start to dig deeper in the area of etymological research, certainly commence garnering a consensus for it. __meco 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That definition is actually quite accurate and would be well-accepted by linguists. Some have suggested that the word was borrowed from Low German sometime before the first attestation in either language, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind that. One source (Sheidlower, pg. xxv), says that it cannot be Anglo-Saxon, but the reasoning is not made clear for that conclusion. German fikken is not listed because there is a problem with the vowel in that form. It's not a clear cognate because of that. Ultimately a Proto-Germanic *fuk- is going to be derived from Proto-Indo-European *pug- making "fuck" possibly cognate with Latin pugno 'fight' (one form borrowed into English as pugilism) or Greek pugmē 'boxing' (but Greek pugē 'rump, buttocks' may be closer) and Ukrainian pkhaty/pkhnuty 'to push, give a push', etc. But there aren't certain etymologies as above written out anywhere that I've seen. The closest complete etymology I've seen is that found in Jesse Sheidlower, ed., 1999, The F Word (second edition, Random House), pages xxv-xxxii. The problem is that there are no attestations of "fuck" or its cognates in any Germanic language prior to the 15th century. Sheidlower should probably be considered the most comprehensive source. (Taivo 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
Just looked up ficken in the 24th edition of Kluge (Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, pp. 291-292) and he mentions the problematic vowel in relation to English fuck, but relates it nonetheless. The problem is that none of these forms (except ficken) predate the 15th century. Ficken goes back to the 11th century. It mentions the Latin and Greek cognates, adding an additional Latin possibility in pungere 'to stab' and reconstructs the PIE as *peuk-/peug- (I don't know why the k version). (Taivo 19:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
Just looked up fokken in De Vries (Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek, pg 174) and he doesn't include English as a cognate, but lists Greek pugē 'rump' and Latvian pūga 'wind' as cognates. However, this definition is solely based on a meaning of fokken as some sort of sail, it seems. Fok is a foresail, but De Vries seems to be talking about a sail at the aft end. My Dutch isn't fluent by any means, but his use of Greek pugē is worth pointing out in this context. (Taivo 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
  • I think it's a good and full etymology. Ƿidsiþ 06:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
According to Deutsches Wörterbuch (on which I have full confidence) the German word may originate from French piquer (or It. piccare). No mention of the English equivalent, but instead of English fidge(t) (fidge-ficken is compared to bridge-Brücke, edge-Ecke and so on). Please note that the meaning in the 19th century and before was just rub(any trace of that in ME/OE?). Thence I would disprove adding the German word as a cognate. No trace of Swedish, Dutch or dial. Norwegian, which means that they are not connected to the German word. Whether they are connected to the English word, is an entirely different question. Also, please note, that there I could not think of/find out any Danish cognate - thence the word is most likely not Common Germanic. Bogorm 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that there is not a readily "memorable" Danish form does not mean that the word was not Common Germanic. The presence of a Swedish form and a cognate Dutch form (there is also a cognate Frisian form) is sufficient to place the word in Common Germanic. Taboo words like this frequently drop out of common usage. A Danish cognate is not critical. While Grimm is a good dictionary, Kluge is generally considered the more authoritative when it comes to etymology, just as the OED is a great citation dictionary, but it leaves much to be desired in the etymology department. This has always been a taboo-word related to copulation in English attestations--it isn't written down until Early Modern English times, the earliest attestation in OED is 1503. The problem with bringing in French or Italian equivalents is that the initial consonants are wrong. There is no reason why a word beginning with p in French would be borrowed into German with an initial f. More likely is that ficken is cognate with the other Germanic forms, but with an unusual vowel correspondence, just as Kluge states. (Taivo 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm seriously doubting that people honestly intend to mean "abdominal muscles" in general when they use ab or abs. In reality, this sounds like a folk taxonomy, and what is so designated is more specifically the banding patterns of the rectus abdominis muscle. cf. six pack, when you'd need to make a larger provision if you were actually counting all the pattern of the frontal abdominal muscles. Circeus 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't "abs" be a clip of "abdominal muscles"? "Abdominal muscles" > "abdominals" > "abs" is certainly the derivation of the term. Any other derivation is a stretch and violates Occam's Razor. (Taivo 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
Just because that's the etymology doesn't mean that's what people use it for. If you ask people to actually count abs, how many are likely to count the oblique abdominals (technically, the rectus is a pair of muscle, but the point regarding the definition still stand)? Many people won't consider somebody even has abs unless the ridges are actually visible.
We have a virtually identical issue in the definition of pec, which is not just a pectoral muscle, but very specifically the pectoralis major. Circeus 06:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
But if a person is doing situps, whether they have visible ridges or not, and you ask them what they are doing, they are quite likely to respond with "I'm working on my abs." While the onlooker may require visible ridges to say "abs", the person doing the workout can call his own stomach "abs" whether or not ridges are visible. Both aspects of the definition are important. (Taivo 07:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Personally, I have never heard "ab" (singular) used. I have heard trainers say "This exercise will target your abs.", and there is no reason to think that a person must have visible abdominal banding of the rectus abdominus muscles for that statement to apply. --EncycloPetey 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people are told to "work their abs" by orthopedists, "sports doctors", and chiropractors not for the appearance, but to reduce the incidence of back injury or pain. Surprisingly not every speaker of English is in the 21-44 demographic. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone rename SLNE? It should be SNLE 76.66.198.171 09:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. RJFJR 14:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Alternative spellings: cosey, cosie, cozey, cozie, cozy (North America)". Are the first four real? They don't seem to be! Update: I'm marginally less sceptical now that I realise they might only be used for the noun (teapot cover) and not the adj, but only a little. Equinox 19:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just speculation, but they may also be archaic spellings. Michael Z. 2009-01-22 22:27 z
Sounds believable, but if so they should definitely be marked as such. Equinox 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

opinions on whether or not this should be in the wiktionary? --Sawbackedeagle 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but compare field of vision, field of view, line of fire, line of sight, kill zone, beaten zone, crossfire. Surest way to answer the question is to find three or more solid attestations. Michael Z. 2009-01-22 22:27 z
I'm happy with it, even though I know I'm a bit of a sum-of-parts Nazi most of the time. I can imagine somebody looking it up, and it isn't the most obvious way to put those parts together to produce the meaning. Equinox 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Added. SemperBlotto 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

When I called myself a "sum-of-parts Nazi" in the section above, I looked up Nazi to see whether Wiktionary had the slang sense of a disciplinarian, and I suddenly remembered my history teacher at secondary school. She insisted on calling them the "nazzies" (a bit like the navvies, who also came up in modern history), which tended to amuse the class because we all knew they were "nart-sees". So I suddenly wonder whether this is a legitimate Anglicisation or merely one teacher's bizarre kink. Anybody know? Equinox 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that too, but I suppose it must be an affected use, because my standard references don't have it. I'll add pronunciation, though. Michael Z. 2009-01-22 22:56 z
Sounds like a spelling pronunciation. (Taivo 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
I seem to recall Winston Churchill was known for deliberately and consistently mispronouncing "Nazi" as "nah-zee" (i.e., without the "t" sound). Pingku 06:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This could do with a re-read. My Egyptian Arabic knowledge starts and stops with baksheesh. --Jackofclubs 19:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that this is formatted badly, but I don't know how to fix it. - dougher 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem was the reference template had the bullet point included. Fixed (but now a hundred-odd transclusions may have some awkwardness). Michael Z. 2009-01-24 00:13 z

I would appreciate the opinion of everyone interested in Nietzsche or Gothic or Old Norse on the discovery I reached, having been inspired by Skok's mention of the Gothic cognate of that word. I am not sure whether to propose it for discussion here or on Talk:loš, where its inception was, but right now I am elated and would impatiently await opinions on whether to include the philosophical connection in the etymological section. Bogorm 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not be correct, but Wiktionary is not the place to pursue original research. (Taivo 12:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
We are discussing the information on the TALK PAGE, not the etymology, which is sourced! Please, do not remove the etymology. I changed the caption, lest any other become confused like you. Bogorm 14:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Wiktionary does not actually have any policy corresponding to w:WP:NOR, and in fact certain aspects of our work (particularly the documentation of obscure senses and usages) require a measure of original research. The line between acceptable and unacceptable OR is drawn only by our collective common sense. (This is just a general observation; I think all of us -- including Bogorm -- would agree that original research in the context of etymology should be kept to a minimum.) -- Visviva 13:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only English use of that derived term I know is as the English name of the anime series ああっ女神さっ (Aa Megami-sama). Anybody have a reason to put forward to keep that in the entry? 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed, please take a look!
I can find citations in The Vagina Monologues and in Jackson Square Jazz. --EncycloPetey 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to have been taken up by feminists as a variation on "oh my God", although usage patterns likely differ. It is also used reverently or as a supplication by such as wiccans and pagans, and in poetry. This latter may be sum of parts, though. Related is a metaphorical use, the 'goddess' (uncapitalised) being a desirable woman, probably a lover. Pingku 15:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give some meaningful sentences which contain the word sanguinary.

  • Done. -- ALGRIF talk 12:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What does serenity means?

That you're serene, in other words, you're calm and not disturbed by anything. (See the article serenity) -- Frous 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add the entry in the old money meaning in an alternate previously used scale, but I am not sure what is the part of speech. Would Idiom be correct, as it certainly doesn't apply to money despite the term. Exampes would be "We drove 800 kilometres, or 500 miles in the old money". --Dmol 09:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an adverb, I would say. BTW, if you put it in, could you add Category:English prepositional phrases please. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 12:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It also appears as in old money. Partridge's has an entry in this sense for old money (noun), with "in old money" applied to Fahrenheit as an example. They also say it can be used for anything but money in this way. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would cover it. Thanks.--Dmol 05:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A device or devices that owe their function to the flow of electrons through conductors and semiconductors; devices that operate on electrical power (battery or outlet.)

How is this used as the subject of a sentence? With a singular or plural verb? Where is (was?) it used in this sense. The part of the definition after the semicolon seems to be for "electrical". Is "electronics" used this way? Does this need a good RfVing? DCDuring TALK 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be redefined to "electronic devices" (however, electronic lacks a matching definition, and has a mildly circular definition). It's certainly a sound word, just an hopeless outdated definition. Circeus 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
In principle we should have the whole sequence of all attestable senses. But at the highest priority is to have the current ones. If people use electronic(s) to refer to any electrical device with nary a diode or triode therein, we need to have that too. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think people refer to any electrical apparatus as apparatus. I certainly wouldn't use it to refer to a dishwasher, for example. I think electronics is more about devices with electronic circuits, and particularly ones who are used for pleasure or research purpose rather than more practical aspect (such as tools and most household appliances). Circeus 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Many modern appliances, including dishwashers, contain microprocessors. Nevertheless I agree that the principle function of a dishwasher does not require electronics. Pingku 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ken ne1 say me d meanin of rolf plz..,!!!!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 121.245.13.213 (talkcontribs) 10:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

I imagine it's a typo for rofl. —RuakhTALK 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a trademark for a kind of massage, too. [13] Equinox 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
done. "To rolf" and "Rolfing". DCDuring TALK 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, since I'm not a native writer in English, I don't understand the difference bewteen those two and the article cannot doesn't clarify the difference to me at all. Could someone please take a minute explaining that to me? -- Frous 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cannot means "am/is/are unable to": "I cannot do it" means "I am not able to do it". Can not supposedly means "am/is/are able to not": "I can not do it" means "I am able to not do it". In this use, "I can not do it" is roughly synonymous with "I can do it", whereas "I cannot do it" is its exact opposite. However, in the vast majority of cases, can not is just an alternative spelling of cannot. (I believe this used to be the normal spelling, and it is still fairly common, though personally I'd consider it a misspelling in modern writing.) —RuakhTALK 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. :) -- Frous 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ruakh. It's a double negative; most of those are meant to be jocular or are used by people or fictional characters who may be perceived as slightly stupid in some ways, e.g.
  • Irregardless (regardless is already negative so prefixing it with ir- negates the negation)
  • I didn't see nothing (literally means "I saw something" but is generally used by slightly dim-witted people to mean the exact opposite.)
—This unsigned comment was added by PalkiaX50 (talkcontribs) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
It's not really a double-negative, since there's nothing "double" about it. Really, it's just an issue of orthography. With "could not", both senses are written the same way ("We tried, but could not find a way" vs. "We could do it; or, alternatively, we could not do it, and see what happens"); with "cannot"/"can not", we supposedly use a space to make the distinction, but unsurprisingly, not all writers are consistent about this. —RuakhTALK 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
NOAD's etymology says this is a contraction of can not (and that can't is a further contraction).
  • do not > don't
  • could not > couldn't
  • can not > cannot > can't
Dictionary.com has a long note addressing the perceived double-negative function.[14] Michael Z. 2009-02-04 17:57 z
No, the AHD's usage note is about "cannot but" vs. "can but". —RuakhTALK 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this as a misspelling, but there are so many hits for this on Google News, that it might even be able to be classed as an alternative spelling. Granted, none of the hits are from world-famous newspapers, so maybe {misspelling} is a better tag. While this is on my mind, how could we tag something as "obsolete or misspelling of stomache"? --Jackofclubs 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's enough to use {{obsolete spelling of}}. This makes it clear that if you see it in a modern source, it's likely to be a mistake. However, you could add {{misspelling of}} on a spearate line if you wanted to. Ƿidsiþ 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the etymology: it should really mention which derived from which (most probably the prefix from the whole word, right?).

Quasi is difficult: what exactly is its POS? Provide some examples which illustrate the differences between the two POSes given. This will help translation as well. H. (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The "conjunction" is hard to find and does not appear in the OneLook dictionaries. quasi might also be an adverb, though quasi- takes the role of modifying adjectives almost always. I have RfVd the conjunction, but OED might have it. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone help me please determine the best word ( one word only if possible ) for " a former employee".

Thanks a lot.

EPSS

—This unsigned comment was added by Epssmith (talkcontribs) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC).

I'd go with "former employee" if you want to be neutral, "ex-employee" if you want to be slightly negative, and "alumnus" if you want to be positive. (Why does it need to be a single word?) —RuakhTALK 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
firee? :-) (probably not general enough, alas.) -- Visviva 03:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

**********
Thank you for your replies, Ruakh and Visviva. I want to form a Google group that will contain the "former employee" word. Using "ex-employees" or "former employees" in the group name or email address seem lengthy or odd. I thought about "alumni" too but the word is more appropriate for graduates of educational institutions. Would any others have any more suggestions. Thank you very much. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.198.208.96 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

In some contexts, alumnus has no (or little) educational-institution denotation. For example, if the group is to be for ex-employees of, for example, Bank of America, you can name the group "BoA exes" or "BoA alums". Imho.—msh210 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is much confusion in the terminology here. Etymology might help, I am unsure I got all the “nym”-relations right. H. (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the above in an English yahoo article about the local going out scene and famous soccer players [I do not provide the link, as I then have to re -type that pesky wavy word string- thingy, though I can do so upon request, as long as I have the web site available]:

"If you are going to have 10 years or more at the top, you more or less have to live like a vicar if you want to stay out of trouble.

Some players can do it - like Ryan Giggs, who has behaved himself ever since Alex Ferguson went round Lee Sharpe's house in the middle of a party and gave them both the hairdryer treatment!

If he goes out it will be for a quiet drink with his friends in Swinton, where he grew up, not some massive city-centre nightclub."

though I can guess what it means from context, it would be nice to have a "gold standard"--could I tap into Wiktionarians ' talent pool for such? as my native language doesn't have such image, could it, the bolded phrase, in some form be added to wictionary [not necessarily as an entry in its own right, perhaps also under one of the two composing words, I am most happy to leave that to your good judgment smiley]?thank you in advance!史凡 07:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Judging from google:"hairdryer treatment", the term is specific to Alex Ferguson: it's when he walks up a player, stands very close, and yells very loudly. The image is of his blasting enough hot air, close enough to the player's head, to dry the player's hair if it's wet (such as after a locker-room shower). (Note to other editors: the article is at http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/paul-parker/article/2112/2/.) —RuakhTALK 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here one dictionary explains that the origin of the modern English word is the OE noun stow. However, at least one citation discloses its use as a noun in modern English (19th century). Would it be therefore be admissible to add the nominal meaning under ==English== or one must provide 2 more citations for that? Does any native speaker of English recognise the word as a noun? Bogorm 11:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The OED has its meaning as place marked as obsolete. Does that still make it modern? I always thought it was spelled stowe, but maybe not. SemperBlotto 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have found a modern mention (as "a place") in line with Middle and Old English. I have entered the noun as obsolete. It is easier to find Middle and Old English usage and/or dictionary mentions. Also see citations:stowe DCDuring TALK 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There might also be a nautical meaning something like "an arrangement of cargo in a hold." A bad stow could lead to damage of the cargo. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Browsing I've found that there's not the template kvk sb dóttir for the irregular noun dóttir and its compounds. How can I add it? Thanks. --Pharamp 17:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain God's Grace and God's Mercy—This unsigned comment was added by 207.29.158.182 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 2 February 2009.

Might I recommend one of the following articles at Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, which will be better equipped to deal with such a weighty question than a dictionary will? w:Divine Mercy, w:Divine grace, w:Prevenient grace, w:Irresistible grace, w:Actual grace.—msh210 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also try the article w:Jesus for more help. w:God will also help. God Bless you.--God'sGirl94 14:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this thing called? Informally, it's a stripper, or so the workers at a blood drive I visited recently told me, but they didn't know what its real name is.—msh210 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is "a surgical instrument for stripping the periosteum from bone", then it is a "stripper", according to FreeDictionary.com, which has Elsevier Saunder's veterinary dictionary. Many more impressive sounding surgical terms are taken from French, so an answer might be among French translations of stripper. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a device used to clamp together an infusion (IV) tube and/or to roll the tube through the device so that anything in the tube gets pushed down along the tube to the end. (Or something like that, anyway.)—msh210 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone at Wikipedia's reference Desk has confirmed that it's really called a stripper, not just informally.—msh210 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the exact eytomology for 'Horologii'? If my badly-patched-together knowledge of Greek serves, the suffix is like 'logy', like a study of X, but pluralised; I think, anyway. I don't know what the 'Horo' means exactly; does it mean time or clock or hour?

Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 93.97.32.19 (talkcontribs) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

I see that actionfest has just passed RFV, and I was going to add an entry for the suffix -fest. But not sure what part of speach, and it's difficult to come up with a definition. I had in mind something based on festivities, such as Summerfest. Any ideas and suggestions. --Dmol 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just "Suffix" should be OK for the POS... IMO this should have both the literal "festival" definition and the more colloquial "something characterized by a superabundance of X" sense. Not quite sure how best to word that second one (as found in snoozefest, slugfest, actionfest, jokefest, etc.). -- Visviva 08:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

hello am new to this site...

my boyfriend, who hails from Bristol, was astonished by my use of a word he thought did not exist, but which came from my childhood days in the North Midlands, when I asked my son to "stop mithering him" for sweets....

have looked it up on this excellent site, and found some wonderful derivations of it...amazingly, as well, it could even come from Welsh origins, which is fantastic, as I am currently living in Wales...

does anyone else use this term/have knowledge of its usage??


Witchy —This unsigned comment was added by Witchy (talkcontribs) 09:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

The word is a variant of moider and moither, and also exists in Manx and Irish as well as Welsh, so my guess is that it has a Celtic origin, though I have no proof. Dbfirs 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions as to the crop being named by the abbreviation "fañhes" or the word "faiches" which appears in an English will from Herefordshire dated 1531? I have scans of the original if my transcription is in doubt.

Not me. But could you perhaps provide a bit more of the context in which the word appears? What leads you to conclude that it is a vegetable crop? -- Visviva 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Not me either, but see [[faenum]].—msh210 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Item: I wyll & beqe[a]th my hole croppe now sowen in the felds bothe of whete rye barly pesey otts benes & [fañhes/faiches] w[ith] my hole falow now falowed the lords rent for so muche thereof payed & ii acres above bequethed w[ith] the hyred lands onely excepte..." six out of the seven words are the names of grains or vegies I can recognize....


I am no expert, but I think this fañhes/faiches is problem a twist on the french word "fraise" which means strawberry or perhaps the word "fraîche" which means fresh. :)

I know there is one and I know what it is, but I can not for my life remember it. I am grateful to any one who can and is willing to tell me of it, or wish me luck in my quest. —This unsigned comment was added by 169.244.223.206 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Indeed, good luck. Might you be thinking of trudge?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I can think of an idiom, but not a single word: drag one's feet. There are plenty of words for slow walking and procrastination. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
drag one's feet can also be drag one's heels. Slow, awkward walking, as if hanging back, can be slouch, shuffle, or shamble, but these do not necessarily imply reluctance. Equinox 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a context label for {{context|canon law}}? The entry for metropolis needs one…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Might it predate "canon law". Is "canon law" what it is called in eastern christian churches? It does seem limited to christianity and have fairly broad application within christianity. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You’d have to ask Verbo, the user who added it.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the new "no entry" page (I mean the page that comes up when you look up a word we don't have). It seems quite a bit more concise and clearer. Perhaps this will go a little way to stop people adding Britney Spears to Wiktionary every other day. Equinox 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was listed with a "noun phrase" POS header, which I changed to "noun". Please see its talk page.—msh210 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to noun phrase in the first place, not realizing that noun phrases are deprecated. Danish has some combined nouns, like "golden retriever" that is inflected like other nouns (golden retriever, -en, -e), but "etnisk udrensning" behaves differently. So I propose to classify it as a phrase. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that somewhat analogous to singulare tantum vs. singularia tantum, and also attorney general vs. attorneys general? These are all listed as mere nouns. __meco 10:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes it is somewhat analogous; but "singulare tantum" is latin, and "attorney general" is a long time attested noun, and further more attorney generals is an accepted alternative plural form. "Etnisk udrensning" has taken a new specific meaning by influence from ethnic cleansing, since about 1990. It is not yet in any dictionaries, so no help there. To me it feels wrong to label it as a noun, thats all. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, although for linguistic purposes separating phrases for single words is relevant, for our lexicographical purpose, it is not (and this applies to all languages and POS's). Circeus 04:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I keep hearing a different British meaning mentioned. But all I can find in dictionaries is an alternate sense of “related to land forces”, for the adjective.

Is a US or North America tag on sense 1 correct? Is sense 2 differentiated by dialect? Michael Z. 2009-02-07 04:44 z

Is this really an adjective with separate meaning, or just attributive use of the noun? --EncycloPetey 05:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to just the one sense? Doesn't the etymology and usage history suggest that the adjective came first. The noun doesn't have the differentiated senses that the adjective seems to, according to other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added senses, but this needs finer editing. DCDuring TALK 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what is best term to refere to a surgical procedure: technique or technic? and what is the plural? Thanks, Carlos.—This comment was unsigned.

I'd go with technique(s). Though they are synonymous in some senses, technique is more common (~50X) and more widely understood. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Carlos. --Jcsau 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

An inflection table was added, showing plural forms of mælk (Danish for milk), but the inflection line says "uncountable". That is confusing. Retskrivningsordbogen [15] has no plural for mælk. (mælk -en.) – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 18:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for Norwegian melk. We must refer to "different kinds of melk", not "different melker". The inflection for plural is nevertheless included. The Norwegian Bokmålsordboka[16] also shows no plural for melk. (melk or mjølk -a or -en) __meco 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I have corrected it now. Kinamand 09:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tea room seems especially appropriate albeit oversized for this usage tempest. There had been some 19th century disapproval of "firstly", but by 1926 Fowler dismissed it. More recently, some view "firstly", "secondly", etc as too formal for, say, business writing, but essential for scholarly writing. Others only seek consistency: "First", "Second",.... or "Firstly". "Secondly", ...., but not deQuincey's preferred "First", "Secondly", .... Our entry expends a lot of space on this. Can't it be simplified. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I fiddled around with it a bit, though I'm afraid it now takes up a bit more space (but with more whitespace, and hopefully a somewhat more logical flow). Could use a citation for de Quincey (is it one of these?) -- and for Fowler too if it's handy. Would be curious to know what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage has to say. B.g.c rocks! IMO our entry should cover all of the points in the MWDEU entry, in our own way of course. -- Visviva 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the proscribed tag. I am not a native English speaker, but having come across the word in two texts (the link comprises both of them) of Monseigneur Richard Williamson who is a native Brit from the XXI. century and commands one leading organisation of study of Sanctus Thomas Aquinas I am completely persuaded that the word is in circulation amongst the highly educated English speakers and if the common-or-garden-variety speakers sunder from or shun its use this should not be an argument in the current consideration nor stir up obfuscation for the users cherishing literary English. I exhort abolishing the proscribed tag. One must not be proscribed from utilising elevated expressions. Does anyone disprove the removal? Bogorm 10:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. "Disputed" might be a better tag, but having no tag at all is probably the best solution; the usage note is close at hand anyway. -- Visviva 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Methinks the issue is resolved and rft is no more needed, is it? Bogorm 09:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for the English word which means '(formal, disapproving) trying too hard to please sb, especially sb who is important'. Thanks in advance! Vin 13:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Would ingratiating do? --Duncan 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Sycophantic, obsequious, and servile all sound about right.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Obsequious gives the synonyms: fawning, ingratiating, servile, slavish, sycophantic, truckling. Pingku 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also oleaginous, smarmy, unctuous. --EncycloPetey 16:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention bootlicking!!!, fawning, toadyish. I like "sycophantic" most of all. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he say informal?

Name for this individual:

-- Thisis0 20:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

duteous (just came across)? Is it widespread in contemporary English? (Note that Webster 1913 mentions another meaning as well: Fulfilling duty; dutiful) Bogorm 22:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall ever having encountered duteous, but I think it lacks the "disapproving" connotation sought by the OP. -- Visviva 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being so confused... but here I go with this.

  • The classes are only taught on Monday afternoons.
  • The classes are taught only on Monday afternoons.
  • The classes are taught on Monday afternoons only.
  • The only classes are taught on Monday afternoons.

What's the correct phrasing for it, i.e. to say the classes are just taught on a Monday, and are not available on any other days? --AnthonySymphony 11:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The first three sentences have the same meaning, as I read them, and differ only in emphasis. I would tend to prefer #3 as putting the emphasis most squarely on what I think you want to emphasize, namely that these classes are not available on other days. The fourth sentence is actually making an assertion about all classes (e.g. all classes offered by a school or program), which is probably not what you want to say. -- Visviva 12:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Visviva, except: The first sentence has the same meaning as the second and third only in informal speech. I would not write it in a formal context to mean that (or to mean anything else, for that matter). This is because a stickler might misunderstand it as meaning that the classes are only taught — but not taken, say — on Monday afternoons.—msh210 19:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sentences 1 and 2 could both have that same pedantic meaning (#2: "the classes are taught only on Monday afternoons; they are not recorded then"). Perhaps even #3, but it would be a stretch. I think, to anybody who is just trying to get meaning from the utterance, they would all mean the same thing but #4 would have a different aspect (#1,2,3: "there are some classes, and they are taught on Monday afternoons but never at another time"; #4: "the only classes that exist at all are the ones that are taught on Monday afternoons"). Equinox 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Is treaded considered substandard in the UK? It is just lower frequency (except in tread water) in the US. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging from “tread” in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 this word must have been not only substandard, but nonexistent in the USA as well. Since I am sceptical towards all things which are more recent than 100 years, I support firmly the usage note as a kind of discouragement for the reader against the use of the non-standard neologistic forms. Bogorm 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: "I am sceptical towards all things which are more recent than 100 years": Does that mean you now support the Arabic script for Tajik? :-)   —RuakhTALK 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This has three intransitive and two transitive senses listed (as of this writing). Seems to me the transitive senses are SoP rather than real phrasal verbs. Citations given for the transitive sentences are if she saw crumbs on the dinner-table her mind drifted off the conversation and Men drifted off the verandah in pairs, which both seem to me to be drifted + prepositional phrase. What think you all?—msh210 18:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So it seems to me too.
Was Msh210 not the one who suggested that, for idioms that had plausible non-idiomatic interpretations as well as the idiomatic one(s), the literal be included for contrast? That has seemed sensible to me most (nearly all?) of the time, especially since common sense usually prevents folks from doing really silly things. However, where there are many plausible non-idiomatic readings this could, in principle, lead to an entry for an idiom in which the single idiomatic sense was buried in plausible non-idiomatic readings that were mostly repetitions of some polysemic words' definitions.
Phrasal verbs pose a problem analogous to the one posed by idioms. There are often both phrasal and non-phrasal readings of the head(multi)word, which arguably should be contrasted for the benefit of (advanced?) language learners. Because phrasal verbs contain both common verbs and prepositions, both of which are often highly polysemic, there is even more potential for obscuring the phrasal senses among contrasting non-phrasal senses. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I did suggest that, but am not sure to what extent I still agree with it. As DCDuring says, and as I said, it often makes sense; but the problem DCDuring mentions really is a problem. Perhaps a note ("sometimes this is merely A + B") can be placed on the page instead? (That would work for all cases, I think, not only those that would be inundated with literal senses.) It can be placed s.v =Usage notes=, I think, since it is one, or as a pseudo-sense (by which I here mean: on a numbered line, in a POS section, but with only the one line per POS no matter how many senses are meant by the SoP).—msh210 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Would a template {{usage note}} (or something) inserting boilerplate text including a link to [[idiom]] or [[phrasal verb]] be appropriate? "idiom" and "phrasal verb" could be parameters, which would allow for other applications. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a templatified usage note indicating the existence of SoP senses not listed is a grand idea. Not template:usage note, since there are lots of other usage notes that can be (and have been) templatified: see special:prefixindex/template:en-usage. Perhaps template:en-usage-sum-senses-too or en-usage-phrasal or some such?—msh210 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I had the same thought about the transitive usages (that they are SoP-ish), even as I was adding these senses and the quotations to this entry. But I decided to stick with them for two reasons: (1) it's not 100% clear where exactly an idiomatic usage shades into a literal one--strictly, I doubt anyone mentioned in any of the quotations is literally drifting, and (2) the construct ("drift off"), with all its varied shades, is well set in the language. -- WikiPedant 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
After further consideration, I edited the entry to remove the transitive senses and their accompanying quotations. I added one new quotation, showing intransitive usage, for sense2. The transitive usages probably were unvarnished SoP, and are not recognized as distinct senses of a phrasal verb by other dictionaries. -- WikiPedant 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with news that specific issue is moot, though general one remains)

"Drifting" has figurative meanings. "Off" has many more figurative than literal meanings, if such a distinction has any meaning at all for prepositions and adverbs. The literal/figurative distinction is not part of WT:CFI. We have no specific working definition that distinguishes includable phrasal verbs from non-includable collocations of the same words. We rely on the rules and guidelines for idioms.
The entry for "drift off" does not have all its varied shards. It has three or five. MWOnline shows 6/12 senses/subsenses for "drift" (verb), 5/11 for "off" (adverb), and 4/7 for "off" (preposition). I would expect more than five from among the 216 SoP combinatorial possibilities, not to mention the additional idiomatic ones.
If entries for phrasal verbs have value it would be precisely because they highlight a distinctive combination of senses of the component words by excluding senses that are directly derivable from the general senses of the components. I could see that it might take a language learner a long time to put together the right sense of "set" with the right sense of "out" or "upon".
The OneLook dictionaries have only one sense of "drift off", an intransitive sense meaning "fall asleep gradually". DCDuring TALK 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
All true, but I'm moving on for now. The WT entry is now superior to any entry for this term which I can find in any other dictionary. (The OED, curiously, has no entry at all for "drift off," not even under "drift" where it does mention drift around, by, in, out, and apart.) -- WikiPedant 00:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The senses not related to sleep seem like a verb + an adverb and, contrary to their context label, not idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I admit I tend to have a lower idiomaticity threshold than some, but it seems to me that all senses pass the Egyptian Pyramid and In Between tests. The most general sense of "drift" (v.) is to be carried in a current or to move aimlessly. All these senses imply more specific sorts of situations and, hence, satisfy Egyptian Pyramid. And it would be unnatural to insert another word between "drift" and "off" when the expression has these senses, satisfying In Between. -- WikiPedant 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Our current three senses are intransitive: "to fall asleep gradually", "to become inattentive", and "to depart slowly". Of these, I doubt the second. The citation for it is "He ... let his mind drift off", which I think is the "depart slowly" sense. Can anyone find good citations for the second sense? Of the remaining senses, the first is definitely not SoP, whereas the third seems to be, since drift means "move slowly" (first verb sense) and off means "away" (first adverb sense). That leaves us with the first sense only, as DCDuring says the OneLook dictionaries have.—msh210 18:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Having mulled this over a bit and checked with other sources, I think that "drift off" has only the one phrasal verb sense. That of "falling asleep". The analysis that "drift" = "move slowly" + "off" = "away" being SoP is correct. (C.f. walk, run, stumble, tiptoe, etc, + "off") However, "to become inattentive" needs a bit more thought on my part. At the moment I think it is the same as "depart slowly", as Msh210 suggests. But let's research some cites before finalising the decision.
    Referring to the idea of including literal definitions or notes about literal definitions being possible; in my opinion I think this is unnecessary and would make many phrasal verb entries unreadable. I do, still, advocate a "phrasal verb" template which would give the possibility of 1) standardising the inflections, 2) allowing a sub-header stating that it is a phrasal verb, and 3) adding the category automatically. -- ALGRIF talk 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    I detect an emerging micro-consensus. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope we can agree to strike and revise the entry? I have taken the bull by the horns, anyway. -- ALGRIF talk 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

commodify has a quotation that uses a template called quote-news that doesn't seem to meet the formatting guidelines for quotations. Or are there special guidelines for the formatting of newspaper quotes that I'm not aware of? - dougher 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to meet the formatting guidelines, though sometimes it can be a bit difficult to figure out what those are. In fact automated formatting compliance is the whole point of the templates.  :-/ I'm not seeing the issue, though; what part of WT:QUOTE is it violating? -- Visviva 03:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it isn't violating anything because there are no examples there of what a newspaper article quote should look like. I was just extrapolating from examples that are there to what I thought it should look like I'm afraid. I wish there were more examples for different kinds of media than there are. -- dougher 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I wonder if we could come up with a list of all types of quotations that it would be nice to have specific examples for. Here are some examples that come immediately to mind...
  • Newspaper/magazine articles
  • Online editions of printed books (where should the URL go?)
  • Poems and song lyrics (in or out of anthologies)
  • Translations
  • Journal articles (with or without DOI)
  • Articles in edited volumes
  • Newsgroup postings
  • Software documentation/code
  • Audio/video
  • Quotations of an unavailable earlier work in a later one
  • Revised editions
So far, our practice for most of these has been ad hoc copying from each other's formats. I know that's what I've been doing. ("Hey, someone put an italicized 'Usenet' at the end! OK, I can do that too...") But it would probably be better to hash them out in a focused way. -- Visviva 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Could I mention here that there seems to be a numbering problem with the quote-book template. -- ALGRIF talk 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
One problematic class of sources:
  • Various for which snippets only are available (from Google/Amazon anyway), concealing the specific detail that should be present.
Perhaps there are other situations where we might want to mark the citation as incomplete pending, 1., someone's perusal of a hard copy or, 2., revisiting of the originally restricted source. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello people, I have added the spelling mistake abouve to draw your attention. I am not the best speller but there are a lot of uses with only one t when it should be double tt, as in committed. This is used in many definitions. Hooroo. Enlil Ninlil 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A Google site search for "commited" turned up only 3 entry pages (and 5 non-entry pages). Two had already been fixed, and I fixed the remaining one. Please let us know if you notice any other common typos of this form. I suspect this is due to distraction during wikification; it's easy to type [[commit]]ed and not notice the missing T. -- Visviva 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See discussion about the "white star". I have an inkling that it would be unwise to attempt to include every Unicode symbol merely because it is in Unicode; after all, this includes control characters, many sad and redundant relics of backwards compatibility, and a lot of purely decorative symbols like stars, diamonds, and box drawings [17] which have no use in language (the thing a dictionary is supposed to document). On the other hand, a lot of the symbols are used in language, whether they're convenient icons (like or ) or mathematical shorthand (). Is there any current consensus on this, or could we do some sort of vote? Personally I feel happy about the inclusion of anything that has a meaning in language (perhaps not the box drawing symbols). If we want them, I could fairly easily produce a page of some/most/all of the chars and their names as a starting point for the bored, but it would be a massive page. Equinox 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions about hangul syllables and some sort of "Technical data" section were circling around this issue. Basically I think the upshot is: 1) yes, we want every symbol/codepoint about which we can present information, even if the only information is technical data; but 2) we're not quite sure how best to format this information. Regarding the list, breaking it down by code block might be the best thing; the considerations will vary considerably from one block to another. -- Visviva 01:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Added: while I have some qualms about blanket inclusion, I don't find Strabismus' objections in the linked discussion persuasive. The entire Unicode codespace contains only 1.14 million points -- and that includes a lot of unused codepoints and PUA stuff that we probably don't want. As a dictionary of all forms of all words in all languages, we seek to ultimately include billions of words; Unicode symbols are just a drop in the bucket. Also, the same users who would complain of being unable to render a Yi syllable or cuneiform symbol would have the same problems with Yi or Sumerian words and phrases; but there is no question that we do ultimately want to cover Yi, Sumerian, and every other documented language. The fact that users will have to install specialized fonts is not material. -- Visviva 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Things like box drawing symbols could probably be covered collectively in appendices. But even for things like this, we should provide some sense of where and how they are to be used. Even control characters could be listed in a table. Michael Z. 2009-02-12 18:23 z
  • Why limit ourselves just to Unicode? We include languages which are outside the scope of Unicode such as sign languages already. I believe Egyptian is also lacking from Unicode so far. Also Unicode includes many dingbats and other glyphs which are not symbols at all in the sense that they do not symbolize anything. They may be better thought of as pictures. Note that Unicode is currently undergoing a debate as to whether to include emoji, icons (many of which are animated) that are part of the encodings of various Japanese mobile phone companies. If we include all Unicode we must include "hatching chick" and friends if they become part of Unicode. If we include these pictures and animations why not include other pictures and animations? How far beyond "all words in all languages" should we go? Another thought is that almost all fonts include both codepoints and glyphs outside Unicode. Why not also include these symbols? — hippietrail 02:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it can't be encoded in UTF-8, then it can't have an entry in Wiktionary, whether we want it or not, unless someone devises a special workaround such as we have now for ASL. That's been my understanding, anyway... This is particularly painful in the case of Egyptian, but hopefully that will be resolved in the future.
For dingbats and such, it seems like the situation is the same as for the (non-word) Hangul syllabic blocks -- a person who encounters an unfamiliar symbol may want to look it up just to find out whether it has an associated meaning. So even if we just have an entry that basically says "Box drawing symbol, no other meaning," that may be quite useful. (I have pasted unfamiliar glyphs into Wiktionary for this purpose myself, with mixed results.) There are lots of character references out there, but I don't know of any resource that combines a character reference with multilingual dictionary functionality. We can simultaneously answer the questions "what is this?" and "what, if anything, does it mean?" I would imagine that would be useful in the case of emoji as well; cf. our existing Category:Emoticons.-- Visviva 04:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
In the case of Egyptian hieroglyphs, these have been approved for Unicode already, and I think the names and code points are already fixed; they haven't been formally added yet, though. Equinox 15:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Now putting some lists up at User:Equinox/Unicode. Equinox 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

in french ipsum is the etymology of ce. why did i get blocked? --Johne000 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You got blocked because you repeatedly removed information from ce and eso, and perhaps other pages, without deigning to explain why. When a fellow editor asked you politely about it you removed his question without answering it. In short, you got blocked because you acted like a vandal. —RuakhTALK 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is vapourise a misspelling in commonwealth areas? RJFJR 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Pingku 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also vapourize. Please don't use the phrase “Commonwealth spelling,” because there is no such thing. Canada has its own preferred and acceptable spellings. Michael Z.

What would you suggest as an alternative? -- Visviva 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
British for terms not used in Canada, British, Canadian for terms which are.
The Commonwealth of Nations is a political organization whose membership crosses linguistic lines. Most of its members inherited their English vocabulary and spelling from Britain. The exception is Canada, whose English is closely related to the other main branch, American English, but also influenced by British English and Canadian French.
There's no need, and no economical way, to specify that aluminium is the primary spelling in the UK, Ireland, Australia, India, South Africa, and all the other countries of the Commonwealth except Canada. It's just British English. Specific regionalisms like Australian tucker should be labelled according to their native geography, of course.
I haven't seen any dictionaries which apply the strictly political labels “UK” or “Commonwealth” for varieties of English. Michael Z. 2009-02-22 16:52 z
Ireland ... and all the other countries of the Commonwealth. Please, more cautious with this issue - the Republic of Éire has not been a member for 60 years and is a completely independent country. The Republic of South Africa has not been either from the Verwoerd's times until de klerk came to power. But Éire is definitely not going to rejoin (here all other former members which are not as influential as Éire in matters of regional varieties of English). I personally favour the designation Commonwealth, because in this case we can settle for only 4 templates: UK/British, Ireland, Commonwealth and US (and Canada, although part of the Commonwealth) instead of dozens. Bogorm 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I routinely assume that it's a convenient synonym for “former British Empire” or “British colonies”, but of course it's not.
So should we review all occurrences of the template since Nauru became a “member in arrears?” I notice we didn't use “Commonwealth and Pakistan” during 1999–2004 and 2007–08 when that country's membership was suspended, but I guess we shouldn't worry now that it is reinstated. Fiji, Nigeria, and a few other country's memberships have changed in the last decade. Mozambique is not a British colony at all, and its official language is Portuguese.
By the way, we need way more than four templates to account for members of Category:Regional English, and there's no reason to minimize the number.
Commonwealth membership in good standing has no clearly-defined relationship to the language used in a country, any more than membership in the United Nations, Nato, Nafta, or GATT. Another reason to use geographic labels and avoid purely political ones. Michael Z. 2009-02-22 20:04 z

[I'm copying this discussion to WT:BP#Template:CommonwealthMichael Z. 2009-02-22 20:56 z]

In my opinion, the Arabic translation of English entries doesn't need the vocalisation (tashkīl تشكيل or ḥarakāt حركات). Firstly, it's not a normal way to write in Arabic, so it's a bit misleading to users, secondly, there could be more than one possible vocalisation. The romanisation seems sufficient (with possible variants where appropriate). Thirdly, it's not easy to type with the full vocalisation. The Arabic entries might provide both vocalised and unvocalised versions, e.g. حكومة and حَكُومَةٌ. Anatoli 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is normal prodecure for Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin. The page name for such words does not include these marks, but the display form in translations, inflection lines, and inflection tables does. See Wiktionary:About Arabic, Wiktionary:About Hebrew, and Wiktionary:About Latin for policies on these languages. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Any language with "optional" marks is handled this way. Old English is the other prominent example, with minor examples being Turkish and most languages using the Arabic and Hebrew scripts including Persian and possibly Aramaic. The curved apostrophe is also handled this way in most languages. — hippietrail 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Missed the answers, sorry. It seems cumbersome to add vocalisations for each entry. How strict is this rule? I prefer to add Arabic translation and the transliteration, if anyone has the time, may add later. Actually, the examples in the link don't have tashkīl. Anatoli 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, then don't worry about it, at least for languages like Hebrew and Arabic where anyone can see that the vocalization is missing. Someone else can always add it later. (For Latin, it's more of a problem, because if a word has no macrons, then the reader can't tell if the macrons are missing, or if the word simply has no long vowels. Likewise for Old English. But for Arabic and Hebrew, there's no risk of confusion.) —RuakhTALK 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's still risk of a lot of confusion with Arabic if there are homographs, e.g. عمان, which can be both Oman (ʻUmān) and Amman (ʻAmmān), the latter can be written with shadda (عمّان), of course, with the missing vocalisation, the romanisation is a substitute. Besides, the romanisation would be required here anyway, as not everyone is familiar with the Arabic script. --Anatoli 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I mean. I'm saying that in Arabic, there's no risk of confusion between عمان (Amman/Oman) and عُمان (Oman), or between عمان (Amman/Oman) and عمّان (Amman). عمان (Amman/Oman) is ambiguous, because it's missing information; but it's not a big deal, because anyone looking at it can see that it's missing the information. Whereas in Latin, re (short "e") is a possible word, so if you write re when you mean (long "e"), the reader is misled. —RuakhTALK 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I got you. I learned something new, I didn't know Latin uses macrons. There is still similarities in problems, since for ambiguous cases, writers (in certain cases) are supposed to add those extra vowels in Arabic. You are supposed to write عمّان if you mean Amman, if you don't the reader is misled but it happens.Anatoli 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Zoëga dictionary quotes the word with its only meaning brim. When I looked it up in Vigfússon/Cleasby, there was written explicitly ... A. S. barm; all in the sense of gremium: this sense, however, is entirely unknown to old Icel. writers, who only apply the word in like sense as barð, namely, Engl. brim (bold by me). Whilst barmur means bosom in Icelandic, the remark by Vigfússon and Cleasby precludes such possibility for the Old Norse word. I suggest erasing the 1st meaning which developped much later and preserving only the second. If anyone finds a citation in ON where the word means bosom, please state it. Just to mention that in ODS the origin of Danish barm is Old Norse baðmr and there is no trace of barmr at all. Bogorm 20:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, our entry for banyan has a 1914 quotation that is cited from a 1903 publication. Can someone figure out what happened? --EncycloPetey 19:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the editor pasted the wrong info into the reference, and didn't include a "reference" tag, so wouldn't have seen the result. Details from b.g.c are: "The East I Know; By Paul Claudel, Teresa Frances Thompson Benét, William Rose Benét; Translated by Teresa Frances Thompson Benét, William Rose Benét; Published by Yale University Press, 1914." - Pingku 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
So how does the 1903 reference to a glossary fit into any of this? --EncycloPetey 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sod. I missed the first "[1]". The reference applies to the etymology. The second "[1]" is an unlabelled external link apparently created by "quote-book". I haven't used quote-book, so don't know how best to fix this. Pingku 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I said there was a numbering problem with "quote-book"! It really does need to be fixed. -- ALGRIF talk 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Grrr.... It would be nicer if the footnotes were fixed to use something that didn't inherently conflict with external links. You know, something other than numbers... Letters, for example. I mean, it's not like {{quote-book}} was the first time anyone ever put an unlabeled external link in an entry that happens to contain footnotes. </gripe>
Would it be helpful to have the URL be non-superscript? It would be rather ugly IMO, but easily done. Another option would be to link the full title, though that is only possible if the title is not already marked up. At any rate, I've replaced the b.g.c. url with a Hathi Trust url that links to the specific page; that should solve the immediate problem. -- Visviva 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ultimateria added almost all of the masculine Spanish noun plurals yesterday, but there are some left that I'm not sure about:

  • hipótesis (hipótesises)
    Larousse Gran Diccionario Español/Inglés-Inglés/Español says this is invariant.
  • lord (lores)
    Larousse Gran Diccionario Español/Inglés-Inglés/Español agrees.
  • milord (milores)
    Here's just one web page I found which concurs: [18]
  • moisés (moiseses)
    Larousse Gran Diccionario Español/Inglés-Inglés/Español says this is invariant.

Are these correct? Nadando 23:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My Collins Spanish Dictionary agrees that hipótesis is invariant, and that the plural of lord is lores, but does not give information about the plural of the other two. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can determine hipótesis is invariant, the plural of lord is lores, but there are plenty of examples on Google of milores as an in-use plural. also see As far as I can determine moisés is invariant. -- ALGRIF talk 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This word has under the heading Alternative Spellings "full-throttle (attributive use):" Now I wonder, isn't this really tantamount to an adjectival form? __meco 09:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We haven't been showing a separate PoS for attributive use of a noun. I have relied on the simple tests: "Is it used in the comparative or superlative" or "Is it used with a 'grading' adverb (eg,"too", "very"). If it attestably meets at least one of these tests, arguably it should be presented as an adjective and/or adverb. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that full-throttle, when created, should definitely have the POS header "Adjective", since it is never used in any non-adjectival way. However, calling it a derived term in the full throttle entry would be a bit much; keeping it under ===Alternative forms=== is best IMO. -- Visviva 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Relatedly, I find that the usage preference favoring hyphens in some cases and disfavoring them in others is often disregarded in both directions. It verges on being misleading to present it as I have in this and some other entries, but presenting relative frequency-based usage notes seems like a colossal waste of contributor and user time. It is a case where economy of effort (aka laziness) favors that much orthgraphic prescriptivism. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree. A templated usage note might be a happy medium; it could also reference the various usage authorities that have weighed in on the issue (or that info could be hived off to a linked Appendix). -- Visviva 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A "pan at chestnuts"

Hello everybody.

  • A few days ago, I created the article on French Wiktionary for the poêle à marrons.
  • This morning, I made a photography of this stuff, and put it on the article.
  • Now, I am searching for an English translation. Could you help me ?

Thanks in advance. --Szyx 18:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a chestnut pan or a chestnut-roasting pan. Equinox 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Chestnut roasting pan, yes, it seems to be the answer [19]. The word "roasting" was the one I was missing... Thank you, I'll put it on the article. --Szyx 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) My English is terrifically unfficient ! ;-)

Reading about Ayatollah Khomeini I have encounter a few interesting words such as: ijtihad

and related words, I could find definitions easy enough, but I wanted to know what the words sounded like, also.

I have added this requested word as a plural of the noun sorry. But the singular is not defined as a noun. Is it reasonable to describe an instance of an interjection as a noun? SemperBlotto 09:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The noun definition of goodbye seems to fit with what you want. Pingku 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't this be simply dime a dozen? Isn't the a superfluous and contrary to normal entry criteria? I propose it be moved. -- ALGRIF talk 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with every statement you make and your conclusion. However, it is not satisfactory that a user who enters "a dime a dozen" would not be provided with "dime a dozen" after [[a dime a dozen]] is removed. Leaving the redirect is adequate in this case but a user who found a less common variant (eg, "dime for a dozen") still wouldn't be lead to the right headword by our search. It would be a little better if they were offered the option of linking to the component terms of the idiom. I had begun a BP discussion on this point. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In citing the "get the F off" sense for RFV, I'm finding that some cites seem to mean "get the F out of" — as in, they seem to mean "get the F out", but given the lack of "of", their syntax seems to match "get the F off". (Examples include "GTFO the kitchen", "GTFO the profession", and "GTFO the way".) Looking further, I find that google:"get out the kitchen", google:"get out the way", and even google:"get out the profession" all get hits. I'm not sure what to make of this; we do define out as a preposition meaning "Away from the inside", but our example sentence ("He threw it out the door") is not the same.

I guess what I'm wondering is:

  • are "out the kitchen", "out the way", etc. a regular feature of some form of English?
  • if so, is "GTFO the kitchen" short for "get the F out the kitchen", or for "get the F out of the kitchen"?
  • in ambiguous "of"-less cases, such as "GTFO our [Usenet] group", do you prefer an "out/out of" reading, or an "off" reading?

(I'm ignoring the fact that "off" can appear with or without "of" — "fell off (of) his chair" — because it doesn't seem relevant to me, but maybe it is?)

What do y'all think?

RuakhTALK 19:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In my personal experience out is used as shorthand slang for out of when it precedes the definite article (or a personal pronoun as you note). That seems to be what is happening here. It seems to be more common in British English and African-American dialects of US English than in other places. --EncycloPetey 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is inethical a common misspelling of unethical? RJFJR 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Non existent at COCA, not common at Google News, but I don't have time at the moment to make sense of the apparently high frequency on Books and on Google Web search. Yahoo Web search has it at .1% of "unethical" which is certainly not relatively common, though it is an estimated 24K raw web hits. Since there are no explicit criteria for common, you can use your judgment. DCDuring TALK 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that "Homo Sapien" or more specifically "Sapien" is not a word. Homo Sapiens is both the singular and plural much like its taxonomy class Species. Oxford online does not even return any results for Homo Sapien. Should Wiktionary be updated to correct this common misconception? It is marked as non-standard but shouldn't it be removed completely?—This unsigned comment was added by Benjamin.Dobell (talkcontribs) 12:58, 17 February 2009.

We intentionally have many misspellings and alternative spellings. If a language learner's first encounter with the name is one of the common misspellings or alternative spellings, should we offer no help? DCDuring TALK 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternative spellings are used by educated English speakers, while misspellings in no wise are. Mine opinion about misspellings tallies entirely with Benjamin.Dobell's in the assumption that misspellings ought to be removed altogether. Additionally methinks that Wiktionary should shew people how to spell properly words in lieu of how to spell them as an ignoramus. Bogorm 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Note, however, that this is not a misspelling but a misconstruction. The problem isn't that people mean to write "Homo sapiens" but accidentally or ignorantly write "Homo sapien" instead (even for a poor speller, the final "s" is hard to miss)... Rather, they are construing "Homo sapiens" as a plural and deriving a novel singular form. An educated speaker could certainly do this for jocular purposes. Of course we should provide the correct information about usage, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't document this usage, even though it currently happens to be considered incorrect. -- Visviva 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Help! There are apparently three classes of usage:

  1. as an auxiliary ("must"),
  2. as a defective verb ("to possess", "to own"),
  3. as dialect (?) past of get (become).

The "have" sense seems to be derived from the idea that "I have gotten/obtained X" = "I now own X". That would account for its being defective.

How should this be presented? Multiple etymologies? Multiple PoS and inflection lines? One PoS, multiple inflection lines? One PoS, one inflection paragraph? DCDuring TALK 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why nº3. Surely that is simply the present perfect tense of "to get" (I don't want to get wet. You'll get wet. I got wet. I have got wet. I had got wet. etc.) and so does not belong here. We don't have entries for perfect inflections. That leaves two entries. The auxiliary should be at have got to and linked as a synonym of have to. That leaves just the one entry; "to possess", "to own". Put an also template for "have got to". Problem solved. IMVHO. -- ALGRIF talk 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. The reason for including number 3 is to allow support the usage contrast. That could also be achieved with a usage note, I suppose. Also American written usage at least seems to favor "gotten" for the present perfect (except colloquially), judging by the first fifty entries at COCA.
  2. I think of the "to" as part of an infinitive rather than as part of a headword. It seems particularly awkward as it creates a lack of parallelism among the presentations of verb senses which take normal infinitives, bare infinitives, and present participles. Is the inclusion of the "to" of an infinitive in an auxiliary verb entry another undocumented Wiktionary rule? Is it standard lexicographic practice? Is it standard usage/idiom guide dictionary practice? DCDuring TALK 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. The "got - gotten" difference should still be dealt with under got, not under "have got". These participle differences are not normally put into "have + verb" headwords.
  2. When dealing with modal verbs we have entries with "to" as part of the auxiliary construction, leaving the grammatical rule "modal auxiliary + bare infinitive" intact. See have to and be able to. I would also mention ought to, but for reasons that do not make much sense to me, there is a certain amount of disagreement over that particular entry. -- ALGRIF talk 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What started me on this entry was a redlink to have got to. My objection would apply to all of the entries you have mentioned. This seems to be the kind of splitting of an infinitive that is pernicious. The "to" in each of these is indistinguishable from the "to" in many other verb constructions. Is it the current fashion to move the "to" to the auxilliary in all cases? Does this facilitate language learning? Will we be moving the "-ing" soon? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok what about You've got a package waiting, She's got egg on her face, You've got another think comin'!, I've got you under my skin -- Thisis0 17:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem that they are contractions or that we've not got the appropriate sense of have? I've not gotten around to considering that question. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
What we have here is a limited number of AUXILIARY MODAL VERB FORMS. shall, should, will, would, can, could, may, might, must, need, dare, be able to, have to, ought to, be bound to, and (colloquially) have got to. A limited set, as I say. They perform a specific grammatical function as modal auxiliaries, and they follow a set of pretty strict rules, one of which is that they are followed by a BARE infinitive. I recommend you check any decent grammar reference about this, and you will find that it has absolutely nothing to do with split infinitives. These entries (with the "to") are what will be searched. It must be , (or has to be) understood that, for instance, "had to" IS the past form of "must". Another for instance is putting two modal concepts together, such as "can" in the future: "tomorrow I will be able to come" = "tomorrow I can come." And so on. The fact that have got caused you to cry for help surely demonstrates that I possibly am right, wouldn't you say? -- ALGRIF talk 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
need, dare, and ought certainly are used both with ordinary and bare infinitives. It seems highly artificial to split their entries to create the homogeneous class of modals that you seem to be seeking.
I can't speak whether metaphysically "had to" is a past form of "must". To me it appears to be vastly more straightforward to present "must" as simply defective, with "have to" is a non-defective synonym for some of its senses, perhaps with a usage note.
Further, it seems again vastly more straightforward and in line with universal lexicographic practice that any entries of modals with "to" should simply be redirects to the bare modal. This has the enormous presentation advantage of allowing a user to compare and contrast closely related senses. That they are colloquially used without any expressed infinitive, but with "to", is the principal justification for the redirects in all of these cases. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please look here. They explain it much better in Wikipedia than I can in this discussion page. -- ALGRIF talk 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know the (subtle) difference between rude and impolite. Many thanks! Vin 16:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that impolite is more likely to be a minor violation of good manners while rude can cover the whole range. (Jumping ahead in a queue is impolite; punching somebody in the face is not merely impolite but outright rude.) Just my feeling on it. Equinox 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the name Λουκιανός truly Greek? Or is it merely a transliteration of a Latin version of something? __meco 09:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they? There is a standard deviation continuum of sorts on how a word is pronounced. Admittedly, the standard pronunciation of each of these words does not qualify them as homophones, however, if we consider the sectors of pronunciation continua for each, they do intersect in my reckoning. __meco 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They seem totally unalike to me, because of syllable count and s/z sound. "pleez", "pəlees". Equinox 02:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there were any one accent with any significant overlap. Both syllable count and terminal phoneme could be different, I would expect. Isn't the standard for homophones' pronunciation a bit tighter than the standard for synonyms' semantics? DCDuring TALK 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

While starting to clean up the entry cabra, I noticed a small problem with billy goat, billy-goat, billygoat, nanny goat, nanny-goat, and nannygoat. The most obvious is that (at least as I write this) three of these don't even have entries. That would be simple enough to correct, save that I'd prefer to correct another problem first, which pair should be the primary entries? Right now those are billygoat and nanny goat respectively, but ideally it should be either the two word, the hyphenated word, or the compound word for both. Playing with Google doesn't reveal a clear favorite, tho the compound word forms appear to be slightly preferenced. However, the three dictionaries I consulted (one offline, two online) use the two word form as their entry. So which should we use as the primary entries here? Carolina wren 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BYU has the British National Corpus ("BNC"} and the Corpus of Contemporary American English ("COCA"). Normally they have special value because they have some transcribed speech. That advantage doesn't apply to spelling issues. BYU's interface gives better performance on its keyword-in-context display than google and doesn't require you to outsmart Google's stemming. It also allows search for a word as a particular part of speech. Yahoo provides more straightforward Boolean searches for words. If you still don't get a clear result, the unhyphenated forms (solid or spaced) deserve preference over the hyphenated form as a noun. The adjectival (attributive) use of a noun, which tends to account for a lot of the hyphenated usage, doesn't usually merit a separate PoS. I've begun showing hyphenated forms as alternative spellings with a label "(attributive use)".
I keep a tab open with COCA at all times though it terminates your session fairly quickly, requiring refresh. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. After checking with those additional sources, it appears that at least in printed media, the two word unhyphenated form prevails, though none are particularly common in the corpuses. Carolina wren 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But shouldn't the hyphenated forms have “Adjective” as the main POS, since that is the “correct” meaning? Billy goat is a noun and billy-goat is an adjective, while the “alternate spelling” usage is non-standard. Michael Z. 2009-02-21 23:46 z

That's one of those prescriptivist rules that gets honored more in the breach than reality. Certainly doesn't match actual usage. Since both "billy goat" and "billy-goat" when used as adjectives have the usual meaning of nouns used as adjectives, i.e., "pertaining to a billygoat", I can't see marking any of these six words as adjectives. Carolina wren 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
"In the breach" means "by breaking it". The usual expression is "more honored in the breach than in the observance", which is due to Shakespeare, and is usually taken to mean "more often broken than observed", though apparently he meant "more honorable to break than to observe".[20]RuakhTALK 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was this word tagged as archaic at the 5th non-bot edit (summa summarum at the 7th edit). I suppose that if the archaic nature was incotrovertible, the tag would have been there since its creation. MW does not use any tag whatsoever, can someone check OED? Bogorm 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of the 21 total uses in BNC and COCA indicates:
  1. no colloquial use at all
  2. one use erroneously for "wanted"
  3. several uses in quotations from earlier writings (19th century and earlier)
  4. several uses in poetry
  5. several uses in what look like bodice-rippers. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"Accustomed" had more than 4,000 apparent uses in COCA. DCDuring TALK 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Accustomed is mundane, not to speak of usual, have you ever encountered usual in any poetic work? I just wanted to know whether any of the authoritative dictionares (MW (result: not), OED (result:?)...) bestoweth upon this word the tag archaic. Bogorm 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Longman's DCE and Camb. Intl. show it as "formal".
CompactOED shows it as "literary" and "archaic".
Encarta shows it as "Literary".
MWO, WMWC, AHD, and RHU show no tag; See OneLook.com. DCDuring TALK 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your research. Consequently, I suggest switching from Template:archaic to Template:literary, for of this miltitude of dictionaries a large part did not use any tag whatsoever and the secong largest part seems to opt for literary. Bogorm 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Some folks have objected to the "archaic" label at Wiktionary.
MW3 uses "archaic" to indicate whether a word survives in non-literary use and did not apply it to "wonted" in 1993. Longman's DCE does not use "archaic" as a label at all. Informatively to me they did not use "pompous" for "wonted". I have not looked, for example, at what labels the other dictionaries use and whether the online editions reflect what the print editions do in this regard. The only definitive way of showing the inappropriateness of the archaic label would be attesting to its use colloquially, in newspapers, in contemporary writing (excluding fiction that might be fairly suspected of archaicism). DCDuring TALK 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

what does "musami" mean ? i think it was something to do with zimbabwe ?

Any South Africans or etymologists know where the interjection magtig comes from? Afrikaans. Dutch for sure, but are there words like mig or tag that are the roots? --Jackofclubs 16:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s from machtig. —Stephen 01:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi gang, I tripped over a number of one line definitions for "combined" words; tennis racket, tennis racquet, squash racket, etc. I believe these should be combined into simply "racquet" with linkages to each "racquet sport". I tried tagging them for discussion but evidently did it wrong...any experts? Any concerns? -- Mjquin id 20:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ie: ..The tone of Dave Matthews is influctuous...oPEN up YOUR heart AND let me OUOUT little BAby.

—This unsigned comment was added by 99.9.23.115 (talkcontribs) 10:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

Wiktionary proper is a dictionary of real words, but you're welcome to add made-up words to Wiktionary:List of protologisms or to Urban Dictionary. —RuakhTALK 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is pretty a noun in the phrase 'my pretty'? RJFJR 20:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I found another use of pretty as a noun, so I added a noun sense. RJFJR 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this definition supported by any published dictionaries? It's absent from the NOAD, CanOD, Dictionary.com, and M–W online. Michael Z. 2009-02-24 06:46 z

I agree. I once challenged someone to prove its existance. The Commonwealth is a political organisation, it's like saying there is a version of NATO English. Nor can anyone convince me that the same English is spoken in Kenya, Australia, India, Canada, and Belize. And what do we call English spoken outside of the USA if the country is not a member of the commonwealth, such as Ireland, or the version of English used in continental Europe. Why not just call it English, with American English being considered the other version.--Dmol 09:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Surely you mean another, not the other.
Claiming only two varieties of English (American and UK or Commonwealth or whatever) is just a step away from Centrism. Yes, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and other varieties of English are different. Some even have their own dictionaries! These varieties have added words from the respective countries - some of which have become mainstream, with others remaining regional. In Singapore, I understand, people move during a single conversation between Chinese, Chinese with some English words, English with some Chinese words, English, and back again. I presume some Canadians can do the same with French. India must be at least as complicated, with many languages spoken in the country, but English used when something needs to be understood by all. And this without mentioning that Scots / Scottish English is at least as old as Middle English.
The difference between American and "English" English is minuscule in comparison with the variation in the language called English. Pingku 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't really whether Commonwealth English exists, or what it is. The question is whether the term Commonwealth English has a conventional meaning (i.e., whether it meets our criteria for inclusion). I don't see it in dictionaries, and from a quick Google Books search it appears to be a sum-of-parts term meaning English in the Commonwealth, and nothing more (i.e., not a recognized variety of the language, or orthographic convention, or something else).

So I've filed an RfVMichael Z. 2009-02-25 20:03 z

Does anybody know the difference between 'dominant' and 'predominant'? Thank you. —This comment was unsigned.

See dominant, predominant. Any use? Equinox 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, I often am. But I recall once encountering a four letter word naming the little metal ferrules at the end of shoe laces. Can I find it again? No, so I put my little message in an email bottle and toss it into the Wiktionary sea. It was something akin in shape to 'tine', but that's cutlery, or 'kine', but that's agricultural. I have not seen it again in twenty, perhaps thirty years. What was it? —This unsigned comment was added by Luffingboy (talkcontribs) 11:00, 24 February 2009.

5 letters: aglet Robert Ullmann 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Damn, he's fast. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

He's fast, yes, but accurate too! Five letters, well I studied mathematics but arithmetic was never my strength. Thank you for solving my mystery. How about 'faiches' listed above? What the bejesus are they?

From Irish, a green or grasses, grass field. Used here to mean hay I believe. Robert Ullmann 11:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Ullmann, for clearing up two enigmas for me. Really, I am very grateful, and in awe....thank you.

Please someone provide the entry with Arabic script and move it to a new entry whose title is in Arabic script. I can't, I only know that Pashto is written in Arabic script. Bogorm 13:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tea Room is not the place to request cleanup. Cleanup requests belong on the WIktionary:Requests for Cleanup. I have removed the entry, since it was not only in the wrong script, but on entirely the wrong page. I have tagged the additions by the same user to metal as needing Arabic script. But again, this is not when a cleanup conversation should occur. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I had already created Wiktionary:Requests for Cleanup#zar#Pashto and explained why I had posted it there so late. Henceforth I shall know. Bogorm 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone know what is the different between unicolor and concolor? Does unicolor surface allow diffrent shades of the same color?

The term concolor is Latin for "of the same color". This doesn't necessarily mean all of one color, since it can be used to compare two different objects and mean that one thing is the same color as something else. The term unicolor compares an object only to itself. --EncycloPetey 03:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a word, I can't find the defination of. It was in a document sent to me
by the Auditor's Office in Dayton Ohio, in which I was trying to appeal a tax
increase on my property.
> The word is ....casuality.
> In a sentence;
> The property lost value,due to a casuality.
>
—This unsigned comment was added by Hossmad (talkcontribs) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

They probably mean casualty. Something like a tree falling on it. DCDuring TALK 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Or ſomething like adverſity. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 15:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
casualty appears to have special meaning(s) in insurance. III refers to property/casualty insurers, but doesn't define the term. Wikipedia and Ambest equate it to liability, to Lloyd's it's the loss of a ship, and NOAD has a subsense “(chiefly in insurance) an accident, mishap, or disaster.” Michael Z. 2009-02-25 15:58 z

Look at the interjections. Are these really supposed to be separate interjectional senses of fuck? I think somebody has got mixed up and used it as a catch-all list for terms that contain fuck (e.g. what the fuck), which should and do have their own entries. Equinox 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(This got lost like this, I'm just returning it here. --Duncan 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree. Apart from the intensifier sense, the meaning applies to the phrase, not the word. And as an intensifier sense, the word is not the interjection. Pingku 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, given the lack of dissent I'm going to tidy up. Equinox 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a noun or an adjective? It seems to be most commonly used as an adjective in phrases like "dotted decimal notation" or "dotted-decimal format". But it doesn't really seem to have a definition that is very adjectivy. (I thought about defining as "describing a number written in dotted-decimal notation" - which is a bit circular and doesn't really reflect its use in phrases like dotted-deciaml form or "a dotted-decimal string"). Conrad.Irwin 19:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would parse this as "dotted, decimal format" (i.e. one that has both of those characteristics). By that token, if the entry is worth having — perhaps the two have coalesced into a unit — then it would be an adjective and possibly hyphenated. As usual, I might be wrong. Equinox 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

eu- etymology refers to Avestan which is not in the etymology templates -- should it be added? It also uses non-UTF-8 characters to try to display the Avestan spelling. -- dougher 03:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand- does {{etyl|ae}} not work? Nadando 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed this down, as eu- should not refer back to PIE, as it is a borrowing, not a natural descendant. {{ae}} works fine, but this does not come from Avestan at all. Avestan characters are not yet encoded in Unicode, but they will be shortly, and some of us have been jumping the gun a bit. We'll have a nice head-start when Avestan characters come online. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Entry_template for Plural is inserting this:

<noinclude>[[Category:Wiktionary:English entry templates]]</noinclude>

Is this intentional? -- dougher 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The etymology contradicts the Wikipedia entry, which says that "bonspiel" comes from Scots, while this says it comes from German and French, but bonspiel describes a tournament of curling, which is a Scottish sport... 76.66.193.90 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It entered English from Scotland, that's for certain, and is attested in Scots earlier than "proper" English. Where the Scots word came from is a mystery though. Probably it is some kind of Germanic, because of the spiel, but Wikipedia sounds like it's overstating the case a little. The OED suggests unattested Dutch *bondspel as a source. (PS this should probably be at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium..) Ƿidsiþ 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
CanOD says “perhaps from Low German; compare West Flemish bonespel a children's game.” Michael Z. 2009-02-27 15:57 z
Dictionary of the Scots Language says "O.Sc. bonspel, bonspule, -speil, -spale, a match or contest of any kind. The earliest quotation in D.O.S.T. in the sense of a game of any kind is 1560. The first element is gen. thought to be for Du. *bond = verbond, an alliance, a covenant, hence bonspell, a contest between different bodies. Bense suggests another origin, viz. Du. bonne, vieus, regio urbis (Kilian); cf. O.E. bōnda, a householder, Scand. bōndi, idem, cogn. of O.E. būan, to dwell. For the second element, see ba’spel’, s.v. Ba’, n.1, 3 (2), and Spiel, n." --Duncan 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sense 4 (intransitive, without predicate) elliptical form of for "be here", "go to and return from" or similar.

  • The postman has been today, but my tickets have still not yet come.
  • I have been to Spain many times.

Surely this sense is only ever encountered in the form have/has been and some consider this to be an alternative perfect past form of go. Opinions? -- ALGRIF talk 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it doesn't sound like the verb "to be". The expression "been and gone" might throw some light on this? Dbfirs 17:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

An IP's new entry. It needs to be corrected, but I don't know whether it is "kumina" or "cumina". I'm not sure about capitalization either. -- ALGRIF talk 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that "Kumina" is the more common spelling with "Cumina" being an accepted variant. The 'pedia has its article at Kumina. Carolina wren 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've recently been becoming more and more fascinated with language and I came across a word in the dictonary that meant making up new words. I just can't remember the word! If anyone would know what it is, that would be great! Thanks. —This comment was unsigned.

coin, neologize? Equinox 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

old "black culture" word meaning to "think on it" I've heard it used for years by some fellow musicians when discussing if they can remember something or recollect a fact —This comment was unsigned.

You mean reconnoiter, right? Do you have any evidence of this black musician sense, such as usage in books? Equinox 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As a misspelling of reconnoiter, that use of recognoiter certainly seems to swamp all other modern usage, possibly enough to warrant an entry as a misspelling (several hundred thousand google hits). I tried another possible spelling for the intended word, recogniter and that seems to be a sparsely used term for a module in speech recognition and other AI systems used to recognize certain features of interest, but whether it has enough durable cites to warrant an entry, I'll leave to others to ponder. Carolina wren 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Go to the last page, and Google shows the more accurate figure of 47 results for recognoiter. Google Books shows a single hit from 1851, looking like a reasonable historical alternate spelling, although it may be a nonce. Michael Z. 2009-03-03 16:23 z

The Wikiquote page of Apuleius translates Parit enim conversatio contemptum; raritas conciliat admirationem with "Familiarity breeds contempt, but privacy gains admiration". Surely this is a mistranslation of the word raritas? If not, privacy would seem to be needing another definition. __meco 08:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a mistranslation. --EncycloPetey 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this in the Guardian, reference to the "last surviving auricular theatre in Britain" at Calke Abbey, Derbyshire. But I'm blowed if I can find out what it is. Seems to be something to do with gardens and flowers (possibly). If anyone knows, please turn the redlink blue. Thx. -- ALGRIF talk 13:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it is a display area in the rough shape of an ear. But I could be wrong. SemperBlotto 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under "whole shooting match" without the "the"? -- ALGRIF talk 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I would think so. Despite that search wouldn't take a user who typed the current headword to "whole shooting match". Sigh. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The question to ask onesself is whether the article is actually itself part of the idiom. So ask yourself: Do people ever talk of a whole shooting match, a whole nine yards, a whole shebang, or a whole enchilada when using the idiom? Uncle G 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Precisely why I asked here. CFI states "Omit an initial article unless it makes a difference in the meaning." I would be interested to know if consensus leads us to keep or omit the "the". The query can extend to some other entries as well, it would seem from the above. -- ALGRIF talk 13:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Most hits for this word seem to be errors for intrauterine. Does it have a meaning of its own? SemperBlotto 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The ratio of "interuterine" to "intrauterine" is much lower on Scholar than on Books, suggesting to me that it probably does not have a technical meaning and that book authors are worse spellers than "scholars". There might be a Buddhist meaning of some kind. Whether or not there are other meanings, it is certainly a common misspelling. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wanting to add regnal, regnal year, and regnal name. However I'm not certain that the last has more than a sum of parts to it. (Since regnal year is somewhat more than SoP, I'm not hesitant there and have already added it.) Any thoughts before I commit some edits on those other two? Carolina wren 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about adding a noun defintion to upper, from which derive washer-upper, cheerer-upper, looker-upper, beater-upper etc. and I'm struggling to do better than "an agent noun for phrasal verbs ending in up". Also, is there a linguistic name for the process of changing these phrasal verbs into nouns? --Jackofclubs 13:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Clearly, this is not convential English - colloquial or slang at best. Similar situations arise with e.g. maker-outer, cooler-downer and theoretically with all phrasal verbs however ugly they sound (emailer-backer sniffer-arounder? puller-togetherer? comer-upper-wither? getter-ridder-offer?) There's a few googles for all these terms, although mostly none of them are CFI-meeters. --Jackofclubs 13:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say those derive from upper. The term washer-upper comes from wash up + -er. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Dalzell's New Patridge agrees with you, noting that washer-up is the original agentive formation, to which a second -er is added, and to which, for comic effect, a third -er is sometimes added: washer-upperer.

      I am not suprised, given the apparent tendency to stick as many -ers on the end as possible, that we have washer-upper but don't yet have the older (Google Books has occurrences from the 1820s.), more common (and more sensible) washer-up. ☺ Uncle G 02:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Synonym for panache? Definitions need cleanup as well. Nadando 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to add an entry for this, which is an initialism for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (Bach Works Catalogue). The BWV number is the standard way to refer to the musical works of J. S. Bach. My only quandary is should this be under Translingual or German? Carolina wren 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would vote for Translingual as the primary entry. If it's German, then it's also English, French, Korean and God alone knows how many other languages. (And yes, I'm afraid that rationale applies to a lot of "English" initialisms too; all in good time...) -- Visviva 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I was strongly leaning that way myself I went ahead and did it. Carolina wren 05:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What are we supposed to undertake in order to unify in one single article the current take its toll and take their toll, when the devastation is inflicted by multiple factors, exempli gratia years of no exercise and lots of junk food have taken their toll? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also take a heavy toll, etc. Convention seems to be to pick the most general form as the “lemma” entry, and mark up the others as alternative forms. Michael Z. 2009-03-03 16:18 z

I've been searching for an English translation of the Latin word vivo. Recalling my school-day Latin I think it means I live, first person singular from the verb vivere to live. At work part of our organisation has renamed itself VIVO and are saying that it means to sustain or to support. I think that sustinare means to sustain or to support and that this translation is dubious to say the least. Any latin scholars out there able to help me out? Thanks from Blue Stobo.

See vivo. I don't speak Latin, but that entry suggests "I live". Equinox 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortnight has a number of slightly inaccurate translations. For now I've contented myself with pointing out that the Catalan and Portuguese quinzena; the French quinzaine, the Italian quindicina, the Spanish quincena, and the Greek δεκαπενθήμερο are all actually 15 days long, not fourteen. Should these close but no cylinder of rolled tobacco leaves entries be kept? In the case of the five Romantic entries, there likely should be a good entry to link them together at given their common origin, but I'm thinking that halfmonth would likely do the job as well. Carolina wren 03:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not as simple as observing that the root of the word is the number 15 rather than the number 14. Current usage, of which examples abound, is that these, however inaccurate they may be from a strict non-idiomatic point of view, are the translations that are actually in use in the world at large. One could generate a list of examples as long as one's arm, but I'll start with just one: The Quinzaine des réalisateurs at the Cannes Film Festival is, in English, the "Directors' Fortnight". And that translation has been around for 40 years, now.

    Note, by the way, that there's no inherent logical disagreement between a period of 14 nights and one of 15 days — the other "but these aren't the same thing!" argument that is often proposed.

    Also note that the translation for week into Welsh is wythnos, which is eight (wyth#Welsh) night(s) (nos#Welsh). One can cry that the numbers are inconsistent until one is blue in the face. That doesn't change the fact that these are the translations that the world uses. Uncle G 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

    • It all makes perfect sense if one thinks that the first and last nights are not complete - i.e. only 'half nights' - and the whole period is bounded from midnight to midnight. Pingku 16:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Compare Gunther and Günther. It's not clear which are misspellings (or valid alternate spellings) of which, and I think the entries are contradictory. Equinox 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I added usage notes and explanations. Is it better now? --Makaokalani 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that looks good to me. Equinox 10:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My guidance counselor in high school had, on the walls of her office, a variety of quotes and sayings and such. Among these were a few of what you might call pointed redefinitions: sayings that are phrased as definitions, but that are intended to edify (or convince, or even brainwash, depending on your point of view). For example, one was "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity": clearly this is only meaningful to someone who already knows that that is not, in fact, what the word luck means. Another started "violence is any"; I don't remember the whole thing, but it's the same general idea as what you see in the Google hits: a broadening of the word violence far beyond its ordinary sense, in the hopes of exploiting the term's negative connotations to discourage other kinds of interpersonal misbehavior. If that was actually what the word meant, then there'd be no point in posting the definition, at least not without some sort of comment about violence (such as "violence is not allowed on school grounds" or what-have-you).

Which is my long-winded way of asking, is there a term for this sort of pointed redefinition? Or does anyone have any suggestions for a good way to refer to them?

(BTW, lest I give the wrong impression, I should say that said guidance counselor was, and presumably still is, a wonderful woman. I'm just not a big fan of the pointed redefinition thing.)

RuakhTALK 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They are usually called aphorisms. Uncle G 11:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm looking for something more specific to this. She had a lot of aphorisms on her walls, but only a few of them were these pointed redefinitions. Thanks, though. :-)   —RuakhTALK 03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the examples in 'Pedia, I think this is the right word. -- ALGRIF talk 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the aphorisms, I found but one that was almost a "pointed redefinition": Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. But I also found an aphorism that may reflect Ruakh's attitude toward them: A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Unfortunately I don't know of a term for them. I take it that the word should be like the words for the classical rhetorical devices. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Silva Rhetorica provides:
  • Genus and Species: A topic of invention by which one identifies a given thing as being part of a larger class ("genus"), sharing the properties of other members of that class.
    • Example: Like other crimes against society, littering should be strongly punished.
Perhaps it should be thought of as reclassification rather than redefinition. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The quotation by Dante Gabriel Rossetti shows clear-cut the form prankt as past participle as does

  • prankt” in An American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828.. However, in Webster 1913 and the subsequent edition MW online I could not find this form. Could anyone check OED for it and ascertain whether it is dated, archaic, poetic or not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd have thought it a Websterism that never took off, were it not for the fact that it occurs in The Castle of Indolence (in Canto I verse 2) by James Thomson — 10 years before Webster was even born. He uses it as a synonym for adorned or perhaps coloured. Uncle G 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well, it occurs in Rossetti's writings as well, but the quæstion is to what extent this form is common in contemporary English. Is it tagged by the OED as dated, poetic or not? Is it used oftentimes by native English speakers in their writings, when they want to express the words adorned, embellished with a synonym? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Truth be told, in the English I speak (Midwestern US), prank isn't really used as a verb at all. I would say "he pulled a prank on her," instead of "he pranked her." No idea if this helps at all. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely still in use. Remember the infamous Canadian radio DJ who rang Sarah Palin pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy? The conversation included the following exchange:
    Marc-Antoine Audette: I really loved you and I must say something also, governor, you've been pranked by the Masked Avengers. We are two comedians from Montreal.
    Palin: Oh, have we been pranked? And what radio station is this? (here; there are plenty of other hits in newspapers.) Ƿidsiþ 09:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well, but mine intention was not to quæstion the existence of the verb, but instead to ask whether this particular form - prankt should be marked with some kind of tag, if it is added to the inflection template of the verb next to pranked. Webster 1828 does not use any tag soever, but I am interested in modern authoritative dictionaries such as OED. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh OK, yes, the -t spelling is now obsolete. Ƿidsiþ 11:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    But I intend to add this nice form with the respective tag, so that the quotation by D G Rossetti does not seem to use a form which is missing in the template. It is obsolete according to OED, right? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    This is strange - 1880 (quotation) is not too distant in the past and if the form was in the vivid language then, to become obsolete for less than 130 years... I have always imagined obsolete as something which is not in use for at least 200 years, id est before Emperor Napoléon. If OED lists it as obsolete and if obsolete æquals not used for only 100 years, then what are we supposed to do with the y- participles, which have not been used for 300 years? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    Obsolete means it's not used anymore. Archaic means it is sometimes used for deliberate effect, and you could call this archaic I guess. The OED doesn't comment on prankt specifically, but in discussing -ed, it says the following: ‘From 16th to 18th c[enturies] the suffix, when following a voiceless cons[onant] (preceded by a cons[onant] or a short vowel), was often written -t, in accordance with the pronunc[iation], as in jumpt, whipt, stept. This is still practised by some writers, but is not now in general use. Where, however, a long vowel in the v[er]b-stem is shortened in the p[artici]ple, as in crept, slept, the spelling with -t is universal. Some pples. have a twofold spelling, according as the vowel is shortened or not in pronunc.; e.g. leapt (/lɛpt/), and leaped (/liːpt/).’ All of which seems pertinent. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got a bit of a conundrum with the Catalan entry. I don't want to include this in Category:ca:Latin letters since it isn't the name of that digraph. Category:Catalan digraphs would make sense save there is no parent Category:Digraphs. So what to do with it? Carolina wren 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced this deserves an entry, actually. Would we make one for the ph digraph in English? It has a surprising pronunciation and a consistent etymology and appears in many words, but it's still just a pair of letters. Equinox 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The case is certainly stronger for a digraph entry for ll#Catalan than for ph#English. If the English ph were treated equivalent to the Catalan ll it would have a name of its own (perhaps *Greek ef) and when the digraph occurred as a result of /p/ + /h/ instead of /f/ it would be marked so that mophead would instead be *mop·head. Catalan treats ll differently from l·l. In any case, I can't see any justification for deleting ll#Catalan and not also deleting b#English, f#Dutch, and a number of other language specific orthographic entries. Not that I am arguing for doing so. Quite the reverse. However, if consensus is that non-translingual orthographic units don't get entries of their own, I can live with it. Carolina wren 07:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this would go fine in Category:ca:Latin letters. On the other hand, based on the other children of Category:Latin letters, things like i grega should not be there (it would be nice to have a category for letter names, but it would need to be called something else). -- Visviva 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be different opinions on whether the regular inflection "slayed" exists. We are having the same discussion on sv:wikt; could someone please advise us? \Mike 10:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that in “slay” in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 it was not mentioned, whence follows that it is either a novelty or a hoax. But I am eager to hearken unto the opinion of some native speaker as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
One source which has been mentioned is this. Also, our own Appendix:English irregular verbs mentions it. \Mike 10:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Books have 527 hits for "he slayed", and having looked at a few of the first they refer to the "kill" sense. --Duncan 11:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not in the OED, which suggests that the weak inflection is fairly rare, or fairly new. It's interesting, and the sort of thing Wiktionary should have a page on if we can find some nice citations for it...I don't think it's been well documented in any other dictionaries. The practice of strong verbs becoming weak is, of course, extremely common in English. Ƿidsiþ 11:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Has attracted coverage from various usage authorities, of which the MWDEU is (as usual) the most thoughtful and thorough.[21] Basically, it is most common with the quasi-showbiz sense ("he slayed 'em tonight!"), which we didn't have until just now. Have added usage note to this effect; please improve & expand. -- Visviva 11:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(Man, I love that book. Ƿidsiþ 11:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
I am against everything which is absent from the OED. I would not add Template:rfd on the entry, but if some native speaker does, he can reckon with my support. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It should go without saying that the OED does not have an entry for "slayed", as like every dictionary other than Wiktionary they do not have entries for mere inflected forms. On the other hand they do have one quote that uses "slayed", dated 1927 under the showbiz sense (5b). -- Visviva 11:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wellaway... But since this form is not mentioned in the caption next to slain, we could probably tag it is proscribed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
A review of US usage 2000-2009 in COCA suggests that "slayed" is increasing in popularity, but remains less common than "slew". It is very rare in UK usage (BNC). DCDuring TALK 13:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Noun or proper noun? SemperBlotto 11:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • An excellent question. The first thought that comes to mind is that if it were regarded as a proper noun by its users, the second word would be capitalized, too. But the second thought that comes to mind is that that actually can be found happening. ☺ ("Although the article spotlighted influenza as a serious health threat, the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 is […]" — ISBN 9780231133463 pp. 80) Uncle G 11:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • (After edit conflict) The lowercase spelling suggest a common noun to me. The Spanish flu can still be thought of as an individual, but so can inventions such as "the computer", or particular substances such as epinephrine. Other names of specific diseases such as Barrett's esophagus and Japanese encephalitis are classified as common nouns, too. So I'd think that no name of a disease, regardless of how specific it is, can be classified as proper noun. --Dan Polansky 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the spanish flu refers to a specific pandemic, I think it is a proper noun. It is a named epidemic. It's a specific incidence of an outbreak of a disease. I would say it's analogous to Hurricane Andrew being a hurricane, or the Middle Ages being an age. The Spanish Flu is a flu pandemic, but a particular one. 76.66.193.90 12:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • See Black Death, which is listed as a proper noun. 76.66.193.90 12:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds convincing to me. I think I have confused a disease, which basically has no extension in time, with a specific pandemic, which has a narrow extension in time. It still remains unclear whether there is a disease "Spanish flu", which in its turn has caused the pandemic of "Spanish Flu". W:1918 flu pandemic tells me that the pandemic was caused by "an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1." For comparison, google books:"Spanish flu" gives mixed results as regards capitalization of the term, with many hits of the lowercase "flu". --Dan Polansky 14:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a divided defintion, the "disease" would be Spanish flu and the pandemic would be Spanish Flu? (The definition at Spanish flu is for the pandemic, so that would need to be moved) 76.66.193.90 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • That doesn't wholly work, either. "Known as Spanish flu or la grippe, the influenza epidemic of 1918 and 1919 was a global disaster." — ISBN 9780763724252 pp. 119. "The horror of the Spanish flu was that, like the war itself, it seemed especially fatal to the young and healthy. " — ISBN 9780774811088 pp. 207. Uncle G 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone ascertain whether the word bridewell (small prison) is soothly only UK, as it is currently tagged? In the entry on MW online, which is US-based and which tags UK words as chiefly British, there was no such tag. Is it widespread in the USA? For more see User talk:SemperBlotto#bridewell. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am an American and this word is completely unfamiliar to me. It also lacks an entry in Macquarie (the leading dictionary of Australian English), so it might be micro-British rather than macro-British. -- Visviva 15:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There are an astonishing-to-me 31 hits for this word in the BNC, though a number of these are capitalized references to Bridewell Hospital (source of the common noun?). There are 14 hits in COCA, of which 11 are for the surname Bridewell. For common nouns only, the BNC-to-COCA ratio is 14:3. Factoring in the size of the relative corpora, I would call that a "coefficient of Britishness" of 18.0, which is pretty darned British. -- Visviva 16:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There is, apparently, a 'Bridewell Street' in Los Angeles. It may well be a herring - does anyone know what colour? Pingku 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
If so, then someone must bid MW online insert the chiefly British tag, which they have not done hitherto. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
It exists, at least as far as google is concerned, but what is its etymology? Pingku 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Most likely it's named after someone named Bridewell. -- Visviva 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well of course, but can you verify that?? Pingku 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a Bridewell in Dublin Ireland as well. But in all my time in Ireland I never heard is used as such for a prison--Dmol 10:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  
    • "[…] not in the Corporation Block, as much ground to spare from its present uses, as would be required for erecting a Bridewell, […]" — Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1784–1831‎, pp. 592
    • "[…] which is for building a Bridewell or Work House in the said City no Provision is made nor Power given nor method prescribed […]" — The Colonial Laws of New York from the Year 1664 to the Revolution pp. 975
    • "The Sub-Committee found that establishment to be totally distinct from, and by its construction incompatible with the arrangements necessary for a Bridewell" — Records Relating to the Early History of Boston‎ pp. 194
  • Last time I checked, New York and Boston were not British in the 19th century. ☺
    • "[…] any other use than that of a Bridewell, the property should then become vested in […]" — A history of the city of Dublin‎, pp. 8
    • "[…] and accordingly he set to work to obtain a site near the College and money to build a Bridewell for the restraining of vagrants and beggars […]" — An Epoch in Irish History: Trinity College, Dublin, Its Foundation and Early Fortunes, pp. 130
  • You didn't spend enough time in Ireland, Dmol. Uncle G 16:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Marvellous, thus we can get rid of the UK template and input these citations on Citations:bridewell (but the problem is the capitalisation - on Citations:bridewell or Citations:Bridewell ?). As a conclusion, bridewell turned out to be a full-scale English word. Has anyone from the USA any onjections? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • We certainly can not get rid of the UK template, based on the evidence presented thus far. A regional template does not mean that a word is used only in that region -- not in the sense that no published uses outside of the region can be found. After all, it is not that hard to find even words like "lorry" in putatively US sources if one looks hard enough. Thus, the cherry-picked citations above are not particularly relevant IMO. In the case of bridewell, based on the evidence given I think it would be fine to replace {{UK}} with {{mostly|UK}} or {{UK|rare or obsolete elsewhere}}; the last in particular would be both accurate and precise. But to simply remove the template would be to remove useful, correct information about regional usage patterns. -- Visviva 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • When quotations that show you to be in error appear, calling them "cherry-picked" is a sign of reaching. Uncle G 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Visviva. The fact that a very small number of citations can be found in US-published materials does not make this a part of the US lexicon. I have never heard the word used outside of British television, or seen it outside of British novels or newspapers (and I have experienced a very large numbmer of all three British sources). I can remember first learning this term from British television and I had to go look it up. Growing up in america, I had not heard it used here. The fact that a word can be found in a US publication does not mean that the American public uses it or knows its meaning, the above quotes indicate to me only that the Irish, Irish immmigrants to the US, and colonial citizens of the future US use this term. --EncycloPetey 17:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Who said the number was small? I didn't. And you haven't looked. The fact that your vocabulary doesn't include the word means nothing. Aside from the fact that no-one's personal vocabulary ever represents the totality of a language, the word almost certainly isn't in the modern Brit's vocabulary either, but here you are arguing that it is a U.K. English word nonetheless.

          The simple fact is that the word has dropped into desuetude, because such institutions no longer exist, but was in both U.S. and U.K. English. You haven't paid attention to the dates of the quotations. The Boston Records were written in 1821, for example — the 19th century, as I said. Trying to turn that into a pre-Independence quotation is both drawing a highly erroneous boundary around U.S. English (whose evolution didn't magically start in 1776 — read American English#Creation of an American lexicon if you are confused upon this point) and a rather large re-write of established history.

          You can find similar uses in the Statutes of Nova Scotia (1822) and the Laws and Ordinances of the City of Chicago (1873). The city council of New York had a Jail and Bridewell Committee until the at least the 1820s, when the slum problem of Five Points (which didn't even exist prior to the 19th century) came up for review before it. The city council of Chicago had a Bridewell Committee right up until the early 20th century. Chicago had an official position of bridewell keeper. (The incumbent of that office in 1855 was a David Walsh, for example.) It had a City Bridewell until at least 1898 (when the Chicago Woman's Club was lobbying to stop children being sent there). It's ridiculous to think that all of the U.S. English speakers speaking about, writing about, and lobbying over all of these never used the word "bridewell". And it's clear from the Boston Records, for one, that on the contrary they did use it.

          Trying to paint this as a non-U.S. word is a nonsense. Both of you, as established lexicographers, should know better than to conflate your personal vocabularies with the language as a whole, and both of you should know better than to conflate the fact that a word isn't now used with the premise that it wasn't ever used. Accept the fact that Merriam-Webster is right and you are wrong. Clearly the M-W lexicographers have done their research. Uncle G 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

          I suggested that it be tagged "rare or obsolete" outside the UK. I don't see anything in your evidence that would contradict this, and the discrepancies in the counts between the COCA and the BNC lean very strongly in this direction. The fact that this is in contemporary use in England, but (apparently) not or very rarely in use elsewhere, needs to be documented... unless it is false. But you haven't shown that it is false, and there seems to be abundant corpus-based empirical evidence that it is true. -- Visviva 10:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
          It's not in contemporary use in the UK. It's just an archaic word, everywhere. Ƿidsiþ 11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
          No, please not archaic, SemperBlotto already weighed it up as dated, so in the case of UK it would be too strong. US based Merriam Webster does not use any tag soever, and I personally would infer thence that this is a wonted word in both the Commonwealth and the USA, but if all of you except Uncle G are keen to contest it..., I cannot but hearken thereunto. I am a foreign speaker of English after all. Ceterum censeo that the tag dated is more well-placed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
          Well, this is interesting. The frequency in the BNC is about 1 in 3 million, which suggests a relatively infrequent word, but one that a native speaker would probably be familiar with. (Does that jibe with your experience?) The frequency in COCA is less than 1 in 100 million, which suggests a word that a person could go their entire life without encountering (as I'm pretty sure I had, until this entry was created). As a sanity check, the difference between these distributions has a log-likelihood of 29.75, which corresponds to p < 0.0001 (probability of significance greater than 99.99%). But I suppose it's possible that the BNC is in some way biased towards texts that happen to include the word "bridewell"... -- Visviva 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The first two definitions seem commingled to me.

  1. {{legal}} Evidence of a long-term debt, by which the bond issuer (the borrower) is obliged to pay interest when due, and repay the principal at maturity, as specified on the face of the bond certificate. The rights of the holder are specified in the bond indenture, which contains the legal terms and conditions under which the bond was issued. Bonds are available in two forms: registered bonds, and bearer bonds.
  2. {{finance}} A documentary obligation to pay a sum or to perform a contract; a debenture.
    Many say that government and corporate bonds are a good investment to balance against a portfolio consisting primarily of stocks.

__meco 10:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the legal def is secondary in usage to the finance sense. The legal sense is too long. The rewrite should be along the lines of "finance: a right to receive interest and usually the face value". "legal: the evidence and specification of terms and conditions of such a right." DCDuring TALK 12:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As an English word, ought this not be spelled with a lower case 'b'? Compare with Weltanschauung/weltanschauung. __meco 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • When I entered this, I wasn't sure whether it should be English at all. Except that the quote I had was from a novel in English, in which the word has some importance (always used with a capital B). And from there it has become a term used sometimes in various bits of Pychonalia. Maybe it should still be a German section though, I'm not sure. Ƿidsiþ 10:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it should not be - the German section is at Brennschluß. Please, preserve the capitalisation, this is the sound orthography for German nouns and for nouns derived from German - cf. Schadenfreude. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Brennschluß is the old orthography. It should not be used anymore. -- Prince Kassad 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, when I was learning German, it was not standard (yet), so you probably understand my reluctance to embrace this Helvetisation/Verschweizerung of German orthography. But it is not up to Bulgarian learners to decide, if you insist, then ich bin mit meinem Latein am Ende. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
          • My German is too not so good. However, going by the model of schadenfreude, the English ought to be brennschluss. (Assuming that is, that it is accepted as a loanword.) And if you go by the example of Schluß, the preferred German would be Brennschluss. But whoever said a dictionary had to be consistent? :) Pingku 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Niemals habe ich behauptet, daß mein Deutsch nicht fließend ist und bin bestimmt nicht im Begriff, mich einer solchen Unterschätzung zu unterziehen./Never did I claim that my German was not fluent and do not intend to inflict on myself such an underæstimation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You are citing the German entry at Schadenfreude. The relevant entry would be schadenfreude, which is the English entry. Add to that weltanschauung as I initially presented and a rather clear pattern emerges which dictates that the English entry for the word we are discussing should be at brennschluss. __meco 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, but it needs to be established that brennschluss is properly a loanword in English. The Pynchon reference does not do this, as it emphasises that it is a German word (including capitalisation). The Wikipedia page mentions a Heinlein novel, but appears to overhype its usage there. Wikipedia also refers to a NASA glossary, which includes brennschluss, uncapitalised. Pingku 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
          •  
            • "The brennschluss time is, arguably, one of the main controlling parameters on flame dynamics — if the brennschluss time is very short […]" — ISBN 9780306462856 pp. 95
            • "Notice how the velocity tails off in the interfals between the ignition of the various steps. Brenschlusss at 25½ seconds." — Rockets, Missiles, and Space Travel, Willy Ley, Viking Press, 1957. pp. 223
            • "In rocketry, Brennschluss has two implications, but the same basic meaning. The first implies that the driving fuels are all expended […]" — Air Pictorial and Air Reserve Gazette, Rolls House, 1951.
          • On the matter of loaning, particularly, this quotation seems particularly apt:
            • "The German language has also contributed such words as blitz, brennschluss, immelmann, lufbery, and strafe. For the most part, borrowing from foreign aviation terminology occurred prior to World War II." — The Special Vocabulary of the United States Air Force, George Lloyd Rule, Stanford University, 1957.
          • So, are you prepared to accept running English prose and to take the word of an 1957 M.A. thesis? ☺ Uncle G 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
              • Looks fine to me. With the (especially lower case) cites it appears verified in a technical/jargon (aeronautics?) sense. The NASA ref might confirm it is still current. Pingku 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

rook Etymology 1, etymology section has non-UTF-8 characters in it which display as little red boxes on Firefox. -- dougher 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are UTF-8, but they aren't Plane-0 characters since the Gothic alphabet isn't in Plane-0 but in the Plane 1 range: U+10330–U+1034F. I did add the appropriate sc=Goth script parameter, but if you don't have a Gothic font installed, you won't see the letters. —This unsigned comment was added by Carolina wren (talkcontribs). 01:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we cannot expect from every user of Wiktionary to install Gothic fonts, I bestow upon the Gothic cognates romanisation, whenever I descry that it is missing. If the user has a zest for the Gothic language, he will install the script. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What Bogorm is trying to say is that the script template takes a tr= parameter, which allows you to include a transcription in Latin characters. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Why trying? Did I commit any mistake or mine English is not fluent enough? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ohmigod. --Duncan 19:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Duncan, I meant it seriously - I still have no babel template for English on my user page, because I am in the(rectification, vide infra) process of incessantly learning it on the Internet, in prominent writers' works and I would appreciate any appraisal soever by a native speaker of mine abilities to converse in it, so that I know what number to add next to en. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
English speakers would tend to say "in the process of", not "in process of". Your use of obsolete constructions ("mine abilities", "soever") is likely to baffle some modern speakers. Equinox 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your remark and shall pay hanceforth more attention to the use of the definite article (I rectified the above mistake). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In Norwegian we have a word, paulinsk, which is an adjective form of Paulus (Paul), meaning "Pertaining to the biblical apostle Paul or his writings" ... Am I wrong, or is Paulian an English equivalent to that word? --Eivind (t) 09:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's usually Pauline (yes, I know it's a girl's name too!). Equinox 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! I knew I had heard a word for it somewhere! So now, is Paulian a lesser used version of Pauline, or is it simply not an English word? --Eivind (t) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It's in the OED as a synonym of Pauline (adjective) or a follower of St Paul (noun) SemperBlotto 10:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is also (along with Paulist) a likely term for the supporters of any person known by the surname Paul, such as 2008 US presidential candidate Ron Paul. -- Visviva 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

from http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13253784&fsrc=nwl , second paragraph[I loved the book it refers to, thought it was hilarious. When reading what I've read about itin my 20s, in da good way]

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/in-a-cleft-stick.html expounds very nicely on the relatod sayin, I would say, smiley

I could not find it/ both of them in either wiki PDia or wictionary, which seems to be a bit of an omission to me -- would somebody braver than me feel like adding the entry?[I'm still wet behind mi wictionary ears as they at least tend to say in Brabantian in such caseof inexperience as a newcomer, so I'm a bit hesitant with making new entries in generalfor now.

Thank you in advance--史凡 11:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion spelling wise but just copy and pasted. Especially you're nown entry helpd me better understand whathe quote was about So thank you so much!![As far as I remember the Waughbook, "scoop" it was full of I guess, very English ways of expressing things. Perhaps I should have another go at it smiley--史凡 13:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

isn't the IPa for thissupposed to be written with" --ei." at the end in the standard international version?my Longman dictionary gives the' --e" for the American pronunciation of this soundfor which unfortunately it seems to use a modified systemas in the entry itseems. Since I have a Chinese version 'n my Chinese is not that good I couldn't readily take from the introduction which exactsystem they are using for each pronunciation[UK/US], but likely in "gooed" tradition. the American one is not rendered instandardIpA, likely to "serve" the American buyers of this dictionary... so I respectfully await de opinion of the dear tearoominstead of perhaps prematurely already make a correction/change[and if somebody could clear me up about the competing phoneticsystems and perhaps successive updates happened to IpA that would be just toowonderful smily--史凡 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

it is KK--史凡 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are single words included in the concept of phrase? The definition suggests so: phrase—"A word or group of words that functions as a single unit in the syntax of a sentence, ...". If single words are included, then "phrase" is a synonym of "term", if not, "phrase" is a hyponym of "term". --Dan Polansky 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • There may be some technical uses in which a word can be considered a special type of phrase, but I think in practice ‘phrase’ almost invariably implies more than one word. Ƿidsiþ 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A single word can be a phrase if you're doing some sort of computational-linguistic parsing (e.g. "X goes to the shops" must have a "noun phrase" for X, which could just as well be "John" as "the man wearing a stolen hat"), but I agree with Widsith that in normal usage it never would be. Equinox 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think sense 2 is currently defined correctly, but sense 1 does normally refer to utterances of more than one word. -- Visviva 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

whats an antonym for trickster?

Is a real verb? M-w don't know it and I seems to have trouble getting meaning. Could someone give an example of usage? Or, that is just some sort of slang? TestPilottalk to me! 05:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not common, and most English speakers wouldn't know what you meant. We should perhaps revisit this entry. Equinox 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok! Thank you. Seems that Conrad.Irwin fixed that entry(I have bugged him enough on IRC to make him do that) :P TestPilottalk to me! 01:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You do have to nag him. He's an awful person! Equinox 01:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If only I could nag myself as easily as you guys can nag me, I might get useful stuff done :D. Conrad.Irwin 01:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

. I could give it in with my speech recognition[the word] but. it is not carried in my dictionary. Wiki PDia neither has it,tha pronunciation. I wouldnot really trustother web sources with the IP a aS I wouldn't trust them to be necessarily standard, and rather than going by circumstantial dactation evidence, I prefer asking the community. Thank you in advance--史凡 06:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind as to create an entry? But first please read [22] and probably [23]. Speaking of second link, would it be a proper English to use phrase like "As of now there is no cure exist for AIDS."? TestPilottalk to me! 07:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No - it would be either "As of now there is no cure for AIDS." or "As of now no cure exists for AIDS.". It means the same as "at this moment in time" or, even simpler, "now". SemperBlotto 07:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for correction! BTW, interestingly enough, Wiktionary do define "at this moment in time", which is much more simpler and almost trivial to understand. TestPilottalk to me! 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We do have entries for as of + now. Ƿidsiþ 15:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Did the entry at as of not help? One can use the preposition as of with any noun phrase designating an event or point in time, I think. It is mostly used to discriminate between when an action formally takes place and when the action takes delayed or retroactive effect. "The Governor signed the bill at 12:07pm yesterday making such crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies as of last July 1." "As of now" evokes the idea of a powerful, but fair (?) rule-maker demanding an immediate response. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix this.

It should be colspan=5 not colspan=4

76.66.201.179 08:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Wiktionary talk:Discussion rooms redirects here. 76.66.201.179 08:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. (and you only needed to ask in one place) SemperBlotto 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a definition of the microblogging sense of the verb. But what do you call an individual "message"? Is that also a "twitter", or maybe a "twit"? It seems to be twittata in Italian, but I haven't added the noun sense yet. SemperBlotto 10:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a "tweat". Conrad.Irwin 10:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah - we have it as tweet. Now I'm wondering about twitterati. SemperBlotto 10:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC
Why does this deserve any kinder treatment than all the entries and senses that are summarily deleted as neologisms? DCDuring TALK 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? If they have three independent citations in durably-archived media, spanning at least a year, we certainly shouldn't be deleting them, and AFAIK we haven't. (Possible exception: the exceedingly problematic "santorum".)-- Visviva 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we welcome neologisms; it's only protologisms that get the chop. SemperBlotto 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about creating an entry for be to to cover the function it has in e.g. "you are to come", "I am to die", "they are to play" … I reckon it does function like either going to, will or ought to. Am I correct? Should I create it and redirect to it from am to, are to and is to?

  • This is already covered in sense 13 of be - (transitive, auxiliary) Used to form future tenses, especially the future subjunctive.
I am to leave tomorrow.
I would drive you, were I to obtain a car.

as it is "be" followed by the infinitive, rather than "be to" followed by the bare infinitive. -- ALGRIF talk 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention - Abbreviation (grammar) of past participle?

Yes, I know this entry has been deleted several times before, but I have now recreated it, as I found citations on the word being used to refer to the four first letters on the home row. Could someone please have a look at it, and tell me if they agree? I reckon the word is worthy an entry. --Eivind (t) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the only time this was deleted as something other than vandalism was when Williamsayers79 deleted it, apparently out of process, despite it having survived RFD three times (!). I think the use as a metasyntactic filler merits inclusion (provided it can actually be verified per CFI -- I see it all the time on blogs but not elsewhere). On the other hand I don't think the current sense 1 is really a sense, exactly; people aren't using "asdf" to mean "the first four keys of the home row", they're just listing the first four keys of the home row, in a way that is readily understood in context. That's the way it seems to me, anyway. So while I think the information itself is good, I'd rather it was in the etymology. -- Visviva 15:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm; I would have said delete, and the first citation is just listing four particular keys where you put four particular fingers. However, the second and third are arguably identifying the home row, just as qwerty identifies a particular keyboard layout.
Nothing whatsoever to do with typography though. The subject is typewriting, but I don't see the need for a restricted sense label. Michael Z. 2009-03-12 15:42 z

I have been studying Indo-European roots and found aiw-/ayu- (vital force, life, eternity) that is also the source of ever, never, aye, nay, eon, eternal, medieval, primeval, utopia, Sanskrit Ayurveda, and aught). Does anyone know of have an idea as to whether this root might also give us "LOVE" and "LIFE." I don't know enough about inflected forms of Indo-European roots to determine if the addition of the letter "L" at the beginning of Love and Life may, in fact, be reflective of some observed construct. craigsalvay 04:21 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This entry already has a number of etymologies, but it does not have an entry for Verb = 1) "to go riding on horseback" 2) "to allow a young falcon to fly free". Nor Noun = 1) "a horse hired out to be ridden, to be taken hacking." I'm not sure if this is yet another etymol. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Added. Ƿidsiþ 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks greatly improved. Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 17:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Another one. 3 etymologies and none of them include the verb = "bird of prey swooping down onto a quarry" Is this another etym. or does it fit in one already there? Help much appreciated. -- ALGRIF talk 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Added. I think we are missing a few senses from this one.. Ƿidsiþ 17:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Again.. Thanks -- ALGRIF talk 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello i have a question about this fratneral organization is this asseptable for your wiki? thank you --Mogyop 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i also forgot here is some info on this. initial capital letter) a member of a fraternal and benevolent organization (Loyal Order of Moose). found on dictionary.com --Mogyop 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Loyal Order of Moose" would not be an acceptable entry here on Wiktionary. Wikipedia, on the other hand, already has a an article about Moose International, and I'm sure they would love to have it expanded and improved. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These two have Translingual entries referring to the battery size. However, the judging by Wikipedia's List of battery sizes, I'm doubtful of the Translingual nature of those entries, but think they probably ought to be under English as the corresponding entries for AAAA, C, and D are. Carolina wren 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They are used in French as well as English (because there's a jurisdiction called Quebec which is French-speaking and uses North American standards) 76.66.201.179 12:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
That would argue for entries under English, French, and possibly Spanish rather than Translingual if the usage of that set of names of battery sizes in limited to just North America. Translingual is not the same as Multilingual, but implies that the entry could be used in any language. Carolina wren 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I could add at least Swedish to that list. \Mike 09:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't; not under current practice anyway. Many words and symbols tagged as "Translingual", such as the Han characters, are used only in a limited subset of languages. AFAIK, we don't have a definite cutoff for when something becomes translingual, though it is somewhere above the three-language mark. We should probably be more thorough about identifying the languages in which particular translingual terms are or aren't used. -- Visviva 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"AA" and "AAA" are used routinely in Korean, FWIW. [24] "D" and "C" are also used, but are usually joined the modifier 형 ("type") -- C형, D형. Still, translinguality (though not panlinguality) seems likely for all of these. -- Visviva 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Moved the pronunciation hint from Translingual to English for AAA, but unless someone brings an objection, I think that's about all I'll do to these two and find something else to dunk my crumpets into. Carolina wren 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Puerto Rico use these? It's a US territory bucking to become the 51st state, and Spanish-speaking. 76.66.201.179 08:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A reader has emailed in a correction for this article. They say the KangXi reference is wrong, and should point to page 271, character 4 instead. Since I can't vouch for the correction, I thought I'd take it here instead of editing it myself. Hopefully someone can take a look. Thanks. Dominic·t 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Page 271, character 4 is -- Prince Kassad 15:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See androgenous and Talk:androgenous. Our definition may be wrong. Equinox 01:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP created entry. A quick google was enough to convince me this could be more than just SoP but I'm not certain the provided meaning is correct or not. Carolina wren 02:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was SoP, with hybrid and hot tub, where hybrid can either mean it's a cross between a hot-tub and an excerisize-pool (we should probably include the exact meaning of this sense, if it met CFI), or (rarer) a "hybrid" "hot tub" that uses multiple energy sources. Conrad.Irwin 02:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the originator of this definition (apologies for forgetting to log in, this is my first wiktionary post). The definition is, in fact, in reference to a hot tub with multiple energy sources.--Nickcastoro 02:31, 18

Hey, great to hear from you! I don't think Wiktionary needs an entry for hybrid hot tub as it already has the information at hybrid and hot tub; otherwise we'd have to include hybrid car and hybrid oven and [[hybrid <nameanythinghere>]] which is not practical. Conrad.Irwin 02:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I noticed that hybrid car has its own entry, and think that since products such as hybrid ovens and hybrid hot tubs become more common in society, they deserve entries. Apart from being similar in principle, each use different methods of energy generation and conservation. Nickcastoro 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I marked this as spam because the original post had an example sentence suggesting how luxurious and great they were and a hyperlink at the bottom. I removed the link when marking it for deletion to prevent the spammer (if so) from getting any hits off it. Equinox 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

definition : the definition of the word encroachment , as used in the medical meaning i.e. encroachment on the cervical spine.

See open sunshine, closed door. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The expression "open sunshine" is very common in English, particularly in reference to government. Googling, I get 13,200 hits for the expression, including 17 for "open sunshine policy" (not all relevant). In any case, it is commonly used to mean "transparent," and particularly "open to the public." The expression "closed door" is essentially the opposite, though it has a wider range of use. "Closed door meeting," for example, gets 432,000 hits. I created entries for both of those, but both were deleted by a Wiktionary bureaucrat. Although Wiktionary is a collaborative space, the deletions were done without discussion or notice. I believe the proof for these two expressions is adequate and that neither can be understood easily from the component words. Any discussion is welcome, though the re-creation of these entries (particularly by an administrator) would be even better. Wakablogger 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been no comments on this. Tomorrow, I will attempt recreating these pages. If the bureaucrat again deletes them and/or modifies my account so I cannot edit, I will report here again. Wakablogger 02:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think "open sunshine" merits an entry. Despite what you say, it's actually pretty rare; going through google:"open sunshine", I find that a small minority of hits are using it in the sense you describe. (Of the first ten hits, only one is.) It's understandable why people would use it — both open and sunshine can have this sense, but only if the context is clear enough, so putting them together can help clarify. But until this particular combination becomes a fixed expression, it's not worth including. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Here are some citations from the Internet that I think demonstrate its fixed status in English:
  • This change, dubbed the Open Sunshine policy, de-classifies the formerly confidential criteria used to determine the amount of money an organization would receive. [[25]]
  • Drawing a contrast between the policy of disciplined quid pro quo engagement and South Korea's more open "sunshine policy" would highlight both the value and the spirit of the South's investments in the process. [[26]]
  • Nor are the protesters advocating a more open "sunshine policy" toward their communist cousins in North Korea. [[27]]
  • It is our opinion that a record is only presented for deliberation by the board when it is presented at an open Sunshine law meeting: Under the Sunshine law, “deliberation” is, “the discussion of agency [school district or board committee] business held for the purpose of making a decision.” [[28]]
  • Such an open sunshine law should bring benefits. [[29]]

Wakablogger 22:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Each of the links show either usage in quotes or a usage that is clearly not of the set term (eg, open "sunshine law"). Also, only two are from sources acceptable for attestation. The phrase does not seem at all like idiomatic English to me. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally use "open sunshine" as an adjective, which is supported here as well as lots more hits on the Web. Wakablogger 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but not all your hits are relevant. First of all, South Korea's Sunshine Policy is something else entirely; the name is a reference to one of Aesop's fables. Secondly, even if it were using "sunshine" in this sense, that wouldn't make something like "a more open 'sunshine policy'" be relevant; the quotations make it quite clear that "open" is modifying "sunshine policy", so "open sunshine" isn't acting as a single adjective. If you really think that open sunshine warrants an entry, then I'd recommend starting Citations:open sunshine, adding relevant quotations from books (using e.g. google books:"open sunshine"). Those can make a better case for the entry than any discussion could. —RuakhTALK 14:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"More" can qualify "open" just as it can qualify "open sunshine" if "open sunshine" is an adjective, though it may be that in that case, the author did intend it that way. In any case, it seems clear to me (from my own use and that of others) that "open sunshine" is a standard expression. It might be likely unfamiliar to those people whose governments do not have such a policy, but my local governments are very proactive in open sunshine regulation and policies. Her are some better-searched hits that should provide indisputable proof.
  • Topics will include the federal Open Sunshine Act, how the Washington Public Records Act affects electronic records, Washington open meeting issues and records exemptions in Washington. [[30]]
  • The activities of the Agency and its advisory committees must take place in the open sunshine of public scrutiny and accountability. [[31]]
  • This change, dubbed the “Open Sunshine” policy, “de-classifies” the formerly confidential criteria used to determine the amount of money an organization would receive. [[32]]
If you or others object to these examples, I will put them and some others into a citation file as you suggest, but I think they clearly demonstrate that "open sunshine" is a standard expression and that it's appropriate to recreate the entries. I will link them to this page to try and dissuade the bureaucrat from striking again without discussion. Wakablogger 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to create an entry for subject heading - "(information science) The name of the category in which a bibliographical record is included." But it looks a bit SoP-ish; it indeed is a heading of a subject. As I see it, the value of having the entry is that it is a standard term in its trade; the name of the concept could as well be one of "subject category", "topic heading", "topic head" or "topic class", but it isn't; the authorized term for the concept is "subject heading". What do you think of me creating the entry? --Dan Polansky 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to merit entry within its specific context, which makes other complications moot. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If that's really the standard term, then fine. Consider adding a usage note to explain this. Equinox 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been having some rather abrasive arguments here, owing to the Macedonia naming dispute, and I think what is needed is a few more disinterested observers. I think that distinct progress has been made, but perhaps a little more could be gained, as well as some solidification from consensus. Please stop by and join the fray. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We had a similar dispute with Kosovo about a year ago. Consensus was to include all meanings of the word, and that seems applicable here too. I'm not an expert on the region so I won't judge which definitions are considered correct.--Dmol 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any lists of the most commonly used verbs in English, or other languages for that matter?

Looking at the 100 commonest words from the Oxford English Corpus, the commonest verbs are: 9. have; 19. do; 28. say; 33. will; 37. would; 47. get; 49. go; 52. make; 53. can; 59. know; 60. take; 67. could; 69. see; 74. look; 76. come; 79. think; 83. use; 87. work; 93. want; 97. give. Equinox 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Er....what about be? Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, yes, that's number 2. Equinox 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:Tea room}} if two people have the SAME BIRTHDAY is there a WORD for that? is there any WORD that refers to that relationships!

I was thinking about the word NAMESAKE for two people with the SAME NAME!

Thanks Duane

Doubt it. However, astrological twins seems to be used in astrology for people born on the same date in the same year, usually at almost the same time of day. Equinox 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Recalling the episode of Friends where Joey finds his "hand twin," I found citations for "birthday twins." Most Google hits are not relevant but a few are. See for example [[33]] and [[34]]. This seems to refer to two people born on the same day, same month, same year, though, not just the same day and month. Wakablogger 02:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the meanings of the angles of reflection and refraction? I came upon those words in some homework i was set and cannot find a definition anywhere.

Refraction refers to the change in direction which happens when light goes through something, eg a prism; reflection means the change of direction when light "bounces off" from something. --Duncan 11:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Technically, refraction (and reflection) happens at the boundary of different mediums. Thus, a beam of light passing through a piece of glass will be refracted twice: once when it enters the glass and again when it exits. This is particularly relevant when the entry and exit boundaries are not parallel, such as in a lens. Pingku 14:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While we're at it: am I right in supposing that (angle of) reflection refers only to light, while (angle of) deflection may refer to just about anything which has changed direction after meeting some barrier? --Duncan 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite subtle. First of all, you can speak of the deflection of light (e.g. "deflection of light by a gravitational field"); equally, you can speak of reflection of things that are not light (1974: "Consider a pinball machine in which a rolling ball strikes a cylindrical post (pin) and is reflected."). I think that the difference is usually in the nature of change of direction: a reflection is a symmetrical sending back (like light from a mirror, which returns in the opposite direction), while a deflection is a deviation from the normal course in any direction. Equinox 22:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in normal English (as opposed to scientific jargon), I think that in deflection the emphasis is on deflecting away from the previous direction or destination, whereas in reflection the emphasis is on reflecting back toward the point of origin. —RuakhTALK 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Literally this would translate as "in a very short time". The present definition seems a little off-kilter; there's something missing, I sense. __meco 12:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we missing the appropriate sense of in? I'm having trouble seeing the problem. Could you try another way of saying it? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the role of in as a preposition gets lost in the present definition. __meco 11:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saw six hundred in the RC and saw that we also have seven hundred, one thousand, etc. How are these different from six apples, one house, etc.? If we accept all of the preceding as valid entries, we must also accept the likes of two hundred thousand, forty-seven million, etc. ad infinitum. I don't mind the entirely hyphenated ones (thirty-two as opposed to one hundred and thirty-two) but the rest seem excessive. Any rules on this that I've missed? Equinox 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of one thousand, not so long ago it was a redirect to thousand until I expanded it because it is also used as an idiom. However, for six hundred, etc., and the other n-hundreds, they serve as useful collection points for translations from languages that do use a single word for the concept, of which there are quite a few, as for forty-seven million, if there is a foreign language that has a citeable, single word equivalent, I'd be happy to have an entry for it. (Note some languages do have words for every number; Italian has quarantasettemilione (see Appendix:Italian numbers), but it is doubtful they would ever merit inclusion in most cases.) Carolina wren 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Why is there not even one Web page on Google with quarantasettemilione on it? There are about 700 Books matches and 4000 Web matches for forty-seven million in English; I can't imagine that Italians have never yet used this number online. Equinox 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And just three hits for "quarantasette milione". There are also far more hits for "dieci milioni" than "diecimilioni" (10 million) which seems to indicate its a form that while legal, isn't followed very often. Carolina wren 01:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We need the definition of this word. —This comment was unsigned.


Definition from Wiktionary
Content avaible with GNU Free Documentation License

Powered by php Powered by MySQL Optimized for Firefox