Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/June

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← May 2020 · June 2020 · July 2020 → · (current)

SORRY WIKTIONARY I think fking swing#Verb sense 1 is wrong[edit]

We say "To rotate about an off-centre fixed point." Chambers 1908 says "to cause to wheel or turn as about some point". Ignore the transitivity issue. Are we rotating about a point, or an OFF-CENTRE point? Why does it have to be off-centre? That's stupid. If a ninja swings a ... umm... ninjomatic at you, can't it be perfectly centred? What does "off-centre" mean? Equinox 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of is that it was added to exclude axial rotation, but to include rotational motion whose centrepoint is located in the rotating body. E.g. "swinging one's arms" doesn't rule out that the centre is located in the arm (may well be in the elbow). In any event the definition has been phrased terribly. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This mistakenly wound up on the main Tea Room page, and I cannot remove it because Im not an admin or autopatrolled. Apparently filter 43 stops that. Thus most users couldnt reply to it either, so I am moving it here, but I cant remove the original entry on the main Tea Room page. Thanks, Soap 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's around a center point, it's rotating or spinning or twirling. The epitome of a swing is a golf or baseball swing, where you're using it as a lever to make the heavy end hit something hard. I'd say that's the idea behind swinging your arms around; the heavy end is going fast and the other end is more or less stationary. I want to say that if someone swings a quarterstaff at you, they've got it held by one end, but while "swing" and "quarterstaff" aren't used together often according to Google and YouTube, "Unlike other 2 handed weapons, the Quarterstaff's horizontal swing is only half the weapon's length. This results in a significantly faster swing, but limits the weapon's range."[1] or "He hesitated long enough forme to adopt a twohanded, quarterstaff grip and swing the end of the heavy stick upwards, catching his right fist and causing the razor to go flying into the air." (Curly Malone, Phil Cantrill (2014)). Even then I'm thinking that the end of the stick was being swung, which is not the center. I'm not sure how to be precise, but I do think it to be distinguished from spin or rotate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I think at least the intention of "off-centre" -- what the author had in mind -- is correct, even if the wording could be improved. Mihia (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The centre of rotation is distant from the centre of mass of the swinging object. Doesn’t this sense also imply that the object does not move steadily around a full-circle trajectory, but merely changes its direction along a smooth arc, as in a swing-by?  --Lambiam 14:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you mean "distinct"? PUC – 15:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not merely distinct, but apart from each other by an appreciable distance.  --Lambiam 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe that a thing (e.g. the arm of a crane) can "swing" around a full circle. There doesn't seem to be any separate (intransitive) sense for this, so I suppose the first definition is meant to cover it, along with the back-and-forth sense as in a pendulum. We do have a separate transitive sense "To move (an object) backward and forward; to wave", though I don't see why the transitive sense should be thus restricted. As far as I can see, you can swing something round and round in a full circle (e.g. in hammer-throwing), just as something can swing in a full circle. Mihia (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, an arm of a crane can swing around a full circle, but the centre of rotation of the arm is still off-centre; in principle it could be one end of the arm. By the way, this example also shows the fallacy of trying to argue word definitions from scientific principles. The word usage has nothing to do with centre of gravity. In the crane example, large cranes have a counterweight whose purpose is to keep the centre of gravity at the centre of rotation. SpinningSpark 13:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

condum for condom[edit]

Is the spelling condum for condom a rare variation or a typo? I remember it appearing in the opening of a Roger Zelazny novel and I spent a while asking myself WTF is a condum? Google Books finds other uses in a medical context. So it has three durable uses if it is not considered a typo. Perhaps an archaic spelling variation? The uses are old. The Zelazny novel is from c. 1970 and the Google Books hits are mostly or all older. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

19th century usages seem quite common and it seems to have been an accepted spelling. Maybe they were under the assumption that it was a Latin term? DTLHS (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
This ("A Scot's Answer to a British Vision") is said to be the earliest known use of the word, which uses the spelling "condum". DTLHS (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a {{dated spelling of}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an interesting different use of the word... DTLHS (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we need a second definition that's just {{rfdef}} in case any time travelers pass by with old meanings. Similar to a recent query I had about a Chinese word 飞蓬. I know one current meaning, a kind of flower. But it's an old word that appears in classical literature and meant something else back then. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It might have been literal. I found a sentence in Wikipedia that says Besides this type, small rubber condoms covering only the glans were often used in England and the United States. Given that, its possible that these bread rolls that were smooshed in the middle might just have looked like the style of condoms that Americans of the time favored. But thats just a wild guess. Soap 01:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There is something about the 18th-century use of the spelling condum in the article "Daniel Turner (1667–1741): syphillis and the condum" (paywall).  --Lambiam 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Addison quotes are all dated[edit]

except one...So, I spent the last few weeks of my existence monastically adding dates to Joseph Addison's works. Now I can claim to be the person in the world to have read the most of Addison's works without having actually read any of Addison's works. Category:Requests for date/Addison is now empty, cleared out from around 750. There's one quote I couldn't find, however, but didn't delete it out of curiosity. Can anyone help me with the following quote stored at [[dash]]?

    • Joseph Addison
      I take care to dash the character with such particular circumstance as may prevent ill-natured applications.

Thanks in advance --Huckerby980 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

[2] DTLHS (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Awesome. I must have only had my Quote-search-omatic working at half-pelt. --Huckerby980 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
No link to any online edition for the full context? DCDuring (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You'll need to fiddle with Template:RQ:Spectator to see that. Remember, I don't work with templates any more difficult than Template:RQ:Addison Medals --Huckerby980 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we could add a |url= parameter to that template. @Sgconlaw knows best. --Huckerby980 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I see you've managed to find the Spectator quotation. I've corrected it for accuracy. In my experience, if you do a search for a quotation and all you get are dictionary results, what's happened is that someone has gone and edited the quotation before putting it into the dictionary (which I think is a really bad practice; thank goodness they don't do that any more). In that case, not enclosing the quotation in quotation marks, or searching for smaller portions of the text, may reveal the correct quotation. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The smaller-portion approach (always including the headword) has worked best for me. I agree that it does not do justice to the original. On the other hand, it does create more opportunity (need) for the Quote Investigator. DCDuring (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes when I add quotes I use {{...}} if there's too much waffle in the middle. I'd rather see "The king [] employed him as a beater on the hunt" than "The king, who had reigned for 25 years was greatly loved. In addition, he was a keen hunter and happened to know Michael through his previous jester. After making Michael's acquaintance many a time, he eventually employed him as a beater on the hunt". --Huckerby980 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


I will try to do some cleanup with the character. Currently, there is a sense (under "Etymology 2") "slow and relaxed", which is given the (Mandarin) pronunciation *, which is extremely rarely attested if at all.

This is likely a ghost entry originating from erroneous readings of certain ancient texts on music, which has been passed through 廣韻 to the 康熙字典, probably later sources such as Wiktionary.

The source of this text appears to be the 通典 compiled in the Tang era, which can be read in full here: https://ctext.org/text.pl?node=560321&if=en#n560322

In this text, the Five Notes (五音, = ) were assigned the semiotic connotations corresponding to the traditional cosmology. At the textual level, we find "羽者,舒也", where the character can be glossed as "slow; relaxed; spread; etc.". This is apparently the origin of the dictionary entry with the gloss "slow and relaxed".

However, this is not a glossing and unsuitable for Wiktionary. This becomes apparent when we read the following parallel passages for each other the other notes:

  • 宮者,土也
  • 商者,金也
  • 角者,觸也
  • 徵者,止也

Clearly, the …者,…也 constructs here were not about definition-giving. Rather, they expressed the authors' semiosis, an attempt to associate the five musical notes with various metaphysical meanings. At the textual level, each of the entries above could be read as:

  • (Gong, house, building) — it is associated with earth
  • (Shang, the character resembling a bell) — it is associated with metal
  • (Jue, Jiao, horn, antler) — it is associated with butting
  • (Zhi, homophone of ) — it is associated with terminating

and in the same vein,

  • (Yu, wings, feather) — it is associated with spreading/relaxing ().

As a side note, the origin of the Tongdian text appears to be the Book of Jin, in which we find 羽為物,羽之為言舒也 in the treatise on music.

At the semantic level, we can say that the meaning-association shown in the text here does not reflect common usage, i.e. meanings usually associated with the character. In fact, I cannot in my mind recall any examples where the character specifically means "slow and relaxed; etc." In the Shijing, invariably refers to the wings of insects and the feathers of birds. In the Zhouyi the character appears once, referring to the feathers of wild geese. In the Zuozhuan it appears many times, either as "feather" or part of a proper name. Shuowen simply defines it as the "long hair(-like objects) on birds".

Now, the pronunciation of might have originated from the 康熙字典 whose authors frequently made use of the Middle Chinese fanqies to assign readings to early-modern Mandarin. In the Kangxi we find "又《集韻》《類篇》𠀤後五切,音戸。緩也。《周禮·冬官考工記·矢人》五分其長,而羽其一。" Here, 音戸 means "pronounced as , i.e. ()". This is simply one of the absurdities abound in the Kangxi where MC fanqie is carried forward naïvely. This appears to be the "definite" connection between the pronunciation 音戸 and the meaning 緩也. Notice too that the following sentence quoting from the Rites of Zhou has nothing to do with the definition here — it originally was about attaching feathers to the arrow shaft (see link to the page).

I think we indeed have a case of textual transmission from the Book of Jin to Tongdian where the textual associates with . This text is then included word-by-word by the Guangyun (see photocopy) as a blurb that is intended to show the attestation of the character as a musical note. Somehow later texts re-interpreted this chain of textual transmission as a source of dictionary definition, and finally in the Kangxi we obtained the unnatural pronunciation .

--Frigoris (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is done in diff. --Frigoris (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Frigoris: I've reverted your recent edit. The pronunciation hù doesn't come from Guangyun, but from Jiyun. 王力's 古漢語字典 and Hanyu Da Zidian list another passage from Zhouli (弓而羽閷,未應將發) and define it as 緩. Hanyu Da Cidian similarly defines it as 舒緩. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: The reading of in the passage quoted in the Hanyu Da Zidian seems to have been based on Jia Gongyan's (Tang era) of the Zhouli, which was in turn based on the reading by Zheng Xuan (Eastern Han) in his accompanying commentary. The page can be found here. Jia notice that the reading should be considered 破讀, i.e. unusual pronunciation for isolated instances.
The Qing scholar Jiang Yong considers this whole passage (from 下柎之弓 to 謂之參均) incomprehensible (link to his discussion in 《周禮疑義舉要》). The other Qing scholar Sun Yirang, quoting Duan Yucai, considers the sentence or its classical annotation (by Zheng and Jia) a result of textual errors in his 《周禮正義》 link. Sun Yirang specifically points out that no character that reads as (i.e. the character used in the Zheng–Jia tradition, homophonic to ) from the classics could be interpreted as "slow, relaxed, etc." (案經典「扈」無「緩」訓,未詳所出).
Based on these annotations, shall we reconsider the reading with the gloss "slow, relaxed" in the light of WT:ATTEST? It seems a bit unusual that we should base the attestation on a passage that displayed an isolated case of 破讀, which has since been repeatedly questioned by classical scholars. --Frigoris (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Frigoris: Well, it is questionable, but I think it's keepable. Since it's classical Chinese, it falls out of the scope of what is considered well-documented (since only Standard Written Chinese is listed in WT:WDL). I think we could probably use {{uncertain}} if we're unsure of the definition. The pronunciation could still be there based on the three dictionaries above (even if they're based on erroneous conclusions). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: thanks, {{uncertain}} looks very good for the purpose of marking a definition as uncertain. Is there a systematic way of marking the whole complex of Etymology–Pronunciation–Definition as uncertain? In this case, the (uncertain) pronunciation is inseparable from the uncertain definition. --Frigoris (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Frigoris: I think we can either mention the uncertainty in the etymology and/or in a pronunciation note (|m_note= under {{zh-pron}}). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: cool, many thanks. Let me think about how the section could be made. --Frigoris (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, this is again done in diff. --Frigoris (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Verb definition:

(transitive, of garments, pieces of jewellery, etc.) To wear.

Is this in ordinary modern use? I am thinking of adding a caveat, such as perhaps "rare", or "now rare" if it was more common in the olden days, but would like to hear other people's views. Mihia (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Has it ever been in use? I recommend putting it up for verification.  --Lambiam 13:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The Middle English Dictionary has, for bēren, "2. (a) To wear (clothing, armor, jewelry, etc.)", with 2 quotes dated "a1500". We don't have a Middle English L2. Century 1911 doesn't have such a definition for bear, nor does MWOnline, so I wouldn't expect other free online Modern English sources to have it. It might be EME. Perhaps the OED could shed some light on when that definition faded from usage. DCDuring (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, Webster 1828 has "To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat." The "a1500' MED cites fit this specialized sense. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, swords, names, arms (heraldic) and (probably) badges are covered under other senses. Mihia (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It did occur to me later that the use of "bear" with some types of headgear (e.g. "bearing a crown", "bearing a headdress") does seem like usable modern English. Perhaps this could scrape in to the "garments, pieces of jewellery, etc." category? Mihia (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I wish I could get to a library and look it up in the OED. It will be at least a week until the libraries open up here. DCDuring (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll bear with you then ... ha-ha, bear with you ... geddit? Mihia (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The old out-of-copyright copy of the OED which is available on the Internet Archive (linked-to from the Wikipedia article) has "to carry about with or upon one, as material equipment or ornament", which (whether intended to or not) arguably could cover jewellery, crowns, and headdresses all in one go. They do, however, also have a sense, marked obsolete, for "to have upon the body (clothes, ornaments); to wear", with the usex "to bear the breech: to wear the breeches" (which I've found no relevant citations of) and one quote from 1574, "the good or the evil of monasteries lyeth not in ye habite, but in the men that beare it". - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(Chinese) Usage note about Mainland China TV shows[edit]

The Chinese section for has a usage note that piqued my curiosity:

Usually placed in a pair of “ ” in Mainland China TV shows.

Can anyone explain why or the context here? Does this only apply to a particular sense? Andrew talk (afc0703) 13:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Afc0703:, the note in question probably meant to say "in TV show captions". A casual Internet search seems to suggest that this is a fairly new phenomenon no earlier than 2018. The reason may be that caption writers feel the pressure to scrupulously self-censor in the ever-worsening climate for speech and expression. I'm not familiar with the culture associated with TV shows though, so I may be entirely off the mark. By the way, it seems to me that a better place for this particular note is the Wiktionary entry for “ ” instead, especially the Citations page. This looks like an instance of so-called scare quotes, i.e., use of the quotation marks where no actual quotation is taking place. --Frigoris (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This usage note should be deleted. If such a practice exists, it is not common enough to worthy a usage note. ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


Should ちゃん be at -ちゃん, or do we not do this with Japanese? Mihia (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

We only do this for the Romaji transcriptions. The Japanese Wiktionary also lists a suffix like on the same page as other uses.  --Lambiam 17:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Mihia (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Currently, this entry is in Category:British English. However that category is used for terms or senses in English as spoken in Great Britain only. What would be the standard way to format a Commonwealth spelling like this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:British English forms?  --Lambiam 13:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tooironic: That {{standard form of}} template is problematic. I suppressed from=British and added {{lb|en|British spelling}}. I hope that'll do. DonnanZ (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I see we have Category:Commonwealth English (a rather small category at present). Equinox 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no Category:Commonwealth English forms though, so for Commonwealth spellings Category:British English forms has to be used, entries arrive there when {{lb|en|British spelling}} is used. DonnanZ (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The "standard (form|spelling) of" templates have to use "from=British spelling" rather than just "from=British" to get the right category, but then the display is wrong. A very similar issue was raised in the GP recently, Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2020/June#Fix_categorization_of_US_standard_spellings_as_"American_English_forms". Really, using the same label module for both context labels and form-of templates is part of the issue here; at least, the form-of templates need to change how "British"/"British spelling" (and "American spelling", etc) either display or categorize or both. - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did experiment with "from=British spelling". The display is indeed wrong, or rather odd. DonnanZ (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Although it will select Category:British English forms, I think the resulting wording "British spelling standard spelling of" should read "Standard British spelling of". And adding {{lb|en|British spelling}} would no longer be necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We do need a solution to this. I came across a more complex example at ageing, treated as British, Australian and New Zealand English, rather than as spellings. A template whizz-kid is needed here. DonnanZ (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A cruddy interim solution would be to add a new label to the module called (e.g.) "British form" (and "Commonwealth form", "American form", etc) that combines the display of "British" (i.e. "British", so that it renders as "British standard spelling of", etc) with the categorization of "British spelling" (i.e. "Category:British English forms"). This is ... kludgy ... but I'll do it later, until a better solution can be implemented. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
As discussed in Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2020/June#Fix_categorization_of_US_standard_spellings_as_"American_English_forms", I implemented the kludge, which does work, though it is not the best way to solve the problem. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about a quote ... used as an example[edit]

A certain question was put here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:unstaunched&oldid=59477125 at 05:06, on 4 June 2020 (UTC); but ... a warning was given (by a robot?) at the time of that EDIT, saying that: unless some mention were inserted at an "Info Desk" or ... [here] in a Tea Room, then ... the question might get little or no attention.

Hence this entry ... to "LINK TO" that question. Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the entry would need three cites in the unstaunched spelling to avoid deletion, were it challenged with an RfV. The Shakespearean alternative spelling is illustrative of the meaning. DCDuring (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I don't find the unstaunced spelling in any of the works OCRed by Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Right now we have two senses:

  1. stoned on drugs
  2. stoned on alcohol

It seems to me that the drug sense has been widened to include intoxication in general as a second sense, and that alcohol is just the main way to get intoxicated that doesn't fit the original sense. I should also mention that this (primarily the original sense) is used metaphorically for any kind of intoxication-like state, usually to make some kind of contrast or comparison with literal intoxication: "stoned on Jesus", "stoned on life". I'm not sure how to rearrange things to reflect this. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that the original sense didn't refer to, or include, alcohol-related intoxication? Mihia (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I recall someone on twitter pointing out examples of "stoned [on alcohol]" from earlier in the 1900s. I think the sense evolution was in fact either "intoxicated from alcohol -> intoxicated from drugs -> intoxicated from anything" or else "intoxicated from anything, but especially alcohol -> intoxicated from anything, but especially nonalcoholic drugs". Some digging would be required to determine whether the earliest uses included drugs or just drink. Etymonline says "Slang meaning 'drunk; intoxicated with narcotics' is from 1930s." In any case, alcohol seems to have been included from (or: at) the beginning. - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The OED interestingly only has quotes dating back to 1952 (for alcohol) and 1953 (for drugs), respectively. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we mark the "drunk" sense dated or uncommon? I've never heard it used that way. Ultimateria (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be dated, exactly, as there's a quote from 2002, but I suspect it's quoting an older person (perhaps even an older interview). I've marked it "now uncommon". I also added a third sense for the general usage Chuck mentions. Partridge, btw, has a sense for high on drugs, a sense for drunk, a sense for very drunk (sic, with one of the same quotations...), and a sense for generally exhilarated. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

bear (2)[edit]

(transitive) To have a certain meaning, intent, or effect.
(Can we date this quote by Nathaniel Hawthorne and provide title, author’s full name, and other details?)
Her sentence bore that she should stand a certain time upon the platform.

Is this sense in ordinary modern use? I can't think of an example, but I'm not even sure I fully understand the meaning of the old example that is given, so I could be missing some point. Bear in mind (heh-heh, I did it again, I just can't help myself) that we need something that is clearly distinct from the numerous other senses of "bear". Mihia (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it occurred to me of course that something can simply "bear a meaning" as in e.g. "Estimable once meant 'capable of being estimated,' but now exclusively bears the meaning 'meriting high esteem; deserving respect; admirable'." I wonder whether our definition is referring to this kind of usage, as well as to the (to me) unfamiliar "bore that ~" of the existing example. Mihia (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

antifaschistischer Schutzwall[edit]

Shouldn't this lemma's POS be changed to a proper noun? Or was the plural really used f.e. for different segments of the Wall? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because according to the propaganda it was a generic term and the specific wall was one kind of it. And now there are of course transferred uses. Fay Freak (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

starting signal[edit]

Should we include one or more more common meanings? Probably useful as a translation hub, and quite idiomatic in reference to races and perhaps there is something to say about metaphorical political uses. @Donnanz, Surjection. Fay Freak (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It certainly can be used for various races, including those for boats. A cursory look on Google reveals figurative senses as well. If you have any translations you can always start a translations section. DonnanZ (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
To which extent "starting signal" is simply "a signal to start" is debatable. — surjection??〉 17:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

bear (3)[edit]

According to a usage note:

  • Both spellings [that is, both born and borne] are used in the construction born(e) to someone (as a child):
    • He was born(e) to Mr. Smith.
    • She was born(e) to the most powerful family in the city.
    • "[M]y father was borne to a Swedish mother and a Norwegian father, both devout Lutherans." (David Ross, Good Morning Corfu: Living Abroad Against All Odds, →ISBN, 2009)

Do you agree with this? I would probably see "borne" here as incorrect in modern English, possibly an archaic usage. Mihia (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Prescriptive spelling guides like this one tend to agree. But we are descriptive, so it may be better to state that certain usages, once quite acceptable, are (now) proscribed.  --Lambiam 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I should think that if we could anywhere dispense with the pretence of being "descriptive", i.e. pretending that anybody's use of English is as good as anybody else's, it should be in usage notes. Mihia (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. What one person might think of as an absolute barbarism that should never be used might not faze another person should they encounter it in formal speech. I think it is much better to say things like "Considered incorrect by the vast majority of English speakers" or "Generally proscribed by style guides and grammar references" or something similar. Whenever I see a usage note on Wiktionary along the lines of "Such and such is a mistake", I find it virtually useless. A mistake according to who? If it's just considered a mistake by style guides, I might have no problem using it. If most English speakers would consider it a mistake, I would be more hesitant. And if User:JoeBlow on Wiktionary thinks it's a mistake and writes a corresponding usage note, what do I care? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The kind of wording that you advocate is just deferring the prescriptivism to some other vaguely specified, or unspecified, authority. True descriptivism would not make, nor delegate, such a judgement. It would accept, for example, alot, simply because many people write that. Mihia (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree. A descriptive approach tells people how a word is used. If it would be avoided like the plague in formal contexts, a descriptivist would describe that. If the reason was because all the well-respected grammar authorities declared that the usage was incorrect, there's no reason a descriptive treatment of a word shouldn't allude to the reason why the word isn't used in certain contexts. Placing a word that is generally considered incorrect on equal standing with one that is universally accepted would be to describe very poorly. 20:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the paragraph in question. If anyone definitely thinks that e.g. "She was borne to the most powerful family in the city" is (or was) normal correct English (in the claimed sense), then please feel free to restore it in some appropriate form. To me, "She was borne to the most powerful family in the city" would mean that someone carried her to that family's home, or something like that. Mihia (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    I object. More prejudice against the past. This isn't a matter for a vote. It's a matter for attestation. And attestation looks to be readily available. DCDuring (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

bear (4)[edit]

Seeking more examples.

3. To support, keep up, or maintain.
1. (transitive) To afford, to be something to someone, to supply with something.
1732–4, Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man, Longmans, Green & Co, 1879, bear%20him%20company%20pope&hl=de&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 10:
[] admitted to that equal sky, / His faithful dog shall bear him company.
2. (transitive) To carry on, or maintain; to have.
1693, John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, § 98:
[] and he finds the Pleasure, and Credit of bearing a Part in the Conversation, and of having his Reasons sometimes approved and hearken'd to.

Seeking ordinary modern English examples of these two senses. B ... I mean remember, of course, that the examples must show clear separation from other listed senses of bear. Any ideas? Mihia (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a word for when mechanical components oppose each other?[edit]

So, you have something that tries to make a thing spin one way or move one direction, but another thing tries to make it spin the other way or move the opposite direction? I'm specifically thinking of situations where this is unintended and disruptive/destructive.__Gamren (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

CAD tools use collision, conflict, or interference for unwanted overlap of two solid objects. This is not quite what you are asking about. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
In anatomy, opposing muscles are called antagonists. The term sabotage comes to mind.  --Lambiam 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

French audio sample for suspens[edit]

The IPA for French suspens is listed as /sys.pɑ̃/ (which matches the IPA on the French Wiktionary). But the audio sample sounds like /sys.pɛns/. --Infinitum11 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. The pronunciation in the audio file was that of the English loanword suspense. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Hey all mechanics. I'm trying to find the English word for tornapuntas. It is part of a drill, apparently. This image search may or may not be useful --Huckerby980 (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly "corner brace". Equinox 05:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The first image in the image search is called a shoe here. You can see it here mounted on a hand-held cut saw.  --Lambiam 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

toxic masculinity[edit]

This sounds a bit SOP to me. Seems more encyclopedic than lexical. Thoughts?

Also, {{R:Cambridge}} has a definition rather different than ours: "ideas about the way that men should behave that are seen as harmful, for example the idea that men should not cry or admit weakness". See “toxic masculinity” in the Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PUC – 09:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, they hold that it is (a set of) ideas, not behavior. Their definition struck me as more amateurish than ours.
I suspect that use is relatively nonspecific, but that it is not "a set of ideas". DCDuring (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It is characterized here as “a set of behaviors and beliefs”, which seems to fit the actual uses of the term nicely.  --Lambiam 10:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


Please merge this page with Module:zh/data/och-pron-ZS/每. Thanks. -- 10:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dienstherr definition[edit]

I am not fluent in German, but it seems to me that the definition for Dienstherr is incorrect. Doesn't that term refer specifically to a feudal vassal and not simply an employer. I am not a historian either, but perhaps a better translation (if one exists in English) would be something closer to Noble, lord, lord (of a manor), or something along that line. Hk5183 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hk5183:. Fixed. In the 19th century, when Germany had different systems of law everywhere – like now in the United Kingdom (tags: interlokale Rechtsspaltung, Rechtszersplitterung, Partikularismus, Partikularrechte) it could mean just “employer” liberally as for example a farmer who hires someone. Now it is only a term of public law defined as you see there (it is difficult to translate the German distinction between appointed public-law servants and employees of public-law persons working on employment contracts). @Mofvanes: Stop pretending that every German word has an English translation. Especially if you create legal terms you fall flat on your face with this. It is easy to fill Appendix:Terms considered difficult or impossible to translate into English with myriads of commonplace German terms knowing legal differences. Fay Freak (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I will avoid legal terms in the future (except if there is a seperate non-legal definition) /mof.va.nes/ (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


A problem entry. The 2007 and 2013 citations are from books that quote Wikipedia content verbatim (quite possibly lazy plagiarism). The 2012 one makes no sense to me and does not seem to attest the given meaning... Equinox 03:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The 2012 cite was grossly misformatted. Taxonavigation was part of a chapter title, Liat Margolis was a chapter author, etc. The use of the word in the title conveys little about the meaning of the word. I don't think that WP plagiarism per se invalidates the cites. DCDuring (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Google's snippet view of the 2007 cite doesn't let me determine whether it conveys meaning, rather that being cited as an example of an unintelligible web page. I also can't tell whether it establishes a connection with Wikispecies.
The 2013 cite shows use of the word to indicate the meaning given, IMO. It does not mention Wikispecies, so does not support that portion of the definition. DCDuring (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added another cite, which is also mentiony. DCDuring (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

tessellation sense 3[edit]

There is now a third sense saying "(less common) polygon tessellation" (a red link). Can anyone explain what this is? How does it differ from the normal sense 1? Tiles are, after all, polygons. I would have thought sense 1 could generalise to all kinds of tilings, even in more than three dimensions. Is this third sense something different or not? Equinox 05:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps they meant "polyhedron" or "polytope" rather than "polygon". Pedia has an entry for Stacked polytope. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We can only guess what they meant (and 14 years after the creation this may have faded from memory), but in any case both squares (senses 1 and 2) and octagons (sense 2) are polygons, so if the meaning is “tessellation with polygons”, it does not add anything. Moreover, this sense is not rare. In fact, the converse (uses where the tiles are not polygons) is rare. Theoretically the compound noun could mean “tessellation of a polygon”, but if used in this sense, it is a sum of parts, like “wall tesselation”. Wikipedia has a section on tessellations in higher dimensions, which may or may not be polyhedral.  --Lambiam 10:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

in kindle[edit]

We have an adjective section at kindle where the headword is "in kindle". Clearly, this is wrong. Should the sense be moved to in kindle (and defined as a phrase, a la in heat)? Or is the relevant sense of "kindle" found outside the phrase, in which case it should be moved to kindle#Noun? - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

poster project[edit]

I'm not sure what this means in the context quoted here, which I used for a quote at threefold:
"We recognise that electrifying more of the railway is likely to be necessary to deliver decarbonisation," it stated.
There's clearly a growing momentum in that direction, but some significant hurdles have still to be overcome - not least the legacy of the three-fold increase in cost on the Great Western Electrification Programme, which has become the poster project for expensive wiring. DonnanZ (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Synonym of poster child. DTLHS (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I would never have guessed that! Is it worth an entry? DonnanZ (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hard to say... "poster" can be used this way with many types of thing. In that quote, it's a project, but a man can also be the (or: a) google books:"poster man for", and there are "the Zapatistas, the poster movement for many 'alter-mondialistas'", even one hit for "a poster act for" (where the act is a musical act/group), besides more general phrases like google books:"poster example for". - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
We have separate entries for poster boy and poster girl, which are obvious gendered specializations of poster child. The examples of use in compound nouns with inanimate heads (assuming enough such are durably archived) suggest we need a new entry for the (attributively used) noun poster, with a separate etymology, since this new sense arose by abstraction from poster child.  --Lambiam 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


The sense in the quote below isn't covered, which probably comes from the verb, or dilution. I haven't checked for similar usage. It may even be a one-off. My guess is it means the scaling-down of a proposal on grounds of cost.
"If we can capture anything from this awful situation, it is that ability to trust people to do certain things for themselves and to look out for each other, and to give them the tools to do their job as well as they can without having to go through endless bureaucracy to achieve it, which is very often just delays and dilutes and doesn't add much value. DonnanZ (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it's an error, with the verb intended: "...which is very often just delays and dilutes and doesn't add much value". Equinox 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Blimey, you're right, I inserted "is" in error, I have no idea why, it's not in the original text. Problem solved but a red face. DonnanZ (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

boura: Portuguese for "donkey"?[edit]

Was boura ever Portuguese for "donkey"? Seen in e.g. William Beckford. Equinox 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Was Portuguese orthography sufficiently fixed at the time to give a definitive answer? Beckford writes Corpo de Deos, as do contemporary Portuguese sources, for what is now standardized as Corpo de Deus. English words at the same time are often found spelt in many different ways (e.g. musick, musicke). So this may have been a rendering of burra in a free-for-all orthography.  --Lambiam 20:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

tra, syllable in singing[edit]

Does this really exist alone? I only know tra-la-la. I don't think it makes sense to have an entry if it only occurs as part of a longer phrase (like the tally in tally ho). Equinox 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There are also tra-la and tra-la, tra-la, and even tra-la-la-la-la.  --Lambiam 11:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What do Germans call fall-through (in programming)?[edit]

...since Durchfall is diarrhoea. Equinox 04:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I see the term used, e.g. here: »switch hat ohne Unterbrechung Durchfall«.  --Lambiam 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


Feedback on this please...? [3] I feel that KD's change has broken the substitutability of the definition. He sneakily changed the example sentence too, to try to stop me saying this :) Well played! Equinox 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If you replace the final that by in which, it is at least as substitutable. Compare:
Original: I remember how to solve this puzzle.
With the old def: I remember in which way to solve this puzzle.
With the (revised) new def: I remember the way in which to solve this puzzle.
Original: I remember how I solved this puzzle.
With the old def: I remember in which way I solved this puzzle.
With the (revised) new def: I remember the way in which I solved this puzzle.
Original: This is how to solve this puzzle.
With the old def: This is in which way to solve this puzzle.
With the (revised) new def: This is the way in which to solve this puzzle.
I don’t know about the old “in such way”; when would this be an appropriate substitition? Was the intention “in such way as” (I shall act how I deem it my duty to act” → “I shall act in such way as I deem it my duty to act”)?  --Lambiam 11:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be definitions and usage examples for the differing types of verb clauses that can follow? The are at least two: one "finite", the other "infinite":
I asked him how one does it.
I asked him how to do it.
I see questions by language learners on Quora that often display errors involving finite/infinite clauses, so we would do a modest service to learners by including definitions for words like how for both kinds of clauses. Presenting the "infinite" use as an adverb and the "finite" as a conjunction separates the cases in a way that may make it hard for a learner to see the contrast.
The PoS of some uses of how is ambiguous. Lexico/Oxford calls all of its definitions of how adverbs, as does Cambridge Advanced Learner's; Collins presents the infinite use of how as a conjunction; MWOnline calls its "finite" definition a conjunction and its "infinite" an adverb. Not every dictionary covers the infinite clause/verb-phrase usage with suitably worded definitions and usage examples.
Finally, either the interrogative label for some of the adverb definitions is misleading or we have omitted definitions for non-interrogative usage. DCDuring (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
As far as the wording of the queried sense is concerned, I prefer "The manner or way in which" to "The manner or way that" (as Lambiam said, in fact). I would support moving/merging this to the adverb section. The other conjunction definition, which blends into "that", seems more awkward. E.g. "He told me how he was a policeman" seems to mean little more than "He told me that he was a policeman", i.e. there is no real sense of "in what way/manner", so if "that" is a conjunction in the latter, then wouldn't "how" be a conjunction in the former? On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum there may be more sense of "in what manner", and also this sense may look lonely by itself in the conjunction section. Mihia (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try to make a clearer distinction between the conjunction senses. At the moment the two conjunction senses are "The manner or way that" and "That, the fact that, the way that", which appear to overlap at "the way that". Perhaps we should have plain definition "that", with examples having no (or as little as possible) "way/manner" content, and leave this as a conjunction, while moving the "way/manner" sense to adverb. Also, the former should probably be marked "informal". Mihia (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't address all that bothers me about the entry right now without getting a headache. I did add non-interrogative usage examples to the three "interrogative" definitions and remove the labels. I think you are right about the conjunction PoS for usage in sentences like "He told me how he had been a policeman." (But I think I wouldn't use it in present tense.) We do need to have usage examples somewhere for usage with a following "to" verb-phrase/clause. DCDuring (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that "how" in "I remember how I solved this puzzle", presently said to be a conjunction, is a kind of blend of adverb and conjunction. In one sense, "how" is parallel to "by doing X" in "I solved it by doing X", i.e. adverb, and yet on the other hand it seem to incorporate the idea of conjunction "that", in that we cannot say "I remember that how I solved this puzzle" in the way that we can say "I remember that I solved this puzzle by doing X". Lexico calls "how" in "she told us how she had lived out of a suitcase for a week" a "relative adverb", which I am finding hard to see. By the way, you added "How the stock market interprets events has real consequences" as an example under "In what state"? Are you sure you meant that? Isn't this referring to manner? Also noting that the sense "In any manner", e.g. "I'll live how I please" is presently lacking but needs to be allocated to a PoS. Mihia (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
If you find this wrong or even merely ambiguous, we should try to provide a clearer example, if there is one. DCDuring (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
That example sentence would use how as a manner adverb if the manner was something like in a volatile way or enthusiastically as seems sensible to someone who believes securities markets have little rationality. Rephrasing as a question ("How did the stock market interpret the Fed announcement?", the answer would be something like "As a short-term positive development", which would be a PP modifying not a verb, not an adverb, but an NP ("the Fed announcement"). DCDuring (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The only one of the three present examples that to me seems truly, or substitutably, to refer to "state" is "How are you?". "How was your vacation?" seems to be wanting another form of wording in the definition, possibly on the same definition line. As for "How the stock market interprets events has real consequences", I honestly can see no connection with "state", only "manner", so I propose to delete this unless there are strong objections. Mihia (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to find or invent a better example. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say "how" in "I remember how I solved this puzzle" is an interrogative adverb used in indirect discourse. All interrogative adverbs and pronouns can be used that way: "I remember who solved this puzzle", "I remember what I solved", "I remember which puzzle I solved", "I remember where I was when I solved this puzzle", "I remember when I solved this puzzle", "I remember why I solved this puzzle". Basically "how I solved this puzzle" is a noun clause that's the direct object of "remember". —Mahāgaja · talk 20:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, in fact it occurred to me later that my argument about "that" in my previous post is probably bogus. If we take a verb such as "comment", which can only take a "that" clause, not a (ordinary) direct object, in fact we cannot say "He commented how he solved the puzzle" (which would seem to be the consequence of "how" somehow incorporating "that" in the way I described) -- except, it seems to me, in the informal "true" conjunction sense. Mihia (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope we don't restore the interrogative label. It is not especially helpful when many of the uses of the wh- words (usually taken to include how) are not in questions. DCDuring (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
On the basis of the comments above, I feel inclined to move the "The manner or way that" usage exemplified by "I remember how I solved this puzzle" to the adverb section, where it would seem to fit under the definition "In what manner", alongside "She showed him how to do it". On the other hand, "The manner or way that" (or "The manner or way in which", as we suggested) is not substitutable into the interrogative examples under adverb "In what manner", e.g. "How do you solve this puzzle?". We're not losing or fudging anything by merging these, are we? Mihia (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Though the substitution is certainly stilted in contemporary English, it is neither ungrammatical nor unintelligible. I think it is adequate, though the definition should be improved if possible. DCDuring (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure which substitution you are thinking of. I was referring to the substitution of "The manner or way that / in which" into "How do you solve this puzzle?", which would create "The manner or way that / in which do you solve this puzzle?" which is clearly not grammatical, though I am not sure whether this is important. Mihia (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I see. I think do can be ignored. Isn't it an artifact of interrogative wording? I'd have to look at some transformational grammar to find out for sure. DCDuring (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


User:Fenakhay insists on listing the Arabic word as a descendant of the same Arabic word, without giving any reason for such oddity. Please advise -- 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not Arabic, it's Moroccan Arabic. Fenakhay is in the right. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously this Arabic word is common to all regional variants of Arabic. What's the point of listing Moroccan Arabic specifically? -- 00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Because we don't have the concept of a macrolanguage. As far as Wiktionary is concerned Arabic and Moroccan Arabic have the same relationship as Arabic and Mongolian. DTLHS (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
That's patently false; you'll get a module error if you try to say a Mongolian word is inherited from Arabic. And anon, it's not at all obvious that an Arabic word is common to all "variants", as quite a lot of words aren't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I never claimed that all Arabic words are common to all variants of Arabic; my question is about this Arabic word specifically. By way of analogy, you may see that the entry on scorpion doesn't mention Jamaican English, Indian English, Australian English etc. Even though there are undoubtedly many words which aren't common to all variants of English, the practice is to mark the variation (as in biscuit) and not the common vocabulary. -- 09:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because those aren't different languages from English. That's reflected by English being a single language on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese orthography: 鸊鷉/鷿鷉/etc?[edit]

Which one is the preferred candidate of the "main entry" in Wiktionary?

--Frigoris (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply-to-self, I'm in faver of 鸊鷉 after consulting taxonomic databases such as 臺灣物種名錄 --Frigoris (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulgarian etymology: искам (iskam)[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2020/June#Macedonian_сака. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


The definition for semicolonial is circular, and inadequate, and gives no sense of what it means. The definition at M-W, for example, would be an improvement. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought this was to connected with the semicolon: e.g "if you want some semicolonial fun, check out this grammar video. --Huckerby980 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I guess it might have been calqued from Chinese 半殖民地, as in the phrase 半封建半殖民地社會 (semifeudal semicolonial society) or 半殖民地半封建社會 (semicolonial semifeudal society), a concept chiefly specific to the Maoist strand of the so-called Marxist-Leninist historiography and political narrative. --Frigoris (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

About the letter "ꭎ"[edit]

I have been wondering what this letter is. I have only found information about it on fr.wikipedia.org (French Wikipedia) and I'm not that good at translating french. Can someone please make an article about this? That would be most appreciated.

It's U with short right leg. This is a dictionary, so we don't include Unicode characters just because they exist in the standard; they have to actually be used, and I'm not certain that this one is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It can be seen in this PDF, which can be located on wikipedia:Latin Extended-E. It's some German phonetics thing (Teuthonista). —Suzukaze-c (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
And here I thought it was an Armenian letter. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia has an article on the letter itself, on the German linguist Otto Bremer who came up with this, and on the phonetic alphabet of which it is part. It is curious that the French Wikipedia has all this information while there is nothing about any of this on the German Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 15:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Chinese surnames from not a family languages[edit]

The category Category:Chinese surnames from not a family languages looks weird (it is also a member of itself). Is this a bug? --Frigoris (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This whole thing is a mess. @Benwing2's bot creates those categories, so he can blacklist them (obviously fixing the problem at its root would be better, but I'm not sure how that can be done). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, Frigoris I fixed Module:category tree/name cat so it won't generate either Category:Chinese surnames from not a family languages or Category:Chinese surnames from Undetermined, and deleted these two categories. Benwing2 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


About Jewish persecution in the Nazi era, Wikipedia says: "some Jewish people survived by being hidden and sheltered by friendly neighbours. In Berlin, they were known as "submariners" since they seemed to have disappeared (under the waves)." What is the actual German word intended here? Is Submariner a German noun? Equinox 18:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No. What I've seen before in English is U-boater, but I don't know what the original German is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Something untergetaucht, Untergetauchter (a dead metaphor by now). Fay Freak (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Untertaucher (singular and plural): [4], [5], [6].  --Lambiam 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mycenaean… /ˌmʌɪ.sɪˈniːən/?[edit]

I just went to check the pronunciation of Mycenaean, and… /ˌmʌɪ.sɪˈniːən/? I didn't even know the /ʌɪ/ diphthong was a thing! Surely it should be /maɪ-/? MGorrone (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those are two transcriptions of the same diphthong. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

, (sense related to phases of the moon)[edit]

The current definition interprets (OC *pʰraːɡ) as the dark part of the moon. This appears to be along the tradition of so-called 「偽古文尚書」 ("Old-Text Shangshu" pseudepigrapha, see section at Wikipedia page). However, this interpretation is by far not the only valid or meaningful candidate. Wang Guowei already forcefully argued, based on both textual tradition and the corpus of excavated inscriptions, that (OC *praːɡs)/ (OC *pʰraːɡ) in the classical era was identified with the bright, illuminated part of the moon (《生霸死霸考》 in Wang, 1923), in phrases such as 既生霸 (OC *kɯds sʰleːŋ praːɡs), 旁死霸 (OC *baːŋ hljiʔ praːɡs), etc. The "cognate with (OC *braːɡ)" part in the entry for would be awkward if (OC *pʰraːɡ) is understood as the dark part.

In the light of this I will edit the entry for , but probably will not remove the current one. Instead I think it'll be worthwhile to keep it while mentioning its specific context (i.e. in a certain textual tradition.)

Also the current entry for (OC *praːɡs) as "new moon" appears to be an out-of-context quotation from the Shuowen (霸,月始生。) A more accurate gloss would be " , the first days of light (re)appearing after the darkness of the moon". "New moon" in current usage refers to the day when the moon is at conjunction, where it is almost completely dark. However (OC *praːɡs) always carries the connotation of light. --Frigoris (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply-to-self, this is mostly done, see , . --Frigoris (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Los pantalones no me cabían[edit]

Is "[los pantalones] no me cabían" correct on the page caber#Spanish? It seems to contradict the note that says "This verb always implies an active sense; i.e., the subject always does the action of this verb" The Language Learner (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


Does this actually mean "dollar"? It should mean "dram" based on the evidence in this Unicode proposal, and it seems to be the kanji version of ʒ (the symbol for dram) based on this tweet by Andrew West. Pinging @Octahedron80, who made the entry. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot where I got this. Perhaps it was mistranslated. You can change it. [7] --Octahedron80 (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

fugazi in WOTD[edit]

Hi. WOTD says "No offensive words — Please avoid profanity. A nominated word should not offend the average person, nor should it be something you would be embarrassed to use in front of your boss or your grandmother (or your boss's grandmother, for that matter). Wiktionary defines profane words in part so people know not to use them in polite company. WOTD nominations, on the other hand, should be words that people can safely use in everyday speech. Note also that many parents and schools automatically filter out pages that include certain offensive words, so featuring such a word on the Main Page would restrict access to Wiktionary itself." --- AFAICT fugazi (WOTD 14 June) does not comply. Just sayin'.... -- ALGRIF talk 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@SgconlawSuzukaze-c (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s a matter of opinion I guess. Sometimes I’ll decline a word (the most recent one that comes to mind is breastaurant) and then the reaction is “but that’s not really offensive”. Other times I get reactions like the one above (mosquito bite garnered that reaction too). Can’t win ‘em all, I guess. In the case of fugazi, the word itself seems innocuous. It isn’t even labelled as vulgar. It seems to be the definition that some people might have problems with? — SGconlaw (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: That's right, the definition is clearly profane. I think that this was a poor choice, as was mosquito bite, but for a different reason. We want to err on the side of caution in things that go on the main page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ll be sure to use the ellipsis more freely … — SGconlaw (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

not heard the last of[edit]

I can't find an entry for this one, I think it's common enough - "but it does sound as if we've not heard the last of her". How to word it? DonnanZ (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that this is not exactly a set phrase. It can be worded in different ways, as well as +ve and -ve versions. "That should be the last we will hear of him!" for instance. However, "hear the last of someone" has the jizz of a common phrase that maybe could be included. Just need to think on it a bit more. -- ALGRIF talk 15:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Hello. I'm starting on Wiktionary because someone on Twitter used a screenshot from Wiktionary to try to justify using the word "transgenders". The problem I have with this term is that it's inaccurate (as it is often used to refer to "transgender people") and incredibly problematic, as it is objectifying trans people and can be used to "other" trans people. I was reading through the guidelines to see how I should go about getting this corrected and it recommended that I start here. --VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One other thing I just noticed is that when I look at the entry for the word transgender, the definition for the singular, countable noun form reads something like "now often offensive", which I think would be a suitable adjustment to the definition for this entry. The usage notes also appear to communicate the concerns I (and many others) have with using the word "transgender" as a noun to refer to transgender people. --VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 04:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I've copied the context label on the singular to the plural. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Why? That goes against general practice. We don't usually put "offensive", "archaic", "dated", etc. on plurals. (Note that the singular noun transgender already has the same "offensive" gloss, so it's not plural-specific.) Equinox 05:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Because it's confusing. Only the countable noun sense is offensive, so naturally the plural is, but if a user goes to look up the plural — as someone apparently did! — they shouldn't have to comb through a relatively long entry to find that the sense that can be pluralised has this context label. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Mehhh. I am inclined to agree with Equinox, we don't normally mark an inflected form as "offensive" (etc) unless specifically the inflected form and not the lemma is offensive. Meta has a point that only some of the lemma's senses are offensive, unlike other words I can think of, but OTOH the non-offensive and also non-countable noun sense of "transgender" is also rather rare. (As as aside, I recall a discussion back in 2014 over whether to mark "jews" as offensive.) I can't think of another word that's quite like this, even "gays" doesn't seem to be as offensive as "transgenders". We could add a usage note saying "see the usage notes at transgender#Noun". That's a more verbose but perhaps more "standard" solution. I don't know...mehhh. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
What about {{plural of|en|transgender|t=now often offensive: a transgender person}}? Since it is not the plural itself that is offensive, but the core word itself. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, thinking about this more, I think the label should go, because by saying "transgenders" is the offensive plural of "transgender", it suggests there's some other plural that's not offensive (or at least that pluralization is the offensive thing, which is still not the actual issue). I think the rare uncountable noun sense should be moved down, so the most common and offensive countable sense is the top noun sense people see right away, and then the label removed from the plural. Using a gloss to convey it is a good idea. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone done surveys to determine what terms commonly used among heteros to refer to transgender persons are or are not offensive? A term like transgender seems to me like one that a hetero would use naturally from a lack of knowledge about what might be offensive without any special malice. DCDuring (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the same question could be directed at any age-, ethnic-, religious-, or gender- (etc.) related terms. Whose assertions are we accepting about how these terms are taken? DCDuring (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW trans in Keywords for Today: A 21st Century Vocabulary, edited by The Keywords Project, Colin MacCabe, Holly Yanacek, 2018. has nearly three pages on trans and related terms. DCDuring (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the term you're looking for is "cisgender people" / "cis people", not "heteros", since plenty of trans people are also hetero. (Notably, this is true regardless of whether one takes the view that a trans woman who's only into men is hetero, or the [transphobic] view that a trans woman is "really a man" and so it's a trans woman who's into women who's hetero. Either way, some are hetero, and mutatis mutandis for trans men.) - -sche (discuss) 20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Chechen word doubly transliterated as urdu[edit]

A BBC story[8] reports on a bride price being paid in Chechnya according to local custom. BBC calls the payment "urdu". The Russian language story[9] BBC picked up uses урду (urdu), on Wiktionary defined only as the Urdu language. So "urdu" is an English transliteration of a Russian transliteration of a Chechen word. Does anybody know what the original word is? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: The word appears (maybe) in an inflected form (the Russian way) in the article - in the accusative singular. The original form may be "урда" - I have no idea what it is and I couldn't find anything in my little Russian-Chechen (one-way) dictionary. I searched for both "урда" and "урду". In Russian у́рду (úrdu) only means the Urdu language but it's apparently a Chechen word. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
My theory about the lemma form урда (urda) is confirmed in this article https://news.myseldon.com/ru/news/index/231597653. I don't expect the Russian journalists to know Chechen. It may not be Chechen but from some other North Caucasian language. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

See урдо (urdo). --Vahag (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

artichoke = vulva?![edit]

Thesaurus:vulva listed artichoke but there is no such sense in the entry. I mention it here in case anyone is familiar with it; but I assume it was probably trolling so I have removed it from the thesaurus. Equinox 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

be born yesterday[edit]

I think we should move this to born yesterday. The "root" of the expression in some sense is have been born yesterday: it's always something that happened in the past, never in the present or future. Thoughts? (Entry may need rejigging to deal with verb-vs.-adjective issues etc.) Equinox 20:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you check, you will see that this entry has been discussed previously, and consensus seems to be the entry as we see it today. -- ALGRIF talk 16:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)



This entry as created and then deleted back in 2014 after a RDF and a RFV (see Talk:Wikidata). 6 years after, could the entry be recreated or not? Caveat: I'm not an expert of en.wt, don't hesitate to explain like I'm 5 year old :P.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It has to pass WT:BRAND. That basically means the usual 3 quotes in books or other durably archived media, but they also must be from books that aren't about wikis or databases. I think that will be very hard to do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge ok, I missed the « books that aren't about wikis or databases. » (not sure to fully understand but ok). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


There was a hidden comment at vanity saying # Emptiness. {{rfex|en}} <!--needs a better def: not e.g. emptiness of a box or glass-->. Not much point putting a hidden comment as nobody reads it. Anyone want to lend a hand? --Huckerby980 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't begin to try without some examples, preferably real citations. RfV-sense. DCDuring (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Century uses the terms empty and emptiness in 2 of its senses of vanity, in three subsenses. We have all of those subsenses in our first two definitions. DCDuring (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


I just created this entry, found quotations for various meanings (which I added) but I don't actually understand all of them. Any help is welcome. Urbandictionary (no use as a source I'm aware) has some entries for it: "someone that has just done something really stupid", "..deriving from the terms prick, penis, cock, dick or dickhead. Personal insult directed at the candidate for acts of pure nobberism.", "a shortened version of the word 'nobhead' used in the east midlands originated from burton-on-trent". Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

In the UK it's reasonably common to call someone a nobber like a nobhead. --Huckerby980 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Inadequate provision of Swedish vocabulary in Wiktionary[edit]

I've seen before now that many Swedish words Swedes and foreigner might need (various kinds of) help with are missing from Wiktionary. Today I noticed that there is no help for "lekamen" or for "hamn" in the sense of ghost. I suspect that such lacks arise from the pervasive Swedish neophilia and an overwillingness on the part of Swedish academics to disregard the need to understand older usages. What can be done about this? I submit that a start could be made by ensuring that all the items dealt with by Elias Wessén in Våra Ord are included (with full treatment of course, not just the etymologies Wessén hiself was concerned with).

This is a collaborative project. Feel free to add any missing senses on lekamen and hamn. --Lundgren8 (t · c) 12:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Newcome Question[edit]

Hello. I am a new user on, Wikitionary and want to know how Wikitionary works. So please could someone answer my question. (I have used Wikipedia before, not that it is important.) Thank you, Hamuyi (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted help on your talk page but you have deleted it. I see you're perma-blocked from Wikipedia; that will happen here too if you repeat those habits. Equinox 15:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
A time-waster if ever I've seen one. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Names for Brassica[edit]

There are several Brassica vegetables with English names derived from Cantonese (coi3). I added yu choy recently using a definition from a scientific paper: Brassica rapa var. oleifera or B. campestris. Then I found a web page claiming choy sum is the same thing and identifying it as Brassica rapa var. parachinensis. The name parachinensis is also used at subspecies rank. Now I have three scientific names for yu choy and I don't know if they mean three different things or are alternate names for one thing. And I don't know if yu choy and variant spelling yu toy are strict synonyms of choy sum. Can anybody straighten this out?

For completeness, we also have bok choy = Brassica rapa chinensis, tatsoi = Brassica rapa narinosa, and napa cabbage = Brassica rapa pekinensis. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of definitive ways to resolve subspecific names. Brassica+rapa at The Plant List has only three subspecific names and offers no vernacular names. Brassica rapa at Germplasm Resources Information Network has more than a dozen and offers vernacular names in a few languages. These are defensible non-wiki sources. DCDuring (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Also see Brassibase for comprehensive coverage of taxonomic synonymy of Brassica. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Brassibase says the two names of yu choy are the same thing and the name of choy sum is a different species or subspecies. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to trust them, though Chinese and German practices may differ. I'd show any taxonomic name widely used in China as a synonym of whatever accepted taxonomic name seems to prevail elsewhere. DCDuring (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Flora of China at efloras.org (online version of printed book) lists
(Curious to hear from any Chinese speakers how many of these names are in common use.) Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

marked pronunciation[edit]

In my American dialect there are two prounciations of the adjective marked. Senses 1, 4, and 5 ("a marked card") have no vowel between k and d. Sense 2 ("a marked increase") is clearly two syllables, the last vowel probably closer to /ɛ/ than the /ɪ/ in the provided British pronunciation. What do others think? Two pronunciations or one? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This distinction seems to be common where I live (Alberta, Canada) as well. It should definitely be added to the entry with an appropriate qualifier. See right for an example of how to do this (but feel free to use any solution you find expedient). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sense 3 is also monosyllabic. I personally would pronounce sense 2 monosyllabically as well, but I wouldn't be startled if someone else pronounced it as two syllables. I certainly would be startled if anyone pronounced any of the other senses in two syllables, unless they were reading poetry from the 18th century or earlier. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Added /ˈmɑɹkɛd/ as the North American two syllable version. IPA-philes please confirm. Is the one syllable North American pronunciation /mɑɹkt/, /mɑɹkd/, or something else? Maybe I should be using the a with an r hanging off the side. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The one-syllable pronunciation in General American is /mɑɹkt/; the two-syllable one is /ˈmɑrkɪd/, /ˈmɑrkəd/. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, in my US (NYC) idiolect def. 2 is the only one that allows the 2-syllable pronunciation, but it also permits the one-syllable. The other defs. only allow the one-syllable pronunciation. DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All Bacon quotes are dated[edit]

Except for about half a dozen. The ones are not, however, are already in a quote template which is currently a red link. The thing is, I can't find a date for the following works. One work is Judicial Charge Upon the Commission for the Verge, which I'd like to add to Template:RQ:Bacon Verge, and the other is LETTER AND DISCOURSE TO SIR HENRY SAVILL, TOUCHING HELPS FOR THE INTELLECTUAL POWERS., which I'd like to add to Template:RQ:Bacon Helps. Can anyone help find a date to these two boring publications? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

But apparently, not all quotes are well-formated: conglaciation: "(please specify |book=1 or 2)". The template Template:RQ:Bacon Learning also gave a wrong title. And additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if the quote in conglaciation is wrong all along - by giving an incorrect, a modernised, spelling and not the correct one. Also, the given source might be wrong as well, if it's only found in a later edition, such as this work ("Of the Advancement and Proficience of Learning ... Nine Books. Written in Latin ... Interpreted [= Translated by Gilbert Wats. London, ..., 1674")]. ... --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That is why we haven't commissioned a bot for this. The quotes need to be verified and, preferably linked to from an online copy of an early edition of the work. DCDuring (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I changed the quote at conglaciation to use a simpler template. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Two different 'scutoids'?[edit]

While searching for attestation of scutoid (a shape defined in 2018), I also found scutoid – sometimes italicized, sometimes capitalized – which I gather is either an induced mutation or a gene in Drosophila melanogaster. I put three quotations at Citations:scutoid. Perhaps someone could track down the etymology and the definition? I'm not confident I could. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The lower-case scutoid refers to a shape, which I think is sufficiently described, while the upper-case Scutoid refers to a D. melanogaster mutation that (among other things) causes the loss of scutellar bristles.[10] While both are formed as scutum +‎ -oid, the meanings are largely unrelated. The shape sense has a rather regular etymology, meaning “shaped like a scutum”. This is a fairly typical use of the suffix; see e.g. acaroid, bulboid, conoid, ...  The naming of Drosophila mutations and genes is a Wild West. The tradition is that a mutation is named after the appearance of the (mutated) phenotype, and that next the gene (also when not mutated) is named after the mutation. Exactly why Krivshenko named the mutation using the compound scutum +‎ -oid is not clear to me; I have been unable to access his announcement (which appeared in Drosophila Information Service 33 (1959) pp. 95–96).  --Lambiam 23:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The use of -oid in naming a mutation is quite common; in a list of Drosophila mutations[11] I spotted the following: Bar-baroid; Beadexoid; Bithoraxoid; Blackoid; Bristleoid; Cluboid; Curlyoid; Dachsoid; Dumpoid; Dwarfoid; Echinoid; Forkoid; Giantoid; Gulloid; Lightoid; Loboid; Midgoid; Notchoid; Pointedoid; Purpleoid; Revolutoid; Roughoid; Sepiaoid; Staroid; Stubbloid; Thickoid; Thoraxoid; Tumoroid; Wavoid.  --Lambiam 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


Letala is the Swedish name of Laitila, a town in southwestern Finland. Could someone edit the entry in such a way that the page is not in the category "sv:Municipalities of southwestern, Finland" (that comma is the problem...), as I don't know how to do it? Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

well if i replace the r/ text withj c/southwestern Finland it works, but it's a redlinked category. Soap 14:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
That seems to mess up other categories, so I did the whole thing manually now. Perhaps the template doesn't support this currently. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the preference is to list an actual province/region/county, rather than vague compass points. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the page with the place template. Ultimateria (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


Can this be merged with in series - or not? IMO it's not an adjective at all. The image can be moved up to the noun. DonnanZ (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's always "in series". As an adjective, parallel contrasts with serial. As a noun, (in) parallel contrasts with (in) series. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


The sequence of partial sums of a given sequence ai.

Isn't this always an infinite sequence, rather than the finite sequence shown in the entry? Is it just a wording issue? DCDuring (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Some mathematicians (and not the least) have used the term for the summation of a finite sequence: [12], [13], [14].  --Lambiam 09:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


Please change to hǎo. -- 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Mistakes in examples for using the Irish word 'déag'[edit]

I think there are several mistakes in the examples given in the entry for the Irish word 'déag', and I think an expert should review them. For instance, "sé báid dhéag ― sixteen boats" (should be 'sé bhád déag', I think) and "trí madraí déag ― thirteen dogs" (should be 'trí mhadra dhéag', I think).

You're right; I'll have to look into it some more to find proper examples of the claims being made. In general, only units of measurement or time take the unmutated plural form rather than the mutated singular form after cardinal numbers, and neither "boat" nor "dog" is a unit of measurement or time. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"It's ten boat dog o'clock!" ← internal loopy monologue reacting to the above, typical of my mornings before the coffee has kicked in. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


I notice the adverb is labelled "obsolete" and I think the noun could well be the same. I have only come across the plural form, the only form recognised by Oxford is arrears (as a plural noun), which describes it as money owed, but in a quote I added it is extended to railway track maintenance, in which "arrears" means a falling behind in doing necessary repair work. Oxford also mentions the phrase in arrears, as can be seen this lacks an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

proper nouns[edit]

Can anybody explain this: diff? It's obviously a proper noun and proper nouns have their on entry/section (the Sun/sun vs. a sun, die Sonne vs. eine Sonne). See also Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Þunraz & Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Wōdanaz which are correctly entered as proper nouns. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the main problem with your edit was with the way the sections that were nested under the noun section were changed so that they were on the same level with the noun and proper noun sections. I'm not sure whether to call the result a two-headed monster or a random bucket of parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, if the descendants should be nested under the noun or proper noun section, they need to be split by etymology/sense (day or god Jupiter). With just the information in the entry, that can't be done (are the Oscan and Umbrian terms common or proper nouns?). But that only means that the entry requires some additional improvement, and not that my edit where wrong or bad somehow: Common and proper nouns are different parts of speech as shown above. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Except they aren't, a proper noun is a kind of noun. —Rua (mew) 09:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


Can we determine whether or not this is a misspelling of multifarious? They seem to have the same meaning. Multifarious is more than 100 times more common than multivarious. Also is there any evidence of the existence of the purported etymon multivarius? DCDuring (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious to me that this is a misspelling, which however seems to be attested rather earlier, 1636;[15] multifarious made its first appearance in 1593.[16] Latin multivarius can be found in Late Latin texts;[17][18][19] this too appears to me to be a misspelling.  --Lambiam 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

aerospace gloss[edit]

After creating crawlerway I noticed that {{lb|en|aerospace}} rendered as (aeronautics, space). That seems inferior to merely showing (aerospace). I think glosses should be kept as short as possible — and indeed omitted where they are not required (we can use categories if we just want to say that a word is often used about video games or whatever). Thoughts? Equinox 19:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Equinox: Agreed. I think it's a pretty uncontroversial change, if you want to go ahead and do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Go for it. DCDuring (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Cannot find where to do it. Equinox 12:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Equinox: Module:labels/data/topical. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 12:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Yes check.svg Done I had looked at Template:label but missed the relevant link at the time. Equinox 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


Permalink to referenced version: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-en&oldid=59574201#Etymology_2

The distinction between sense #3 and the preceding senses is not clear. Even if sense #3 is supposed to refer to "other" nouns, i.e. those not previously mentioned, it is still not 100% clear, since the wording "the majority" in sense #1 leaves open the possibility of "any other" noun, other than the specific type described. The "nonstandard" label at #3 could be understood to distinguish "made-up" plurals from "proper" plurals at #1. However, #3 also says "dialectal", and some of the examples at #1 are labelled "dialectal", so there is an overlap there. I'm not sure what to do with this. Perhaps someone else might have a clearer idea. Mihia (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest using one Sense for Modern Standard plurals like oxen, and another for the non-standard made-up plurals, like girlen. The Current Sense 2 can remain as is. What presents difficulties are the dialectal and archaic plurals, and whether they should be grouped together or separately, as they overlap with each other and also with standard plurals. For instance, a plural like hosen is standard and archaic; housen is dialectal and archaic. I tried to look for analogies with other affixes, like -s and -eth, but unlike these, -en persists in Modern English, if even as a relic. However, for simplicity's sake, we could use Sense 1 for Modern Standard, Sense 2 for Dutch-German, Sense 3 for archaic/dialectal, and add a Sense 4 for non-standard (?) Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing the current situation, it might be easiest to simply remove the dialectal tag from sense 3, thus averting the need to add any additional senses...(?) Leasnam (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
We could combine these along the lines of: "Used to form the plural of nouns: in standard English now only found on a small number of nouns, the majority of whose etymologies go back to the n-stem [...], but formerly, and still today in dialects and nonstandard speech, also applied to other nouns." I'm not sure if that's best or not, though. Sense 3 seems like it might be the only one that actually exists as a productive suffix in English: plurals like brethren and oxen go back to Middle or Old English and were inherited intact, not formed in English using a suffix -en; likewise, the examples given as being sense 2 seem to have been borrowed wholesale from Dutch and German, not formed in English by adding -en. Dropping "dialectal" from sense 3, as Leasnam proposes, would at least help remove the overlap between examples of -en as an inherited ending (sense 1) and examples of it as a suffix applied to Unixen, etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Separate from this discussion of the former sense 3 (which is now sense 2), I removed the former sense 2 (the klompen plural). (If anyone objects, I'll take it to RFV or RFD, but I put my rationale on the talk page.) - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


There's a missing sense here that has to do with cheeses, such as in the term "smear-ripened cheese" (but also used on its own). — surjection??〉 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I initially wondered if this might be related to smearcase or schmear, Wikipedia suggests that smear-ripened cheese is simply cheese that is ripened by smearing a smear of older cheese onto it to transfer microorganisms. Perhaps someone else can offer other collocations or suggest a definition that would show how this is a separate sense, though, if it is... - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

jiàng = ?[edit]

The page for jiàng lists it as the Pinyin transcription of 募, which is only transcribed as mù. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? Is there a bot that keeps the Pinyin transcriptions up to date? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum:, I think it's an error. Fixed. --Frigoris (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


With regard to the "negative only" qualifier that was just added:

Is there no attested usage of "I have qualms with so-and-so" or whatnot? I'm thinking something along the lines with the modern usage of "couth" (backformed from "uncouth"). Tharthan (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is used in positive. Easily googled: [20]. Equinox 19:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
"No qualms" and "any qualms" constitute nearly half of contemporary usage of qualms. I change the label to "Now often in negative construction" from "Now chiefly ...". I has some qualms about my change. There may be other collocations that would swing frequency to chiefly. DCDuring (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Singular qualm is not used very much with any or no. DCDuring (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
google books:"my qualm" (with calling it negative only is that it's not). - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
"My only qualm" gets a lot of hits too. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"verbal copia"[edit]

Anyone know what "verbal copia" means? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I can guess: Latin copia means "abundance", so it no doubt has something to do with verbal abundance- perhaps a richness of vocabulary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Any chance it's an oblique way of saying logorrhea? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

surely as a query for confirmation[edit]

Sometimes people say "surely X!" when they don't actually believe X, but find its opposite so unlikely or alarming that they want confirmation: e.g. "surely he didn't walk all that way on his own?". This isn't possible with the synonyms: "certainly he didn't walk all that way on his own" is a confident assertion. How can we explain this nicely in a usage note? Equinox 13:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Surely, you can't be serious." "I am serious, and don't call me Shirley." Jokes aside, I don't agree with having a usage note only for surely based on your arguments. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting them. It's confusing when you're comparing a question "surely he didn't walk all that way on his own?" with a statement like "certainly he didn't walk all that way on his own." When I take away the question mark, I don't see any argument for how "surely, he didn't walk all that way on his own" is not a confident assertion. If anything, both "surely" and "certainly" could be used as a confirmation...? I guess it depends on the context of the situation. In this case, should both words (and possibly others that are similar) have a usage note? --Reductions (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some recourse to facts. How often are surely and certainly used to open an interrogative sentence and of those cases how many of each fit the "confirmation" usage. I think Equinox is right and that synonyms of surely don't work the same way, but citations could change my mind. DCDuring (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Chuukese "pronouns"[edit]

What is going on with the parts of speech at kopwap, use etc? Apparently when use means "I do not" it is a pronoun, but when it means "I am not" it is an adjective. It all seems a bit ridiculous - not trying to criticise the Chuukese language but the entries. What's more, the navigation template there talks about a "negative tense", which also doesn't make sense (tense is about past present and future, isn't it?) 2001:8000:1588:B800:5D57:7C9E:8B27:12D3 10:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And then we have ute, which is a pronoun meaning "I will never" or "so I do not"... 2001:8000:1588:B800:5D57:7C9E:8B27:12D3 10:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a better word can be found, but it seems to be real .... this language marks tense on nouns that describe person, and it sppears that when the verb is negative, the tense distinction collapses, so they have a single form. I'd say pronoun is a perfect description of what this is, but this grammar calls them subject and object markers, and reserves the term "pronoun" for an optional word that does not have a tense marker on. Soap 19:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


To which extent is this correct? It'd probably go in usage notes instead of the etymology if it is correct. — surjection??〉 11:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good way of describing it (probably should be "fell into disuse" rather than "was almost entirely redundant" -- we don't generally describe words as "redundant"), but there's a grain of truth to it: cobber is rarely used and when it is used it is mostly affected, in order to emphasize one's Australian identity.
Some sources claiming that cobber has fallen out of use:
  • 2017 April 27, “The two four-letter words Australians should stop using”, in The Sydney Morning Herald:
    I love the word 'mate'. Nothing – unless you were born in a rusting tin shearing shed on the outskirts of Woop Woop – beats it as the embodiment of the Australian ethos. It has long survived while 'strewth', 'cobber', 'beaut' and other old favourites faded.
  • 2018 January 25, “Get yer hand off it, mate, Australian slang is not dying”, in The Conversation[21]:
    But it is the nature of slang that there will always be a turnover of terms – today’s cobber is tomorrow’s mate, ranga for a redhead replaces blue/bluey, bogan replaces ocker and so on.
  • 2018 November 21, quoting Dr Amanda Laugesen, Director of the Australian National Dictionary Centre, (ANDC) based at The Australian National University (ANU), “Aussie lingo a living, thriving language”, in Daily Mercury[22]:
    Words like 'sheila', 'bonza' and 'cobber' recognised as typically Australian have largely fallen out of use
Claiming the current use of cobber is affected:
  • 2001 November 8, “Good day?”, in alt.usage.english, Usenet[23]:
    On the Mainland [as opposed to Tasmania] ... 'Cobber' is still used among men in a semi-affectionate way, but, increasing, only for its Oz charm value.
  • 2003 November 8, “Word rescuers sift for gems”, in The Sydney Morning Herald[24]:
    [The word "cobber"] is still widely known, but often used self-consciously. It is not used by the young.
Regarding the affected and politicized use of Australian slang generally:
  • 2001 November 8, “Good day?”, in alt.usage.english, Usenet[25]:
    I can't agree with your observation about the salutation 'g'day mate'. I now live on Mainland Australia (in Melbourne), and it is heard everywhere, although, admittedly, sometimes rather self-consciously, as a sort of flag-waving Australianism.
  • 2016 June 30, “Slanguage and ‘dinky di’ Aussie talk in elections”, in The Conversation[26]:
    It goes without saying that slanguage has always played a pivotal role in the Australian sense of self. ANU researcher Evan Kidd recently set out empirically something Australians have intuitively known for a long time – “using Australian slang increases your likeability among other Australians”. And useful campaigning fodder are those distinctively Australian expressions with no easy equivalents in national varieties elsewhere. They might be a bit old hat, but they conveniently package some of those cultural values that many Australians hold dear.
Associating cobber with nationalism:
  • 2019 March 17, “Australia’s racial divide finds a home on ‘Dingo Twitter’”, in The Seattle Times[27]:
    The person identifying himself as Tarrant [perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings] used the word “cobbers” in a final posting on the unregulated far-right message board 8chan just before Friday’s attack. “You are all top blokes and the best bunch of cobbers a man could ask for,” apparently referring to the virulent online community of Australian extremists from whom he found affirmation.
--Lvovmauro (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Two Pennyworth[edit]

Hi all, on the two pennyworth page a claim has been made with no source that two cents is no more popular in the UK than two pennyworth(and it's variations), editor seem unwilling to back up the claim with any source and are insistent on keeping this (on the face of it) incorrect claim on page. I have searched for data and only found sources that state two pennyworth is used in the UKHalbared (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see what’s incorrect. In the UK it is not verboten to say two cents. And yet there are obvious likelihoods. Fay Freak (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not incorrect, but stating that a phrase from another country has taken over on in the UK would require proof, rather than being made up in wiktionary. I'll jjust add I'm not saying it's 'verboten' and the comment doesn't say that brits don't use it, the caim (which was created here) states 'two cents has taken over.Halbared (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You can use Google News advanced search to get some numbers. DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
All that would give you is how many people look for that phrase, not unusual since the UK has a lot of US telly and someone would look it up.Halbared (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I've stated my personal experience on the talk page (I am pretty sure that Brits will sometimes say "two cents" even though we don't use two cents as currency). I think Halbared has got a point in saying that we should show some kind of evidence when we state this. Equinox 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
THanks, this is my point. I've been looking too. I've found some good books, one from 2010, but they don't state that two cents has overtaken, just that twopennyworth is in use in the UK.Halbared (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll also add that the saying isn't two pennies, it's two pennyworth or tuppence. This is in the two dictionaries/reference books on English idioms and sayings I've found. How do we change the page to either one of the correct forms? https://www.scribd.com/document/384950381/Yuri-Dolgopolov-A-Dictionary-of-Confusable-Phrases-More-Than-10-000-Idioms-and-Collocations-2010-McFarland Halbared (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Being in the UK, I would always say "tuppence worth", never "two cents worth" (although I might in New Zealand, but I don't think there is a coin below 5 cents now). DonnanZ (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So is it OK to get rid of this claim which was made up on these pages? Halbared (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents (pun intended). Since we're mostly relying on personal experiences and anecdotes in this discussion, which by the way should never be used as evidence when adding usage notes, I can't help but reminisce about my time at uni in London. Surrounded by Brits from all over the kingdom and Commonwealth, millennials (just like me) and Gen Z'ers, I never once heard anyone use this expression. If it at all was uttered, it would always be a variant of "two cents" and it felt perfectly natural despite being in the UK – popular culture is saturated with Americanised expressions which people don't even think twice about before saying. I don't believe that the usage notes in question should remain unaltered – I encourage an investigation into this, but I feel that finding sources in favour of one argument or the other will be very hard to come by. However, just the simple fact that there is a huge discrepancy between the two when doing a Google search in favour of the "two cents'" version, leads me to believe that we at least should mention it somehow. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not advocating usage not be mentioned, just not a made-up fact that one has supplanted tother. I have tried to investigate and in two independent sources of UK sayings they bth state that two pennyworth (variant) is still a saying and not that it has been supplanted.Halbared (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


Is wording that belongs in one of the definitions concealed in the usage note?

"In common language, particularly used in the phrase “derogatory term”, where it is equivalent to less common pejorative, and in “derogatory statements”, equivalent to more casual offensive."

Is this true? In what sense do we intend the label derogatory in the 681 entries in which it is applied to English terms? Does it differ from pejorative (applied in ~480 English entries)? Can a word be derogatory of, say, a car? Or is it generally understood as being about people? Lastly, what determines whether a word is offensive (116 entries) rather than derogatory? DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If someone calls a car a clunker, or a dog a mutt, I think they are using a derogatory term. This may offend the proud owner of the thusly disparaged entity, but it is IMO not offensive per se.  --Lambiam 23:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you find any preference for either derogatory or pejorative to be used of people rather than things? Further, if I say an argument is weak, is that derogatory, pejorative, both, or neither?
I am trying to check my usage against prevailing usage. As these terms are used in labels we need to make sure as best we can that our use of these accords with use in all Englishes. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To me, derogatory and pejorative are synonyms that can be applied to the way something is described, be it people, pets, objects, events, or situations. Derogatory/pejorative terms are emotionally charged and their use signals an affective dislike. Someone can say that an argument is weak with perfect equanimity, as an observation offered in a matter-of-fact way, so this is not derogatory or pejorative. It becomes derogatory if they say an argument is total rubbish, and even more so if they deem it bullshit. Also, when people are called a bunch of weaklings, this is not just an observation but said with the intention of belittling them.  --Lambiam 12:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The word pejorative, at least, is extended to inanimate objects in linguistic literature. For example some languages are expressive in such a way that if you trip and bang your knee against a chair, you can puill on a specifically pejorative word for "chair" to describe what happened. The word derogatory seems similar as you say. By contrast words such as disparaging and offensive can really only be applied to humans. Soap 12:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I conclude from looking at OneLook and these comments that derogatory and pejorative are near synonyms, but that pejorative is more general in that most users would allow its use of inanimate objects.
I am concerned about our use of both labels. For example, -er def. 7 "(derogatory, added to nouns) Person who subscribes to a particular conspiracy theory or unorthodox belief."
Does that apply to girther ("one who is skeptical about someone's (eg, Trump's) claimed weight") or no-nuker or tiny-houser? The definition is itself suspect and seems to omit these uses, but not all uses of the words uses in the usage examples are derogatory.
Are we adding "relevance" to our definitions by excluding the full range of uses and adding value judgments in definitions and labels that are far from universal? DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

et passim - following, or throughout?[edit]

I've created an entry for et passim based on information here, but I'm not sure it's correct. That page translates it as "And in the following" but passim gives "throughout"/"frequently". I'm not entirely sure which it should be, and while google books searches give plenty of results for et passim and "et+pass" et pass, it's not obvious to me which way it's being used. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It means "and throughout". The page you've linked to has confused it with et seq.. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

bebiĉo, beluliĉo (Esperanto)[edit]

The templates used on the pages state that the entries have "fewer than three known examples of actual usage" and that "Esperanto is subject to a special exemption for languages with limited documentation", however, clicking on the link to "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion" and reading the "Number of citations" section reveals a link to the "languages well documented on the Internet" list, for which "three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary", which includes Esperanto. J3133 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How was 塩湖市 pronounced in Japanese?[edit]

The kanji spelling 塩湖市 is an obsolete equivalent of ソルトレイクシティ (soruto reiku shiti, Salt Lake City), Utah. In contemporary Japanese I believe the lake for which the city is named is sometimes 大塩湖(グレートソルトレーク) (gurēto soruto rēku) (eg. [28]), but saline lakes generally are 塩湖(えんこ) (enko). Does anyone know if the city was ever given a Sino-Japanese reading? or was it pronounced as in English? @Suzukaze-c, Eirikr, Poketalker (and I know I'm forgetting other who might be helpful!) Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If I could determine it, there wouldn't be an {{rfp}} :) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't been able to confirm a reading for 塩湖市.
The only expected reading for this would be えんこし (enkoshi), but googling for the kanji string together with this kana string produces nothing: google:"塩湖市" "えんこし".
In those rare cases where the kanji string even shows up, I've seen it appear as a kind of gloss added in parentheses after the katakana string ソルトレイクシティ (Soruto Reiku Shiti), as in the JA WP article at w:ja:アレックス・ボエ:


But again, this is more of a gloss, providing the reader with a meaning-transparent rendering to make sense of the otherwise-opaque transliterated English in the katakana, and this is not intended to signify that "this is the reading, and this is the kanji spelling".
Separately, I note that the lake's kanji spelling 大塩湖 also has the expected reading of dai enko: google:"だいえんこ". The グレートソルトレーク (Gurēto Soruto Rēku) reading added at the Trip Advisor page is similar to how manga will gloss words in interesting and creative ways, and I don't think that should be considered as a lexical item. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I keep my niggas private, so his AP all I'm showing[edit]

What AP is Megan Thee Stallion referring to in her song Savage when she says I keep my niggas private, so his AP all I'm showing? all-purpose flour? automatic payment? alkuperäinen postaaja? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Ass poopin'"? Apparently slang for "extremely bad", maybe nouned to "something extremely bad". Song appears to be all about trash talking. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Wireless access point? Gotta protect your Wi-Fi. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll send her a letter requesting some light-shedding. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Might be something like "account picture" or "anonymous profile". Chuck Entz (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary has, among various very irrelevant definitions like Advanced Placement, "Affair Partner", but that doesn't seem to work here. Probably Chuck is right. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
She could be referring to the luxury watch manufacturer Audemars Piguet, indicating that she keeps her relationships private due to the status of the individual. Wanting to brag about their wealth and not their identity, all she can do is show his expensive watch. Interestingly enough, she ends this line with "Baow", and the only time she does this again is in that same verse, which also mentions watches. "...so his AP all I'm showing (Baow)" and "I keep a watch, I keep a whip, ooh (I keep a whip, baow)". --Reductions (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


This old usage note is unusually and abominably prescriptive, especially if you compare this to some usage notes for highly offensive ethnic slurs. I'd say that "An exonym (external name) based on the mistaken belief that the Romani people came from Egypt, the term Gypsy is loaded with negative connotations." isn't really the most neutral or objective way to start a usage note, and "Further, some Romani organizations use "Gypsy" as a self-designation." is much too relevant to be put at the end as an afterthought; it isn't Wiktionary's purpose to tell Romani what terms to use for themselves or to decide between legitimate and illegitimate usage among Romani. Then there's the loaded language of varying subtlety. On top of that, "because its offensiveness is not always understood by non-Romani, whose use of it is often not intended to cause offense" can be pruned or omitted entirely and "and is used by some British laws and court decisions" seems rather specific.
I'd propose as a more neutral alternative to: first note the contention around the term, its potential offensiveness and its status as an exonym, then describe the Romani case con and also mention use as a self-designation, then give the dictionaries's recommendations and list alternatives, maybe mention the preferences and use of other organisations (telling the "careful speakers" to go take a hike) and finally note the use in informal speech. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I revised it, trying to bring it more in line with the way information about offensiveness is presented on e.g. nigger (this is not intended as a comparison of the offensiveness of the two terms, though that is another where some members of the group use it internally). I dropped the uncited bits, including(!) the claim that some Romani use the term - I know a few do, but I've yet to find high-quality coverage of that to match e.g. the multiple other dictionaries cited for the note that speakers/authorities regard it as offensive. (Having talked to even more Romanis, both English- and German-speaking, over the years since I first added / revised a substantial part of that usage note, I've found that "it's offensive" is definitely the (much) more common position vs "it's OK at least in self-use", something I was unclear on before.) I may have cut too much, though. What else should be changed (or changed back)? - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The usage note doesn't help me understand the particulars of the offensiveness of the term. The clause "as it is based on the mistaken belief that Romanis came from Egypt and is loaded with negative connotations." raises as many questions as it answers. Is the mistaken belief offensive because non-Romani don't take the trouble to learn more about the Romani? What are the "negative connotations" and what is their origin? Maybe these matter are for WP or a line of sociological research, rather than for us. My own feel for this is negligible consisting of brief conversations with two Irish-born adults and some TV shows (principally about travelers, tinkers). And reading the usage note didn't do much to enlighten me. DCDuring (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


At the top of the page stop there's a hidden comment that goes "isn’t this a bit contradictory?" What on earth would the writer be referring to? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Something that's no longer there. In this January 11, 2007 edit User:Hamaryns added the category Category:100 English basic words with the hidden comment directly beneath it, apparently commenting on the name of the category, which was deleted in 2016. In this March 23, 2007 edit, User:AutoFormat moved the category to its correct place. Being a bot, Autoformat didn't notice the comment, so left it alone. It's been there in the 13 years since, commenting on nothing. This should be a reminder not to add anything that depends on something else being in a specific place in the wikitext. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Useful reminder. Good luck trying to enforce it Face-smile.svg --Nueva normalidad (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

love is love, love wins[edit]

Should we have an entry for either? A recent RFD of a different phrase got me thinking about stock phrases and slogans and eventually these. On one hand, the second one in particular can refer to a number of things (e.g. situations where a couple stays or gets together); on the other hand, at least in certain contexts each phrase clearly has a gay-rights-associated meaning, namely ≈"all romantic/sexual orientations are valid" and ≈"gay people's right to be in marriages/relationships will or has prevail(ed)". I'm on the fence. - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

carbon-neutral and carbon neutral[edit]

I am no expert concerning carbon and the environment, but the differing definitions don't help - do they mean the same thing? Both were created by the same contributor (who is still with us) in 2006, but a few weeks apart. DonnanZ (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semper was being careless. I've made carbon-neutral into the alt form; it seems to be less common, and carbon neutral was the correct one in terms of the def. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Checking NGram Viewer reveals carbon neutral in the lead, with the term hardly appearing before 2000, but the results are hardly up to date. Checking dictionaries gives a different picture, four favouring carbon-neutral and two carbon neutral. Collins gives carbon-neutral as a British alternative, and Merriam-Webster favours carbon-neutral, but lists carbon neutral as an alternative. Hmm, I may reverse your decision yet regarding which should be the main entry. DonnanZ (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Southern vietnamese to steal dựt(yựt) cognate with khmer យក(yok) A page needed to be made[edit]

I don't know if it's a native word or a borrowed term from khmer.I'm a speaker of southern vietnamese so i know this word is a real thing. Khmer- 1.to take 2.steal Southern vietnamese-1.to steal

The word you are looking for is giựt, which is a variant of giật. PhanAnh123 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thai สรวล: from Western Cham or Eastern Cham 'srual'?[edit]

I am trying to clean up missing categories. This Thai term claims to be borrowed from "Cham" 'srual'. "Cham" is a language per Wikipedia, but per us it's two languages, Western Cham and Eastern Cham. Someone manually added categories Category:Thai terms borrowed from Cham and Category:Thai terms derived from Cham. To clean this up I need to know which Cham variety this term comes from. I would guess Western because (a) it's spoken more, (b) Thailand is west of the Cham homeland, but that's just a guess. Benwing2 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

door leaf[edit]

The definition given for 門扇门扇 (ménshàn) is 'door leaf'. I do not comprehend this concept, nor do I have any confidence that this phrase is equivalent to the Chinese character term. Could a picture be provided that shows, specifically, what part of the general door area is the specific door leaf and/or the 門扇? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging by [[leaf]]] and by the diagrams that turn up in a Google Image search for "door leaf", a door leaf is just a door—that is, the part of the door that opens or moves, as distinguished from the door frame. In turn, diagrams seem to show that a "門扇" is the same thing. But if this is the case, the definition could definitely be made less opaque by adding a gloss... maybe something like, "a door leaf (the part of a door which opens or moves)"? - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What part or parts of an accordion-type door or folding door does this cover? Does it cover both interior and entry doors? Overhead doors? DCDuring (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The way I understand it, an "accordion" door would have multiple leaves. A folding door that folds in half would have two leaves. An "ordinary" door has just one. I don't see why it should matter whether a door is interior or exterior. Mihia (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I was interested in the Chinese word. I always hope that our definitions are not excessively narrow. DCDuring (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
MWOnline has: "2. something suggestive of a leaf: such as
b(1) : a part (as of window shutters, folding doors, or gates) that slides or is hinged"
I note that they limit the application to folding doors, presumably including accordion doors, perhaps also some overhead-opening garage doors. What about the similar parts of jalousie doors or the sections of metal pull-down security doors? I don't think leaf is normally applied to such doors. Are there other kinds of doors common in China and rare where English is spoken? DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The definition in Japanese is similar -- the distinction is between hinged doors that swing open, which have "leaves" from the analogy to the way a leaf can swing or bend this way and that, and sliding doors, which don't have "leaves". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Does that include a single door? DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Dunno about Chinese, but for Japanese, yes, that distinction holds. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
In English, in architecture (and interior design?), leaf is more inclusive than MWOnline has it: it includes the panels of a single door, a double door, a Dutch door, a folding door, an overhead-opening garage door, a sliding door. DCDuring (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Legal cases cites[edit]

I dated a few of the quotes at broad, and one was a court case. Having never seen one before, I added a basic structure to it, as below. Is the formatting OK? Do we have a template for such things? Template:cite-law or something? --Nueva normalidad (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought I found a template once but when I looked again I couldn't find it. I try to use something closer to formal legal citation style, at least including the name of the court. See absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and naked license for some citations I added. Note they are not all in the same style. A template would help. I probably should add the author of the opinion or "per curiam" as appropriate. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vox Sciurorum: I find your quotes at the mentioned immunity entries cryptic and not prolix enough. One should be mindful again that we are on the web and spaces is not limited. Fay Freak (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Formatting may look differently depending on the court structure of various legal systems and the internal details of particular courts. On the ECHR quote on ptomaine I have a different format than in the BGH quote at Verkehrsanschauung. But the uniting thing for a future template is: Date – Court Number (+ optionally the chamber or senate of that court which may be relevant) – optionally a case title (German court cases never have titles, sometimes unofficial ones for important ones) – reference number (Geschäftszeichen) – marginal number (Randnummer) or an other device of textual division – optionally places of publication, e.g. juris or legal periodicals (Fundstellen).
How ever this template is called it shall not be {{quote-law}} since this more likely implies statutory law, since in continental law court decisions aren’t even law as you might know it (although one may speak of Richterrecht; there is no stare decisis). Probably it should be called {{quote-case}} as in case law. In the examples however {{quote-book}} provided the desired formatting. Fay Freak (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

蝴蝶 pronunciation[edit]

The Pinyin for 蝴蝶 "butterfly" is given as húdié. The second word on its own has alternatives dié and tiě. Is hútiě a common enough form of 蝴蝶 to add as an alternative pronunciation? I know one person who pronounces it that way, which means it exists but doesn't necessarily mean it is common. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vox Sciurorum: It's a possible vernacular reading, but it seems like it's usually erhua-ed (at least in Beijing). We have it listed at 蝴蝶兒. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

go short[edit]

Does this exist as an antonym of go long (first sense)? PUC – 12:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have RfDed the financial ("economic") sense of go long. I think go short is also NISoP. DCDuring (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does exist in the financial sense. While technically SoP, we should also consider how easy it is for the dictionary user to figure out which senses of "go" and "short" to put together, especially given the easily confused semi-idiomatic "not have enough" sense (which is itself surely a candidate for an entry). Mihia (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard go short used to mean "not have enough". I can only think of come up short and fall short for that. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you possibly of an American persuasion? I'm wondering if it could be a BrE phrase not used over there. In BrE it is well known. See [29], [30]. Mihia (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree this phrase is commonly heard in UK, particularly politicians telling us they will make it not happen. It's also hard to claim it's SoP since the subject of the verb is not going anywhere, nor does he become any shorter. SpinningSpark 15:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Imo, that sense warrants an entry. PUC – 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
And suddenly its not red anymore! SpinningSpark 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

though I say it as shouldn't[edit]

Is this entry-worthy? It's mentioned in this stackexchange thread ("implying that the speaker is criticising someone for something they are themselves guilty of. "She should lose a bit of weight, though I say it as shouldn't.""). PUC – 09:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That's new to me. I'm familiar with it (or rather, its standard-dialect equivalent though I say it who shouldn't) being used when one compliments one's own work (e.g. "That was a delicious dinner, though I say it who shouldn't), equivalent to if I say so myself/though I say so myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the first person who brought up the expression in that thread said they used it in that sense. Maybe I should create an entry with both senses, rfv the "criticise" meaning, and let Kiwima work her magic. PUC – 12:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds dialectal, a bit farmerly, the sort of thing you'd see in Thomas Hardy. I am having trouble thinking of other plausible phrases that would use "as" like this. I'm sure there are variations of your particular phrase, e.g. "as should not". Equinox 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

handsome is as handsome does, stupid is as stupid does[edit]

How should this be parsed? Is as a relative pronoun, meaning who? PUC – 12:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't entirely answer your question, but apparently the OED says that the second handsome is adverbial [31], i.e. it means "...acts handsomely". Equinox 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
This looks to me like a fucking snowclone. Appendix:English snowclone/X is as X does might want to be made. --Nueva normalidad (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, @PUC:, as is functioning as a relative pronoun. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


This might be usually plural, but the singular adnexum is attested. I just created it, citations at citations:adnexum. I'd like to get the headword template to change from "plural only" to "usually plural" but I can't find a suitable template. Any suggestions on how to handle this? SpinningSpark 14:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed now...? Equinox 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)