Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Rfv-sense "To cover (something) or provide with clusters of things.", "To cover or provide with clusters of things." Apparently added by @Sgconlaw by editing an older "To cover with clusters", by itself a bit ambiguous, but nothing compared to this, where I have absolutely no idea where this would be used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED has both these senses. The intransitive sense only has one cite: "clustering with all variety of verdure". The intransitive sense, likewise, is typically attested as "clustered with" - searching Google Books for older texts seems to turn up a few likely cites? This, that and the other (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure any of those match the definition I gave (especially the "cover" part) - maybe they could work for "to furnish or decorate with clusters of things"? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm withdrawing this for the transitive sense anyway in favor of rewording it - the 'intransitive sense' you mentioned is however not intransitive. "to be clustered with" is passive use of the transitive verb, not a use of the intransitive one. "be clustering with" would count, though... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other has mostly replied, but I should just point out that the sole quotation in OED indicating the intransitive sense "To cover or provide with clusters of things" was "Stupendous crags, clustering with all variety of verdure" rather than a construction with "be clustering with", so that does appear to be intransitive rather than transitive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This was untagged a year ago, but sense 1.2 "To cover (with clusters); to scatter or strew in clusters (within); to distribute (objects) within such that they form clusters." has only a single usex and I am not sure whether it's correctly assigned; I have raised the grammar question in the TR. At this point I'll just leave this RFV open until the grammar/TR question is resolved. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I can find (and added to the citations page) other cites of that form, and the Tea Room thinks the grammar's fine, so I'm striking this as resolved; it was untagged long ago. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense: “A user of or someone who spends a lot on Discord.” Added under adjective by 149.20.252.132 on 11 April with the edit summary “Legit a thing”. J3133 (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've split the entry into two etymology sections, moved the challenged sense under a Noun header and created Citations:Discordian. Discord uses the term both on Twitter and its Support website. I've found one use in an online magazine. Might be citable from Twitter or other online sources. Einstein2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I searched for "Discordian(s)" "on Discord" (trying to find only semantically relevant occurrences) on Google Scholar and Books and couldn't find anything, despite finding at least some journal articles and books discussing Discord. Searching Google News, I find only some site called Alphr saying "Discordians all around the world have been sending requests and opening dozens of topics on Discord’s official Support page". If it exists, it seems very marginal compared to, say, "Discord user(s)", which gets lots of (relevant) hits in journal articles and books. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: not the use of a wand in magic spells, but "The purpose or role of a wand (or any other instrument or tool) as an individual part constituting in the formulation of the inner workings or structure of a spell". Seems very unclear, ungrammatical (constituting in"?) and probably redundant. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I would have thought "consisting of" was intended, but even that is needlessly wordy. I think the underlying distinction is valid: the wand is used not only for spells but also for the "inner workings" of, e.g., Wicca to draw in the air symbols like the pentagram in the ceremonial preparation of a sacred space for religious rituals... which is too much detail for a dictionary entry, but does make "the use of a wand in magic spells" too restrictive. Perhaps adding "or in rituals" would make just one 'sense' feasible. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently resolved and untagged a while ago. I've shortened the def a little further (it was quite overwordy). - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

These seem like weird mispellings of Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻian that use a backtick instead of a Hawaiian okina, but they're extremely difficult to search for. Theknightwho (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a part of my holy crusade to document Wade-Giles, I found cites for Hawai'i and Hawaiʻi, paralleling the vulgar and orthodox forms of Wade-Giles-derived words with spiritus aspers in them. But I've never looked for this backtick before. I think I've seen it, and maybe one of the examples at Hawai'i is a backtick- I remember seeing something like a backtick at least once or twice when I was looking for those cites. This is a matter of finesse and skill. I will look for this over the coming weeks. (Or someone will immediately find it below, putting my pompus ass to shame.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho Trying to distinguish between all the apostrophe-like characters used to represent glottal stops is doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does very well. The only reason we lemmatize Hawaiian with ʻokinas is because it's prescribed for the language and Unicode has a codepoint for it (well, technically it's a turned comma, but Unicode treats it as the same thing as the ʻokina). Written Hawaiian only dates to the last two centuries and was invented by missionaries, so it's not like there's a long and hallowed tradition for that specific glyph.

More to the point, this is an English entry, and the ʻokina is specifically Hawaiian. If there is usage for the backtick, it probably is just a rare misspelling or an OCR error- neither of which is worth having as an entry. I think we should have English altform entries for the apostrophe and ʻokina spellings, and redirect the backtick spellings to the apostrophe spellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Exactly my sentiment. Let’s give it a few days to let this discussion conclude, but my current inclination is to do what you suggest. Theknightwho (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: "extremely difficult to search for"
Geographyinitiative: "I will look for it over the coming weeks."
@Chuck Entz: "doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does"
The Three Cites found in a day: Am I a joke to you?
Descriptivism does not care about the roadblocks thrown up by Google or OCR. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative It's less about roadblocks and more that I'm not sure it's intended as a different character. We can find examples of Greek Α or Cyrillic А being used as Latin A (and vice-versa), but that doesn't warrant creating separate entries, because the user didn't intend them to be something different. Theknightwho (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho That's above my pay grade--- sounds like an RFD issue. I don't do the thinking part, I just look for stuff. I will look for a few more.
But I will say this: To me, any English speaker who goes out of their way to use anything other than ' (straight apostrophe) or ’ (basic curl) in their running text has the requisite intent to create an alternative form. Diversity of apostrophes is absolutely LOATHED both on Wiktionary itself and by the typographical-industrial complex (lol). If you use anything but those two apostrophes, you're gonna get an internet comment section worth of sand kicked in your face. And there apparently seem to be such cases of authors going out of their way to use the backtick, at least for Hawai`i. So I would preliminarily support keeping this in an RFV or an RFD, pending some kind of cultural-linguistic investigation to figure out the mindset behind why this backtick form is out there. The investigation would look into whether this is purely some accomodation to keyboard issues or is perhaps in some situations a bona fide expression of authorial intent-- the intended form they wanted to write, maybe an "alternate ʻokina" or a "layman's ʻokina".
Or if I've misunderstood everything, nevermind! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) (Modified)Reply

From my point of view, the backtick has an established (although deprecated) use as a representation of the opening quotation mark (cf. Wikipedia: "As surrogate of apostrophe or (opening) single quote"). I've seen some old-fashioned people who routinely write (or wrote) quotes `like this'; they aren't going out of their way to do it, that's just how they were used to representing quotation marks. (I have the impression it didn't look as bad in some old software.) Therefore, I would not see "Hawai`i" as a contrastive alternative to "Hawaiʻi", but just an alternative representation of the same sequence of graphemes, used by people who find it more convenient to type the character as ` or who aren't familiar with the correct codepoint to use.--Urszag (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

And my follow up to this kind of "merely an convenient accomodation" theory might be: that this usage could have "started out" that way, but later bloomed into something with a real cultural connection and real cultural use (or perhaps nascent use?). Check those cites, because we're not talking stale stuff here. The Twitter account of the Governor of Hawai`i uses it: Office of the Governor, State of Hawai`i. So I would urge caution, open-mindedness, and an appreciation for diversity as wise. Get in, we're breaking the status quo. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You may not have noticed, but the header in the first tweet uses the left single quotation mark, not the backtick: "Office of the Governor of Hawai‘i". That's evidence for exactly the phenomenon that Urszag is talking about. The League of Women Voters of Hawaii also uses the straight apostrophe and the left single quotation mark. I'm guessing that's from different people working on different parts of the page, which could be interpreted either way. The YouTube video consistently uses the backtick. The NPS page uses the backtick in the body, but the apostrophe in the sentence at the end. The Surf Art page uses the backtick when referring to the island, but the right single quotation mark in the name of the University of Hawaii. The comment sections of the NYTimes Learning Network blog mostly use the backtick, but some commenters use the right single quotation mark or the turned comma/okina. Taken as a whole, there's usage that can't be explained as OCR errors, but it's also all over the map as far as which character is used. It looks more like no one really knows the right character, so they use whatever they have handy. Not particularly compelling one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

(~See the 15 something cites at Citations:Hawai`i.~)
Thanks for your comments.To me, what Chuck has just said immediately above this comment may mean that there's a possibility that Hawai`i is a legitimate alternative form. If you can say "Not particularly compelling one way or the other." are you going to delete the entry? I'm no expert on these discussions- RFV/RFD/RFurmom. I know nothing of Hawai`i. But it seems like (consistent with a bona fide, honest-to-God openness to Wiktionary reflecting the sources and/or a descriptivist ethic) you'd want to get to "compelling that this is mere convenience" if you wanted to delete this entry given the 15 cites at Citations:Hawai`i. I really don't have much more to say on these things; I will keep trying to watch out for more cites. If you delete the entry, I totally understand. (Final comment from me) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not that we're on the best terms and, since it's you, sorry to get involved but since GI asked for my opinion and it's a general request for general comments:

My own opinion would be to keep it for exactly the reasons under discussion. Some people absolutely do use this form and they should be gently guided (sometimes proscribed... alternative form of...) to the entry with the correct okina. Same thing with a version that uses a standard English apostrophe. Right now it says Alternative spelling... but a version of the entry with an Etymology section would be something along the lines of using the English apostrophe mark to represent the Hawaiian okina and it should really redirect as an alternative form of the version with an actual okina rather than just directly to the unmarked Hawaii.

Sure, someone typing English A for Greek alpha shouldn't have that listed in Wikipedia and it's not on us to fix that issue. On the other hand, this is for English users within English trying to understand where this mark came from. If we only have the okina entry and remove the (much more common) apostrophe and backslash entries, computer searches won't necessarily make the connection and the users won't be able to figure out what's going on. — LlywelynII 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There should definitely be a way for people to reach the okina entry other than having to type (or copy-and-paste) that character. Many English users will not be aware of the okina and would misread it as an apostrophe or backtick. —DIV (1.145.8.61 12:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC))Reply

@Geographyinitiative Apostrophic ruminations aside Hawai`ian is still not cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Definition sucks, but I heard this term in a Pepsi ad. Got some news buzz, so it is attestable. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was used even before the Pepsi ad. Wd-Ryan (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's real, here (see c. 0:33 and 1:02) is a whole cooking show episode on how to make "pilk carnitas and pilk queso fresco", here's an ABC news story "Pilk and cookies: Pepsi wants you to drink soda mixed with milk this holiday season" and here's a more recent one headlined "Fish eye ice cream and pilk: Unusual food trends from around the world". I suppose it's a question of whether to accept online news site uses (of which there is no shortage). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I typed up the citations. It's just a question of whether to accept internet news sites (one of the cites I added is a youtube cooking show and not news, but there's plenty more news-media uses where the other two came from). Meh. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added two book/journal cites of capitalized Pilk. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed, clear evidence of use spanning more than a year This, that and the other (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(figurative) A set of items (concepts, links, or otherwise) that can be packed and unpacked cognitively, or their representation as a set of virtual objects. See also telescoping." There is nothing in GBooks for e.g. "accordion of ideas" or "accordion of concepts". Equinox ◑ 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"accordion of memories" or "memory" has a sufficient number of independent hits on GBook (; , in an extended metaphor; ; , in an extended metaphor; ). This probably can't be considered as a lexicalised metaphor, though, and I'm not sure if this is what the editor who added the sense had in mind. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Noun: law: "A person appointed specifically to examine a single event or issue." But the two examples are adjectival ("special master" and "special prosecutor") and both have their own separate entries, as it happens. So is it a noun? Can there be legal "specials"? Equinox ◑ 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a dumb entry, which normal users, at least, don't need a dictionary entry to understand. Almost any adjective attributively modifying a noun in an NP be used informally, especially colloquially, without the noun to refer to the NP. RfD? DCDuring (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Everything points to this sense having been added by a simple mistake under Noun instead of Adjective, where this special sense is missing.  --Lambiam 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, "everything" still doesn't seem sufficient to justify deleting the definition at this PoS or moving it elsewhere. That would require the contributor to acknowledge it as a mistake and move it. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Moved from noun to adj. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

On a separate point, I have heard a mixed-breed dog being referred to as a special. I wonder if that is verifiable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As in "Singapore Special", "Darwin special". Equinox ◑ 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(proscribed) A person who does not believe in any religion (not even a religion without gods)". This could be a really interesting sense for atheist if it exists (three cites). I'm trying to imagine how to look for it- something about communists in China throwing off Confucianism or something? Really interesting one. Don't dimiss it out of hand, because I think have seen this discussed before. I found something close to this in Taiwan: "Taiwanese-American hip-hop singer Stanley Huang's (黃立行) new album has triggered protests from the religious community because the title song is about atheism, a Chinese-language daily reported yesterday. It's not clear who has been offended by the tune, but most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists. A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists." Here's an atheist discussion on the topic of Taoism --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that this is the way a lot of people use the term. Whenever you see "atheist" listed alongside "Buddhist" and "Christian," is this not the adjectival analogue to this sense? I would reword the definition, though. Rather than "A person who does not believe in any religion" (because it's not a lack of belief that religions exist), I would say "A person who is not an adherent to any religion" or something along those lines. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy I think you're saying that atheist can be a synonym for nonreligious, is that right? If so, where do we find cites for that? I think it is possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: I added a couple cites. Do you think they fit the definition and are clear enough to be distinguishable from the other senses? If so, I'm fairly confident I can find more like them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

For my money, the 5 cites at the citation page more clearly prove that 'atheist' can mean 'non-religious', not just 'someone who doesn't believe in a God/deity', than the 2 you've actually added as they starkly contrast atheists with religious people who don't believe in God (such as Buddhists and Jains). In any case, I don't think any of the senses we have are at all uncommon or merit the label 'proscribed' - they're just hard to disambiguate. Based on those 5 cites alone let's call this cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Beliefs in deities do not exist, the definitions miss what actually happens. Gods cannot be conceptualized and accordingly have no seat in anyone’s mind. Were it otherwise, we would have to speak of medically relevant delusions (the psychological fact of persistingly adhering to an idea in spite of it being incompatible with empirical data), but the intuition here is correct that it is factually inappropriate to pathologize. They are indeed indirect references to what someone, a particular group, demands in a behaviour throughout man’s life. You would be yourself an autist if you assumed that people actually mean what they claim.

Nowadays in developed countries those who continue to practice religion have a general awareness that they are phoneys, but it works. So contrary to how discourse makes it appear, choice of religion is secondary to previously fostered social convictions. The occurrence patterns of religiosity, i.e. communication that indicates allegiance to a god of choice, have been studied in their environments with the observation of their being “determined by the need to moralize others and ultimately by the level of social trust (i.e., what people think of others’ level of cooperation)”. Consistent with this observation, that everyone is directed towards in practice, Wiktionary already defines the particular sense of “belief” in question as “religious faith” and the sense of “faith” as “a religious or spiritual belief system”, probably not even circularily referring to the same sense of “belief”: the system character is substantial, the religiosity or spirituality accidental. Hence, religion is the adherence to a cult, by definition structured around supernatural entities. You can thus define an atheist as someone not believing in a cult, i.e. the value systems espoused by it. Do you really think that people are that decided about particular meaning restrictions as provided in our dictionary entry atheist when they use the word? The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive.

Consequentially, freedom of religion is incorrectly comprehended as someone’s freedom “to carry out any practices in accordance with those beliefs”, since people don’t even causally act on beliefs which don’t exist, and such specific provisions cannot be a mere general power of competence on religious grounds. So in spite of the more popular definition, containing a confused causality, the minority definition in legal literature is more accurate, according to which freedom of religion is only freedom to perform ritual acts, exercitium religionis and devotio domestica, which has been defined since the Peace of Westphalia. E.g. of this legal literature calling it thus restricted: Johannes Hellermann (1994) “Multikulturalität und Grundrechte – am Beispiel der Religionsfreiheit”, in C. Grabenwarter, editor, Allgemeinheit der Grundrechte und Vielfalt der Gesellschaft: 34. Tagung der Wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Fachrichtung „Öffentliches Recht“‎, Stuttgart: Boorberg, pages 129–144; Gerhard Czermak, Eric Hilgendorf (2018) Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht‎, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, margin numbers 131–134. While it is in any legal opinion that religion as opposed to weltanschauung is distinguished by making reference to deities or at least transcendental reference, so I repeat that belief in a deity is accessory to religiousness and the distinction in our entry nonsensical. Fay Freak (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak You write: "The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive." Would this mean that mean that the other senses are religious terminology within Abrahamic religion? I don't propose Wiktionary should label them that way, but I feel that's what the implication of your statement would be, perhaps. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fay Freak, I don't mean to be harsh, but can you try making your point more succinctly? Beyond the philosophically and sociologically dubious claims and the off topic commentary, what lexical point are you trying to make? I don't know what your intentions are and it could well be that you mean very well, but be aware that you often come across as just trying to show off how smart you are and it's exhausting to wade through the cruft to decipher what's of actual value for the rest of us. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy: I pointed out that so-called religious beliefs or beliefs in deities are embedded in religious systems and accessory to them, which are themselves accessory to habituations of humans to social conversation and thus what persons believe in is not actually gods but religions which bring their points, about what men should do, forward by the figure of gods. If people claim they ascribe truth to their god it is actually to manipulate people in the desired direction as they believe in the commandments and recommendations structured around the particular god figure and thus ascribe truth to them; value judgments and factual claims are treated the same in general language: Fact–value distinction. And perlocutionary speech acts also use to look exactly the same as any statement. The gods a religion has are just brand variations: Like if I like to wear A Bathing Ape because of the qualities and fits and designs and flex and attitude transmitted by items etc. I believe in that ape and the A Bathing Ape® and BAPE logos and their powers—what does that even mean? It is a breviloquence for what I exactly believe in, that this is the top brand to wear. Religion is also presented in the demeanours of people like clothing, rather than being believed by anyone only in its naked main character. Hence “A person who does not believe in any religion” is the only definition of atheist. Because people don’t believe in gods, as only symbolic for the complete religion. It wouldn’t make sense to say, e.g., I believe in the Christian God, without ascribing some traditional properties to him which then serve as a guideline to behaviour and then make an ingroup and outgroup; and even if you believe in only some kind of God then you have an ingroup of religious people and outgroup of nonreligious people, people see similarities between him who believes in a god and them who don’t: as this is still a distinction in how people operate, it was a requirement to be categorized as gottgläubig to be in the SS.

You could instead add a particular language rule, gloss or usage note, to “believe” as applied to the brands created by religions, but then the “true” linked in its first definition “to accept as true” has enough diverse meanings. If people believe in this or that god, they accept his system as “genuine; legitimate, valid” or “fair, unbiased”. So don’t people comprehend gods as “conforming to the actual state of reality or fact”? In spite of being meaningless due to facts and reality never being some otherworld, which itself would have to be interconnected with the real world, the idea pops in, only to reinforce the religion by motte and bailey; in no case the alleged beliefs in gods are exclusively in them without even their religions. The quotes given for the “belief in god” senses of atheist can easily be analyzed as “somebody who does not support, i.e. consciously furthers the practical effect of, the religion of a particular brand having the god X”. And agnostic is someone who is doubtful or uncertain what he does of religious teachings. Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As Andrew implied above, this is unhelpful gibberish that just makes a long page longer. Nobody is going to get any meaningful information out of that. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: I make the claims extra-easy for Equinox: Nobody is advancing deities without religion. When arguing something with reference to gods specifically vs. their religions, adherents of them play motte and bailey. Ultimately the goal is to further or reject a religion. If the context of quotes is broad enough we may witness this lack of the former meaning in each individual case. Why is a Christian according to Wiktionary one who “believes in Christianity”, a whole religion, or one “who seeks to live his or her life according” to the founder’s church while an atheist can be one merely rejects any deity of the religion? This distinction is contradictory and contrafactual—an atheist is conceptualized by the language community as someone who does not ascribe to a religion even if people aren’t that explicit about it as I can. People aren’t that exact and speak in figures. (Elaborated in detail.)

So we should change the definitions of “atheist” to e.g. after our current structure “A person who does not ascribe to a religion”; subsense strict: “one who rejects all religions”, broader sense: “one who doubts whether he should follow one”, loose sense: “one who is unaware of the reality of religions”, uncommon sense “a person who does not ascribe to a particular religion (but may ascribe to another one)”. Religions are supported like football clubs. They all believe very much in their teams. And because they have been so pervasive, we have this term for outsiders. Fay Freak (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're still doing it. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As an aside, what the heck is going on with the translation tables (the ones that have a bunch of translations, not the ones I just added). I added a qualifier to the first one (so that it corresponds to a definition), but the second doesn't have a corresponding sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I figured it out and (hopefully) fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The current citations, except for perhaps the Taipei Times one, do not seem to unambiguously support this sense to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Al-Muqanna Which other sense(s) do you think they could fall under? Note that Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in a god, yet they are listed alongside atheists in a couple of the current quotes. Or do you think there's a better way of wording the definition that captures this sense better? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy: Buddhists in most parts of the world do in fact "believe in deities or gods", as sense 1 has it—see the whole wp article on Buddhist deities—so listing atheists alongside Buddhists is not proof of much. Sense 1 also fits fine for the Beaman and Seidman quotes. I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording of the sense if it can actually be verified, but as far as I can tell what the quotation selection actually seems to be getting at atm is atheist meaning "an opponent of religion" (rather than just not believing), but since opponents of religion in general will almost by definition be atheists according to sense 1 anyway that's quite hard to disentangle as a separate sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Al-Muqanna: I see your point, though from my (admittedly limited) studies of Buddhism, my understanding is that those aren't deities or gods in the normal sense of the word, making the Wikipedia article a bit inaccurate. What the definition is trying to capture is the sense in which atheist is often used as a religious category, on par with "Christian" or "Buddhist". Many people would find the list, "Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and people who believe in gods" a bit incongruent (one would expect "and other people who believe in gods"), but not the list, "Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists," which suggests that for many people, "atheist" means not so much "person who does not believe in a god", but rather, "person whose religious beliefs are that there is no god". Note that the capitalization of "Atheist" in the 2002 quote supports the understanding that "Atheism" is a category of religious belief on par with Buddhism, rather than simply describing one aspect of religious belief, which could equally be applied in the strict sense to Buddhists. You may however be right about the two most recent quotes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. This is tough, because it's believable to me that some people think of the word in this way, basically as a synonym of none(?), but I have to agree with Al-Muqanna that few if any of the current citations support it: I see no reason to take the 1766 "a Heathen or Christian; an Atheist or religious Person, a Papist or a Protestant" cite to be using anything but the usual sense (1), and likewise nothing about the 2002 or 2014 or 2015 Seidman or 2019 cites suggests anything but the usual sense to me. It's not as if relatively aggressive atheists like Jillette think of deityless superstition as being great and only deity-having superstition as bad, so AFAICT "many atheists antireligion" is an accurate statement using the usual sense of the word and posing no lexical problems.
I wonder if this would be better handled as a usage note, that some people think of religion as meaning belief in one or more gods and therefore think of atheism and religion as mutually exclusive...? (Or perhaps that is a cop-out and we should either cite the sense or remove it.)
I note that a corresponding sense is present at atheism and either needs to be cited or RFVed. More generally, I wonder if we would be better off trying to centralize things, so either atheist defines itself in terms of atheism and points people to go find all the definitions there (hopefully someone can come up with something better wordsmithed than "one whose view is atheism"!) or vice versa. - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm having trouble understanding it the way you and Al-Muqanna see it, to be honest. "Religious person" and "theist" are not synonyms. Some religions do not involve believe in gods (like many forms of Buddhism--just google "do Buddhists believe in a god"). So any citation that draws a direct contrast between atheism and religion, as opposed to atheism and theism is clear evidence (IMHO) of atheism being used to mean "a non-religious person" as opposed to "a non theist". Otherwise, Buddhism would not be contrasted with atheism, because that would be nonsensical. The citation that says "most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists" but "A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists" is nonsensical according to sense 1, since Buddhists are atheists in that sense.

The same thing applies when you have a census or a survey and it asks you your religion/religious beliefs. Often, "atheist/-ism" will be an option, alongside various religions (including Buddhism). Yet theism is just one facet of religious belief, which is not shared by all religions. So the fact that the word "atheism" is used in contrast to these means that it is used to refer to non-religiosity as a whole. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@-sche If you still don't see my point, maybe we could send this to RFD? We might have better luck achieving a consensus if we start a new discussion from a different angle. And then hopefully more people would weigh in. I'm convinced that I've cited the sense in question. Not to mention that I've encountered dozens of annoyed atheists online trying to convince religious people that sense 1 exists, not just sense 3! So I'm a bit bewildered that people are questioning sense 3. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Connected to the preceding:

1. I doubt that "(obsolete) Absence of belief in the One True God, defined by Moore as personal, immaterial and trinitarian (thus Islam, Judaism and unitarian Christianity), as opposed to monotheism." is distinct from the sense right before it, viz. "absence of belief in a particular deity, notwithstanding belief in other deities",
2. and the sense "(sometimes proscribed) A rejection of all religions, even non-theistic ones." is just the -ism version of the -ist sense RFVed above, so has the same issues and should (AFAICT) be handled similarly, i.e. either cited or removed or perhaps made a usage note.

- -sche (discuss) 16:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't like the wording of the "One True God" sense, and I have no reason to believe it's attested, but I think it is distinct from the "particular deity" sense because the "One True God" sense additionally requires belief in certain properties of that deity. The "particular deity" sense can't call unitarianism a form of atheism, whereas the "One True God" sense does. McYeee (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "To form a small group". I've only been able to find the first sense ("to become friends") in use, and other dictionaries also provide only that sense. lattermint (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

When I was working in Camp America, we used this term all the time No hago griego (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sounds plausible (imagine a teacher or lecturer saying "pal up with the people near you, and discuss what's on the board"). But I couldn't find it with a quickish GBooks search. Equinox ◑ 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A precept or worldview that affirms the possibility of a society where killing is absent."
@Equinox, Ioaxxere This sense went through a failed RFV process recently (it passed, the process failed), where there was disagreement about whether the citations provided actually supported the sense provided. Can we gather a few citations here which we can then evaluate and agree on to support the sense? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's got a surprisingly full translation table, and it makes me wonder if we're just all missing something. Might this be a philosophical translation for ahimsa, even though the meaning isnt quite the same? Ahimsa appears in the translation table under Sanskrit, after all. It seems that some philosophers might have wanted to use a native English term so it wouldnt feel so foreign, and that the other languages' translations serve the same purpose. However, this is just a hunch, because I think ahimsa is more precisely translated as nonviolence. —Soap— 11:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense (slang) Used to indicate that something is true, based on the similar sounding word facts. Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note fax has a similar entry, quite recently added IIRC. Equinox ◑ 08:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

fax in this sense is quite common online in my experience. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Searching Twitter there are many results that confirm 📠. Out of curiosity, I also searched for the term on several Discord servers I am in and 📠 popped up a surprisingly large amount of times. I added some citations from Twitter between 2017 and 2023 to the entry for 📠 and shortened it to just fax; accordingly, on the entry for fax I added text explaining the similar (sometimes identical) pronunciation with facts to § Etymology 3 which was already there. (This is my first time at RfV so I hope this is how it is supposed to work). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could be Middle English according to the reference listed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In current local use, and occurs as a common toponym element, e.g. Mytholmroyd, Ackroyd, etc., see https://yorkshiredictionary.york.ac.uk/words/royd

Cognate with German gerund Rode(n), e.g. Wernigerode from verb roden, clear, also Rodung

I notice the local and current noun "ing" = "water meadow" or "flood plain" is not in Wiktionary Gardjy (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it used outside of morning-after pill? PUC – 12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is used in a number of related expressions (morning-after contraception, morning-after IUD, morning-after method etc.), although I'm wondering if this is an attributive form of a currently missing sense of morning after (as opposed to a true adjective). Einstein2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• “the morning after”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.: "the day or days after something has happened or someone has done something, especially something that they regret (= wish had not happened or they had not done)."
• “morning after”, in Dictionary.com Unabridged, Dictionary.com, LLC, 1995–present.: "a moment or period of realization in which the consequences of an earlier ill-advised action are recognized or brought home to one."

@Einstein2: I presume this is the sense you mention; we should add it. See also "morning-after feeling". It makes me think of the idiom in the cold light of day. PUC – 00:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The drinking-related definition at morning after is just one use of the generic sense that the above dictionaries have. Usage examples, rather than subsenses seem to me likely to better convey the usage than subsenses or sex- and drink-specific definitions. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

None of the cites provided are spelled this way. - TheDaveRoss 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added some more examples with different spellings (including cibai), although it's hard to search effectively on Usenet due to heavy code-switching. We could consider moving the main form to cheebai, as suggested in the earlier RFV. Einstein2 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

---

WT:BRAND — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added a common noun sense ("a post published on BeReal"). – Einstein2 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

• @SURJECTION Given that WT:BRAND just specifies what kind of quotes count toward attestation, would this be better suited to WT:RFVE? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

---

This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, the company is called BeReal, and the product is called BeReal, so any mention of the app will necessarily identify "parties with economic interest in the brand". Verification therefore seems like a paradox. Cnilep (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like this is probably a term in some domain, but what domain isn't at all clear from the definition. I see a paper where it is used in the machine learning context, and some vague discrete math paper, but can anyone provide a clearer definition which narrows the meanings of vector and code? - TheDaveRoss 16:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is from the field of data compression, i.e. storing information in a smaller space, so that the exact original can still be restored later. I'm not familiar with this specific phrase, but the sense of vector is almost certainly the one that begins with "a memory address..." i.e. it's some kind of pointer. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It probably doesn't have a broadly-understood/standard definition beyond the scope of any given paper. It's weakly suggestive of a vector containing quantized or discretely-encoded information, as opposed e.g. to an arbitrary vector in R^n, but this is just my impression. As a contrived example, you might say that a mapping of the alphabet to vectors in I^3 is represented by "code vectors". Conversely I wouldn't use the phrase to refer to a coordinate vector that represents a position in continuous 3D space. There might be some subfield in which "code vector" is understood to have a more specific standard meaning, but nothing comes to mind.AP295 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• code black • code blue • code brown • code grey • code orange • code pink • code red • code silver • code white • code yellow

These codes are defined as US and Canada, however there is certainly not the degree of standardization that this implies across all of these codes. Some, code blue for example, are quite standard in the US (and Canada?), but most of the others vary in meaning from hospital to hospital or at least regionally. If these are actually universal in Canada we should probably remove the US label from many of them, and either add regional meanings or define them more generically. - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

• More info at Hospital emergency codes, which makes it clear that the US does not have standards, and Canada has standards by province, many of which are shared. - TheDaveRoss 17:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  @John Cross looks like you made the template, do you have some expertise to share here? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but this isn't something that lexico-nerds at RFV are going to do. How can we determine the meanings from actual documentation, to be placed into References sections? (Perhaps we should call Luciferwildcat back from the ninth circle of emergency healthcare... hahah...) Equinox ◑ 17:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm unsure what it would be best to do here; as you say, some so commonly have a certain consistent meaning (Citations:code blue) that it makes sense to record it, while others seem to have no set meaning (code black has four definitions so far), and yet... is that a sign we should generalize code black's definition to e.g. "A hospital code, signalling any of various situations, varying from hospital to hospital"? Or that we should keep every attestable definition? Or that it's not idiomatic at all? Colour codes are also used by e.g. police, prison guards, and others, so is having four definitions at code black like having definitions for every institution's meaning of level four (e.g. "a security level indicating a heightened threat", "a security clearance level granting access to...", "a pay grade equivalent to...", etc), i.e. something we don't/shouldn't do? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me a bit of my idea a few years ago to create a page for category five, which can mean a very strong hurricane, but which must surely have quite an array of other meanings in other industries. And surely more so for the smaller numbers. —Soap— 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Marked for out-of-process speedy deletion by User:Polarbear678 in diff — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I find the current definition problematic, as it ties two very different things together. I changed the definition to what I felt it would be in a BDSM context, but was quickly reverted. I now think it would be better to have two definitions ... one for the original literal sense of a young involuntary slave, and one for the BDSM sense (voluntary roleplay among adults), and to apply this RFV to the second sense. (We could RFV the first sense too on spelling grounds, but it didnt take me long to find three cites for the bunched spelling on Google Books in which it's clear that the literal sense is meant, so maybe we can save ourselves a bit of time and just leave it be.) I also found three cites for what I believe to be the BDSM sense, and so despite the page creator now regretting creating the page,^{I misread the history, sorry} I believe the second definition should also stay. The precise definition of the BDSM sense is open to debate, however, and I can't claim to be an expert. —Soap— 08:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

My apologies to Polarbear for misreading the edit history. The page has been much the same since 2012. However it seems plain to me that both senses of the word do exist, and while for the literal sense I expect that the spaced spelling slave boy is much more common, for the BDSM sense it would not surprise me if the bunched spelling was the more common form, perhaps at least in part to distinguish it from the literal use, but also in keeping with other existing terms such as pussyboy. —Soap— 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Literal (non-BDSM sense) now has 3 cites. Equinox ◑ 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses "an insinuation or innuendo", "in knitting machines, a device for depressing the sinkers successively by passing over them", and "a trick or deception". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reopening this RFV for the "knitting machine part" sense only. This does appear real and has various cites in OED, but some are as part of compound words. OED also gives some obsolete senses under the same etymology, but I'm not so sure this etymology is distinct from Etymology 1. Really this entry needs a thorough cleanup using all resources available to us, including Century. This, that and the other (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also the "trick or deception" sense may correspond to OED's sense "A method of cheating at dice", attested in the 1600s. This, that and the other (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Two more dubious senses from the very large set given here. One is "to grasp, comprehend; to understand"; the other is "(archaic) to overstay, outstay, overlinger". Entry probably also needs more glossing to indicate that this isn't a normal word used by many people. Equinox ◑ 11:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few quotes to Citations:oversit a while ago but I'm not confident enough to sort them by sense. Some of the citations (e.g. 1834, 1890, 1907) seem to support the "overstay" sense, although I am not completely sure. Einstein2 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't find any convincing non-mention, non-code-switching examples: this is also just referring to the actual words "dominus vobiscum", not the name of some longer prayer, so I'm sceptical there are uses of this in English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do we treat other formulas from non-English languages, especially from ceremonies? Do we keep them only if they are transliterated? DCDuring (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I highly, highly doubt this is used as an interjection in English, as the entry claims. There are some borderline nominal uses:

1875, Sir Adolphus William Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, page 19:

Again a Dominus vobiscum and a prayer, whereupon the offertorium (offering), and, accompanied by further ceremonies, the consecration;

1953, Pius Parsch, The Church's Year of Grace:

Each Dominus vobiscum cries out to us: your nobility, O Christian, stems from Christ's dwelling within you, from the fact that you are a Christ-bearer and a Christ-bringer.

It might be worthwhile having an entry for this use, but certainly not for the interjection, which is quite simply Latin, regardless of what language the rest of the liturgy/prayer might be in. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, I might note that the entry should be at Dominus vobiscum. Dominus in this context always refers to God and hence would pretty well always be capitalized. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

On English—both of the above are in italics in the originals that I've found, FWIW (, ). This is the same sort of thing as e.g. the court "who ... lived on a vive le roi" in Wollstonecraft () which I don't think can be taken as an example of "vive le roi" being an English phrase either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please note that this is the alleged plural of a genuine English term. Some background:

There is a tree, Strychnos nux vomica, that bears extremely poisonous seeds which are the original source of strychnine. The name nux vomica is from Latin, and presumably refers to emetic properties. For hundreds of years, pharmacology mainly dealt with various plant, animal and mineral substances, all of which were named in Latin much as is still done in taxonomy. That would make nux vomica strictly a Translingual pharmacological term, except that it also has been used in English as a common name for the species.

The English term nux vomica doesn't, however, refer literally and specifically to the seeds, as illustrated by the phrase "nux vomica seeds", which seems to be moderately attested. There is also a smattering of cites for "nux vomicas" (both with and without hyphens), some of which may refer to some concept in homeopathy for nux vomica that we don't have a definition for, but none of which seem to refer specifically to more than one seed.

👉 I am thus challenging the term "nuces vomicae" as English. I think we should create a Translingual pharmacological-Latin entry for nux vomica and change this English plural entry to a Translingual plural entry to cover the existing usage. The English headword at nux vomica should be changed to have "nux vomica" and/or "nux vomicas" as the plural(s).

The reason for the long explanation is that there's a decent amount of attested usage in English sentences, but as citation of the pharmacological Latin, just as the synonym semen strychni is also used (and very similar to usage in German and other European languages). To be English, this needs to be used (not mentioned), and integrated into normal English sentence structure without italics.

Pinging @-sche, Al-Muqanna, This, that and the other, as those most likely to understand what needs to be done. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't find much of evidence of use in English—the only borderline passable example I dug up is a 16th-century recipe calling for "ʒ iii. of the shavings of Nuces Vomicae" (EEBO)—otherwise even in early modern texts it seems to be consistently italicised. The one reproduced here is also italicised in the original. Worth noting that it is found in Latin prose. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about these:

• 1915, The Poultry Item‎, page 25:

  POWDERED NUX VOMICA—
  Source—From the seed of the Nuces Vomicae.

• c. 1910, Carl Curt Hosséus, Through King Chulalongkorn's Kingdom, 1904-1906: The First Botanical Exploration of Northern Thailand, published 2001, page 175:

  Strychnos nux-vomica, an almost formation building tree in many places of northern Siam, the very poisonous seeds of which, "nuces vomicae," provide our strychnine, the tree stranglers, creepers, epiphytic orchids, mosses

Note that the last one is a translation from German, where this form seems to be much more common. This, that and the other (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The second one I saw but wouldn't personally consider admissible since it's a translation and foreign terms often aren't italicised when wholly enclosed by quotation marks. The first might work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Two other uses that might count toward attestation of the plural in English: , . Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, those ones are totally fine I think. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited with combination of the above, but might need a usage note saying the plural is rare. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

On reading Chuck's RFV more closely, it seems that he was after attestation of the plural of the pharmacological sense specifically. Possibly all the citations we've collected relate to sense 2 of nux vomica, not the pharmacological sense 3. This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz, This, that and the other: My understanding of it's that Chuck wanted attestation of natural use for any sense in English as opposed to code-switching to the Latin/translingual term in a pharmacological context, rather than a specific sense. Might need to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz can you offer your input here so we can move towards closing this RFV? Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: plural of the letter 'O'.

The first citation, from Francis Bacon, doesn't seem to me to unambiguously support the definition. If it does not, then the definition (labelled rare)needs another quotation to remain. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

See the wp article for oes, the item Bacon was referring to. That is the etymology but his meaning is obviously not the letter. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've moved the Bacon quotation to Citations:oes DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED lemmatises the "spangle" sense at O, but notes it is always found in the plural. I'm going to follow Wikipedia and add it as a plural-only sense of oes. If a singular can be found, we should move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's listed in the OED. kwami (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "social, lime or get together where planning or issues are discussed". Jberkel 16:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the top sense on Urban Dictionary, where a much-upvoted entry from 2017 claims the word was coined by Jackie Christie from the US TV show Basketball Wives. Here is Jackie herself giving a definition. Looking on Google, a better definition would be "a conversation, in the context of Jackie Christie's participation (or lack thereof) in said conversation"... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The synonyms are problematic too. "social event" and "mixer" have been added as synonyms, but those are more like parties held for fun. I don't see how "planning or issues are discussed" at a mixer. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 20:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A few mentions, this is probably just Afrikaans Sicilian speaker669 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

However, the alt form kaparring (currently a red link) does seem attestable from GBooks! Equinox ◑ 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Gets a "mention" in Herb Simmens' A Climate Vocabulary of the Future, and one or two online news articles. That's all. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There has not been an entry in a dictionary, yet, only a proposal New words – 21 August 2023, dictionaryblog.cambridge.org: "autobesity noun , UK /ˌɔː.təʊˈbiː.sə.ti/ US /ˌɑː.t̬oʊˈbiː.sə.t̬i/ the fact of cars being much bigger and heavier than they were in the past" --Yasny Blümchenkaffee (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hot word it. Book released this year, and that is where it was coined. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rare/nonstandard if it exists. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes (1605)

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (1726)

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan (1678)

You are right, it is extremely hard to find reliable sources that use this word, but in these books I remember distinctly reading it. I cannot find any modern examples, but I do not know whether this is grounds for rejection. I am unsure and new to Wikitionary, so feel free to remove it if necessary. 60.241.90.170 07:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

In that case it may be an archaic term and we do document those, just with the appropriate labels. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Although barring a funny Cervantes translation if it was actually in books as prominent as those it would have been in Webster 1913 and imported already. I can't find any evidence of its existence, and there's no potential Latin etymon *aquanus either (of course we instead have aquatic < aquaticus). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to see limited use in science fiction as the name of a water-based race or species, for instance:

2020, Thomas Parrott, “To Catch a Thief”, in Charlotte Llewelyn-Wells, editor, KeyForge: Tales from the Crucible, page 155:

One of the patrol enforcers, "hubbers" as they were known, that were bustling about stopped to give a sympathetic burble. They were an aquan, living in a pressure suit that kept them suspended in water.

(The English translation of) a Japanese sci-fi novel Daiyon kanpyōki (Inter Ice Age 4, 1959) by Abe Kōbō also apparently uses it, judging from the various literary critiques.

We would need a third cite independent of Abe's text and its critiques. This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Newly added sense 2: "spiced wine". The editor claims it is the older/true usage, but it does not agree with Google Books results for the word. — On the other hand, I just noticed that the alt form piment has a different definition matching this challenged one... hmmm...? Equinox ◑ 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Piment" and "pyment" are recognized variants of each other. Both the OED and the Middle English Dictionary have their entries under the "piment" spelling, but "pyment" is also common. See Chaucer, "Miller's Tale": "He sente hire pyment, meeth, and spiced ale". OED defines "piment" as "A drink composed of wine sweetened with honey and flavoured with spices", and lists the variant spellings "piement", "pimente", "pyement", "pyment", and "pymente". The definition of "mead with grape juice" does not appear in my copy under either "piment" or "pyment", but the OED cites the earliest example of the "spiced wine" usage as 1225, so it's reasonably old. I would bet that the mead-and-grape-juice definition (which was new to me, I had to google that) is a derivative of the original idea of a spiced wine sweetened with honey (still honey + grapes, just the other way around). NowhereMan583 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Diminutive of VIP (“very important person”)". Particularly unconvinced by this being a diminutive. Pretty hard to search for VIPer owing to the snake but I didn't turn up anything relevant for vipper. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Searching for the hyphenated form VIP-er gives a few related hits: , , . I wouldn't call it a diminutive either. Einstein2 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Marking vipper as RFV-failed, but VIPer is quite plausible and might require some creative searching. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Failed VIPper P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "To be knighted". That is the etymology, but I'm having difficulty finding instances where it actually means being knighted. Even in the early modern examples on EEBO where it's not already figurative it's distinguished from the actual act of being knighted, e.g. someone "won his Spurs by divers generous Actions, and received the Honour of Knighthood". If this can't be verified in a strict sense it might make more sense to merge into sense 1, achieving recognition, and note that it specifically meant achieving recognition that led to being knighted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, do we distinguish between the act done to earn knighthood and the ceremony itself? Think of graduation ... I would say that once I've had my last day of school, I've graduated, even if the ceremony is a week away. Perhaps we could merge it, but I think a separate definition something like "to earn the knighthood" would be good to show how the modern usage arose from the original. —Soap— 21:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's an additional nuance though that some sources explicitly distinguish between people who were knighted for more or less trivial reasons and people who "won their spurs", or indeed talk about knights who "win their spurs" after being knighted (e.g.), which makes it a bit different from graduate. The winning of the spurs seems to specifically imply doing something to merit it rather than just the act of being knighted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense of the noun sense "A progressive ideology, in particular with regards to social justice." (Added in April.) The citation is DeSantis saying "The woke is the new religion of the left"; I question whether this is even a noun, let alone coherently the given noun sense; compare the general use of adjectives in this position to mean ~"that which is _", like "the rational is the real / and the real is the rational", "the real is the enemy of the unreal", in which case this would just mean ~"that which is woke". - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a tough one. I agree that DeSantis's use is best understood as a standard nominalised use of an adjective. There are also plenty of nominal instances where the term is either being mentioned—"We do not know where woke will end up "—or otherwise abstracted from its part of speech—"'Woke' will be the foundation of an independent Scotland ". It's hard to find citations that don't fit into either of those categories, except perhaps the phrase war on woke. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I had the vague impression that I'd heard this from a British politician - maybe Boris Johnson - but the only really useful hits I could find were from one specific publication, Spiked. "One reason why the government has shown itself to be so ineffectual in tackling woke is because so few ministers seem to understand what is at stake... Woke is not a passing fad driven by a handful of ‘loony lefties’ that can be challenged with a few pointed soundbites." You'll find loads more in the same vein (it's a very one-trick pony kind of publication) but not many hits in other places. I also found "The essence of woke is awareness" in The Guardian, but that feels more mention-y. Maybe one useful Google Books hit:
  • 2023 February 16, Dr Abas Mirzaei, Woke Brand: From Selling Products to Fixing Society's Deep Issues, Archway Publishing, →ISBN:

    But woke is built on controversial issues and involves taking a definitive stance on those divisive issues, inevitably generating positive and negative responses (or sometimes just overwhelmingly negative responses).

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the Spiked one is passable, the Guardian one probably not since in context it's a discussion about defining the term. This from DeSantis seems more plausible than the current quote: "We will fight woke in the classroom, we will fight woke in businesses, we will fight woke in government agencies under my leadership, the state of Florida is where woke goes to die" . The usage reminds me of cyber#Noun 2, which also comes off as odd to people outside the circle in which it's used. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It’s extremely easy to cite woke as a noun just from searching for the phrase ‘war on woke’ on Google, though phrases like ‘fight woke’ are also the same sense IMO. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me that woke used as a noun is synonymous with wokeness. I don’t know if DeSantis was the first to use the term as a noun, but his use and the attention it got in the media definitely popularized this to such a degree that also people who see “being woke” as a good thing started using the term as a noun. For example, in summarizing MLK’s social gospel, “Woke is not enough; it must become work to pave the road to the prize.” (The use of italics here is for emphasis.) This is very similar to a statement in item 14 of Kenya Hunt’s essay in The Guardian: “But woke is at its most powerful, and valuable, when it is lived and not mentioned.” (IMO almost all of the occurrences of the term in this essay, when not between quote signs, are also uses, not mentions.)  --Lambiam 22:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the adjective ‘woke’ was first turned into a noun by the right-wing British journalist Andrew Neil in his GB News show, which has/had a segment called ‘Woke Watch’. The first instance I can find of the phrase ‘War on Woke’ is in this article(07/01/2021) referring to the phrase being a British Government term, then this from 08/01/2021 (an interview with Andrew Neil). The phrase was quickly picked up on 26/01/2021 by the Tory politician Ed Vaisey, who wasn’t however a fan of the phrase, Labour left-winger MP Dawn Butler, and only later repeatedly used by DeSantis in America. It seems like the Tory MPs Kami Badenoch and Suella Braverman didn’t utter the exact phrase ‘War on Woke’ but they expressed ‘anti-Woke’ sentiments that got described as such, so they sometimes get attributed as the originators of the phrase but my money would be on Andrew Neil. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since the last post in this thread, "because of woke" has become a popular ironic catchphrase, which might indicate that "woke" in this sense is accepted broadly as a noun but not accepted broadly as a concept with a real or meaningful definition. Nicerink (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that I think about it, saying it as a noun is probably part of the irony. Nicerink (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved, I guess; someone untagged it a while ago and it's been given more cites. Definition may or may not need tweaking (for example, is it a real ideology, or is it a bogeyman that only exists in detractors' rhetoric?) but that can be handled without RFV, I hope. - -sche (discuss) 02:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I doubt it's English. I would keep this under a Latin header. PUC – 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the variation in the Latin wording and the definition suggest it SOP, so delete. (German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht is idiomatic colloquially with marked syntax in contrast.) Why would it be a dictionary entry from jurist usage? The law determines what “excuses” in detail. There can only be an idiom with those that are remote from legal knowledge, but they will hardly say in English these Latin words, meaning that no quotes will suffice. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a common legal maxim which will be found from time to time in English legal texts, but I don't know if that's enough to justify having a separate English header for the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think our current treatment of Latin expressions - to the extent that we have a coherent policy - is not optimal. That an expression is used in running text in English (even unitalicised) is not enough; it's still Latin, and felt as such. Imo we should only have a Latin header, and maybe create a new section where we'd mention in which modern languages the expression is frequently used. It'd be a bit comparable to the descendants section. PUC – 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any "short" expression derived from Latin can readily become part of the English lexicon. One issue is how "short". Four syllables seems to be per say sufficiently short. Eleven seems ipso facto too long. Another question is whose lexicon: the man in the street or the men talking in a courtroom? That English has the adage ignorance of the law is no excuse, which we might include as a proverb or merely as a collocation, means that there is little reason for normal speakers to include this expression in their lexicon. But those in the legal profession may include Latinate expressions to signal to their clients, opponents, and judges their superior education. However, only occasionally and whimsically do we include expressions solely for their pragmatic function. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

ignorance of the law is no excuse is arguably SOP, but ignorantia juris non excusat is not (in English). As ever, the question is whether terms are citable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Most people believe that ignorance of the law is a pretty good excuse, were it not for the existence of the oft-repeated adage. SoPitude is why we would only include it as a proverb or as a collocation (probably under ignorance). DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" could definitely be considered a proverb but the meaning is so transparent I'm not sure what the benefit of an entry would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it's indeed lexicalised I think it belongs here, no matter how transparent it is. And I'm looking for a place to gather translations: French nul n’est censé ignorer la loi, German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht, and probably others. PUC – 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The law itself does not take the expression too literally: "The Lambert decision explicitly recognized this fair notice requirement as an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse". "The U.S. Supreme Court, however, by a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Douglas, held that Ms. Lambert's due process rights were violated because she was not notified about a registration requirement that she could not be reasonably presumed to know existed. In this case, ignorance of the law was a legitimate defense."

IOW, the US Supreme Court believes that the principle expressed does have significant exceptions, ie, that it is not literally true. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does not seem to get much use. Caps on "venus" might possibly be wrong too. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This previously passed RFV, see Talk:abstringe. However, I am not sure that the three citations produced are actually satisfactory uses. They were also not entered at the time but I've put them at Citations:abstringe. Might need a few more pairs of eyes. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The citations are definitely less than ideal: the first is in a dictionary definition and the other two are contrived. But technically these are three uses. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMO, I don't see how the dictionary definition is a use. It's mapping the Spanish word to a set of English words. If the gloss was written as a sentence then it could pass as a use, but it isn't. The others are borderline: the second one says "you will abstringe it" but is otherwise explicitly discussing the word, not using it. And as This, that and the other said at the time, it's not clear that the 3rd one evinces the definition. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Should say I'm happy to let this lapse after 2 weeks if other people think the 3 citations are OK. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC))Reply

They're not great, but I think the last two are adequate. The first use in the dictionary's string of glosses is very debatable. I can't find any other uses (or even use-ish occurences) of this word, neither on the web nor in archives of old or new newspapers like Trove or Issuu, archive.org, etc. (I did find a slightly earlier copy of the "tongue will never be abstringed" text.) Very borderline... - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's another borderline occurrence here, in a text in which a character recites a contrived (but grammatical) series of sentences made up of words starting with A. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

To use the toilet. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It’s hard to find uses that are clearly metaphorical online but I’ve heard my dad say this. It doesn’t actually means ‘use the toilet’ literally but to urinate by the side of the road. I did find this example on Google Books. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

You think that would be a calque from Japanese as claimed? Equinox ◑ 12:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Overlordnat's book it's explicitly a translation from Isan as well. I think I may have heard it before in English, though if so seems pretty implausible it was from Japanese, never mind Isan. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I doubt the English expression chiefly came about from being a calque from any other language, it’s probably a coincidence that the same metaphor is used in other languages and English and I accept that my quote was a bit ‘mentiony’ and appears as a translation so is far from ideal. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's a stackexchange discussion saying it's at least several decades old in Britain. It does seem to be real, but the literal meaning makes it hard to search for (another urination euphemism in this boat is Citations:pump ship, which has two but not yet three cites). Fodors says it's also the euphemism used in Botswana, which IMO does support the idea that it may just be an obvious excuse to leave an outdoor group for a moment which various cultures hit upon, rather than a calque. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could be one of those terms that get coined but haven't been actually used (Edit: apparently the prefix ronto- is a new one so this hasn't gained currency yet). lattermint (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Synonym of annoyance. Really? Theknightwho (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited and added a gloss to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

To be picky about it, I think heartburn is the discomfort or pain resulting from an annoyance. IOW, I don't think it is substitutable for any definition of annoyance, at least in most of the citations. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems perfectly substitutable to me except for "have heartburn" (since one would simply say "I'm annoyed" rather than "I have annoyance"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Surprisingly, no OneLook dictionary has a figurative sense for heartburn. Perhaps OED does. The base sense refers to discomfort and not cause. Do our definitions of annoyance cover both the feeling and the cause? They do so imperfectly at best. I don't think we usually are willing to rely of users being able to infer meaning from metonymy. If we would our polysemic entries could be much shorter. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the plausibility of the distinction you're trying to draw, I think. The metaphor drawn by this use is between the psychological state of annoyance (which is a kind of discomfort) and the physical discomfort felt from heartburn (another kind). It's not at some remove from the state itself. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

PUC – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

PUC – 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Links to a Wikivoyage article and a Wikibooks article, both by the entry's creator. The Wikipedia page Meitei classical language movement, also written by the entry's creator, has a hatnote mentioning Classical Meiti linking to the Wiktionary entry (afaik improperly by WP guidelines). Any usage of "classical Meitei" in independent sources I can find is non-capitalised and SOP (e.g., "a classical Meitei ballad"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Same as above, but with somewhat more SOP attestation (apparently usually in reference to dancing). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pretty common as an SOP phrase but not seeing evidence of capitalised usage or the proper noun sense. The linked Wikibooks article was made by the entry's creator. Note the ISO code linked is denominated "Old Manipuri", a Google search does not show any independent usage of the label "Ancient Meitei" for that code. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that if this fails, we may want to do something about the many entries by the same user which use this term. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three different words (etymology sections), of which only "alt form of lock" seems citeable. The OED only has pre-1500 uses, and two post-1500 mentions, for "pull up (weeds)", saying it's now only dialectal, but the EDD only has several completely different words spelled louk ("idle, loaf, louch", "strike, beat, thrash", "put in place", "window lattice"), but not any of the ones we or the OED have. I can find mentions of "pull up weeds / thin out plants more generally" in various other old dialect dictionaries, but haven't spotted uses. Louk as an obsolete spelling of look (gaze at) could probably be cited and added. Some senses (at least "close/lock", as well as "grapple") would meet CFI as Scots; most of the rest of the content would be saved by moving it to Middle English louken. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've moved "weed" to louken and "accomplise" to lowke (RFV-failed as English, converted to Middle English). "Alt form of lock" has two cites and needs just one more in order to pass. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Slang: "In a state of believing, especially from evidence but not necessarily." Evidently intended to capture the red pilled, blue pilled, etc. Internet concepts, but is it actually used alone? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably the same thing as -pilled but without the hyphen. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That is not morphologically a suffix (I see it's your entry): I think that was created in error. But it's another story. In general, entire words attached to other words are not "suffixes": a greenfly is not "green" suffixed with "-fly", but rather a compound. Your "-pilled" is more likely something like "red pill" + "-ed". Equinox ◑ 05:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ehh... I remember this discussion coming up before at some point in connection with blends (last year?). I'm not sure what you mean by morphologically not a suffix. The dividing line between a word that forms compounds and a lexicalised suffix is fuzzy in general. -gate for political scandals is definitely a suffix now and not just a novel recoinage from Watergate every time it's used, for example, but that was a process. The citations already at -pilled suggest a similar process going on, and I've personally seen stuff like "brunchpilled" without any intention of referring to a "brunch pill" or a generic verb "to brunchpill". Note that they're adjectives—they take "more", "very", predication "is ...". So -pilled is probably fine as is IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

To take a certain size of sample. Etymologically sound, etc., but doesn't seem to be in real use. If I search in Google Books, I mostly find stuff about "decimating" (i.e. killing 1 person in 100) but at the smaller scale. Not about sample sizes. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added the first quotation that turned up from a credible-looking source (and which handily indicated a definition within the quotation); I have to admit I was a little surprised at the statistical usage — I'd been expecting a meaning closer to the decimate concept, in its most common usage. (By the way, if the statistical meaning is accepted, then definitions at decimate may also have to be tweaked?)

It sounds like you're happy to keep the term, but want to change the definition(s)?

Meanwhile, Einstein2 added a citation for yet another meaning (to divide into hundredths).

—DIV (1.145.8.61 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC))Reply

RFV-sense:

"A name for God in the Eckankar religion."

"A chant consisting of many people singing 'Hu' together."

A Google Books search for Hu + Eckankar turns up nothing. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just noting that the Eckankar website says:

HU is an ancient name for God. It has been used for thousands of years as a prayer and sacred chant to attune oneself to the presence of God. Millions of people around the world have experienced the joy of HU.

From my brief study of Eckankar publications, this pair of definitions appears correct. Not a lot of independent literature on this aspect of Eckankar appears to exist, but more searching is needed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, prompted to make another search, I found and added two books which contain "HU"; one is mentiony and the other also doesn't manage to be a really good use in running text, but I suspect you're right that we could cite sense 1 with a bit more effort. However, all the instances I found, and yours above, capitalize it just like e.g. YHWH, so unless Hu also exists, it should apparently be moved to HU. I am more sceptical of sense 2, I haven't seen anything about e.g. "chanting a Hu" or "the sermon was followed by a Hu". People chant "HU", but I don't think that makes "Hu" mean "a chant..." (it also seems like an individual person can chant it and not just "many people"?). - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the "chant" sense (RFV-failed); it's possible a dedicated search could cite the "God" sense, but possibly only as HU and not Hu (TBD). - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out in the Tea Room, most of the cites are unidiomatic: "overeating was the English vice" isn't using "English vice" as a word meaning "gluttony" any more than "Boris Yeltsin was the Russian president" makes "Russian president" an idiomatic term meaning "Boris Yeltsin". (Likewise for "hypocrisy (was|is) the English vice", "it is our great English vice", "casualness is our English vice", “Is there such a thing, Lady Hillington, as an English vice?” “Oh,” retorted the clever woman, “I thought every one knew that, Mr. Daventry; the English vice is adultery with home comforts.”...) It seems unlikely that all of the senses are attested idiomatically, although a few probably are. Contrast e.g. French disease. Separately, the definitions use the wrong template. - -sche (discuss) 14:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Failed, and I've RFVed the French equivalent. - -sche (discuss) 18:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As with English vice above. - -sche (discuss) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As with English vice above. Probably the number of definitions which are idiomatically attested is smaller than the number there at present. - -sche (discuss) 14:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would a single definition for each term that encompasses all uses of each to attribute a vice to a foreign population still be SoP. IOW, is the phenomenon more one of social psychology than of language? DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think idiomatic use could be attested, like for French disease, although part of being idiomatic would be referring to some specific thing (like for French disease), right? Since a single definition "# Any vice attributed to the English", would indeed be SoP, wouldn't it?
It's certainly a grey area; at one extreme, I'm not sure any use of "Russian president" to refer to a Russian president could be idiomatic—the referent of that phrase would probably have to become something else, like how dead president doesn't refer to a deceased president but to money. Towards the other extreme, even though things like Italian sausage and English oregano are obviously associated with those countries as a form of sausage and oregano considered typical of their cuisine and flora respectively, they are IMO clearly idiomatic. French disease is more in the middle of the spectrum, but on the idiomatic side, and I suspect English vice could also be (and whether it is or not is the RFV question). - -sche (discuss) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also the successful RFD a while back for world's largest democracy for India. I agree a catch-all definition would have to be SOP, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's idiomatic attestation for some particular senses. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMO The difference is whether the focus is on the term/concept, or on the nationality. During a certain era, if someone wanted to give a colloquial synonym for syphilis, they might have said "syphilis is the French disease", in the same way they would have said "pertussis is whooping cough". On the other hand, if someone wants to discuss German character, they might assert that X is a vice characteristic of Germans by saying "X is the German vice". It might require looking at the context and not just the sentence in which the term is used. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that these terms are simultaneously euphemisms and ethno-national slurs and those functions might make it worth including such even when they are only attestable across multiple 'vices'. I wouldn't miss such marginal entries if they were gone. DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's perhaps academic anyway, I've trawled through every 19th- and 20th-century Google Books result for "English vice" and found hardly anything that could be considered idiomatic (apart from the expected irrelevant "English vice-consul" etc stuff it's virtually always explicitly specified along the lines "the English vice of ..."). There are also various mentions, i.e. assertions that the term "English vice" is or was used to refer to something, but those aren't uses by the author themselves (see e.g. 1994 and 2005 under homosexuality atm). Maybe someone else can find more convincing stuff, drunkenness seems like the most plausible. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be mentioned as a translation of, say, vice anglais. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "infinite" (noun). Einstein2 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Found and added exactly three from Google Books. One is the name of a festival, but seems to have the right meaning (and there is some precedent for including marketing names, e.g. pak, yumberry.) Equinox ◑ 22:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I went searching on Usenet for this. I found some definite uses among the many typos (Citations:shis):

• In the early uses (1989 and 1993), it appears to be a gender-neutral pronoun (this usage doesn't fit our current definition).
• In 2005, "Maak" used the pronoun in several derogatory stories that demean LGBT people. It's not entirely clear to me whether the stories refer specifically to gay men, or trans women, or some other less specific group.
• I'm not sure what 2006 post from "America the Beautiful" is trying to get at.

I'd expect to find some evidence on Tumblr, but that's a lot of work... This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dictionary-only suspected. lattermint (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I could not find any uses meaning "having eyelids", but I found a lot meaning pertaining to eyelids, so I added that as an additional meaning, as well as the verb meaning (to wink or blink). Kiwima (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Tony Grach text can hardly be described as Standard English and I would suggest it is as useless for RFV purposes as Finnegans Wake. Here's a typical passage:

"I won't simple agree either anything was just entrusted by their hands to hold that sweat possession, is hard to say even whether is what was name their owning or anything else" Molice wag once, and keep saying" Honest I never reach to know what was within the only order such precept which these wealthier used in efficacious of their belong, or we also doubt to guess are mammonish been just given to the individual in peculium about" Molice she was busying watching the fold of vivarium of multi beasties, some are quiet as unprecedented not for their Mesozoic kinds which can flabbergasted anyone as if to found diplodocus in such little size still living somewhere in this world today and those others seems are affinity with Saprozoics or Kimaris in the face for their uncephalous structure and vicious observant and the least are in oddment alike of primitive fauna, mouth of feline but berbivour teeth and greenish in skin rather beings in common nature of wool dressed,

Even the narrative voice uses this weird barely-grammatical language. Note the apparent solecism berbivour. Reading other parts of the text, it looks like the author is indeed trying to emulate Joyce (and falling far short, if I may say so).

If we discount this cite, we only have two for the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have replaced the disputed cite with a different one. Kiwima (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima: You replaced a different quotation instead of the one by Grach; I have restored that one and removed Grach’s. J3133 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, and thanks Kiwima (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: 3. "An unavoidable, usually unpleasant scenario that is inevitable in the long run that hopelessly cannot be overcome in the end, regardless of various actions that can mitigate or delay it in the short term." Firstly, this isn't the definition of a proverb, it's an overwrought noun phrase. If there's a proverb sense here it's also not familiar to me: something like "we need to clean up the bathroom eventually—the house always wins" comes off as a bit weird.

I think there is a missing figurative sense or scope here though: afaik it's also used broadly to suggest that something is rigged to benefit some person or group, which isn't covered by the limited wording of sense 2. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It reminds me of what we're calling Ginsberg's theorem on Wikipedia ... a metaphorical restatement of the laws of thermodynamics in the form of a card game ... you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game. (The zeroth law was added in later.) And I saw something similar in a popular science book about entropy, though I can't find it now. There are a few websites using the phrase the house always wins as a metaphor about entropy. But a metaphor isn't a definition, I suppose ... I'm not really sure if we can use this or not, ... it just seems to me that the metaphor need not always be a complaint about human affairs, it can simply be a restatement of natural law. —Soap— 00:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Soap: Yes, it occurred to me that people can use it in reference to things like death and entropy, with a vague idea of anthropomorphising the force they're talking about (you can't cheat Death). What I would do, I think, is change sense 2 to refer to things being systemically rigged or biased more generally than just one specific point about economics, and have a third sense with a second, even further extension to things like natural laws without any actual people involved. I think the RFV'd sense is probably just missing the point a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

If sense 3 is to be kept, it shouldn’t be defined as a noun. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• What a dreadful set of definitions. DCDuring (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this really used in English? The single quote is very mentiony. Btw, what's a good translation for this? Need a gloss for German Rampensau. Jberkel 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps English just lacks a good counterpart. I see animal metaphors with Fr bête de scène, G Rampensau, and Du podiumbeest. English usually uses "animal" for this, e.g. party animal instead of *party beast. But I've never heard of anything like "stage animal" or "show animal". I used showman just now to translate a quote on the podiumbeest page, but I think t's suboptimal and only used that because we had had no bolded word at all before that. Perhaps the lack of a good Eng translation is why we might be using the French words. —Soap— 14:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I should I didnt mean to imply that the three animal terms above are also synonyms of each other. And I also wonder if we're elaborating a bit too much with our English definition ... even if we do find the required three cites, will they really all have such a specific definition? I'm really fond of the "feral player" phrasing but it doesn't seem quite believable to me. —Soap— 14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

English is a little bit pickier, selecting particular animals for such expressions, like show horse/showhorse, which I've heard used metaphorically, a;beit with a different meaning. Feral player uses feral, not a good definiens in metaphorical use, just as metaphors are not usually good definitions. Our normal users would probably benefit more from a non-gloss definition if we don't have a good gloss expression and can't come up with a long-form definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The linked Wikipedia article suggests that this is a noun adjunct in the phrase "underfriction wheel" rather than a standalone noun. There are no Google Books hits for the would-be plural "underfrictions".

I propose updating and moving to underfriction wheel. — Paul G (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Although mostly used attributively, the term exists outside the mentioned phrase: , , etc. There are also uses which predate the 1918/19 patent of Miller, so a second sense might be needed: , , . Einstein2 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have three senses: (1) denounce, (2) reveal a secret, (3) betray. According to OED, (1) didn't survive past 1500, (2) did but it may not be attestable in this spelling (the cites have wry, wrie, ...), and (3) was used in the 1500s in the sense of "betray someone's true character" but OED only gives cites from Whetstone and Mir. for Mag. - a third would be needed. The word probably survived longer in dialect, but I haven't checked EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should this entry simply be re-categorized as Middle English then? I would not like to see it deleted, as is threatened by the current warning, since it certainly was a legitimate word at one time & is important for historical reference. Language&Life (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• enm quotes moved to wreien P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This word is clearly attestable on Reddit going back a few years and probably on Instagram too. Those are where you tend to see history memes the most. A WaPo story that ran this week may have brought attention from the wider world, so maybe it will spread outside its origin. I dont have a WaPo account and so cant' check if the word Romaboo actually appears in the article. Its worth noting that we never actually rejected Reddit as a source of citations, it was only "no consensus", the same as Twitter. But we seem to have decided without a new vote that we're just not that interested in words used only on Reddit, and I havent seen too many words being added from Twitter lately either. —Soap— 17:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I meant to point out that the only other two edits from the IP who created this were both vandalism, though it may well be that it's a shared IP and therefore not the same person. —Soap— 20:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"An elongated hole consisting of two round holes touching each other." I couldn't find any evidence anywhere. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just found this European Patent Office PDF on the Web: "...(known as a "snowman" hole due to its distinctive shape). A snowman hole is typically a difficult repair due to the elongated axis joining two holes..." Equinox ◑ 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Definition needs work: currently, "a reporter or journalist whose viewpoints change frequently". What's whorish about that? I don't think we mean someone who learns new things (e.g. science journo) and adapts their views. Surely it must mean one who doesn't properly study and respect their subject, or is amenable to bribes, etc. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The definition's not the best, that's true. Perhaps we should copy the definition at presstitute instead, or list it as a synonym of that? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Science journos learn things? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have to really whack it into their heads. Drop an apple. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The current definition line might refer to the analogy between changing viewpoints and sexual partners. However, I don't think the quotations at Citations:whorenalist support such a definition. I am not sure whether it can be considered synonymous to presstitute or just a general derogatory term for a journalist disliked by the speaker. Einstein2 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect capitalization, and this should be Latin (unless it is specifically attested in English literature too). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 09:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"(figuratively) The spotlight. Shortly after I announced my pregnancy, he stole my thunder with his news of landing his dream job." Needs examples that are not covered by the separate entry steal someone's thunder. Equinox ◑ 15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The etymology in ] makes they use of thunder in this sentence seem particularly unlikely, but .... DCDuring (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this used outside of stink to high heaven, which we already have an entry for? PUC – 19:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is used with synonyms of "stink", like "smell" and "reek". Maybe not in any other way. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

But also shriek, cry, curse, yell, darn it, complain, wish, etc., apart from literal use (pray, etc.). The figurative/intensifier sense seems to derive some of its force from the literal use. DCDuring (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited (none of the citations are about stinking). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but aren't the 1921, 1955 and 2013 quotes examples of the more literal sense that DCDuring mentioned? PUC – 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: No, DCDuring mentioned the literal sense in reference to pray, i.e. literally praying to heaven. Shrieking, crying, etc to high heaven are not literal. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The vocalization usages seem more closely derived from the "pray" usage than the olfaction senses, but recent usage seems not to evoke pray to high heaven. DCDuring (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't find significant usage in GBooks, but it is mentioned in one Wikipedia article. If real, the capital N is probably wrong. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure exactly what "if real" means in this context, but it appears in a series of blog posts by Geoffrey K. Pullum, the first of which (posted June 26, 2008) ends with "people with any kind of technical knowledge of a domain tend to get hopelessly (and unwittingly) stuck in a frame of reference that relates to their view of the issue, and their trade's technical parlance, not that of the ordinary humans with whom they so signally fail to engage. The phenomenon — we could call it nerdview — is widespread." I assume the word is Pullum's creation.--Urszag (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

By "if real" I mean "if the word exists at all"; apparently it's what we would call a protologism (and the capital N is indeed wrong). Equinox ◑ 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not found on Google Scholar or News. Mentioned in G. Groups. I can't get a preview of any use on Google Books, but Google gives books that may have it. We would need other (post-2008) corpora or access the books themselves. It might be particularly useful in BP discussions (let alone those on GP) here. DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Preventing reciprocation." It might mean something (maybe advanced maths) but probably not this. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

3 different birds, 3 fun quotey challenges P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I've found so far:

• Razorbilled auk: ,
• Guillemot: , ,
• Puffin (aka "parrot"): I haven't been able to find usage that can be unambiguously identified with the puffin, but I'm not through checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "A strategy of maintaining confusion in the minds and preventing objective analysis." (Needs to be distinct from sense 1: "Any doctrine or philosophy that serves to confuse people.") Equinox ◑ 13:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated to the RFV, but this is such an obvious pun on Confucianism that I want us to mention it in the etymology, but I dont want to just put it there based on instinct. If it helps I know there is a quote out there somewhere ... maybe Tao of Pooh? ... where a related pun between Confucius and confusion is made, and it may even be that the word confusionism appears there. I suspect Ive got the wrong book though. Nothing here] looks like what I saw, and despite its title the book seems to be fairly level-headed and not the type to contain many puns. (Though I admittedly only got a 2-page preview.) All the best, —Soap— 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

A few quotes had it in italics or "in quotemarks", nowt without P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED has five cites, although only one is spelled this way. Ours would be a sixth. The word also appears to be an obsolete form of forensical (two cites in OED). This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A more or less literal definition, not the immigration-specific sense: "It is wrong to refer to a person as being illegal." DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You cannot shed this. People mean both at the same time in one instance. Claim the first with the desired outcome of sense two. An interpretation question also. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could just merge the two senses, and have it read something like "It is rude to say "illegal immigrant".". CitationsFreak (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think sense 2 is wrong too: "There are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones". Clearly there provably are illegal immigrants, as shown in the laws of various countries. Should be reworded as "illegal immigrants should only be referred to by a euphemism", apparently. Equinox ◑ 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see the need for two senses that say basically the same thing but I suppose we could tweak it so that sense 1 is an &lit that says ‘there’s no such thing as an illegal human being’ and sense 2 says ‘nobody should be designated as illegal before being officially determined to be so by a Government or court’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In what legal systems are people, rather than acts of persons or their status, illegal? DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is normal grammar though. A "heavy drinker" is not a drinker who's heavy, but someone who drinks heavily. An "illegal immigrant" is one who immigrates illegally. The people who complain about the phrase "illegal immigrant" do so out of inguistic ignorance. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What does "This" refer to, the putative proverb or illegal immigrant? The metonymy in illegal immigrant is normal, but the "proverb" would remind us that it is mere metonymy, not to be taken literally. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that the "officially determined to be so by a government or court" should not be part of the definition. The people who object to this term would object to it even if it was government-sanctioned (and in fact, might oppose the term harder.) CitationsFreak (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have rarely encountered this phrase in contexts other than immigration, as an objection to laws that (are perceived to) criminalize the mere (public) existence of certain kinds of people, like so-called google:"breathing while brown", google:"driving while black", google:"walking while brown" or google:"walking while trans" laws; iff that could be cited, it would make sense to have a 'top-level sense' and subsenses like we do at present. But it doesn't seem citable. If only immigration-related use is attested, then like several other users above, I'd be fine with condensing our two sense into one definition-line. I think DCDuring is on the right lines with explaining that "acts or status" are illegal and not humans. Maybe: "It is wrong to refer to 'illegal immigrants', because people are not illegal (only acts are illegal)."? I don't know, it's hard to think of a good wording. As I said in the Tea Room, I'm not sure we should have slogans like this to begin with. (I mean, how would we define all the nuances and political implications of a phrase like "make America great again"? It would be similarly challenging.) - -sche (discuss) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that the "because people aren't illegal..." thign should be in the def. People can have a variety of reasons for opposing this. (Plus, the Wiesel quote demonstrates this already.) CitationsFreak (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I don't think people engage in legal or philosophical reasoning about this. Rather they are thinking of it being morally wrong to use the term illegal immigrant because it is derogatory or not nice. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Equinox is right that sense 2 was also wrong, since Wiesel's objection applies even if a state really does make being even a documented immigrant illegal. How is this? I reiterate that I'm not sure we should have slogans in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not married to the definition I wrote, don't care much about this entry and would not object either to it being deleted, but I'm a bit confused by your and Equinox's objection: "there are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones" might be factually untrue, but it's still what people who use this proverb/slogan mean when they use it (and what they wish were true), which is what interests us here. (This reminds me a bit of the debate at Talk:you can take the monkey out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the monkey.) PUC – 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't get the sense that many (most?) users of the slogan are concerned with documentation at all. (This is supported by marginal use in relation to other issues than immigration, e.g. the "walking while black" bans, or laws making gay or trans people illegal.) The meaning is ... basically literal, that human beings aren't (or shouldn't be) illegal and that a human being (generally an immigrant) existing in a particular country or public area should not be legislated against / arrested. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do people say this term in reference to those? I was unable to find any uses that do not refer to immigration, so I'm leaning towards no, although maybe you found something I didn't. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Artificially compressible". I think this is wrong: the word seems to refer to some kind of modification of "incompressible flow" equations to make them easier to solve. Note this user has been creating a lot of dubious entries, and seems to be just guessing at the meanings a lot of the time. I've warned the user about this once previously. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced this has caught on as anything but a reference to Thirteen Reasons Why (either the book or the TV series). It looks like this entry is a protologism extrapolated from the above. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited(?) Also, I can anecdotally confirm that it has "caught on" (at least a little) so I don't think this should be deleted. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This entry needs some help; if we can cite it it might be better classed as historical; otherwise moved to Middle English. OED has one non-dictionary ModE quote from 1598 in Stow's A Survey of London:

The charter of King William the Conqueror, exemplified in the Tower, englished thus: " Know ye that I do giue vnto God and the church of S. Paule of London, and to the rectors and seruitors of the same, in all their lands which the church hath, or shall have, within borough and without, sack and sock, thole and theam, infangthefe and grithbriche "

Maybe I'm failing to correctly parse this quote but it looks to me like Stow has grithbriche as a privilege William gave the servitors, which doesn't match the sense we give. I've also foud it used in a close translation of an OE text. Any other ModE quotes? Winthrop23 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have put a selection of modern English quotes on the citations page. It looks to me like Stow is referring to the fines arising from enforcing this law (definition 2). Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Mentioned in a couple of dictionaries as a dialectal word for beating someone on the head. Someone at Urban Dictionary decided to make it about hitting someone with a dead fish. Guess which definition just got added to Wiktionary... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Preferably with a trout, I presume. Although frowned upon, I suppose it could also be a live one.  --Lambiam 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Or while performing a dance... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found three cites, but two were used to mean hit with a fish, and one to mean beat about the head:

• 2016, Strange History:

  I've been Cornobbled!

• 2017, Jonathan W. Stokes, Addison Cooke and the Tomb of the Khan, page 71:

  Addison's favorite word in the English language was "cornobble," meaning "to slap with a fish." He had long wondered if he would ever be lucky enough to cornobble someone. He deplored violence, but he condoned cornobbling.

• 2018, Alice Jolly, Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile:

  She waits til I turnd away Cornobble me with a rolling pin

Kiwima (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Adjective meaning "perfect". Equinox ◑ 19:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The string of letters has been cited, but what specific meaning the cites intend is not obvious to me. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Meaning is unclear. ringding seems to be an alternative form, now added. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv sense “(linguistics, phonetics, literally) non-aspiration of a glottal consonant”. What does this even mean. Are there words whose IPA rendering uses ⟨ʔʰ⟩ or ⟨hʰ⟩? Is there any language in which some glottal consonant may be aspirated?  --Lambiam 13:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

i think it means consonant in the sense of spelling, not pronunciation. e.g. Hebrew and Persian both have letters that spell /h/ in some positions but are silent word-finally, much like English. Possibly Arabic too. —Soap— 00:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The phrase may seem odd to most people outside Norway, but various variations of the phrase have been used in non-racing contexts by a fair few people:

• https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/podkast-mot-alle-odds/id939436054?i=1000391775882
• https://no.linkedin.com/posts/j%C3%B8rgen-m%C3%B8klebust-austvik_fndagene-fnsb%C3%A6rekraftsm%C3%A5l-activity-6991767768089903104-9BpD
• https://www.hunden.no/blogg/innlegg/50706/It-s-not-only-only/
• https://kartarkiv.nydalen.idrett.no/show_map.php?user=Halvoren&map=7151
• https://sykkelmagasinet.no/aktuelt/en-knust-drom-om-topp-30/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CyG_dlZr4ZX/?img_index=1

It is most commonly used in informal codeswitching among Norwegians, but there have been sporadic cases of people using it while speaking English. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

To the extent I rapidly learned the RFV system this morning, I have now also cited 3 quotes on-page instead of the previous 1, with the 2 new ones being from English-language pages as well. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I highly doubt it's used to convey any sort of meaning but that it's simply a catchphrase (or a meme if you prefer). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a simple meme, but even I admit it's hard to describe the exact meaning of it. The core meaning fits very well with "easier said than done", but with a kinda playful tone, sometimes (but not always) one that makes fun of/with broken English or an undertone of "If you use this phrase, you're from Norway". I suppose I can agree it's an in-joke, but it's an in-joke that around 3.5mill people are into (of a population of maybe 5.2mill). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED only has Skelton quote, and even I could find nothing more, and I'm a frithy genius. P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the 1911 Century Dictionary also has that quote and nothing else (except that it has “Thus stode I in the frytthy forest of Galtres” while the 1933 OED leaves out the first bit and has the typo “the frytthy forest of Galteres”)  --Lambiam 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are filthy, not frithy. HTH. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Several of these citations (inasmuch as I can jabberwock some sense out of them) are for a homonym with a different set of senses and a different etymology. Determining in general which citations belong under which etymology is beyond my ken.  --Lambiam 16:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that we have a duty to our readers to say "this word, if it's a word, is bloody obscure and bizarre" . Horrifying truly. Do not see RFV as a little video-game challenge "can I find three usages of no particular meaning, by mad poets". Equinox ◑ 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The second definition is no longer cited. One of the quotes given was a misreading or scanno, and furthermore I’m not convinced the 2017 usage has the suggested meaning at all. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't find much in the way of use of this. Even a Google search only finds 13 hits total, most of which are song/video titles or aren't relevant. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I explained on the talk page why I chose not to put cites on the main page. I can add the cites if pushed, but I think the page is better without them as people talking with friends on Twitter aren't expecting their words to be forever mirrored on a site like ours, and with words like these the content is emotionally heavy. —Soap— 09:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm indifferent as to whether the cites are left on the talk page or moved or added to the main entry page but I think we can already declare this to be cited on the basis of what you've put on the talk page already. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We also have a Citations namespace.  --Lambiam 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes thanks. I didnt put them there because all I did was paste the links instead of expanding them with the quote templates. I think though that the Citations namespace may be a good place to put quotes that we need for illustration of use but which we dont want to feature on the main page. There are some entries here where i would say even that is too much, and prefer to use paraphrases, but this isnt anything politically controversial ... in fact i think it's pretty clever. i will add the six twitter quotes to the citations namespace, or find ones that i think provide similar or superior context for the use of the phrase. i might also add the song and anything else i can find (even if not CFI, e.g. we never approved Instagram but Instagram is where i first saw this). Thanks, —Soap— 06:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Definition:

1. (computing, informal) 10³⁰ bytes; a thousand brontobytes

This is more like an rfv-sense than an rfv of the whole term- but this is the only definition in the entry at the moment. There a no doubt similar issues with other prefix+"byte" entries

There are mentions that define this in terms of powers of 2/multiples of 1024 (as is the case with kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, etc.) and there are mentions that define this in terms of powers of 10/multiples of 1000, so a geopbyte would be either 2¹⁰⁰ or 10³⁰ (I think the base-2 version is the original, technically correct one).It may not seem like much, but the actual difference is more digits than I can get my calculator app to display. At that scale, I think that even if there are enough uses the only possible actual meaning would be "some arbitrary unimaginably big number of bytes". Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

One book cite I found gets around the divergence between binary and base-10 by saying A Geopbyte is about 1,000 Brontobytes. and i agree this is used metaphorically for a number far beyond our comprehension. So far i have not found any evidence of the etymology being from Korean 겁 (geop), ... for example, the expected Korean form 겁바이트 seems not to exist anywhere ... but even if it wasnt coined in Korean it could still be a borrowing from Korean, and that would suggest it wasnt meant to be precise. That said, if the lists of words that define this term with a specific value always list either 2^100 or 10^30, then i would say those more precise sub-definitions are worth noting. —Soap— 06:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

An educational channel with this name was founded in 2018. They're based in India. More interesting perhaps is this tiny abandoned YouTube channel, founded in 2008, which never really took off. It's unlikely that the 2008 YouTuber coined the term, and it could just perhaps be a randomly chosen name, but it might hint at sporadic use before 2015. —Soap— 07:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google Books returns three hits for geopbytes when restricting the search to before 2000, but I'm guessing all three are duds. The first might be a scan error for geophyte (and is so old (1956, the same year byte was coined) that it cant possibly be a real hit), and the other two, while promising, are unsearchable and i suspect that they may not actually contain the desired text (see this mini-essay I wrote for an illustration of how Google Books sometimes pads its results with books that cannot possibly contain the desired text). Yes, I really like this word, and I'd love to be able to save it, but it seems the origin still eludes me and the sense is difficult to pin down. —Soap— 09:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can this really be used as a synonym of primigravid ?  --Lambiam 15:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This sense is given in OED with some 19th-century quotes, for one. Even so, the main usage of this word in 19th-century texts, as I find it, is to refer to a woman who is giving birth for the first time. The term is generally used in the context of the labour and birth itself. This, that and the other (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of the four senses are fully attested. The two Bitcoin defs at least have partial attestation that supports them. The "urbanism" sense have citations that don't unambiguously support the definition given. In addition, the words urbanism and urbanist used in the definitions don't seem to be used in a way that corresponds to any of our definitions of those words. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sense 3: "to Filipinize", as opposed to the sense of making Tagalog. Not all Filipinos are Tagalog; entry says it is just the biggest ethnic group there. Equinox ◑ 17:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Might also want to consider whether it makes sense to be circularly defining Filipinize also as Tagalize.) - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The word exists, but does not seem to mean this. I can't quite discern the sense: something to do with people with ancestry in the country of residence, as opposed to migrants? Or migrants who have been in a country for a long time? This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima awesome work as ever! Thanks for looking at this.

Was there a reason you chose to split senses 2 and 3? The meanings are very close, and the distinction may be artificial. The last cite for each sense could just easily be attributed to the other, in my mind. This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sense three is a very specific role in therapeutic communities. From what I could tell, not everyone who had been around long enough to "know the ropes" (sense 2) could be an oldcomer, only someone who had reached a certain trusted status. Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. I'm not totally convinced. I'd appreciate a third opinion from another editor. This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Only in Bacon's work? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Almost. There is a somewhat mention-y appearance in Chamber's Encyclopedia:

• 1892, The International Cyclopaedia: A Compendium of Human Knowledge, page 391:

  Glazed colored tiles, however, were called "galletyles."

Kiwima (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED lemmatises at galley-tile. We have the same problem as at #forswonk - various different spellings are attested where potentially no one spelling has 3 available cites. This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion to deal with such situations is that if there are at least two occurrences of a particular spelling that can be found and only one of the other variants, we use the predominant one. However, if no spelling predominates, we pick the one that most closely indicates the etymology of the term, while recognizing that this will be somewhat subjective. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google has all of 18 hits, none of them in Books. Is this a brand new Hot Word, or is it someone trying to make fetch happen? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added some additional quotes going back to July 2022. MugsyMoon (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Around 1.3K hits on 4chan archives, so it's well attested at least on 4chan itself. ୨୧ 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

And about 500 hits] for the plural. ୨୧ 16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Initialism of work on an organic farm". Seems to exist, but not really finding many qualifying uses. A 2009 quote treats it as a verb ("to woof"), while a 2020 quote uses the form WOOF. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel: has split the noun and verb senses and added some quotations (thanks!), but I think this still requires verification as the quotations evince a variety of spellings like wwoof and WOOF, but not woof. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The main form of the word is "wwoof" (willing work on organic farms). The extra w (willing) is because WOOFers (wwoofers) aren't usually paid: its a room, board, and education arrangement. I think we can probably find enough uses of "woof" as a verb to call it a variant of wwoof, but wwoof should be the main lemma. WOOF is the World Organization of Organic Farms. The noun sense (work on organic farms) is probably not citeable, except as "wwoof" (willing ...) Kiwima (talk)

@Kiwima: thanks. Is there evidence that the first w of wwoof stands for willing? I'd have thought it's just an acronym of World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms, or World Wide Organization of Organic Farms (according to "w:WWOOF". Anyway, looking forward to seeing what verb uses of woof you can find. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"woof" as a verb is cited. Some authors say the first "w" is for "willing", which led me to say that, but as I investigate further, I am beginning to think that is an ex post facto interpretation, and that it is really just modeled after WWOOF. WOOF seems to be an alt form of WWOOF, introduced by people who have heard it pronounced but not seen it spelled. (I added some cites to WOOF, and they unpack the acronym in a variety of ways.) In short, I think the usage started with WWOOF (which is a definite organization and acronym), which led to WWOOFer, wwoofer, WWOOF as a verb, and wwoof as a verb. Later, you get woofer, and woof as a verb from people who have just heard it spoken. Meanwhile WWOOF is a loose enough organization, that some branches call themselves WOOF, unpacked as World Organization of Organic Farmers (such as here in New Zealand), which just adds to the confusion. I see some uses of wwoof as a noun for the activity, (e.g. "wwoof hosts") undoubtedly derived from WWOOF (i.e. genericization of the organization's name), and I think that's where some authors introduce the "willing" word, in order to make the acronym make sense. What I have not seen is any use of "woof" as a noun to refer to the activity, but it probably exists somewhere. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I don't understand the usage note. I'm not familiar with the purported French etymon. Sounds like BS. PUC – 20:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, the gloss at Italian coniglio di grondaia (“cat flesh passed off as rabbit”) is much clearer. Is this real though? PUC – 20:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In English, it's used in translations of a work by Emile Zola; that's one cite. In French, a Google Books search finds a few occurrences; it may be a 19th century term. - -sche (discuss) 08:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have cited the countable definition, but the uncountable one only has two cites. I recommend merging the two definitions. Kiwima (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "one day at a time". Going by the usage examples this is not an adverb but an adjective (if it's an adverb used attributively, are there non attributive uses? And should it be spelled day-by-day? Is it synonymous with day-to-day?). I'm also not sure the gloss is accurate. PUC – 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added song lyrics, which I think are from a hymn. I'd say that counts as two cites but also think this should be easy to verify both by its sense and by its meaning, and we won't need to count both the song and what it was derived from. Agree that the current use examples are adjectival and I wouldnt use them that way. —Soap— 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably at least partly borrowed from Godspell. It's not quite a hymn, though it gets as close as a piece from a Broadway musical can get. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: Generally, hyphens are used in adjective position, not in adverb position. "She grew little by little; it was little-by-little growth." Equinox ◑ 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have attempted to dispense with multi-word entries ("MWEs") for hyphenated forms where there is a full entry for the term without hyphens ("MWE-h"). This comes up most frequently where the MWE-h is a noun and the MWE+h is the noun in attributive use. Hard redirects seem to me to address the need to protect those who search for the MWE+h from the overwhelming confusion they suffer when confronted with the failed-search page, though they still need to deal with idea that a noun can be used attributively. DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Send to RFD. You can have "hour-by-hour" or "hour by hour", "second-by-second" or "second by second", "epoch-by-epoch" or "epoch by epoch", ..., so this is a grammatical construction, not a set expression. This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

One can also have step by step, brick by brick, customer by customer, voter by voter, etc. By does not work with as many nouns as after, but with many. We have a "reduplicative" sense for after. Other prepositions may also occur in multiple reduplicative expressions, though fewer, eg layer on layer, row on row, luff on luff (naut.), loser on loser (poker).

I doubt that this a good RfD candidate. See “day by day”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

In which case, should the contested sense be retained and labelled "as an attributive adjective, usually hyphenated"? Voltaigne (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doubt this one meets CFI. Very few Google Web hits. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few cites. table-word and table word seem to be more common. Einstein2 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: animal liberation. Ƿidsiþ 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added three citations, but some might overlap with other senses. Seems to be used in the context of Italian philosophy. Equinox ◑ 16:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the three cites are perfectly correlated with the sense we're seeking, but maybe we could reword the sense to something like animal rights activism even so? To me, animal liberation implies militancy, the sort of people who act on their beliefs, whereas many animal rights activists take a hands-off approach and focus on debate and, at most, peaceful protests. If this is so, I would say we also need to reword our definition of animal liberation. I may come back to this. Thanks, —Soap— 10:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Coming back to this, I dont think animal liberation implies militancy, any more than women's liberation ever did, so I think the entry as we have it is good, although there may still be a bit more to this ... see a new entry towards the bottom of the page created by an IP. To me, the Wikipedia link's sense fits perfectly under the context of animal liberation ... using the same analogy, our definition of feminism doesnt have a third sense or even a subsense specifically defining feminists as activists who do things ... it's considered part of the same definition that describes support for women's equality. —Soap— 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alt form of los, a type of wildcat. Also please confirm plural: I would expect "lozzes", not "lozes". Equinox ◑ 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I put the attested form. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Senses 2 and 3 seem like gibberish to me, honestly. "2. (dated) Being flat square, having the image display surface of a display screen being flat. 3. (dated) Being vertically flat, having an image display surface of a CRT display screen that is vertically flat, but horizontally round." Equinox ◑ 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox I think that one of them refers to CRT monitors with flat glass, intead of glass that's slightly curved, which was sometimes how this got used before LCD/LED screens became commonplace. The OED has some cites from the 70s and 80s that seem to refer to that sense. Theknightwho (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

1. To say that somebody is not to do anything without receiving further instructions.

Removed by an IP with the comment "The first definition does not make sense whatsoever given the original context in Monopoly, and the quote is used in the sense of the second (as in, 'never come back here, leave immediately, do as I say.' ", but should be checked and/or discussed before removal. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cites are for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg and not Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg not asserted to be independent of Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg. Delete an entry that is not a term, but is merely a part of another term. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, I've added one, but it's only a sentence fragment: Google Books is very restrictive recently and you can rarely get a full sentence out of it (especially with a monster long word like this). It's really making it hard to do Wiktionary work. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Something in architecture. Two senses but I find nothing much in GBooks at all. Perhaps deadlight spelling would have more luck? Equinox ◑ 14:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: The condition of concurrently screaming (in pain) and vomiting, but excluding the cannabis-specific sense 1. @Pingku, you added this. Equinox ◑ 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Equinox. I wasn't really intending a completely separate sense (hence including it in the same line), more something like a type of meronymy. The two are connected by the fact that the symptom is known only from the syndrome. It seemed strange to skip the etymologically more logical sense.

In fact, both senses are awkward to cite, perhaps indicating it's actually colloquial. The quotation of Newport Academy used here talks about "scromiting episodes". This comes a few sentences after a mention of the "syndrome" sense. There's also a mention in a recent New Scientist (here) of "a new word – “scromiting” – describing episodes where people are simultaneously vomiting and screaming in pain." (I might add that this magazine habitually uses what we call mentions to define terms deemed likely to be unfamiliar to the reader.) There is another mention here.

Thanks.— Pingku^dimmi 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In this case I think the "etymologically more logical sense" may not exist (etymological fallacy?): all uses I saw were cannabis-specific. Equinox ◑ 08:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My thinking was/is that "scromiting" looks like a verbal noun (and seems to be made up from verbal nouns), so that's how people are likely to interpret it. Certainly, that's how I read (most of) the uses I found and listed above. I personally distinguish between the syndrome (CHS) and its symptom (screaming and vomiting). This case is possibly unusual because they more-or-less define each other, but I still think the distinction is worth making. More importantly, I think it's a distinction other people would expect and make.

Having said that, I reiterate that I didn't mean to set my addition up definitively as a separate sense. (Otherwise I should have used a separate line. Apologies for the obscure and perhaps idiosyncratic subtlety.) To do so would jump the gun on seeing actual citations (my gold standard).— Pingku^dimmi 11:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In recent years there have been various factoid articles and claims that the Witches' ingredients in William Shakespeare's Macbeth all are various plant names (Example). Notably, "eye of newt" is widely reported to actually mean "a mustard seed", however no sources are ever provided than "ancient/medieval traditions". Some internet forums have already discussed the subject (Example), and most people seem to find no reliable sources for the claim before the 20th century, and even then the claims are likely spurious, coinciding with the increased interest in magic and witchcraft with the various New Age movements in the 20th century. — This unsigned comment was added by 31.205.128.141 (talk) at 21:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC).Reply

@Equinox This, that and the other (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

eye of newt on Wikipedia.Wikipedia is a redirect to Cultural depictions of salamanders on Wikipedia.Wikipedia , which does not mention newt, let alone eye of newt. No other OneLook reference has an entry of any kind. It there is some subculture that uses the term in suitable media, then we should have an entry with a definition that reflects usage. DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The content was removed from WP in October by an IP - probably the same person (both IPs geolocate to Yorkshire). This, that and the other (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I guess I fell for a hoax then. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that this does not mean that "eye of newt" does not mean "mustard seed" per se, since someone could have read those articles and used the term with that meaning in their work. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google Books hits for this are mostly for the entire Macbeth ingredient list. There are a number of metonymic uses of eye of newt to refer to the entire list. And there are allusive uses that draw on Macbeth for the idea of a mysterious combination of strange ingredients. Some uses of the term in this sense are attributive, which is evidence (not conclusive, though) of idiomaticity. There are one or two herbal references that may (no preview) have this, but in lists of ingredient codes. I think we'd have to look to UseNet or to less durably archived sources for more. DCDuring (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the article should stay, if only to serve the purpose of debunking the hoax? --Jtle515 (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there were anywhere sensible to link to, we could put a {{no entry}} linking to wherever it was debunked. (I guess that could be an external link.) - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: Brexit thing. Seems like nonce usage. Equinox ◑ 18:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

By the xertz user. I can only find this in the compounds eassil-gate and eassil-ward (which may be Scots, compare the discussions of easselgate and easselward above). - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

eassel I have only spotted in Walter Scott, in passages which may be Scots and not English anyway. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Plural of gree. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is an etymological definition. The proper definition would be "a flight of stairs". Apparently it's in {{RQ:Bacon Henry 7}} among others. This, that and the other (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, grise is mentioned as a plural Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: 2 mathematics definitions defining the supposed adverb more as an adjective (or perhaps just hand-waving instead of defining), without cites, without references, without any support from any OneLook source, with not very helpful usexes:

1. (algebra) Of a substructure of finite index.

   virtually indicable

2. (topology) Of a covering space of finite index.

   virtually Haken

We should be able to do better. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps @User:Msh210 can help. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping, DCDuring. I've added two cite for each sense and don't have time at the moment to add a third. (Nor to check the CFI to see whether my cites are good ones. As you're no doubt aware, I've been fairly inactive of late; in particular, I haven't kept up with changes to the CFI.) But there are plenty more cites in math papers for each sense, and neither should be deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@User:Msh210 Thanks for responding. You'll be getting the occasional ping for undocumented or incomprehensible (to me) math definitions. Some definitions seem to rely too much on specialized definitions of highly polysemic terms. In the above index is an example. The others seem okay. I don't know whether this index def. covers it: "A raised suffix indicating a power". Even if it does, it does not nicely substitute into the definitions given. DCDuring (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

DCDuring, I've added an {{lb|en|algebra}} sense to ] and adjusted these definitions of ] slightly. I think it's okay now. Please let me know if you disagree.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

My eyes now glaze over at coset, but that seems unavoidable. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This might be unconventional, but I want to request verification of a specific citation for this word. I saw that the OED cites Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, the same as we do, but the OED gives the quotation as "Before the vse of the Compas was knowne, it was impossible to nauigate athwart the Ocean." Perhaps an older version of the OED entry quoted this sentence with "vagitate", but it was since corrected? In any case, the scan of this book at archive.org clearly shows "navigate", which also seems to make a bit more sense in the context. But I want to make sure I'm not missing something that might save this quotation. If anyone wants to look into the other citations, that would also be welcome, since they're pretty obscure and I'm not entirely sure Ian Edge is using it in the same sense or even with the same etymology as the others. Some are also missing page numbers, which would be nice to have.--Urszag (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw something similar when I filed the RFV for endizen. During the preparation of the NED (OED 1st edition) someone must have misread, miswrote or mistyped endenizen as endizen, and the NED ended up with a hapax entry for this verb, which persists in OED Online to this day. However, OED Online has apparently undergone an automated (?) process of updating quotes to reflect the original texts, so that the only supporting quote for the endizen entry actually uses the word endenizen. The same thing has probably happened with vagitate. Unlike endizen, though, this term has a more plausible etymology, which means others have taken it up.

I removed the Raleigh and checked the other quotes:

• The Beckett is a legitimate quote, but I've got no idea what he's talking about. The quote certainly doesn't unambiguously support the given definition, I'll say that much.
• The 1982 text uses "vagitating" but this was changed to "vegetating" in a 2003 republication. The 1982 text uses quotation marks to imply this is a quote from Marx, but the 2003 edition removes the quotation marks.
• The 1987 text seems legitimate. Given the similar subject matter and point of view expressed, I had a suspicion that the 1982 and 1987 texts may have been by the same author, but a list of texts by D.N. Dhanagare doesn't mention any work on Buddhism.
• The law text is a little baffling. Here is the broader context:

  Paul Matthews complains that when the Cayman Islands legislature defines a form of ownership from which humans are absent, it is trying to "Call Sunday, Monday". Anthony Duckworth sums up his rebuttals in a final salvo:

  "We will not mind greatly if Mr Mathews says that a STAR trust is as anomalous as a charitable trust, as strange as a discretionary trust, as weird as an unadministered estate, as bizarre (or nearly so) as a trust for unborn persons."

  These are all instances when English chancery doctrine would allow that some or all of the equitable ownership has disappeared into thin air. Duckworth's point is that the STAR trust merely generalises these English instances. The crucial difference, however, is that in all but one of these English situations, the equitable ownership reappears within at most eighty years: the discretion is exercised, the estate is administered, the unborn vagitate. The exception is the English charitable trust which, like the STAR trust, can exist for ever.

• Here, the word seems to be intended to mean "be born".

I would note that these citations were probably obtained from Quiet Quentin using the default Google Books metadata. PSA to RFVers: please check the metadata before adding a quote - if you don't, you are liable to (a) get the publication years totally wrong, (b) attribute the work of a contributing author to the editor of an edited book, or (c) miss out the author info entirely when it is findable with reasonably easy searching. I know all this takes a little more effort, but it makes the dictionary that much better. This, that and the other (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the "Marx had characterized" cite is most likely a misspelling/typo of a different word and not this word (like e.g. the few books that have reconditing as an error for other editions' reconditioning); "stagnant, unchanging, vegetating" makes more sense there than " stagnant, unchanging, not stagnant, and changing positions a lot". The "unborn" cite seems to intend a connection to vagina ("come out of the/a vagina"?) rather than to vagus, and E. Barry, Samuel Beckett and the Contingency of Old Age (2016), takes Beckett's use to be connected to connected to birth too ("just as Malone fears that he may have “vagitated and not be able to bloody rattle”"), so I think we are left with just one cite that is plausibly for the given etymology/meaning, but two cites that might support a "give the birth cry"-related meaning, as it happens. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@-sche @Urszag It occurred to me that, since Beckett's work was translated from French, the word's sense can be pinned down more firmly. According to (you may need to log into Internet Archive and borrow the book for 1 hour), this passage is a translation of "Avoir vagi, puis ne pas être foutu de râler". The word vagir (“to wail, as a baby”) has been translated as vagitate to maintain the resemblance to vagina. We are to link vagitate to vagitus and vagient, and ultimately to Latin vāgiō.

So we need to go cite-hunting for the "wail" sense I guess... This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh interesting! I had no idea Samuel Beckett wrote that first in French and then translated it to English.--Urszag (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "My head spins like the vagitated gears of a drunken kaleidoscope" cite is ... odd. I confirmed that the edition Google has digitized does have the italicized word vagitated spelled sic. On one hand, is this an error for another word like google:"agitated gears" or "variable gears"? On the other hand ... the text is odd — the next sentences are "Triptic may be an annex, albeit a distant one, of the Alamüte-Megalopolis, but I'm uncertain everywhere ... an empty vessel ... a king's ransom ... a three-legged bitch. The Telos-5200 cruises down the lining of my metal-trousers, conforming to the bent posture of my leg and fastening down its length. It sticks into my groin on recharge like I always imagined hot pokers might feel if carried on the wings of bluebottle flies that live in the folds of an octogenerian's crotch. As I droop in the setting sun, dreaming of the Big Dipper, the ovoid Pox Roman burns into my retina, a memory, recalled from glimpses of recalled posters. Aries is ascendant now, and like Moses, I feel horns mistranslated on my head. The dim, incommoded peacekeepers barter their way around the grafts and chasms that form the looped, meandering people-weave outside "The Tertiary Panel" maingates. In a sense they appear human, but then, in a sense, doesn't everyone ... " — so it's possible the author did pick the ghost word out of a list of obscure words, and while we might need to tweak the definition because "the wandered gears" doesn't sound right, "the randomly moved gears" works, I guess. If this is real, it's apparently a ghost word (originated as an error in the OED). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sense 1 is firmly attested. Sense 2, however, has only 2 cites. This is somewhat problematic, as Samuel Beckett's work is quite prominent and the entry might not be properly comprehensible if sense 2 is not included. I want to leave this open to see if any further evidence can be found for sense 2, but also to decide how to present the entry if sense 2 is not attestable. This, that and the other (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only listed derived term, in the entry or its corresponding category, is -steride. -sterone is listed as an alt form (of -ster-). Does -ster- actually exist as an interfix which is slid between various (other) pharmacology morphemes, or do only the suffixes -steride and -sterone exist? (A lot of pharmacology "interfixes" have derived terms consisting entirely of occurrences as part of one longer suffix, and I haven't had time to figure out if this is because those are the only derived terms the user happened to enter, or because the "interfix" only occurs as part of one suffix.) - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

cholesterol. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The etymology for it seems to be unsupported by the major dictionaries (and one newssite) and the link used to justify the change the etymology is now a dead one. A westman (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I assume you're talking about the links in the edit summary from 2 September 2022, which said "see https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1554/07_Dance_1803.pdf and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-968X.12148_02". But I'm confused, because neither of these links is dead. They should be added as citations.--Urszag (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Methynkes bee thys jvste Midle Englyshe Denazz (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED has three uses from the 1500s, with some interesting spellings. EEBO needs to be searched. This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Internet slang joke of thieving food. See Know Your Meme. Possible hot word as it has apparently been mentioned in the media. Equinox ◑ 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have heard this word, as in the context of things like "You're so Fanum Tax this Rizzmas, you skibidi mewer! GYATT!" CitationsFreak (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Capitalised form. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: Appears to be attested at and . -saph 🍏 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

All senses except the first one. I mean, anyword could likely be used figuratively but not all of them can or should be in a dictionary. I cannot add the template now but I should later. A Westman talk stalk 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There might be a figurative sense that is the obvious extension of sense 1: Something like "To violate a norm." DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: basket. Used by Spenser. spelled haske Denazz (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Hask A Westman talk stalk 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cited, but very likely the non-Spencer quotes are alluding to Spencer. Nevertheless, judging from its use in glosses in 17th c. dictionaries the word seems to have had some currency outside this particular poetic tradition. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Too rare. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 19:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a nonce word. A Westman talk stalk 19:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fancy added by @LlywelynII in 2015. I find it extraordinarily hard to imagine that anyone in England, even an ivory tower scholar writing about architecture or art-history, called a church bell, or a subspecies thereof, a “campana”. Everything else is, after looking into the OED entry, also worse than I have imagined, no uses, only dictionary-type mentions; somebody tried to sneak in what should have been Medieval Latin or Romance as English, this is specifically what I extract from the references added to the church-bell sense, the first of which LlywelynII added to Wikisource, obviously excited about the topic at the time, perhaps without shedding languages correctly. As a name of an exotic flower it would of course be plausible, were it not as easily Drayton’s coinage ("Campana heere he crops”). The vase miscapitalized or catalogue-monster and I am not sure if a good word standalone without “vase” or “form”. Religion makes people hallucinate, bells in particular resonate well in power projection. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I could only barely cite one combined definition ("A bell, or bell-shaped thing") of campane recently. Most of what I can find searching for google books:"campanas and", google books:"campana or" and the like are italicized mentions of campana(e) as a word in Latin or Spanish or Italian, although I can find the occasional non-italicized occurrence which is arguably code-switching:

• 2014 July 14, Carol Lansing, The Florentine Magnates: Lineage and Faction in a Medieval Commune, Princeton University Press, →ISBN, page 206:

  the officer charged with ensuring that the podestà and the capitano del popolo rendered justice to all In case of a major crime, the podestà and the gonaloniere were to ring the campana with a hammer to summon the militia, who would destroy the malefactor's property while the gonfaloniere of the guilds and the guildsmen themselves remained armed and ready (VI, p. 399).

- -sche (discuss) 17:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cant term. I can only find it in dictionaries. There is also a nautical term with this spelling, as well as some kind of bird - both are probably forms of bunting. This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found two cites in 20th century historical novels which are referring to petticoats, but they are (curiously enough) both in a nautical context. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The bird sense is definitely an alternative form of bunting. Some of the birds called buntlings in 19th century books wouldn't be called buntings today, but that says more about changes in ornithology than in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Equinox ◑ 01:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently Middle English and Scots. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some others:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Old_English_Drama/arkvAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=belirt

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionary_of_Early_English/enmvCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/belirt_v?tl=true A Westman talk stalk 17:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the most part I could only find it in old texts (17th century) and dictionaries on GB for early English and "Scottish" (that's what the book called what is presumably Scottish English or Scots)

Found mention(s) at https://www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Fromth_of_the_Lifekin/t2UoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA335&printsec=frontcover]. A Westman talk stalk 16:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Defined Obsolete form of hende. hende is only given as Middle English Denazz (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We used to have an English entry for hende. I've updated hendy. Leasnam (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think sense 2 at sobby is actually a mistake for soggy. Can we find cites that unambiguously demonstrate this meaning? If not, do other dictionaries, particularly the OED, list this meaning? Even if our cites are actually mistakes by the authors, I'd be satisfied that the word does exist if we can at least find it listed in another dictionary. —Soap— 20:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding a third cite, Ioaxxere, but how do we know what it means? I was originally thinking of making this a Tea Room post instead of an RFV, because I could see myself looking at a dozen cites and still not being satisfied, since few if any of these cites are going to use the word and then define it for the readers. —Soap— 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Noun sense: informal: a container or receptacle. The usexes given (with no context) are "car hole" and "brain hole". I can't imagine what kind of container a "brain hole" is; I believe "car hole" is a nonce term from The Simpsons, a joke based on how people pronounce "garage" differently and what else they could call it. So this "sense" looks pretty weak. Equinox ◑ 19:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense:

• One who seeks or is granted honor far greater than their perceived contribution would warrant.

Added in 2007. The sense "One who wishes to be recognized for an idea without putting forth the "ninety-nine percent perspiration" needed to implement that idea" also doesn't have any cites, but it appears to have been waved through RFV at the time of the entry's creation, so I'm not going to insist. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't attest to this term as a derogatory name for India. Search results are mostly for restaurants. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can be found on the Web to some degree (search for "go back to Curryland"), but not in GBooks. I only found a single non-offensive, punning use there (2022, Saras D. Sarasvathy, Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise page 71: "Or maybe what really interests them is theme tours and other travel options to India and the Far East – Curryland Travels?"), where it is used in the context of food, and alongside other puns like "Curry Favor" for a proposed company name. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the supposed quotes are references to brands or mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• We should put a humorous tag on it, not cos cannibalism is funny. P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If no evidence can be found to the contrary, my proposed disposition for these two words is as follows:

• Move underfang to Middle English (title ???)
• Set up underfong as a separate Modern English entry with the sense "(obsolete) To entrap, surround." We would need to work out what the past forms of the verb are.

OED has sufficient cites for this sense of underfong that I believe it would pass. This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This phrase is usually written as two spaced words. In Google Books results, the (rather few) results seem to be hyphenated when you look at the actual page. The same might apply to the Middle English waterchaumbre etymology... Equinox ◑ 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just the one hit Fond of sanddunes (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Three hits in Google Scholar. Two are durably archived journal papers, while the third is this set of Russian conference proceedings which is probably not durably archived for our purposes.

(BTW the def of alveolization could seriously use some improvement; it looks like an authentic SB stab in the dark.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Five verb senses for this extremely rare word! I'm not sure we could find three convincing cites for any one of the senses. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Also the sole current citation (from 1906) is not using the word, but inventing a nonce word to explain the etymology of "suspect".) @Leasnam Equinox ◑ 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED has only the senses "to look at from below" (the wording of our sense 2 needs checking based on any available cites - looking underneath a thing is not the same as looking at that thing from below) and "to fail to notice as a result of looking too low" (both direct parallel to overlook). The other senses are very questionable. This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added various cites I found in Google Books. It's sometimes quite difficult to know exactly which shade of meaning is meant. I suspect some of the senses could be merged. This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Asking for the sense

a napkin for an infant

In both English and Scots.

I wonder if these were added by editors unfamiliar with the term napkin as a euphemism for (and an old-fashioned word for) a baby's diaper; that is, a nappy. The Scots Dictionary cites make much more sense if we're talking about undergarments rather than paper towels or even handkerchiefs. As well, the etymology deriving it from hip makes much more sense if we're talking about something a baby wears rather than something their parents might use to clean their face. Looking for evidence that this can mean specifically the hand napkin and not the undergarment.

Thanks, —Soap— 17:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found this in requests for definitions. I can find no uses. Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term is typically used in relation to Tetris speedrunning. Mentioned here, here, here, and here. Netizen3102 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note existence of related entry hypertapper. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And now hypertap. Equinox ◑ 07:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Something to do with rhetoric. Kiwima (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly a calque from German, based on the Wikipedia page w:wooden_iron. But if so, I think we should list it as wooden iron and make this just an alternate term, assuming it passes RFV. —Soap— 08:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this suggests that sideroxylon appears in the original work of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, but in German. It has plenty of hits in English, but they are all talking about translations of the German writing. The first link mentions one author, F. H. Bradley, who used sideroxylon in English. It may be that the translation is variable, and that wooden iron, ironwood, and sideroxylon are all valid translations of the German Eisenholz (and hölzernen Eisen also exists). I also found this old diff of a second Wikipedia article. —Soap— 09:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only (German?) philosophers would have found paradox in sideroxylon/ironwood/wooden iron. DCDuring (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, this sense is an (learned?) English borrowing of German Sideroxylon, which is a transliteration of an Ancient Greek calque of hölzernen Eisen (supposed to be a vernacular German expression per explanatory footnote in an English translation of The Joyous Science)? Not hard to see why this has not gained much traction in English. DCDuring (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As with go on the Abraham suit: it is hard to find uses, but searching is impeded by many irrelevant hits of the two words happening to be near each other. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 3: "A prequel". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: feels Anglish-y, y'know? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I know how to respond to that. It is a sense listed at Dictionary.com, but I can't say I've heard the word being used that way before, hence this request. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I meant that it feels like a word that was made-up to use only native English. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noun: intelligent person. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Verb: "(internet slang) To assume or be in catloaf position (for cats or other animals)"

Improperly left on an oldish Tea Room page with {{look}}. If such a cite search found evidence for unloaf#Verb, it would be nice to put it on Citations:unloaf. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Listed as a plural of peritonaeum. I could only find German uses on Google Books and added two of peritonaea (I could not find a third; note: not peritonæa). J3133 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only occurrences I found in English papers were citations of German papers. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anything in English? Demonicallt (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Nub098765 (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

All the cites provided have the word in italics. Can we find some without? This, that and the other (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense postposition: (Internet slang, interrogative, often humorous) Used after a noun or noun phrase in isolation to propose that it should happen. Usage examples on the entry for context:

1. The site's all bugged. Fix when?
2. Tank class buff when?
3. My fridge even restocks itself these days. Glorious AI overlords when?

I added this myself, and I'm reasonably certain it's possible to cite since it's been around since the 2000s (possibly the 90s), but Google makes it a real challenge since it's a niche sense of a very common word.

Theknightwho (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand your intent to document a kind of humour that is not obvious to everyone, but calling it a postposition is gross, even if we assume it to be only used in that postponed order, which it isn’t. A decade ago when something was announced on Windows Phone Central there was always someone asking in the comment section, first earnestly and then as a meme: When in India? This is kind of a general phenomenon where one asks something with an implicit assumption that one definitely expects or demands one thing or the other. Like if a politician is asked what he gonna do about X he will rarely be accepted to do nothing, unfortunately. The lexical part here is the order, not a separate sense or part of speech, which I reckon an excuse for including something which cannot be included in a dictionary rather than a grammar. Fay Freak (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak I think you're analysing it the wrong way around: it's a postposition because it is used after the noun it refers to, which is completely abnormal for the word when and would be considered ungrammatical by all speakers in most contexts. It just so happens that when it is used like that, it's semantically restricted to the sense of making a proposal, but that's incidental to whether it's a postposition or not. It clearly derives from the way the usual senses can be tacitly used to propose things, but those don't prevent it being a postposition because it is still being used after its referent; after all, that's precisely what gives it the meme-y, internet-slangy connotations it has in the first place. Theknightwho (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the verbs are implied. Telegraphic style or something. “The fix comes when?” is well-formed, but presupposes a fix and hence implies its demand, though it be of a different rudeness – doesn’t affect its syntactic pertinence. Something about prosodic stress also, which is also manipulated by word order in English but less than in e.g. Spanish or Russian. We cannot create pages for stresses or suprasegmentalia well so far. I don’t see how it isn’t the normal interrogative adverb. You have it the wrong way around to assume its word type from the word order, its function is that. Fay Freak (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak “The fix comes when?” is still using it as a postposition and - importantly - greatly limits the semantic scope + connotation. Theknightwho (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the fact a verb can be implied is relevant here - that's not possible in every context. Theknightwho (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, it is not a postposition, it is an interrogative adverb. If we make a kind of inline survey here, you lose, this is utterly left field. Neither of the two things you call important or relevant is important or relevant. Connotation has to be shed from denotation and is less lexical, may also be borne by tone and word order notwithstanding lexical meaning, and in the same manner whether a verb can be left out depends on whether the context allows to omit specification of the speakers intent by a verb rather than the lexical status of surrounding words. First the intent, then the words, and lexical classes are distinguished by which forms of intent a word expresses: it’s the same whether when is on the end or beginning of the sentence.

You seem to assume that word order is kind of representative of logical classification of words, when only grammar precepts particular to a language community, comprising their suprasegmental and word order features but also pragmatic considerations about when one can omit to express anything, determine their placement. Before the sentence is formed it is already set which part of speech a word belongs to, as a speaker of a language I only juggle around the vocabulary that comes to my mind, estimating the listemic knowledge of my target community for every individual word, to convey my intent, with any abuse by novel combination of the vocabulary I can get away with it; exceptional word order chosen for the meme changes nothing, exception proves the rule, i.e. the preconceived rule of what lexical class a lexeme belongs to: we need to have preconceptions to talk to each other. As in some cases when we really like to make a noun a verb for our particular purpose: then it has the sentence constituent of a verb but will never be such a listeme except on runtime. Production of language is like Tetris with more dimensions and not a strict game of logics. I deny your postposition ever happened, parts of speech are psychological structures to organize listemes and not naively induced from sentences, ergo we have names for them to give hints about them in works about language such as this dictionary, making your idiosyncratic classification as a postposition superfluous rather than necessitated syntactically, since the statement you make does not transparently relate the presented entry to what is previously understood as “postpositions”. Fay Freak (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it is not a postposition (which in linguistics normally refers to an adposition that comes after its complement; if it means something else on Wiktionary, that would be confusing). Rather, it is a non-standard positioning of the interrogative word "when". Compare the less-than-fully-standard (although fairly common) ordering found in "wh-in-situ" questions like "You asked who?" or "They did what?" Or without a verb, we could have phrases like "You told Sandy? Sandy who?" to mean "Which Sandy?": "who" is not a postposition there, despite coming after the name that it asks about.--Urszag (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, this is wh-in-situ combined with an abbreviated style resembling telegraphic style or SMS speak. It does not look like a postposition. If we could find usage like *Let's hope a fix when (intended meaning: "Let's hope for a fix"), that would look more like a postposition, but I find that sentence ungrammatical, unlike the wh-in-situ examples Fix when? and AI overlords when?. (I don't understand Tank class buff when?; the first three words are too polysemous for me to guess the intended meaning.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've convinced me, @Urszag. The interesting discussion of postpositions notwithstanding, I'm not sure whether the connotation indicated, "to propose that it should happen" is strong enough to warrant mention in some form in the entry. I feel that I'd be more convinced of a distinct sense if there were intentionally no question mark (*"Get up lazybones, and make your bed when!"), not just omitted through lack of care, but all three examples include a question mark. —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC))Reply

I see someone has fixed up the part of speech, and someone else has added cites, so AFAICT the remaining question is whether the cites attest this sense as a distinct sense, or whether this is simply the usual sense 1 of when and analogous, as Urszag says, to "You asked who??", "They did what??". - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of further input, I think we may have done as much as RFV can do (cites have been added, and the part of speech has been changed as discussed above). I've made it a subsense of sense 1 so the two senses are at least right next to each other, but I'm inclined to close this RFV and say that if anyone thinks this is purely sense 1 (and should just be merged into sense 1), the Tea Room or RFD may be better venues for discussing that. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hard to search for because there are many spellings, but all I'm finding for tervy is "topsy-tervied" and other hyphenations or scannos. The EDD has two cites but in the spelling tervee (“to struggle, writhe”). The OED does not seem to have two-syllable tervy and only has two one-syllable verbs both spelled terve, tirve, both with definitions rather different from our terve entry, but the only one with three cites (if they're all English and not Scots) is the one we don't currently have, tirve (“strip (of clothes, skin, a roof, etc)”). The OED has one cite of terue terve (“to turn, esp. upside down”): Citations:terve. Separate issue: we derive tervy from Middle English tervien, but the Middle English Dictionary doesn't seem to have that word(?) and the DSL says the Scots cognate tirvie is a "nonce form ad. Mid.Eng. tirve, terve, to turn, overturn, topple over" instead of deriving it from a verb tervien. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The OED derives turvy from terve, turve +‎ -y, with terve, turve derived from Middle English terven (“to throw (something) down; to throw (something) into confusion; to level; to resort or turn (to something); to go, move; to turn; to collapse, fall”) (“terven, v.”, in MED Online, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 2007): see further at topsy-turvy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "that tends to accumulate in the adipose tissue of the body", as distinct from sense 1 "Soluble in lipids, and in organic solvents / dissolving easily in fat". PUC – 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is how it is used of pharmaceuticals. The inference from sense 1 to that sense is not one that normal people make. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 1: "A pollotarian." That's not just anyone who eats chicken; see entry for the special dietary meaning. (Sense 2 could use citations too, of course...) Equinox ◑ 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see 1 GBooks hit. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• There are quite a lot of web hits saying variations of "I hear this a lot but I don't think I've ever seen it written", and that matches my experience - I've certainly heard it, almost certainly used it, but never written it and don't think I've seen it written outside Wiktionary and discussions of English contractions. I'm not up-to-date on how we handle such terms though? Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two senses. Apart from one poetic adjectival cite (Citations:ascian), all the hits seem to be of Ascians, capitalized, as a designation for certain people in some old Greek conceptualization of the world (who because they lived near the equator, did not have a shadow at certain times). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV'ing the English PUC – 12:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is almost universally italicized, which seems to indicate code switching. I think this is probably a French term, and considered as such even in English texts. I found one text that does not italicize the term, but that one leaves many French words unitalicized (and has a French author), so I am still pretty dubious. I would probably move the definition to bed of justice. Kiwima (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Reinstating with some extra citations. This is the normal term in English now; no one uses "bed of justice" anymore. If you read any histories about France or the legal system you will see that this is very common. Ƿidsiþ 08:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(derogatory) A mercenary; a regular or irregular soldier used to oppress a minority, such as in anti-Jewish pogroms; a police officer, particularly one used in strike-breaking; a violent thug." Removed out of process by IP in Special:Diff/77847941. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A transliteration of the Tibetan female given name छोइङ.

That isn't the Tibetan script, so I suspect this isn't a direct transliteration from Tibetan.

A transliteration of the Tibetan surname डोल्मा.

Same issue.

Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English. This form does not seem to be attested (see MED); the c. 1412 quotation uses Modern English spelling. J3133 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "An additional monetary payment charged for a service or good, especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost."

Underlined portions were added is two anonymous edits in late 2022 and seem unwarranted. I also doubt that the term fee is used for charges for goods rather than for professional services or for privileges. I have added two definitions similar to what other dictionaries have as their only senses, which fit with my experience. DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems okay to me: you might book a flight and have smaller additional charges added to it, like a "late booking fee" or a fee for an optional in-flight meal. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

But "late booking" is certainly a privilege. Maybe "in-flight meal" too, though I would like to see examples of that usage. I'm sure we could find instances that fit quantitatively, just as I could find many instances that fit the definition of medium-sized as "of the smallest available size of a packaged good". DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• BTW, Wiktionary's definitions for fee are featured at “fee”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., with the definition in question offered at the top of the list. I'm so proud. Not. DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"What was the fee for your flight?" sounds weird to me; I would expect "cost/price of". Fees are typically small/optional "bolt-ons". Maybe it's British usage. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me too. Also, I don't pay a fee for my groceries, car, gasoline, etc. Is a flight a "privilege"? Are admission fees all small bolt-ons? License fees? Professional fees certainly aren't. I had added a few collocations for the two definitions I added. Economists call everything a price, not a fee, charge, tip, gratuity, toll. But I can't speak to what usage is outside US off the top of my head. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the use of cost in "especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost" goes against the grain for me. Even worse, the NP "underlying cost". "Underlying" what? As an economist I learned that costs were of production and prices were what customers paid or what sellers asked. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think laypeople observe such a distinction between cost and price. Moreover, the type of privilege for which a fee applies, as it is generally understood, doesn't correspond to any sense at privilege, so we need to make the definition more specific.

I came up with these two senses which cover most of it, and which broadly match lemmings:

1. An amount charged in return for permission to do something, especially something ancillary to the purchase of a product or service.

   late fee, booking fee, entry fee, membership fee, drivers' license fee, television license fee

2. A fixed rate or price charged for (chiefly white-collar) professional services.

   lawyers' fees, tuition fee, bank fees

Also, in my mind, the term has mildly negative connotations, which ought to be mentioned somewhere in the entry. (In general we do a poor job at mentioning connotations.) This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consider an advertisement for a business that claims "no hidden fees".

In this case, it does exactly fit this definition. 68.1.207.26 10:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ioaxxere (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can this even be attested in any meaningful way? What would even qualify as use when no definition has been given? And the claim of it being an adjective, let alone a comparative one, is also quite dubious in my opinion. lattermint (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lattermint The word has also been used as a verb, and probably also a noun. There's no meaningful way to attest it, because literally no one knows what it's supposed to mean. I don't know what that's meant to mean we do about it — but it is "a word", and people "use" it a lot, so in my opinion this entry is already fine as it is. When some poor fellow comes looking for what this word means, but can't find it anywhere else, we can tell them it's nonsense and they can move on with their day. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was pretty much my intent when I created the page. I spent a while trying to figure out if it meant anything, and eventually determined it didn't. I made that page to save everyone else from repeating what I did.

I chose adjective based on the usage "You’re so skibidi" quoted at the start of the CBC Kids article, but I don't have a strong opinion here.

I do think the etymology on scibidi is probably spurious: Biser King's "Dom Dom Yes Yes" came out in 2022, but there's an Italian cannabis store called Scibidi that began in 2018. Apocheir (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The store's name (actually Scibidì, IPA^(key): ^*/ʃi.biˈdi/^*) is clearly a reference to CBD (cannabidiol). It would be funny if the YouTube thing was named after (a mispronunciation of) this name... This, that and the other (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• For it not having an agreed-upon definition, my students sure use it a lot. Purplebackpack89 22:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
• FYI, this

Maybe compare shoop ("Used as a scat word in song lyrics"). Equinox ◑ 22:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone here suggested yet that it is simply an intensifier? Er, or at least similar to, like, the f-word which can be added to basically any English word: i.e. (from Twitter) “what the skibidi”, “oh my skibidi”, a skibidi X, i.e. this tweet: “Heard a child playing basketball call another kid quote “a skibidi bitch””, and (less common): "what in the skibidi". The other uses we see seem to just be nonsense; for instance, “You’re so skibidi” appears in the same song as “You're so Fanum tax”: Fanum tax means to steal a portion of a friend's food, which means the phrase “you're so Fanum tax” does not mean anything, perhaps just like calling someone “skibidi”. Generation Alpha seems to use it earnestly as both an intensifier and nonsense word whereas older generations seems to use it “ironically” or more humorously as a nonsense word in contexts where it clearly has no lexical meaning nor value. LunaEatsTuna (talk)

Wikipedia even says: “The slang was integrated into a TikTok meme where words in song lyrics are swapped with various Gen Alpha slang to create a nonsensical result.” If we just ignore the joke uses then hopefully it can be pretty easily defined without overthinking it. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So it is a word which only has connotation, not denotion, innit? Labels but no gloss? Non-gloss. A lexicographic anomality, yet lexical. Fay Freak (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The word hurts my brain. And oh yeah, its lack of a sense is weird too get it har har. @Fay Freak I made some edits and added attests.. would love to have some opinions because I do not know if I did it right. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LunaEatsTuna: It looks intelligent now however. So we aren’t verifying anything anymore; it is what we think and the journalists making stories about its meaning, which they shouldn’t but leave to us, are linguistic punies. I strike it as cited because one can’t, and doesn’t realistically want, to do it better anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've just created the skibidi I think which meets CFI by any reasonable metric. Thus I would Support accepting online quotations for the interjection sense, although I'm not sure about the other POSs. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Before we close this up, can we do something about the etymology on scibidi? It should be obvious that it's just a spelling variant of skibidi, not a separate word, and therefore doesn't really have an etymology. The connection to the Italian cannabis shop is sure coincidence. —Soap— 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

QuickPath is the term for sliding to type on iphones known as Swyping on android, it is helpful for translations to have this term and it is attestable and was deleted prematurely 63.160.115.163 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "QuickPath allows you to zip your finger from key to key to quickly spell words without lifting your finger from the screen." Normally, when you type, you have to tap the letters on the keyboard, but with QuickPath typing, you just need to swipe, QuickPath for Speed and Accuracy To enter text faster and more accurately , use the QuickPath keyboard and slide your finger from letter to letter rather than tap each letter in turn ., Reply

Please see WT:BRAND. We have a very high bar to clear for branding terms like this. This, that and the other (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It clearly meets that standard, used in published works 2600:1700:9758:7D90:4D5:761B:4140:D29D 06:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's not enough. "The sources of these citations: (1) must be independent of any parties with economic interest in the brand, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship; and (2) must not identify any such parties. If the term has legal protection as a trademark, the original source must not indicate such. The sources also must not be written: (1) by any person or group associated with the type of product or service; (2) about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service; or (3) about the type of product or service in general." — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

THe for dummy books are independent of apple, they just write books you can read on nooks, so my head is shook — This unsigned comment was added by 63.160.115.163 (talk) at 02:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC).Reply

The high bar that WT:BRAND creates is really a consequence of this bit: "The sources of these citations: ... (2) must not identify any parties ". Good luck finding a book that mentions QuickPath but doesn't mention Apple. A clear WT:BRAND fail in my view. This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

For Dummies doesn't have economic interest in the brand, merely mentioning Apple is not an endorsement, their economic interest is in guiding people on how to do just about everything. The bar is not as high as you tout. If we do not include emerging technologies then this project will become more and more useless over time and hinder translation consults too. Think about it! — This unsigned comment was added by 63.160.115.163 (talk) at 01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC).Reply

I'm quoting from the first part of the policy text, where the question is not whether the author has an economic interest, but whether the source (the book in this case) identifies any parties with an economic interest. We very rarely accept branded terms precisely because this is such a high bar. Compare Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names – a page which is admittedly the work of a single editor from 2007, but might give you some insight into what we're on about here. This, that and the other (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged by Argie222 but not listed, with edit summary:

although it is a correctly formed term, it is not supported by sources or quotations here on wiktionary (btw, a quick search on google scholar returns only 8 results)

I suspect it will be citeable. Two of the Google Scholar results, at least, appear to be independent uses. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am not aware of the procedure, but since I added the tag, I think it can be removed now that the citations have been added. Argie222 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Argie222 no worries, for future reference, use the little (+) sign to list your request here. There's no rush to close RFVs, so let's leave it open for the requisite month (at least). This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited, albeit barely. Most hits are mentions, and uses are mention-y. Ceteroromantic seems to be used as a synonym. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Supposedly a jocular plural of human. Tagged but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

All three citations use the form methanolics. So they confirm methanolics as a noun, but do not confirm noun use of methanolic. For all we know based on those three quotations, typical usage might be "Compound X is one of the methanolics," rather than "Compound X is a methanolic". (Consider the case of the study of linguistics, which comprises many topics ...yet we don't talk about studying *"one linguistic".) —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC))Reply

Not a valid analogy. Linguistics is uncountable but (the) methanolics is plural, a set of countable things. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

English. PUC – 20:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Slang for "energy". I have seen NRG but I doubt the existence of this form, because lower-case abbrs with a final dot/period are not the kind that work by pronouncing the letters one by one (N-R-G). Equinox ◑ 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Presbyterian equivalent of swim the Tiber, swim the Bosphorus, etc. Graham11 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't seem to find any relevant citations for swim the Bosphorus, either. Multiple Mooses (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anecdotally, I've come across swim the Bosphorus in the wild on more than one occasion, but with a cursory Google search, I'm not turning up any non-online attestations. Graham11 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not dictionary material, I believe. PUC – 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Delete unless it can be shown WT:BRAND is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised you didn't RFD Italian as well. DonnanZ (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's big news, and some day will be remembered far better than the also seminal video game Doom (for which we seem to preserve an entry), but I dunno: it's still a proper noun for a single brand-like system or entity, not a generic thing like the Internet. Weak delete. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't WT:BRAND an RFV question, given it demands (certain kinds of) cites? I admit it would take some extremely creative searching to uncover relevant cites... This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This should pass eventually, and could likely pass now if someone were to search in the right places, though I wont be expending that effort myself so i dont expect others to. All I'll say is that I've seen plenty of nonliteral use such as "the ChatGPT version" and the like. I saw one person using "GPT" for someone who made a bunch of scripted posts on Twitter, which would suggest GPT might be a word too (or maybe we've come full circle and it just means the original sense of GPT), but as other AI bots take off, that one might fall out of use. —Soap— 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep by WT:BRAND. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep by WT:BRAND. This will be an enduring term in AI history - unless the machines wipe us out, that is. -— This unsigned comment was added by Sonofcawdrey (talk • contribs) at 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

• Keep I believe this is becoming genericized short-hand. People now use the term "ChatGPT" to refer to any AI writing tool. Purplebackpack89 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am boldly converting this to an RFV. As @This, that and the other noted, whether WT:BRAND is satisfied is an RFV issue; sentiments like "I've seen plenty of nonliteral use" and "this is becoming genericized short-hand" aren't particularly useful unless qualifying quotations are actually added to the entry. At the moment the citations page contains only possible verb uses of the word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(Japan, slang) Used to denote an unusually high intonation." This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos —Fish bowl (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems to come from this book, which talks about Traveller loanwords in one Irish town. That brings up the question of whether the bilingual mixture quoted is really English, and whether this word can be attested in any other independent source. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 1: (uncountable, law) "The right of a person who is not acting as a sworn law enforcement official to detain a suspected criminal until the police can be summoned." Is it really uncountable? And can it really mean "the right to make an arrest" alongside the arrest itself? I can find very few instances of "citizen's arrest isn't allowed/etc." without an article. PUC – 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC I think this stems from someone originally adding this as the definition back in 2005, and I'm pretty sure it's simply wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce? Denazz (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added two citations (making it three), though the latter seems sorta weak. Nub098765 (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 2. PUC – 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And it's been there since 2007! DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this just a specific example of porn sense 3? Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thryduulf: That would be an argument for construing sense 1 as SOP, but it doesn't explain sense 2. I don't think sense 2 exists at all, though. PUC – 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have lots of terms ("MWE"s) that are arguably SoP that we, in the wisdom of the majority of our active contributors, merit inclusion. The deciding factor seems to be that one of the terms in the MWE is very polysemic and the sense of that term used in the MWE is otherwise not common. In this case, I'm with Thryduulf for sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice we have both food porn and the odd-looking foodporn, which has been strangely labelled as the main variant, but no 'propertyporn' (thank goodness!). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Related: there is an entire genre of actual pornography called "property sex" (which I suppose might be called "property porn" in some places), inevitably beginning with one performer saying something like, "look, I've really got to sell this house, I'll do anything". bd2412 T 04:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Any long or extensive document, publication or printed matter." PUC – 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mynewfiles any evidence for an unambiguously nominal use? This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

On Google, shows up as some kind of weightlifting terminology. On BGC, it appears to be used of rapid or drastic growth, similarly to rocket up. Neither of them suggests this "to arrange in a pyramid" sense is what is actually used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This entry is just misconceived. We already have pyramid#Verb, so the example given in this challenged entry "The boxes were pyramided up to the ceiling" means they were pyramided (all the way) up to the ceiling. It's not "pyramid up". If the boxes were "pyramided next to the exit" we wouldn't want an entry for "pyramid next". Equinox ◑ 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

One can say, The boxes were stacked up to the ceiling, in which I interpret stack up as an English phrasal verbs with particle (up).

Is the following exchange grammatical?

DA: When you entered the garage and saw the boxes, how high were they pyramided up?

Witness: All the way to the ceiling.

I don't think one can have,

DA: And where were they pyramided next?

Witness: Right to the exit.

The question is grammatical if next is not a particle but an adverb of sequentiality, but then the answer makes no sense,  --Lambiam 19:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

By far the most uses found have something to do with either a sense related to bodybuilding/strength training, or one related to stack trading, where one can also pyramid down. There are uses, though, for a sense of “stacking up”:

• Ulysses G. Stewart, Jr. "Problem—With a difference". Army Information Digest, March 1957, vol. 12, nr, 3, page 36.

  Then boxes were pyramided up a few more feet.

• Memo (?), Date: 2/9/91; From: Jimmy Carter; Subject: Presidential Inauguration in Haiti February 7, 1991. (scanned by the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum) (54MB)

  The huge cathedral was packed to the rafters with celebrants, and people were pyramided up against the windows outside, striving for a glimpse of President Aristide. After he and former President Trouillot finally received communion, we moved to the palace for his inaugural address.

• Dean Stiglitz, Laurie Herboldsheimer (2010). The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping.

  Bait the bees by “pyramiding up” the frames when adding boxes.

 --Lambiam 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I have added a sense for the bodybuilding meaning, as well as pyramid down. Mazzlebury (talk)

Eating noise "usually seen in the phrase om nom nom". Needs evidence of being used alone, without nom, else this should be removed. Equinox ◑ 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A horrendous entry that has sat essentially untouched since 2008. The Middle English is not in question (Chaucer used this form) but everything else is. This, that and the other (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Misspelling or a variant? The word is Rachmanism, after the name of the landlord Peter Rachman. — Paul G (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps by confusion with rack rent, "an excessive rent". Equinox ◑ 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Euphemistic form of bitch." Green's has an entry for biff as an alt form of biffer which has a listed meaning along the same lines ("an unpleasant, unattractive and/or promiscuous woman"), but Green's doesn't make any explicit to connect bitch as currently claimed in the entry. — This unsigned comment was added by The Editor's Apprentice (talk • contribs) at 07:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

Not heard of it, but I wonder if it might be AAVE, like bih. Adding the /f/ sound there doesn't take much (I remember being told that a sloppily speaking Finn might sound /f/ in e.g. tuhma). Equinox ◑ 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had the same thought, I wasn't previously familiar with bih so the comparison that came to mind to me was ahh, but the principle is the same. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've haven't looked too hard because false positive hits for the name Biff (which we seem to be missing) makes searching annoying, but I did find this tweet describing biff as a "just 'Bitch' with a lisp." —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

English. Only quotation given is in Middle English. -saph 🍏 17:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(It appears that the challenged sense is the adverb one: “In a backwards direction.” — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC))Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

For reference, the definition currently in the entry is "A style of writing used by commercial large language models (LLMs), characterized by obstinate neutrality, bothsidesism, and clichéd concern for balance, safety, and respect." It seems like a better definition would be just "pablum; language which is (characterized by) pablum": it is not limited to LLMs, and I also don't see how "obstinate neutrality, bothsidesism, and clichéd concern for balance, safety, and respect" has been derived from the one short cite provided. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The house sparrow". Apparently originated from The Century Dictionary and was copied into the NED, but the OED has removed this sense and now has an etymology note stating: "the only evidence of use appears to be in A. J. Thébaud’s allegory The Twit-Twats (1881), in which Twit-Twat is the proper name of a family of sparrows rather than a general term". — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The production of gold". Appears to be a real term, however, meaning "converting coal into synthetic solid fuel". Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone found a source. Don't recall if that's where I got it. kwami (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The production of silver". Both this and solifaction were created by @Kwamikagami which could bear on Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Revoking autopatrolled status from Kwamikagami Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

How would it bear on that? WK entries do not require sources. That's only required when they're challenged. kwami (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to find this term in GB. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't know where I came across it. I found both words when researching alchemical symbols, noticed they weren't in Wikt and so added them, but didn't keep a note of where I found them. kwami (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone found a source for lunifaction. Don't recall if that's where I got it, so can't be positive the 'a' was a typo, but I moved it to the attested spelling. kwami (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The standard term is Lüders band, named after W. Lüders. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

word was coined by an artist to describe his work. Term is not used reliably. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WomenArtistUpdates There are three book quotations supplied in the entry, which appear on their face to support the inclusion of the term (WT:CFI). Are you asserting that these quotations are not independent or otherwise somehow unsuitable? This, that and the other (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi This, that and the other, Yes I am asserting that the quotes are from unreliable sources. Artists describing their own work as a style. “Oz Van Rosen Featured In Group Show At The Whiteroom Gallery”, in The Southhampton Press - interview. "Goldberg will give a brief introduction to Techspressionism" “Mountain Monday’s presentation on ‘Art, Technology, and Emotion: Techspressionism’”, in The Sierra Sun - Not reliable. Churnalism. Thanks for considering deletion. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@WomenArtistUpdates Here at Wiktionary we don't have a notion of "reliable" sources as such. That is a Wikipedia concept. The fact that Van Rosen described her own work as Techspressionism isn't important for lexicographical purposes. What matters is that (a) she used the word, and (b) this use has been recorded in what appears to be a durably archived source (I can also find it in this print magazine).

Having said all that, it would be ideal to find some stronger attestations of this word, and I am not at all sure that this will be possible. The only available Google Books result is already in the entry, and the Google Scholar papers are low-quality and possibly not durably archived for our purposes. Issuu looks like the most promising source, but I haven't investigated closely. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi This, that and the other, I appreciate the clarification on the lexicographical usage being a criterion. Would these be considered additional relevant attestations?

WIRED - https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/

PBS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVYs5cz_0-I

Southampton Arts Center - https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism

27 East - https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/

East Hampton Star - https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology. Thank you, Colin Goldberg // Scribe1791 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The user who created it was called "Techspressionist", usually a bad sign! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:21A5:52EA:1986:CA72 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An unstable company and unproductive profession of abstract goods.

Initially added by @RandalKeithNorton using English templates, but with the claim it's a Yiddish word borrowed from German. Given it has one quotation already - in English - I'm going to assume it's supposed to be under English, and that it's a borrowing of German Luftgeschäft. The real Yiddish term appears to be לופט געשעפט (luft gesheft).

The definition probably needs clearing up, too. Theknightwho (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed the issues by cleaning the definition, and added relevant quotes to show its use. RandalKeithNorton (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a YouTube quote dated "2024 June 1" (!). Seems a bit dubious. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is probably attestable as Dryghten, but the lowercase cannot be found in Modern texts. This, that and the other (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Separate from the capitalization, I wonder if this could just be regarded as an alternate spelling of Drighten / drighten, and if so, whether our etymology of that word needs to be synchronized with this one. We say drighten has unbroken usage since OE times but that dryghten is a learned borrowing. Could it be instead that the -y- spelling is a variant of the more established spelling, in the same style as words such as magick and faerie? —Soap— 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Transitive, figurative: "to surprise by sudden or deft action." This cannot be the "spring a surprise on somebody" sense, because you don't surprise a surprise. Here we must be springing a person. Equinox ◑ 04:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was added in diff; @LlywelynII, can you help cite it?
It was initially as a 'supersense' covering what are now the following two senses, which were initially given as one subsense of this: "To come upon and flush out; (Australia slang) to catch in an illegal act or compromising position." That Australian sense does have cites where you "spring him". But now that "To come upon and flush out." has been separated into its own sense, I'd also like to see more cites of it, frankly; the one cite currently provided seems mentiony and it's unclear that it's using "spring" as opposed to treating "spring a plant" as an idiomatic phrase. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

All would've been OED. Like you pointed out, there are already abundant cites for the subsenses here. If y'all disagree with their particular wording or my paraphrases of them, esp. of the supersenses, that's fine. We're our own thing and you can rephrase/reorganize to your liking. — LlywelynII 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

For sense 4, which describes a hexagram (or Star of David).

While there are indeed pentacles on the Wikipedia page with six-pointed stars (and one on our entry too), I dont believe that pentacle is the term for the star in the drawing, but rather the term for the drawing as a whole.

We probably should add a new sense, perhaps a subsense of the first sense, describing a handheld object used by occultists that most often features a star design, often but not always with a five- or six-pointed star. —Soap— 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

How would the proposed new sense differ from that of a talisman?  --Lambiam 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been too busy lately. I'd like to clarify that the new sense would be categorically a subsense of the first, whether we list it as such or not, so it's already covered. We just don't have it in detail. Anyway, I still think sense 4 may have been a mistake. —Soap— 20:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In regards to the "alien" sense. This seems to refer to a 2012 meme, but I couldn't quickly find evidence of usage beyond a) referring to the meme itself, or b) as in, "aliens would say 'ayy lmao'". The possibility that it's synonymous with "alien" seems farfetched. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be an in-term mainly in certain online game communities, especially XCOM and Terra Invicta. There are sporadic uses elsewhere, such as this fic which doesn't seem to belong to those universes. This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Equinox ◑ 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can we find enough citations to keep this obsolete and obscure term? Kiwima (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a related noun quotic too! Equinox ◑ 14:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "A translation or substituted phrase deemed better than the original." Equinox ◑ 09:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This entry currently has three senses:

1. country of India
2. (historical) official name of Mughal Empire in Arabic language.
3. Al Fatawa Al Hindiyyah: A 17th century book of Hanafi jurisprudence, compiled in Sultanate Al Hindiyyah during the reign of emperor Aurangzeb.

I can't find any evidence for the first or third, the second (as written) is not English by definition. Theknightwho (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dig or burrow beneath; undermine. I think this definition may have been a guess. There is not much for "underrooted", "underrooting" etc. in GBooks but it seems to refer to inadequate root formation (of plants): see underrooted. (I moved the citation there from underroot since it cannot mean "undermine"!) Equinox ◑ 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found very little support for the existing definition. One cite (on citations page) could support a metaphoric version of that definition (to undermine), but only one. I did add some clearly supported definitions, and put some other citations on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Internet slang: To begin participating in a circlejerk again." Equinox ◑ 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere I see you've added some. (Is Reddit actually valid for citations now? I can't keep up.) I see a mixture of transitive and intransitive (i.e. I am rejerking, vs. a topic is being rejerked) so apparently there is more than one sense. Equinox ◑ 08:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: We do on a case by case basis. I would Support accepting the Reddit quotations as rejerk and its abbreviation /rj are actually pretty widespread across a variety of Reddit communities. Admittedly, the term is pretty much never used outside Reddit, so I would understand if others decide to delete it. Also, thank you for adding the other sense! Ioaxxere (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: Still got the issue that the citations with "it was rejerked" and "rejerk that shit" are transitive uses, so the definition "begin to participate" does not fit. Equinox ◑ 15:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A rich person who has flown to outer space. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could be an emerging word, in view of current technology, but I don’t find it at all. @Sbb1413, recently having created it, have you heard it somewhere? Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I first heard the term, it was already a very popular term in space exploration, as rich people like Bezos and Branson were flying in space with their own money. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: (figurative) To be mentally exhausted. Becoming weary of trials.

Binarystep (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Names of asteroids in English. Einstein2 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three comments to make here:

1. It's worth reminding everyone that there is no figurative use requirement for names of asteroids, as they fall under the exemption for "minor planets" at WT:CFI#Celestial objects. We only need to find three uses, even if literal.
2. Surely these entries should be moved to Translingual. As I understand it, these are the official, worldwide names of these celestial bodies.
3. Do cites where the name is preceded by the systematic number count towards attestation of the name alone? To take one example, the entries 257261 Ovechkin and (257261) Ovechkin are not eligible for inclusion under our policy, but one could argue that any usages of these systematic names count as usages of Ovechkin, the number being a non-lexical element.

This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited Mr. Spock with three literal uses in books. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Bleached yarn in making the linen tape called inkle; unwrought inkle." I can find instances of spinel being used in discussing yarn (see the cites page), but it's not clear to me that they mean this as opposed to being a dialectal pronunciation spelling of "spindle" or, as one reference I found says it meant in Old English, a word for the amount of yarn that fits on a spindle. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I found one cite which uses it in the definition of inkle (which is very "mention-adjacent" but technically counts as a use, I think). - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(temporal location) At daytime." Maybe this is very common and I'm just forgetting the obvious way it's used, but at the moment I'm only calling to mind the other sense, "(duration) From sunrise to sunset." - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

In contrast, I'm confused by the definition "from sunrise to sunset". Dawn, as typically defined, starts a bit before sunrise, when the sky starts to lighten. Is "from dawn to dusk" anything more than a SOP expression anyways? I would interpret it as just meaning exactly what it says.--Urszag (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

from dawn till dusk is common enough too. Even from dawn until dusk, if you like. Any reason why we would have the "to" version but not the others? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added three cites, but one of them is hyphenated, and the other two occur at line breaks, which means the authors might also have intended them to be hyphenated. Kiwima (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tree of the Philippines. Tagged by DCDuring but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

... of species Pterocymbium tinctorium. Lots of snippets, mentions, and verbatim repeats of the surrounding text. But used in reference to trees of different genera (eg, Ailanthus, Gyrocarpus, ), not necessarily synonyms. Apparently a Tagalog word, but we don't have a Tagalog entry. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A kind of French hoe." Tagged by an IP but not listed. The first few pages of GBooks results italicise the word. This, that and the other (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(Taixuanjing tetragram) 𝌇". "Full circle" is evidently the name of the tetragram, but I'm not sure if this is worthy of a definition in Wiktionary. Is this an RFV or RFD argument? Now that I've asked myself, I'm not sure. Anyway, here it is. This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this was the name of an actual tax somewhere in the world, you would expect to find plenty of evidence for it, as taxes are a much-discussed topic in published literature. However, most of the online uses refer to taxes in countries where the initialism GST expands to "goods and services tax", making this name a misnomer. If this term is only used as a misnomer, we should say so in the definition.

The only 20th-century uses in Google Books are Australian statistical publications, which are apparently using the term not to refer to a specific tax, but to the various goods taxes and sales taxes in place across the country, in which case the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Initialism of goods and sales tax. (state of Victoria in Australia, formerly in Canada)". As above. It's worth noting that I'm from Victoria and have never heard of this, although given the introduction of a federal Goods and Services tax in 2000, it would be before my time if it did exist. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A meme.

Rfv-sense "Yellow". I can find mentions but not uses, but it's hard to search for. I put what I could find at Citations:meline and Citations:melline: there seems to be a noun mel(l)ine that refers to something used in bouquets: ribbon? a plant? - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it exists at all as a colour, it's probably from melinus, with the meaning 'quince-yellow'. Perhaps it can also refer to a 'quince plant'? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm challenging the (rfv-sense) "compare American English bresk, brusk 'fragile, brittle'" thing under Ety 2 of brash. This was added in 2013, apparently copied from the 1913 Webster's which had just aged out of copyright. "Bresk" and "brusk" are links, but they don't link to any such word or sense, and I've certainly never heard these words or senses as a lifelong Yank. JonsonMaclean (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, probably dialect from some particular state. Your "lifelong" doesn't cover 1913 I imagine :) Equinox ◑ 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree it should be marked with the state or region of origin and/or marked as obsolete, unless it can't be attested. JonsonMaclean (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now brash has three citations: 1 "brash wood" and 2 "brash timber". You seem to be challenging the etymology here, so RFV isn't really the right venue. Google Books has no results for "bresk/brusk wood/timber". Equinox ◑ 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(colloquial) (often as "absolute torture") Stage fright; severe embarrassment." Can this safely be grouped under "figurative use: unpleasant sensation" (along w/ boredom, heartache, etc.), or are there circumstances where "absolute torture" communicates information about the nature of the discomfort to wit stage fright that could not be deduced from context? — This unsigned comment was added by Winthrop23 (talk • contribs) at 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

Sense 2: "masochistic". In GBooks I can find for example "masochistic suprasensual play" but this does not mean they are synonyms: on the contrary, the use of both words together suggests they are not (or else such use could be redundant). Equinox ◑ 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

So the confusing thing here is that "suprasensual" is the word Leopold von Sacher-Masoch invented to describe his own sexuality. I think the quote here means something like "suprasensual in Masoch's sense". I can find plenty of cites, but the majority are analysing Masoch's writing (mainly Venus in Furs) or Deleuze's essay about Masoch:

• 2001, Kriss Ravetto, The Unmaking of Fascist Aesthetics, U of Minnesota Press, →ISBN, page 220:

  While in Pasqualino's sexual imagination woman represents suprasensual sexuality, promising excessive pleasure, his actual sexual coupling with the commandant, this monumental image of woman, transforms into the opposite of sensuality, becoming what Deleuze calls supercarnal, that is, sadistic and cruel.

• 2020, Jonathan Faiers, Fur: A Sensitive History, Yale University Press, →ISBN, page 182:

  Severin, the European nobleman in Venus in Furs who desires to be enslaved to a woman, describes himself as a suprasensual person.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Sense 2 "(mathematics) Expressed in terms of a power of e."

Is this unambiguously attestable as distinct from sense 1 "Relating to an exponent."?

See also: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#exponential. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reading this definition closely, I don't think this sense can be attested separately from sense 1, or at least I haven't seen and haven't succeeded at finding any such uses. On the other hand, I think this sense is trying to get at a different use of "exponential" which we currently don't cover: probably something like "of or relating to the exponential function."

To give just one concrete example, in the study of Lie groups, there is a particular map called the "exponential map" (notated ${\displaystyle \operatorname {exp} }$); when Lee (in Introduction to Smooth Manifolds) defines the exponential map (a rather abstract definition involving no exponents), he offers the following comment on its name:

The results of the preceding section show that the exponential map of GL(n,R) (or any Lie subgroup of it) is given by ${\displaystyle \operatorname {exp} A=e^{A}}$. This, obviously, is the reason for the term exponential map.

Other examples include "exponential order" (in asymptotics; almost always defined in terms of a exponential ); "the exponential series" (the series expansion of the exponential function); "exponential window" (in statistics; almost always defined in terms of a exponential); etc. Of course we also have "the exponential" or "an exponential" for ${\displaystyle e^{x}}$ and ${\displaystyle e^{ax}}$ (as function), respectively.

Part of the reason these senses are muddled is that when mathematicians are dealing with the class of functions of the form ${\displaystyle a^{bx}}$ (which is rather often), it doesn't really matter what ${\displaystyle a}$ is--in fact, without any loss you can always force ${\displaystyle a}$ to be e just by scaling ${\displaystyle b}$ by ${\displaystyle \log _{a}(e)}$. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say that base e can be mentioned as a particular important special case of the general principle, either on the one definition line, or as a subsense. However, is present sense #1, "Relating to an exponent", supposed to be only the mathematical sense, or could it conceivably apply to any other senses of "exponent"? If the former, it should be labelled as such. In the mathematical sense, I'm not clear whether "expressed in terms of a power (of anything)" is usefully distinct from "relating to an exponent or exponentiation". This distinction, if it exists, exists irrespective of the base, I suppose? Mihia (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Replying to Winthrop as well) I think I agree with both of you. I think def 1 (Relating to an exponent) can refer to the non-math meanings of exponent too, so we'll have to look to the present defs 2 & 3 for the maths definitions. Leonhard Euler, standing on the shoulders of Newton and others, is arguably the best-ever mathematician and (like Newton and da Vinchi) a good engineer too. (We engineers also love him because Euler is homophonic with oiler.) As an example, he derived the equation ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0}$, in which he had invented the concept of e, had invented the name for the Newtonian concept of i and popularised the use of π for its Ancient Babylonian concept (previous use by a Welshman and an Englishman had been ignored). e is a fantastically useful number for use in many proofs, since it simplifies many formulae -- which is why, along with log (or log₁₀) and exp on a math calculator, you will find ln (or log_e) and e. So yes, exponentiation is often done to base e, but certainly not always. I suggest altering #2 to read "# (mathematics) Expressed in terms of a power of a base, often 10 or e". Def #3 should then be left as is, since it makes a reasonable attempt to explain the effects of its use in non-mathematical jargon which, with the help of its example sentence, it achieves. No one ever mentions that, between exponential exponential growth 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256... and exponential decay 256, 16, 4, 2, 1.4, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0 lies exponential constancy, where the exponent is 1 and so the value never alters 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.... And those who think exponential means something is of growing severity might also be confused that exponential decay starts by "falling off a cliff" then gradually levels out, never quite crashing. --Enginear 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made that change to #2, and also added a couple of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

• I'm gonna say now that sense 2, the mathematical sense about "expressed in terms of a power", is verified, and I have transferred the "RFV" label to sense 1, the generic "Relating to an exponent" sense, so the goal now is to find examples (mathematical or otherwise) that fit sense #1 but are not sense #2. I have also tried to work the word "exponent" into def #2, so that if #1 is removed, the entry will still prominently mention that word, so as to illuminate the connection. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(slang) A long rant that serves no purpose." I can see some Web hits along the lines of "I did not order a yappuccino" (perhaps used when your barista is too talkative?). But seems like a protologism. Equinox ◑ 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The given references do not necessarily seem to use the word with the definition given. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "an extension to ethnography that deals with meta-ethnicity". I have just added the more widespread sense. Einstein2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does this exist outside of The Broadway Melody? Binarystep (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Word-lists/dictionaries only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited, although the 1901 quote is a satire of verbose language. Einstein2 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is adventurous and free-thinking." (See below.) - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is hardworking and dutiful." Last November, an IP added these two senses, plus "Someone who is an emotional thinker" to diplomat. I initially removed that last one, but now wonder if these are actually used in some specific taxonomy (a la "love languages", MBTI, etc). - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it looks like it's an MBTI thing. Can't find evidence of it being used in a non-mention-y sense. The closest I can think of is "sentinel" and "guide" from fan fiction (derived from the TV series The Sentinel, a sentinel is a hyperfocused character who zones out from reality, a guide is the sidekick who helps the sentinel stay connected to the rest of the world - these would I think be valid entries, but hard to durably cite). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shakey-only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Plural seems to be findable in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A type of moth. Singular noun, so apparently one would be "a triangles". Equinox ◑ 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An image conclusively shows that triangles is an apt name. DCDuring (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The actual usage seems to be of "(the) triangles moth (is...)", as opposed to just "(the) triangles (is...)". Most websites using "triangles" alone are Wikipedia mirrors, or probably following Wikipedia. Difficult to formally attest either way. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The triangle moth is a different species: Heterogenea asella.

I found one in a book on South African lepidopterans, but doubt there are others that are durably archived. DCDuring (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 3: a (small) dog. Must be cited distinct from sense 2, "one who yaps", though that sense 2 has a citation about dogs already... Equinox ◑ 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe that interpretation came from this, which Mike L. Reed specifically calls a Tiny Yapper. Khemehekis (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good luck finding 3 quotes P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(For some reason Geographyinitiative withdrew their comment here.) There are only 2 independent uses available at this time: Citations:intercessionate. This, that and the other (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV two noun senses:

• Price.
• Cheapness; lowness of price; abundance of supply.

  The cheap of this book is incredible.

Do these exist, or at least need to be labelled obsolete or something? To me, "The cheap of this book is incredible" is not intelligible English. Can't see anything for "the cheap of" in Google Book Search, other than red herrings. Mihia (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Wikimedia jargon adjective. Referring to indefinitely blocked users as "indef" (as opposed to "indeffed", which is definitely real) is not something I've seen in years of Metapedian Wikipedia editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 1 ("Characteristic of, or suffering from, citogenesis"). I can find a bunch of sources using this term in a medical context (for which I added sense 2), but none talking about citogenesis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(Internet, Wikimedia jargon) Initialism of new entry created." * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A topology name." Added with a doi link in the edit summary in diff, which points to a paper titled 3D Covalent Organic Framework with “the” Topology, where it is non-obvious that quotation-mark-enclosed "the" is anything other than the normal article set apart for emphasis or to call it into question, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know nothing about this topic, but just glancing through the paper , one can see that the is put in bold in various places, apparently in parallel with other three-letter combinations, so I would imagine that the letters "the" stand for something, and are put in quotes in the title to show that it isn't the definite article. Mihia (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The presence of the collocation "The the-c network" pretty much rules out emphasis as an explanation. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citability aside, the definition is far too vague to be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to that paper, there are "3561 structures provided in the Reticular Chemistry Structure Resource (RCSR)", each of which, as far as I can gather (someone correct me if I'm wrong!), corresponds to one of these codes such as "the". Unfortunately, the view onto "RCSR" that I found at does not seem to explain how these codes, "the" in particular, are derived. gives a few explanations, such as "dia" = "diamond" and "bct" = "body-centered tetragonal". Would we want to list all 3561, even with more useful definitions? Mihia (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

English PUC – 21:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense biology P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find musth by itself to refer to the animals, seems to always come with "elephant", "bull", "male" or something Justin the Just (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found two uncertain possibilities in GBooks, but the snippet view is so stingy now that you can't really see enough to cite unless you are able to progressively guess further words and include them in your search:

* 1967, Natural History (volume 76, page 42)

*: the musths. It is common knowledge among handlers that male elephants have periodic fits of madness and that they are extremely obstreperous and dangerous at these times. A male in such a condition is called a musth elephant

* 2006, Lisa Karen Yon, An Investigation of the Adrenal and Gonadal Hormones of Musth in the Bull Elephant (page 12)

*: musths are those with more pronounced physical and behavioral characteristics (more and longer lasting TGS and UD, more displays of aggression).

Equinox ◑ 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2006 one starts with "(or more intense)" Justin the Just (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can read the whole 1967 quote at IA here. I think it's a valid cite of the "elephant in musth" sense, but the second one is not. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The meaning of “the first officer told us about the musths” in the 1967 cite can well be, “the first officer told us about the periods of aggressiveness male elephants undergo from time to time”.  --Lambiam 04:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: An atheist who takes the nonexistence of gods on faith. Saviourofthe (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk: OED has this under intrince. Two quotations: the first is the one already in the entry from King Lear, and the second is from the preface of an 1895 edition of A Midsummer Night's Dream ("a knot too intrinse to unloose")—seems like the latter might just be a paraphase of the passage from King Lear. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Shakey? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk: also in {{RQ:Marston Scourge of Villanie}} and {{RQ:Jonson Cynthia's Revels}} (both spelled intrinsecate). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks in advance for adding the quotes. P. Sovjunk (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk: oh, I wouldn't want to deprive you of the pleasure of doing so. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Verily, I yearne to be depriven. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense" (obsolete) (common hogweed) (Heracleum sphondylium), of western Eurasia and north Africa.

I have not found this sense in the 19th century. I have found hogwort and Heracleum sphondylium occurring near each other in botany book listing and indices because hogwort is the vernacular name for Heptallon graveolens, syn. of Croton capitatus ("hogwort"). DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not much. Would be obsolete anyhowP. Sovjunk (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's a Shakespeare use and this Harper's use, if anyone can find a third (and if we take the Harper's use to be this sense and not "jade jewellery"). - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

On old English maps (i guess, based on Buache or before him) there are given "disgorgement of the ice", meaning that there is no ice or that there is a passage in the ice sheet of Antarctica. It is correct use of this word? — This unsigned comment was added by Tollef Salemann (talk • contribs) at 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Tollef Salemann: I don't think it's correct to define it as a passage. It probably means that the ice has been discharged from the area in question just as food is disgorged from someone's throat or stomach, so it's just a use of sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rare as hell. this quote is perhaps usable. OED has an entry I can't read. There's smatterings of old alt-sps like kymnele in Middle English too P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk: I can tell you there are quite some up to the 19th century, enough so they cut it off, though varying in spelling and normalized in Webster 1913, metathetical n←→l to what we lemmatize kemelin. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"To actualize the order and size of parts of without being required a particular one." This doesn't really make grammatical (or other) sense to me. Is it something like "self-identify"? Equinox ◑ 18:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: No. You know I am not into tribal politics, I have espoused cognitive psychology. It is, inter alia, retelling things without being prompted a certain sequentialization. You might see from the quoted study about police questioning, or a whole handbook of memory, police questioning, ASD and the law that the typically developed mind’s recalling capabilities are skewed in favour of relational memory and to the disadvantage of item-specific memory if juxtaposed with an autistic control group, as a consequence of the latter’s attention atypicalities.

The cognitive interview then, for example, has the neurotypical bias of attempting to elicit the temporal and spatial layout of the crime scene from witness’ memories instead of retrieving details that can later be put together (and help NT witnesses recall more related details), which the study authors exploited with post-it notes, and capitalism does in the form of shiftflation (without the term being created because this seems to be but employed by single German economist thus far), shifting the value added in economy to consumers who are doing part of a previous job: like back in the day at petrol stations you got a handyman to top up your motorcar and now you have to do it yourself, but this is mitigated by reason that on the other hand reordering data entered for use of mainly the neurotypical mind can be taken over by machines, as in the example quoted from the Federal Register concerning customs declarations filled by travellers. You see the same process on Wiktionary where data passed in quotation templates is displayed uniformly in the output, with the detail however that I just give the parameters impulsively in random order while you probably follow a script to jot them down, in an order that is intuitively logical to you!

Maybe we see in the misunderstanding of the definition how super-distressed NTs are by seeing data scrambled against expectation or even by this being admitted.

If the definition is shifty enough, you see exactly why we need a dictionary entry. That the original author’s definition be comprehensible without context is a requirement naturally imperfectly met for a term described just after having been encountered by him in technical contexts. The correct template is {{rfclarify|en}}. I am not done with and just started the reframing surely.

Try to define cognitive interview along the way, it is obvious here why I should not do it. Fay Freak (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The two quotes seem to be for totally different senses - the second one, about passports, is clearly just "segment oneself" (with the help of a web service, the travelers segment themselves according to passport/visa/customs status). The first one seems to be just "to segment something oneself" - it's never used without "memory" (or a synonym such as "the to-be-remembered event") as the subject - I'm willing to be convinced it's a term of art in interviewing, but it would take citations unrelated to this particular study. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smurrayinchester: Thanks for having an argument. So you think it would be absolutely necessary to distinguish transitive and intransitive uses? In my view in transitive verbs one can just leave out an implied object. I have another intransitive one about amoeba regrowing, or what one thought about it in 1883, to get our biologists into the boat.

1883 November 10, C. M. Campbell, The British Medical Journal‎, page 953b:

To say that, in the higher forms of life, “it would be to the advantage of the offspring” that it was preceded by union of the parents, is misleading; because, except in some articulata, no offspring is possible without it. We might as reasonably say that it would be to the advantage of a picture that the production was preceded by an union of colours and canvas. When Dr. Shelly says, “should it ever be found that a virgin female—say amongst higher mammals even—had produced young without possibility of any previous sexual intercourse, this would not prove any break of contuinity in the laws of nature and of evolution,” he is wise to use the “if.” For we might say exactly the same “if” an amputated leg grew into a man, in accordance with the tendency of the self-segmenting amoeba.

Back to typically developing humans forming groups:

2020 August 10, Dana Mowls Carroll, Rachel L Denlinger-Apte, Sarah S Dermody, Jessica L King, Melissa Mercincavage, Lauren R Pacek, Tracy T Smith, Hollie L Tripp, Cassidy M White, “Polarization Within the Field of Tobacco and Nicotine Science and its Potential Impact on Trainees”, in Nicotine & Tobbaco Research‎, volume 23, number 1, →DOI, pages 36–39:

We encourage methods that promote a platform for all viewpoints, not just polarizing views, to be heard. Researchers self-segmenting into smaller, niche conferences or organizations that only highlight one perspective are a disservice to the field and have the potential to undercut public health.

If we chop up senses by our own perceived specification too much, we won’t have anything believable, thrice cited or not.

I admit that yesterday I just wrote something from the first two interesting ones and then went to eat, assuming nothing evil.

@Kiwima help. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me like self-selection into segments or groups. (The Ameba quote is a clearly different meaning of segmenting itself into parts). Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have went through the 46 ScienceDirect hits for "self-segment" and I now assume that the senses of self-segmenting upon being questioned in whichever kind of survey or inquiry are derived from marcomms. The use for the WAFA technique of witness interrogation is just the most psychologized. Fay Freak (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: I have rewritten a definition under the token of this insight. Let me know what you think, and how much comprehensibility of it is comparatively improved. Fay Freak (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: You got closer, but it was still semi-gibberish. I truly think you shouldn't edit English if you are going to do it in this weird, pompous, quasi-Anglish way. It doesn't help readers and it doesn't make sense. I don't know why you do it. I have tried to improve it: I wrote: "To place oneself in a particular group, for example when responding to a survey." Equinox ◑ 21:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

At least the Middle English word referenced appears to exist. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The OED's most recent citation is from 1175. Theknightwho (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV adj. senses "Destined; involved, doomed". Please see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#on for background to this. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me this should be a verb phrase "be on". If "on" were an adjective, we would say "the fight became/seems/appears on". A fight can't be brutally on. We don't say "the on fight". 2601:147:4600:3880:71F8:18DE:F611:7754

I think it is possible to say in this sense (of happening, starting) that something "seems on" or "appears on". Also "the fight is fully on" seems possible. We don't say "the on fight", but plenty of adjectives are predicative only. Mihia (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a sense that we seem to be missing. In the context of an implicit challenge to a competition (a fight, game, sports contest, etc) "It's on" seems to be used to accept the challenge. But the use may be broader than that. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this sense is supposed to be covered by "Happening; taking place; being or due to be put into action". However, I am not 100% satisfied with the way these senses are presented at the moment. I put the "You're on!" sense as a subsense of the aforementioned, but I don't really know whether it is. I find it hard to pin down exactly what "on" means in that phrase. Mihia (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Me too. That's why a phrased it as a non-gloss def. It's just a usex looking for a definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

+labidometer P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added two quotes to Citations:labimeter. Einstein2 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "attending" Kiwima (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This sense was added as "That attends" in 2009 by EivindJ alongside the derived term attendedness, so presumably some connection to that word was meant. It was changed to "attending" in 2016 by Giorgi Eufshi. The whole thing looks like an error to me. This, that and the other (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There do seem to be slightly more Google hits for "the attended physician" than I might have expected, albeit, as we know, almost any erroneous phrase shows up somewhere. I suppose we may be confident that these are all bad English for "the attending physician"? Mihia (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes, I mean to type one verb tense but muscle memory types another, precisely like this (writing the present for the past participle or vice versa). I don't suppose I'm the only person who's ever made such typos/thinkos, and indeed, the cites you mention seem to bear that out. But it's not intentional, it's an error (I use the intended form in speech), so I don't regard it as something to include. Other people's opinions may vary. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The organised output of several distinct, and often unrelated, work groups.

Really? I thought that "workstream" referred to an individual work group, or group of people doing related work, not the organised output of several unrelated. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in one work, a 1532 edition of Usk's Testament of Loue (a Middle English work). Keep as Middle English or delete? This, that and the other (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Near as I can tell, sociologist Jane Murphy first mentioned this in 1976: ‘the Eskimos have a word, kunlangeta, which means “his mind knows what to do but he does not do it.”’ I can find a few dozen mentions of the word between 1976 and 2021, attributing it to Murphy or to "Eskimos". I don't know which language Murphy may have meant, and I can't find any obvious candidate for etymon.

Then in 2021 (if I understand correctly) Dominic Cummings called Boris Johnson a kunlangeta, helpfully glossing the word and attributing it to a sociology paper, presumably Murphy 1976. There followed a handful of uses in the British press, and creation of the Wiktionary entry as a hot word in 2022. But I can't find recent use, nor any use that doesn't mention (or clearly allude to) either Murphy, Cummings, or Johnson.

It seems to have stuck around (sub rosa) for 45 years, but hasn't really been used much. I'm not sure what to think of its status as an English word. Cnilep (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The kind of word Thomas Pynchon might have used. DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

removed the 1996 quote for being mention only, and i'm on the fence on the 2006 quote as well Akaibu (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akaibu, the square brackets are meant to indicate mention and not actual use. Cnilep (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

From what I can read in OED, only Sidney P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added one citation from 1885. Only one left for the three needed. ୨୧ 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added a third citation from 1811! ୨୧ 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "leaves lancely egg-shaped" citation seems to be an adverb (cf. lanceolately). Equinox ◑ 16:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

PUC – 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

("(Internet slang, humorous) I would have sex with them; used to express sexual attraction to someone, usually a fictional character.") I don't know about it being specific to sex with characters, but I have seen "hear me out" used humorously to imply "I have a controversial opinion and wish to convince you of it". Might be Reddit-speak. A phrase in the same sort of family as hold my beer. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is definitely a meme. See, e.g., "Hear Me out" Has Taken on a Whole Different Meaning on TikTok When It Comes to People's Crushes; Men will say “Hear me out” and show you the most conventionally attractive woman you have ever seen. Meanwhile, women will say “Hear me out” and show you this thing. The question is whether we would ever find any cites that can be used in this corpus. bd2412 T 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That Distractify article actually verifies it as an internet joke but as a noun instead of a phrase. The phrase definition should be changed to the general sense of alluding to a suggestion or opinion that might be controversial, which would automatically include the opinion "I would have sex with this character/person," and a new definition should be added for the noun. The general sense would be more in the camp of if you know what I mean which was also tied to an internet meme about being kinda perverted a long time ago. Nicerink (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I too am familiar with this, used like this. It varies between being used as a phrase — saying "hear me out" (with these implications, possible lexical) about someone/something — and being nominalized, like in that image ("their 'hear me out'") or when it's pluralized google:"hear me outs". Because any utterance can be nominalized, e.g. this is my "hold up, let's consider this", and at RFD you might strike someone's "delete" or question their "keep" (also compare Talk:selah, which we deleted), we should consider carefully whether such uses should be viewed as actually being nouns. It may depend on whether we view e.g. "their 'hear me out'" as meaning "their thing that they say 'hear me out' about" or as directly meaning ~"their weird crushes/desires"...? - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alt form of Mongolian. Not in Merriam-Webster for instance. What would explain this vowel change? Equinox ◑ 20:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be an obsolete spelling (17- and 1800s, later dates all seem to be reprints complete with long s, etc) and should be relabelled as such if kept. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED suggests just 1 use P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found some uses of the verb, but I'm not sure if any refers to the same meaning: "Unbought, unbid, unbayed by Fate", "In haste took place, and at each furious stroke / Unbayed the fountains of their blood", "The youth, with forceful arm, unbay'd by foam,", "That it was dangerous in tyme of Winter to unbay our/selves so deepelie", "we ought ... to unbay all the Stream and Current of our Paffions (likely a version of John Norris quote)".

P.S.: the "unbay our/selves" quote has a footnote where "to unbay" is given the meaning of "to sail out of bay". ୨୧ 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What a Germanic/Anglish mouthful. Can anyone cite it? If this fails, then impeachment-worthy will also fall to the might of WT:COALMINE. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs to be moved to impeachment-worthy then gain-evaluated. I suppose that'd make things a bit heppener, wouldn't ye say ? Leasnam (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not gonna heppen! Equinox ◑ 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You think this is "Anglish" ? yep. you're right. im so busted. Leasnam (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not going to say anything as your track record speaketh for itself. Equinox ◑ 20:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

LOL Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't that be something like behindrancedworthy? Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah yeah yeah I know "impeachment" has Romance connections. But trying to run things into one long German-o-word is belikelike. Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. (Now someone's gonna yell about my "nonX" adjectives. I can't stop ya. But that's a totally different phenomenon.) Equinox ◑ 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I cited one definition ("(of an act) Of such character as to warrant impeachment."). I did not find any support for the other 'of a person' sense. I could not cite any sense of the challenged form. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A use from the US congress??; the rest I could find are online sources: 2 blogs 12, a forum 3, and several X's posts 4 (though many are just hashtag-based). ୨୧ 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

btw, just a handful of Twitter posts refer to the (of a person) sense (like 3 or 4), the majority refers to (of an act). ୨୧ 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd have thought that the second sense would have found more use. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just see dictionaries. OED has it, can't see if it has quotes, tho P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

A Google Scholar search finds enough uses.  --Lambiam 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited from those hits (although only barely, most hits are by the same few authors, none of whom look like native English speakers). - -sche (discuss) 13:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. confelicity (enjoyment derived from observing someone else's fortune or luck)

Tagged by @Jberkel but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. The planet Earth.

Tagged by @197.29.245.78 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Also I added the science fiction tag as it seems to be used chiefly in that genre: more examples included in the The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. ୨୧ 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Worth noting that the rest of "Sol" planets would be a bit harder to attest Sol I, Sol II, Sol IV-Sol X, and very likely chiefly used in science fiction. ୨୧ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV of common noun senses:

1. Earth (planetary body)
2. the ground

(While we're there, the proper noun definition "(Hinduism) Name of deity Prithvi" could use some help.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The definition seems like a meaningless buzzword soup made up to sell a book to me. Moved from WT:RFDE because it also seems to fail WT:ATTEST, the original discussion is copied below:

Hi all. Seems this term is used exclusively in a book published a few months before the creation of the entry, and blog posts and press releases promoting that book. Barking here because I believe it also falls under Wiktionary:Spam (type 1), though I mostly edit the 'pedia, so please let me know if I'm at the wrong tree. Alpha3031 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alpha3031 I think this one belongs at WT:RFVE, as the question is whether it meets WT:ATTEST. Theknightwho (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I can probably do that Theknightwho. I see some of the entries there have a red flag for WT:DEROGATORY, is there an equivalent for adverts that I can use to mark it as "I think it also falls under WT:DELETE #4, because it seems made up to sell a book instead of just being made up"? Alpha3031 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alpha3031 No, and it's not hugely relevant, really: if it's a term that's not found any currency elsewhere, it'll fail WT:ATTEST anyway. If it has, then the nature of its origin isn't a disqualifying factor. Nothing about that page promotes any specific person or entity, so it's not clear how WT:DELETE #4 could apply, even if it was only coined in a book quite recently. Theknightwho (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alpha3031 (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How is this adjective sense controversial? We can easily compare it to Proto-Indo-European, which is plainly accepted. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kiril kovachev The usage example is a pretty straightforward attributive use; it's just obscured by the fact that the names of languages/families often resemble adjectives. Theknightwho (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho I'd argue it's the contrary for words like this: the -ic ending is directly based on the Latin adjective ending -icus, and "Proto-Japonic" as a noun is just short for "Proto-Japonic language", i.e. the adjective sense is really the essential sense of the word, with the noun sense being just a nominal use of the adjective. Even if the nominal use is more common, the adjective should still be considered a proper sense of the word, if not the main sense. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 12:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just the one hit seen. There may be some spelling variants, with the ae or oe letters or sth. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are more, if you search leucœthiopic, which I count as the same, and yet more if you search "leucaethiopic" to find misscans of the ligaturic forms. And see French leucéthiopie, from which it seems to be derived. Could also be a corruption complex from leucopathy, given also as synonymous; many uses in their contexts suggest it to be synonymous to albino. Fay Freak (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I only found two cites for this spelling. Why don't we move this to leucaethiopic? That spelling is attestable and not very rare. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see this spelling at all, all I see are scannos for leucœthiopic, which is the same as the present spelling with ligature, so I we don’t lemmatize at such a ligature then the entry is at its place. Fay Freak (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in Ender's Game? So probably fails WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 22:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scots. I was unable to find the spelling seicont on A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue or Scottish National Dictionary. YukaSylvie (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It can easily be found in Google Books (google books:"seicont") but both uses there postdate our entry and the uses on Scots Wikipedia. I wonder if Embryomystic can remember what the source for the creation of this entry was.

In any event, even if this is attestable, it should be moved, perhaps to saicont. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is in the dictionary on Scots Online. I disagree with you with regards to moving the page, but if we do that, seicont should certainly be kept as an alternative spelling. embryomystic (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry, I meant moving the primary form and keeping this as an alt form. The fact that so few attestations are available tends to suggest this is not the primary form. This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scots. I was unable to find the spelling shrei on Scottish National Dictionary. YukaSylvie (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word only in Puttenham? Equinox ◑ 04:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

rfv: 1. (obsolete) An executioner. Couldn't find a single use of the term. Apparently an Anglish word. ୨୧ 14:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there any other quotes other than the one given? Kiwima (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The entry has no definition or hints, no etymology and no pronunciation: it's nothing but one citation. Could be a typo for all anyone can tell. This should have gone to WT:REE or the Citations page. Equinox ◑ 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox The citation checks out, and even uses it twice. It's a graphic novel, but here's a transcription:

Narrator: It's December. We start looking at apartments that are coming up for rent in August. The first one seems like where we belong: low ceilings, a tiny messy kitchen. And a small rooftop seating area perfect for our groving.

Leela: It's a luch. It's disgusting.

Narrator: I figure we're doomed to bad things, uncharming places and loveless rooms forever. Leela wants something else.

Leela: I'm not going to live in some luch just because my baby died.

Narrator: We keep looking.

So it's definitely not a typo. I can't find any glossary or explanation in the surrounding pages, but as it's autobiographical it's probably New York slang? Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I've read the whole book, and nothing. Two theories:

1. German Luch (“boggy lowland”) - this would fit with the environment in the book, but seems really unlikely. The word is apparently used in English to refer to a particular kind of boggy geography found in northern Germany, but given the house they're looking at is in New Mexico, I'm not buying it.
2. Yiddish לאָך (lokh, “hole”), which is found in לאָך אין קאָפּ (lokh in kop, “hole in the head”), as in "I need that like I need a hole in the head". This gets borrowed into English as "I need that like I need a luch in cup", among other spellings. This seems more plausible (i.e. Leela is calling the place they're looking round a shithole), but it's still a pretty big stretch, and I can't find corroborating evidence that "luch" is used independently like that.

Theknightwho (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm the user that added it. I'm new here, so forgive me if I'm doing things wrong. I saw that the usage had been marked as being a noun with the linked page not having any noun usages, so I tracked down a noun usage of "louche" in google books and added it to the linked page. I then updated this page to put it as an alternate spelling again, since both pages have a noun example now. It's pretty clear to me that it's the same sense of the word, and the spelling in the book is just an alternate spelling, but I don't really know how to go about proving that. Searching Google Books for "luch" is pretty hard, it's a short word and there's a lot of name examples. Does anyone have tips or links to info pages on how best to find attestions that are sufficient for Wiktionary? GudSpeller

If you search for combinations like "another luch", "such a luch" and "this luch", you avoid hits on "A. Luch".  --Lambiam 18:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if louche fits - isn't that pretty much exclusively used for people? Theknightwho (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems like the usage is much like "shady", where it's most often used to describe people, but can also describe other nouns. I managed to find a good reference, thanks Lambiam for the tips. On page 128 of The Second Woman by Kenneth Coleman, louche is used as an adjective to describe the building they're in, followed by usage as a noun in reference to a person. Interpreting "luch" as those two senses blending and then being spelled by a non-French speaker as "luch" seems fairly reasonable to me. GudSpeller (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Still seems like a real stretch to me. So far, we know it can be used as an adjective to mean "shady" (usually but not exclusively describing people), or - rarely - as a noun (so far I can only find examples that refer to people). The change in spelling and nonstandard use makes me think it probably isn't that, especially when "louche" is not that rare of a word, and a publisher like Macmillan would certainly have picked up on it. Theknightwho (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Good call on your Yiddish suggestion. I emailed the author, and he responded "Yiddish for a really crummy place. It might be more specifically a house or apartment, but that's the general gist"

Should a Yiddish entry be added to that page, as well as an English entry, and then linked? And should the "luch in cup" sense be included as well? GudSpeller (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GudSpeller Thanks - that's really helpful.

So we have a Yiddish entry at לאָך (lokh) already, but it definitely needs expanding - the euphemistic senses seem to be pretty similar to English hole, from what I can find (e.g. sense 13: an undesirable place to live or visit).

I'm pretty sure we could make an entry at lokh in kop for English, but I'm struggling to find many attestations for for luch in cup or luch on its own. @Kiwima and @Lingo Bingo Dingo are pretty good at tracking rare words down, though. Theknightwho (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I have been unable to find anything. That is why I rfv'd this in the first place. Kiwima (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

All I can think to suggest, which you've all likely already tried, is to search together with other Yiddish words, search for more likely spellings (maybe this spelling can't be attested but another spelling like lokh can), and try newspaper archives (newspapers.com) in case there are any Yiddish papers or columns, or just Yiddish authors using this. - -sche (discuss) 02:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "To be allowed or permitted to do sth.; To consent to; To submit to, endure, tolerate". Added by the same editor as atew. I suspect some kind of Anglish nonsense or otherwise intentionally trying to revive words that have fallen out of use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The OED has nothing after 1325, and "thave" is essentially a modern normalisation. Theknightwho (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in the EDD for it either (only the noun), and I can't find any cites myself, either. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "alternative form of gerrymander". Ultimateria (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited, but only as a combining form. Kiwima (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should be moved to -mander then? Category:English combining forms is a weird grab-bag of stuff, but they all have hyphens. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well no, since somebody can look at mander and miss something. The hyphen is just for clarity when mentioning the combining form of a word; known from our Armenian entries where there are not even separate entries and categorization for combining forms. Here for the same purpose, for clarity, we mention the combination at a title without hyphen. Fay Freak (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, AFAICT this should be moved to -mander (leave a "see also" link at mander, I guess). - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:outroduce which failed RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scots. The spelling is not attested on the Online Scots Dictionary or the Dictionaries of the Scots Language. --YukaSylvie (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's in a book on Google Books; as Scots is a LDL one published use is sufficient for verification. This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good luck...Three quotes for three definitions: One who mangonizes./ A slave dealer/A strumpet. Denazz (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found one for "One who mangonizes" and another for "strumpet". (P.S. some dictionaries I found treat the 3rd sense as a figurative meaning of the 2nd one). ୨୧ 14:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An instrument to extract hairs. Lotta dictionaries, littla use Denazz (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the singular of Elysian Fields. Theknightwho (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Joyce and possibly Middle English Chaucer only? Denazz (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

Can we cite this as an adjective? Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense. Censored, in the context of China. It's a calque of 和諧 / 和谐 (héxié, verb), but I don't know if it's attestable in durable sources. It also might be better defined as a verb at harmonize, too. Theknightwho (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The, supposedly limited to the UK, sense "a basic wage paid to an employee while they are on holiday. It can be paid for as many weeks holiday as an employee is entitled to, although an employee can spread their complete holiday entitlement over the whole year."

At least in the Netherlands it doesn't work like that. It's just a monetary bonus, you can spend the money however you like, no need to go on vacation. (see vakantiegeld) w:en:Holiday pay doesn't describe the sense we have here either. Ping @Donnanz who created the page and wrote this sense. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: That's the way it worked when I was in employment. I retired in 2012. If you don't take any holiday entitlement, you may lose it, it depends on your employer and contract. Self-employed people don't get holiday pay. I'm not sure if anybody on a zero hours contract gets holiday pay, according to Zero-hour contract they can. Some firms close down for two or three weeks in the summer, when everyone has to take their holiday. Apparently different countries have different laws. DonnanZ (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nowadays, in the UK, as far as I would understand the term, "holiday pay" generally simply means that employees continue to get paid in the normal way when they take their (statutory) holiday allowance, whenever in the year this may be, not necessarily (and in practice usually not) contiguously. (No doubt some employers try to wriggle out of paying this entitlement in various ways. There are also potentially complications around determining what is someone's "normal pay" if they are not paid a fixed wage or salary, e.g. they work varying numbers of hours.) Mihia (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

When searched on Google, it appears that most of the term's usage comes from Mantak Chia. I doubt whether there are sufficient independent citations (besides Chia's usage).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(of a gladiator) armed with a noose"; I managed to find two, but only two, cites (both describing the same statue). (I am taking the usex a rowdy, laquearian mob of good old boys in David Grambs' 1997 The Endangered English Dictionary entry for this word to fail the CFI ban on "made-up examples of how a word might be used".) Compare the RFV of laqueary, above. laquearius I did manage to cite (see the cites page). - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As Talk:a stick in a bundle can't be broken. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "An independent role-playing game that attempts to fix various perceived design flaws in an established RPG, but whose few innovations will not reach a wide audience due to its lack of marketability."

This is an extremely specific sense that seems to come back to a single essay. I can find a few people quoting the essay, but no-one just describing a game as a heartbreaker without adding "as defined by Ron Edwards in his 2002 essay Fantasy Heartbreakers". Also if this is salvagable, it looks like the term is probably fantasy heartbreaker. When I google "heartbreaker + RPG", every relevant hit I can see adds the word "fantasy" at the start. Does it appear alone? Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A prostitute; a slut Denazz (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this is barely citeable, but it does require us to accept a story where a chief prostitute is titled "Mother Mawks" as a citation. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: An insane person; a madman. - this RFV could be subject to the "pejorative" rule Denazz (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ha, this must be the 'formal' and/or hypercorrect spelling of bedlamite. I found and added one cite which is probably using this sense (though it's possible it's referring to members of the order who treated the insane people, instead). Unfortunately, the other hits I can find for google books:"Bethlehemites" insane or google books:"Bethelemites" lunatics either mean the religious order or people from Bethlehem, or else are ambiguous (this could mean lunatics but it could also mean the religious order who treated them: it refers to somebody in the Bethlehem hospital in London, but it's not clear who). - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find uses. Cf autem cackle tub and a variety of other terms in which vein which have failed RFV over the years. (I am not RFVing autem cackler or autem diver at this time, because they at least have one cite per sense.) - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Added one not-great cite for autem prickear. In general all the autem pages have the problem that a) basically no-one at the time would have written in thieves' cant in a published document but b) subsequent modern authors have seen the words in dictionaries and put them in historical fiction, leading to quotes that are probably not very representative of actual usage. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can only find this term under the authorship of one person who goes by the moniker of State of the Union. I have added one quote to the citations page, but have been unable to find quotes by anyone else. If this does manage to pass RFV, it should be reworded, because the term is about the purported act stealing the 2020 election, not the election per se. Kiwima (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it is now cited, and I have tweaked the definition. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Europe (including Britain)"

Struggling to imagine a context for this. When would you say "the Continent" to refer to Europe including Britain? It wouldn't be used in the UK or Ireland (where it refers specifically to continental Europe) and I can't imagine an American or Australian doing it (since they are on different continents). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

quercetin obtained from melin. WTF is melin? Denazz (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some sources give it as a synonym of quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, whatever that may be. Apparently, there was a scientific dispute in the 19th century whether melin is the same as quercimelin, whatever that may be.  --Lambiam 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

English. PUC – 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

, , , , , . Also in the OED. Einstein2 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dated? From an undemocratic time when newspaper readers were assumed to enjoy the occasional French expression in their morning news. DCDuring (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "sorrow, grief". Compare https://www.oed.com/dictionary/syte_n. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We seem to be missing a Middle English entry for this, but the word was apparently common in Middle English (the MED has 25 cites), indeed common enough all the way through to 1500 that an EEBO search might be productive if someone can work out how to avoid all the other things site means. I also put two Scots cites at Citations:syte (so perhaps this could be moved to syte#Scots if it doesn't pass as English). - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A knife blade shape/style comprising well-differentiated front and longitudinal edges, somewhat reminiscent of a chisel but with an angled front allowing for an acute-angle point.

I'm not really sure whether this is actually distinct from the primary definition (A traditional Japanese small sword or knife; often used as a secondary weapon to a katana.), if I'm honest. Of the dictionaries I've checked, only the OED has a relevant entry for tanto, and they only give the Japanese sense.

According to our entry, both senses can be pronounced /ˈtɑntoʊ/, but the sense I've RFV'd can also be pronounced /ˈtæntoʊ/, but I find this distinction dubious because /ɑ ~ æ/ in free variation is common with terms like this. I get the impression this second sense is trying to draw a distinction between traditional tanto and other knives crafted in a similar style, which would explain why it's the only one given the less "authentic" pronunciation. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, though.

Theknightwho (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find only a single cite (Citations:put the boom down). The same user defined #toenail as "an unattractive person", set to fail RFV further up this page, and added a similar definition to flap sourced to a tweet "I'm a toenail and you're labial flaps"; additions to redskin and red man were also non-credible; in general their edits need looking over. - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Phrases for changing religious denomination. As pointed out in #swim_the_Forth, these don't seem to be much-attested. The only books hits I've been able to find have to do with literally swimming the rivers, not with changing religion. I can only find a few online uses, e.g. . - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Relegate to Appendix:Snowclones?  --Lambiam 21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If enough are attested, perhaps, but it seems like only the Catholic one is attested. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

- -sche (discuss) 05:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP pointed out on the talk page that this is a misspelling, and I changed it to such. The quote is real - but how common of a misspelling is it? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"a church", "married". Failed RFV in 2013, was re-added later without cites, but maybe it's citable now? I haven't managed to find anything, searching for "an autem", "the autem" (which finds only mentions of the Latin word, saying the autem appears in one edition but not another, etc), "to autem", "in autem", "autems", "is autem" (for the "married" sense), "got autem", "get autem" (the results are all just Latin)... the one hit for "autem building" is an OCR erroneous combination of two unrelated columns, one Latin and one English... - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@-sche I've added 5 cites for the "church" sense, though I'm only confident the 1610 cite is a genuine, period use. It's not very clear from the passage what "could not keepe his Autem" means, but there's a load of other thieves' cant there (e.g. upright man, hooker etc.), and the same book glosses "Autem" as "the Church" later on, so I'm pretty sure it's something like "could not go to church ". The 1837 cite from Rookwood is clearly an intentional archaism/dialecticism, while the 1823 slang dictionary uses it in a usage example for a different term - go out (“to mug”). Both are passable, I guess. The other two are pretty mention-y, as they directly state what the word means, but they're probably worth keeping since they're the only mentions I could find that weren't simply lists of thieves' cant ripped from older dictionaries, or where it's used as part of a compound. The 1566 cite is also valuable as the earliest known recording of the term, too. Theknightwho (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re-reading it with a fresh pair of eyes, I don't think the 1610 cite fits after all, as I think it's being used to mean "wife" as a clipping of autem mort (i.e. it's "could not keepe his Autem or doxie sole unto himself"). Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, alas, I think you're right. "Autem is over" looks alright, though, and "autem ken" is OK as long as autem ken is not a term in its own right (which it seems it is not; at least, we don't have an entry). - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@-sche I think it is (Greene's treats it as another form), but I'm inclined to say it's fine, because "autem" clearly has to mean "church" since ken just means "house". How about if we add the label "chiefly in compounds"?

I suspect we probably want to add "clipping of autem mort (“wife”)" as a second sense, but I can find nothing to support it meaning "married" that isn't simply a dictionary entry claiming as much. I suspect it's probably real, as the circumstantial evidence is quite strong for this term having been both widespread and polysemous in the criminal underworld, but sadly the direct evidence simply isn't there. Theknightwho (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I considered suggesting this earlier, but as far as citing "church", we could perhaps also look through the various terms like autem cackle tub, autem quaver tub and autem quaver which have failed, and see if it would work to use their cites for this, iff / as long as we don't also have entries for those things. (IMO we can't use the same citation of "autem ken" to support both an entry "autem ken" and an entry "autem", but as long as we don't have autem ken, autem quaver, etc, we could plausibly use cites of those things for this... but it does mean that if we ever become able to cite those things, it pulls the rug out from under this...) - -sche (discuss) 23:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Defined as “The feeling that no matter what you do, it is always somehow wrong—as if there’s some obvious way forward that everybody else can see but you.” and supposedly countable, with the plural pâros. 0DF (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks like nonsense but paro and the variants paro’ and para appear in various British and Irish rap songs (as can be seen by searching at genius.com), most notably in the song ‘Ketamine’ by the Dublin band Versatile, and we already have a French entry under paro. Of course the definition should simply be ‘paranoid’ and the etymology should just be ‘clipping of paranoid’. There's also this example of a NY rapper using the term Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Word comes from the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, and the words appear in the Tumblr post that describes it. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Middle English, methinks Newfiles (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Deleted/converted sloppily to Middle English, referencing the sloppy enty misbeden. P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Reverted. That won't do. Pious Eterino (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Pious Eterino what do you want? This, that and the other (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Something less "sloppy". Pious Eterino (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A coiling or swirling sensation. Newfiles (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's in the OED, though marked as obsolete and rare. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the entry to indicate it is obsolete, provided a quote attesting the sense, and removed the RfV. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that I restored the RFV, as three citations have not been found. This could be a tough one to cite as I expect it would not be spelled consistently. This, that and the other (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Three citations for an obscure dialectical term that has been obsolete for two hundred years or so? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doubtfulle Denazz (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found one cite from 1844 in addition to the well-known 1650 one, which I guess means we've beaten the OED, who claim there's only one known use. It's really hard to search for, since you just get thousands of results where "ignominious" has been split over a line break. Theknightwho (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears in the OED. What exactly is "doubtful" about it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Simply being mentioned in another dictionary isn't relevant, because some dictionaries (including the OED) include words where there's no evidence they've ever actually been used. The fact that this one has been used twice is an improvement, but it still doesn't yet meet the threshold set by WT:Criteria for inclusion. Theknightwho (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are many hapax legomena on Wiktionary, which is at odds with WT:CFI. To say nothing of entries for languages where such a requirement is effectively impossible. Can you explain this discrepancy? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well-documented languages like English and less-documented languages are subject to different criteria (Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Number_of_citations). - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find several editions of Edward Bulwer Lytton's works (Night and morning. Godolphin.), from 1880 and 1892, which have " of the descendant of Charles V. It was the Infant of Spain that stood in the chamber of his ambition minious. 'This is convenient, this private entrance into thy penetralia, Roderigo. It shelters me from the prying eyes of Uzeda, who ever seeks '". However, other editions have "ambitious minion". I can find a reference to "the St. Cleer-Redgate and Minious Road", which could be this sense (given Redgate preceding it), but is a proper noun/name so harder to judge/use. I can find "twenty one Guns, chiefly Sakers and Minious", but don't know what that is trying to say (and doubt it's this). - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"u" and "n" are extremely prone to scannos. I'd want to see the actual page image for anything where "minions" isn't ruled out by the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I found a looot of that, too. The editions of Bulwer Lytton really do have "ambition minious" on the page, but they've obviously just transposed the endings of the "ambitious minion" of other editions. The "Minious Road" is also really what the one book I looked at says, but I can find mention of a "Minions road" near "Cleer-Redgate" in other works.) - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An opinion piece in The Times from 1984 describes some shady behaviour as "if not ignominious, not very minious", which is amusing, but sadly not very relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've found a very promising potential citation from 1961, but I can't verify it: searching "minious paint" on Google Books reveals the quote "minious paint has worn better than the rest , which was done with a poor quality red oxide ." on page 80 of Painting & Decorating, volume 81, which all sounds very relevant, but there's no snippet-view available and unfortunately it begins with the word itself, which limits how much we can infer since it could be something else split over a line-break. Theknightwho (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scratch that - I managed to get snippet-view working by fiddling around with it, and it turned out to be "bituminious", an uncommon form of bituminous. Theknightwho (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

“(obsolete) Space.” According to the OED (which is the reference in the entry), only recorded in Middle English. J3133 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a plural of silf, an Early Modern spelling of self (equivalent to selfs). I've found silves (i.e. selves), but not this, and by the looks of things the plural with -fs was a development that occurred after silf fell out of use. Theknightwho (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 5 (Scotland, obsolete) A clan.

This comes from the OED, but the OED's definition of "English" is somewhat broader than ours; this is partially reflected by the fact that the user who added this back in 2013 used the first citation in the OED's list, which dates from 1455, which pre-dates the year we usually use to mark the start of modern English (1500) by quite some way. We're a bit flexible about it, but 45 years is too much in my opinon, so I've removed it as invalid.

The OED also include citations from 1508, 1553–4 and 1565, but they read like Scots to me, which is the other issue here. I've got no objection moving this to Scots if needs be, though. Theknightwho (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The DSL has a bunch of "Scots" cites (mostly 1500s but with some from as late as the 1680s). Most of their cites are sco, but similar to the OED (in the other direction), they seem to have included some English as well... unfortunately, despite the DSL's assignment of the cites to this sense, it seems hard to be sure they are actually this sense (it seems possible to read them as meaning the name, instead), e.g. "The Lord Lovet called Fresell … A surname esteemed honest and very hardy", "Jockies who go about begging, and use still to recite the sluggornes of most of the true ancient surnames of Scotland". - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs three independent quotes, this comes across as a nonce word by one author. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why does it need three independent quotes? Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because the CFI says that. Otherwise we'd be documenting every word made up by some author. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am relatively new here—forgive me—but doesn't that seem like an absurdly onerous guideline, however well-intentioned? Many rare or obsolete words will only have one existing attestation, even in otherwise well attested languages like modern English; never mind ancient/dead languages, or endangered languages, or those without a history of writing. 40% of the words in the Avesta are hapax legomena; the Hebrew Bible has 400 and the New Testament a further 25. And then there are numerous languages whose entire body of attestation may stem from the work of a single field linguist. Would we just not document these words? It would appear we do, given e.g. Category:Arabic hapax legomena. Upon further investigation and closer reading of CFI, my doubts have been answered. Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am skeptical of the second definition, wherein the word is a synonym of pimp. I can't find this second definition in any of several dictionaries I've checked. This accords with my own personal understanding of the term, by which it can only mean someone who purchases the services of prostitutes (i.e., a john), and not one who sells them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "not relevant to". Does this exist outside of the term beside the point? Seems to be a very straightforward extension of sense 3 ("besides; in addition to"), where besides is being used to mean "other than; except for; instead of". This also explains the (now uncommon) alternative form besides the point. Theknightwho (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Marginally. I can find a few cites where people say something is "beside the subject", "beside the topic", "beside the focus" of what they're saying. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also "beside the mark", a run-in in Century 1911, which is closer to the metaphor of aiming at a target and "beside the question".

We are deficient in contemporary citations of beside and besides, excepting those just added by -sche.

Among OneLook references only MWOnline has "not relevant to" as a definition. They also have three subsenses of sense 1 without an explicit sense: "by the side of"; "in comparison with"; and "on a par with". Their def. 3 is "besides". MW seems to have taken a revisionist stance, trying to bring the definitions closer to their conception of contemporary meaning. In contrast other OneLook dictionaries are similar to MW 1913.

Interestingly, Century 1911 has seven definitions, three marked as obsolete, none of them "not relevant to". The four:

1. "at the side of; near" (cf. our 1. "next to; at the side of")
2. "over and above; distinct from"
3. "apart from; not connected with; not according to"
4. "out of; in a state deviating from"

Definition three seems closest to our def. 2 "not relevant to", esp. "not connected with".

Our def. 3 "besides; in addition to" does not closely correspond to any of these. I don't think def. 2 at besides: "Other than; except for; instead of." works very well for beside.

Has the meaning of beside the point become more pejorative than beside the mark/question/subject/topic/focus, more reminiscent of "missing the point/mark", "off the mark"? If so, MWOnline's and our separate "not relevant to" is distinct from a definition like "not connected with". DCDuring (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to do this. I think there's only the 2 hits. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to point out that the Latin counterpart missificare seems to be attestable, as this glossariaum suggests. And yes, only those two quotes are the only findable at all. ୨୧ 23:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Leasnam special, probably confusing English + Middle English P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed/put to enm. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find no evidence for this as a verb. Can anyone else? Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's 1 hit on Google scholar for "centumized", which is quoted in the result. There are a decent number of hits for the same on Google Books, but none seem to be viewable. Several of the hits for "centumized" and "centumizing" on general Google web search are quoted in the results and seem to be using them as verbs, but ruling out adjectival use can be tricky even if they're usable for CFI. The existence of "centumization" is indirect, circumstantial evidence for the verb, but that won't help with CFI. It looks to me like it exists, but I'm not sure it can be proven to the satisfaction of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added three cites. Einstein2 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV adj sense:

1.6. Thick.

not to be confused with:

1.1 Extending far down from the top, or surface, to the bottom, literally or figuratively.

There was a deep layer of dust on the floor; the room had not been disturbed for many years.

1.3 Far in extent in another (non-downwards, but generally also non-upwards) direction, especially front-to-back.

The shelves are 30 centimetres deep. — They are deep shelves.

That cyclist's deep chest allows him to draw more air.

The "cyclist" example was previously under sense "thick", but it seems essentially the same as the "front-to-back extent" sense 1.3, so I moved it there. The only other example for "thick" is the one mentioned at https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/June#deep, which, per my comments there, does not seem to mean "thick" in the sense in which that word would be understood in the context. "thick" could be substitutable for some (not all) instances of sense 1.1, such as the "deep/thick layer of dust".

Anyway, seeking examples for "thick" that are not already covered by 1.1 or 1.3. Mihia (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The gloss used for the synonyms, antonyms and translations ("thick in a vertical direction") makes me think this was probably intended to be the same thing was the thick/deep layer of dust etc. The citation currently given under the sense, about "deep linen collars", is also ... not obviously this sense. I am inclined to agree with you that the whole sense is redundant to the other, more clearly defined senses. - -sche (discuss) 15:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "someone interested in hockey", as distinct from the "hockey player" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English? Denazz (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or Scots. But the only modern English works I've spotted using it are modernizations of Middle English texts. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Listing because it was pointed out in an RFV further up the page that this doesn't seem to meet ATTEST. - -sche (discuss) 15:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have not been able to find it used in books (only a mention). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found three quotations in US court documents and updated the entry. SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A suffix of Japanese ship names.

Not seeing how this is an English term at all. It's straightforward to find examples of "maru" being used in the names of Japanese ships, which comes from this sense in Japanese, but in English it's just part of the name of the ship, and isn't a suffix in any conventional sense since it carries no semantic value. Theknightwho (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

rfv: (figuratively) A lot of, a mountain of.

Tagged by an IP, but not listed. User added the comment "is this the right part of speech?" -- ୨୧ 21:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What are we verifying here? Clearly the phrase exists, and equally clearly it is not a pronoun. Of the PoS that we allow, I suppose it would be a determiner. However, we need to decide whether it is redundant to sense 16 of world, "A great amount, a lot". Mihia (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not exactly responsive to your concern, but def. 16 has as a usex:

This movie isn't even billed as a comedy, but it's worlds funnier than the comedy I saw last month.

At a quick, surface analysis worlds seems to function adverbially, modifying funnier.

Other words that could fit in that slot are lots, tons, much, little, no, five times, which are also quantifiers/determiners. Right now I find it much more fun to just enjoy the metaphor and not worry about PoS. Perhaps tomorrow I'll be able to face down the PoS question. DCDuring (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unattested language name invented by some database (Ethnologue, thence Glottolog, despite all the references there) copied from Wikipedia and hence only in quasi-bot-created lists. Humans still don’t use this monster. Fay Freak (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a mistake for vigintillion by someone unfamiliar with viginti (I don't know how else you could get "ving-" from "viginti-"). I've often wanted to create "vigintipede" as a synonym for the house centipede, which obviously has many fewer than a hundred legs (and regularly just about twenty), but the top results from Google are all about a very long bicycle... P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Influence from French, perhaps? Indeed, google books:"vingtillions" finds some French hits, as well as one repeatedly-reprinted/quoted English work (originally by Lovecraft? or in his mythos) using the phrase "they preserve a dreadful secret, that untold vingtillions of aeons ago...". Actually, on archive.org I can also find this related book containing the line "...before it sank millions of years ago, or Xoth vingtillions of years before..."; depending on whether or not we consider two(?) authors writing in the Cthulhu mythos universe to be independent, we have one or two Cthulhu cites. And 1940 February, Thrilling Wonder Stories v. 15, n. 02], page 83, says "The dinosaur Trachodon had 2,000 teeth, and when one dropped out, another grew in its place. . . . The vingtillion is the largest number usually given a name? It consists of a one followed by sixty-three zeros. . . .". And 1944-5, Loretto Rainbow, page 215, says "When I am told that between 3 and 4 there is a numerical value that cannot be expressed in whole numbers or decimals, that map-makers need never use more than four colors, that a vingtillion represents the number of grains of sand that Archimedes long ago calculated as sufficient to fill what he believed to be the universe, I just make polite noises". I think this is actually cited? But is another spelling more common? - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found two hits in French on Google Books, and three others that all seemed to be based on Lovecraft. Looks like you found more. The French sources I found weren't scannos, as I thought they might be, and they predate Lovecraft. One instance could be a typo, but the other was clearly deliberate. Cassell's French Dictionary reminds me that vingt is twenty in French—so it seems like "vingtillion" might be a French variant of vigintillion. However, it's clear from both of the French sources on Google Books that the same number is meant. The source you quote above with "a one followed by sixty-three zeros" seems to confirm this in English. Obviously Lovecraft and some of the others are using it in the sense of "an unimaginably large number" rather than a precise mathematical value; his phrase "untold vingtillions of aeons ago" was repeated verbatim in all of the other hits. Obviously the age of the universe was not even estimable when Lovecraft was writing. But it's reasonable that the rare "vingtillion" could have occurred alongside the rare "vigintillion" which is considered standard today. So I guess it's a legitimate, perhaps obsolete variant originating in French. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

VexVector has now twice added these plural forms to productrix, which I had created with {{en-noun|!}}, i.e., “productrix (plural not attested)”. I wrote the following edit summary for my first revert (15 June): “I cannot find a single result for ‘productrixes’ using Google; are you sure that these are attested (hence why it stated ‘plural not attested’)?” VexVector re-added them on 25 June (today), writing, “Ngram-Viewer has the Latinate plural, and I don't see a reason to exclude the Anglicized.” Then I reverted again: “‘productrices’ is used in Latin (Ngram-Viewer does not distinguish Latin in English books), but is there actually an attested English plural?” I have restored them now with {{rfv-term}}, and believe that if they are not attested, they should not be listed (that is why we have the ⟨!⟩ option). J3133 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing wrong about starring them, unlinked. This would remove the stubbornness, such editors would have to think why it is mentioned but not linked. When people begin here, there is a drive for completion, as frequently seen in the “duplicate etymology” problem, and they have to learn for it to end, and uncertainty to remain (→ ambiguity tolerance). Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

productrices is a French word and turns up in various English texts: So Ngram is not a useful source of info.

I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary to insist on three durably archived cites for every plural form, but let's at least try to find some evidence for each term here. This, that and the other (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other: I do not insist on cites for regular plurals, but these do not seem to have ever been attested. J3133 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani). The only unambiguous mentions that I found were actually referring to soft rush (Juncus effusus), a plant which is similar enough that I'm not currently comfortable trying to determine whether any of the mentions that lack a taxonomic name could be referring to the bulrush instead. One source is unambiguous in using "Softstem Rush" that way; but since it repeatedly uses "Soft-stem Bulrush" in the surrounding sentences, I'm not certain whether it was intentional. Qwertygiy (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites for "soft-stem rush" referring to Scirpus validus, which is a synonym of Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani. DCDuring (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses to do with squinting; removed out of process by Special:Contributions/John7Appleyard. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited both. Einstein2 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

rfv. I hate to do this, but is it only present on Robert Steele's edition of Bartholomew Anglicus' work? The second quote is erronously attributed Robert M. Torrance, but it turns out it also comes from Robert Steele's 1893 edition, as shown in Torrances's own book. So, are there three independent citations for this word? -- ୨୧ 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also worth noting that there is a 400 years gap between the last Medieval English instance of the word (shipbreche), and Steele's 1893 book, which would indicate that "shipbreach" is some kind of learned borrowing (and modernization) rather than an inherited word. ୨୧ 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Previously failed RFV twice. It currently only has one cite from Usenet, and I would strongly push back against including any message from Google Groups not from Usenet, as that doesn't seem to be durably archived per WT:CFI, nor have I seen a strong consensus for their inclusion. It creates an even worse slippery slope than we've seen with Usenet in the past. AG202 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do understsand that citations from the Internet are not valid, but I went ahead and did add them to the citations page for possible future reference: Citations:FaCIAbook. mynewfiles (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then the entry shouldn't have been recreated since it failed RFV... AG202 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that is incorrect. It was recreated because I located the three cites on Usenet/Google Groups. mynewfiles (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait, that's what I was saying initially. Usenet citations are allowed to count for CFI, but general Google Groups citations do not by default. Google Groups (not including Usenet!) citations are the same as any general internet citation per our current rules. AG202 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Checking out some more on-line citations, I saw one from a cartoon website that might appear in print, and two Reddit citations. Should be tagged "very rare", in any case. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for researching its cites. mynewfiles (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There’s even a page on Facebook itself of a group with ‘FaCIAbook’ in the title. I think some online uses don’t show up when you do a Google search or aren’t durable but it’s not rare, the word is even popular enough to have found it’s way into various foreign languages where it’s been borrowed from the English. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an alternative, probably nonstandard, spelling of poppadom / papadam / poppadum etc. etc. Theknightwho (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I asked a fellow AusE speaker just now to name the circular Indian food that you break apart, and they immediately said pompadom. In non-rhotic accents pomperdom is a homophone. So it's entirely plausible, and indeed quite likely, although there's nothing in GBooks. This, that and the other (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed so. I created pompadom a while ago as this is the pronunciation that my late mother always used, but pomperdom would represent the same pronunciation in her/my accent. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added by this IP, appears to be a joke but I wasn't sure. — BABR・talk 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

ningens gets a few hits on Twitter (using plural to narrow it down, ... the singular would probably work just as well though). probably not attestable outside social media, so this could come down to our little-used procedure in which a word found only on Twitter is subject to a vote for approval (mostly we've just been letting them pass when it's obviously real rather than bring it to a vote). —Soap— 11:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Evelyn+Bacon only? Zebres rouges (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• 'fraid so.failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like marrot Zebres rouges (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This would definitely pass as Scots, since the name comes from the Firth of Forth. As English, there are a couple of unambiguous uses by Scottish writers here and here, a mentiony use here and several mentions such as this one and this one. The English sources all refer to a population of Common guillemots that winters in Scotland and was once considered a separate species from the population that breeds there. The Scots ones seem broader. At any rate, most of the sources are from at least a couple of centuries ago, with more recent ones citing the older ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

perhaps Zebres rouges (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mihia unilaterally added a proposed definition to the entry "putative" on June 6. Attestations were cited to quotes from tabloid news articles in the British press.

On June 14, Mihia opened a Tea room discussion wherein those two putatively-erroneous usages of "putative" were, in part, copy-pasted, but not linked. No support or consensus was gained for the proposed, erroneous definition(s). This week, I opened a talk page discussion where I contend that the Daily Mail is not only an unreliable source, but is a tabloid which is sloppy and sensationalistic in its misuse of English-language terms, and in fact, uses bigoted and inappropriate idioms in the same article.

Anyway, I removed the Daily Mail citation, whilst leaving the other attestation, but Mihia disagrees, replied to the Talk discussion, and restored the attestation.

I am seeking a request for verification of Mihia's definition. Nobody else supports this definition; it is erroneous to begin with; there is no formal definition or explicit usage of it; the first attestation (which I was inclined to keep) in fact can be interpreted to adhere to the formal definition of "putative" which is already defined as the first sense, and therefore we can take it or leave it; Wikipedia considers the Sydney Morning Herald to be a "newspaper of record" for Australia, though not a scholarly English-language reference work; it would seem a low-quality and low-context source to use for attestation.

Please consider removing Daily Mail (UK) across the board due to reasons cited above, as well as its status as a non-scholarly and low-context source for English-langauge words and terms. Elizium23 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @-sche, and mentioning 1.145.104.187, who were involved in June's Tea room discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, Wiktionary's requirements for source "reliability", when it comes to simply attesting a word or sense, are different from Wikipedia's (resembling perhaps most closely the criteria WP uses for determining if a source is reliable for an ABOUTSELF statement) : because the main thing we're determining is "do English speakers use this word (to mean X)?", the main criteria of reliability are "is this person speaking/writing English?" (further subdivided by whether they're a native/fluent speaker or not, but AFAIK Dan Hodges is a native fluent speaker) and "uses the word (to mean X)?". We even cite lots of sci fi, romances, and other fiction books, which aren't "reliable" on Wikipedia. We do try to avoid egregiously using offensive quotes for inoffensive words (and put cites on the Citations: page where they're offensive but necessary for ATTEST), but the Mail quote, at least the sentence we're quoting, seems banal: political and biased, sure, but not egregious. (Still, I have no particular objection if someone wants to move the Mail quote to the citations page, or remove it if there are enough other citations.) Reading the Sydney cite about Coltrane, I agree it is ambiguous and could be the usual sense, so more cites are needed. I will see what I can find. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

How can the album mentioned in the first cite be "Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof" when the writer knows that album was not released? Do you mean to say that generally there is a supposition that the album was released / exists, but the author knows otherwise? I think this is unlikely. I think most likely the writer means "potential album", i.e. could have been but never was. Mihia (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

But the material was finally released in album format, and that's the reason it was reviewed. It was no longer merely "potential" at the time of writing. Elizium23 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, doesn't the writer "accept by supposition rather than as a result of proof" that it was an album (even if an unreleased one)? (Like I might accept by supposition that an old ﬩ shaped artefact was a + shape .) I can similarly find "the supposed album" in reference to bodies of unreleased/leaked/etc music which the writer accepted by supposition to be albums though they had not, as of the time of writing, been released as such. I see how it can also be read as "prospective", but since it seems like it can also be read as the 'by supposition' sense (perhaps I am missing something), it doesn't seem to clearly support positing a different sense the way that some of the other cites do. @Smurray, thanks for adding more cites. I will try to look into the "putative city-regions" cite later (at least some other books using that phrase seem to mean ~"alleged" more than "prospective", so I'll try to look into that particular book later). Having looked at the surrounding text, I agree that the "another putative railway" cite seems to mean "another ~proposed railway"; I checked to make sure it wasn't e.g. the "alleged, purported" sense (e.g. some shoddy or sham or scam thing masquerading as a railway to get funding); "the putative constitution" cite also looks good. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're going to dig up erroneous usage examples? How important is that sort of citation for a typical Wiktionary entry? I thought that this was a request for verification where someone identifies a scholarly definition -- but it seems more like a LMGTFY. Wouldn't the incorrect usages eventually begin to overwhelm the correct ones? Are you supposed to somehow prove a widespread misconception, or is it enough to just demonstrate two tabloid reporters spouting off with inadequate editorial oversight? 🙄 Elizium23 (talk) 06:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As -sche was saying, Wiktionary is very different to Wikipedia in this respect. Wiktionary - like almost all serious modern dictionaries - is descriptivist. Our aim is to describe how language is used in all its forms, from the ultra-formal to the mega slangy, and usage is the foundation of all our entries (at least in widespread living languages). Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion explains this in more detail. Of course, there are cases where a particular common usage is likely to be considered incorrect by others, and we describe this too (see irregardless), but that doesn't mean we delete the entry. (And yes, tabloids are acceptable. putative in this sense isn't tabloid-speak – there's lots of evidence of it in formal academic writing – but even if it were, it would be valid. worldie (a spectacular football goal) or romp (to have illicit sex) seldom appear outside Sun headlines, but most Brits would immediately understand these words and they belong in a dictionary.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The removal of this quotation from the Daily Mail (actually I now notice that it is actually the Mail on Sunday) on the grounds that this publication is allegedly "bigoted" and "unreliable" is patently absurd and based on a misunderstanding about what sources we use to compile a dictionary. On the other point, I would be happy for others to verify, or otherwise, that this meaning is common enough for us to mention. Mihia (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it is the Daily Mail using a distinct name for its Sunday edition (I suppose that's a good reason to turn up the bigoted anti-Christian rhetoric). The domain name/URL remains "dailymail.co.uk" as well as the logo. Elizium23 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

(The Mail on Sunday is a separate publication from the Daily Mail - different editor (David Dillon, not Ted Verity) and writers - although combining the websites does confuse things) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Cited with plenty of hits from academic books. I'd be happy to put a proscribed tag on this if we can find evidence of a proscription, but this is clearly a sense that educated native English speakers use. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for adding additional citations. Mihia (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Most general dictionaries seem to have only one or two definitions for this. Although I find the citations for the newest def. (4) quite compelling and distinguishable, I am not so sure that the other senses would not benefit from being reduced to two, or even one. Does the OED maintain such a fine set of distinctions? DCDuring (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I agree - I split the first sense because Urszag pointed out that "Generally assumed" doesn't make sense in cases like "The jury's putative conclusion", but maybe that was a mistake and I wouldn't object to re-merging them with a slight re-word. Certainly, there are a lot of cites that I couldn't unambiguously assign to one sense. That said, sense 2 does seem to be a distinct term of art in philosophy and logic at least. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure we need all three, but I do think a distinction can be drawn between cases where it means "commonly/generally assumed" and cases where it just means "supposed or alleged by somebody, but not necessarily a common belief in general."--Urszag (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I was just about to ask about this (and edit-conflicted) : can we find cites where the "commonly...generally..." aspect is a required part of the meaning? vs cites where it is just "believed or deemed to be the case; assumed" (potentially only by one or a few people in question), which I assume exist (but I could be wrong)? This would help clarify how many senses we are dealing with (and hopefully help with defining them). - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

After edit conflict: I don't know that I agree with myself. In some of the uses alleged, accused, or indicted seem like synonyms, which does not fit with either of MWOnline's two definitions: "1: commonly accepted or supposed" and "2: assumed to exist or to have existed", let alone AHD's sole definition: "Generally regarded as such; supposed".

This word seems to cover many kinds of irrealis: future; imagined; accused; probable; theorized; presumptive; deemed true, though literally false (as legal fictions); etc. (not just narrow modal logic) I wish I could come up with wording that covered all or most of these, so we could have subsenses for the most common kinds.

Cites indeed could be a way of cutting the putative Gordian knot. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For subsenses, my feeling is something like:

1. Assumed or believed.
   1. Of popular widespread belief.
   2. Untrue or not real, but imagined.
   3. (chiefly philosophy and law) Accepted on the basis of supposition without evidence.
2. Of uncertain or unclear truth.
   1. Alleged or purported.
   2. Apparent, but not actual.
   3. Theoretical.
   4. (law, of a relationship or contract) Invalid, but entered into in good faith by at least one party (see putative marriage).
3. (proscribed?) Currently untrue, but likely to become true; potential.
   1. Proposed.
   2. Presumptive.

Some of these are probably pedantic, but I've tried to sort the citations at Citations:putative.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for assembling such a broad range of citations and for organizing them. I view some of them differently. Still other ways or reading and grouping the cites may emerge.

The first thing I note is that I did not find a single citation that unambiguously supported "common" or "generally" as an element of a definition. That includes those under 1 and 1.1. Perhaps in earlier times, with a more homogeneous relevant population of listeners or readers, these words would have seemed more appropriate.

I could not tell what the following cite might support: 1.3: 1831, due to insufficient context.

I could not tell whether the other cites under 1.3 were referring to a conclusion, assumption, or judgement that the authors determined had been made by others or to the substance of said conclusion, assumption, or judgement.

!IMHO 2.2: 1995, 2012, 2016, 2017 support "seemingly at the time" (temporal deixis) at least as much as "apparently, but not actually". 1.1 (2007) would support "seemingly", though context would help.

!A number of citations fit words like "hypothetical", "theoretical", "for the sake of argument". (1.2; 2.3; also perhaps 1.1: 1991)

?Two cites (2.1: 2006, 2016) fit "accused", "alleged"; possibly two might support "claimed", "reputed" (1.1: 2007, 2011)

!A couple seem to fit words like "nominally", "officially", "formally". (2.1: 1989; 2.2: 2009)

??The legal definition (2.4) makes sense, but could also be included in other definitions, like "for the sake of argument".

!The "proposed" (6) and "presumptive" (5) cites fit those words respectively (3; 3.1; 3.2) and could be combined or made subsenses.

The items marked ! make a reduced grouping of definitions (4 instead of 9). The one marked ?? might be a sense or a subsense. Maybe "alleged" could be included under "reputed" making the items marked ? another definition. DCDuring (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems difficult to unambiguously divide the quotations among these senses. For example, I disagree with the placement of " this presupposition leaves in place the epistemic possibility that our putative freedom is illusory" under the heading "Apparent, but not actual": the quoted sentence doesn't outright commit to the statement that the freedom is apparent but illusory, it's only saying that given this presupposition, it is possible that the freedom is illusory.--Urszag (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. That problem of assignment to subsenses may be why other general dictionaries have at most two definition and usually only one. It's harder to justify or explain their having "common" as part of the definition, except as laziness, keeping one.

A large majority of the contexts for the citations seem to be deliberative (or thought experiments), so "for the sake of argument", "hypothetical", etc. seems to be a supersense, as does the "proposed"/"presumptive" supersense. One common thread is irrealis of one kind or other, though apparently not wished-for/subjunctive or imperative. Irrealis might bring in epistemic concerns, like evidence for or degree of acceptance of a belief, but the cites don't seem to me to support that being essential to most definitions. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: (of liquids, such as wine or syrup) make clear or bright by freeing from feculent matter. The real question is of course, why would there be poop in syrup or wine in the first place? Well, mebbe we should just modernify the crappy defn. Denazz (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• There is more feculence at sense 3: "(ergative) To grow or become clear or transparent; to become free from feculent impurities, as wine or other liquid under clarification" (though worded intransitively, the transitive aspect of an "ergative" sense seems to duplicate the RFV'd sense anyway). Probably "feculent" could be replaced by a less disturbing word. Mihia (talk)

Feculent does not belong in any defining vocabulary, just because of it rarity, especially in current or recent English. But Century 1911 has it in seven definitions. They "define" it as "Foul with extraneous or impure substances; muddy; turbid; offensive; consisting of or abounding with dregs, sediment, or excrementitious matter." We have it on 34 pages, mostly in definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've removed the offending feculence and also merged senses 1 and 3. Probably this RFV can pass, since there is no question fundamentally about the existence of this sense, only the wording. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks as always for your wondrous defecation, Mihia. Denazz (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Our entry for clarification is feculent too Denazz (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, along with some entries in some other languages. I left cases where the word was immediately accompanied by "shitty" (and served, I think, to clarify that "shitty" didn't just mean "bad"), and cases where the foreign-language word seemed like a close cognate of feculent. What an interesting word; another in this vein is ordurous, which we don't use in any definitions AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe worth pointing out for anyone who didnt know that feces was originally a medical Latin euphemism, and its original meaning was the dregs of wine, so maybe feculent hung on among winemakers without making them think of feces in the medical sense. —Soap— 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. (ergative, of liquids, such as wine or syrup) To make or become clear or bright by freeing from impurities.

   What's the best way to clarify cooking oil?

   Leave the wine for 24 hours and it will clarify.

2. To make clear or easily understood; to explain in order to remove doubt or obscurity.
3. (ergative) To grow clear or bright; to clear up.

RFV sense 3 as distinct from the others. I don't see what the difference is supposed to be. Mihia (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've always found it much clearer when we maintain and transitive/intransitive distinction, instead of "saving time" by merging the two, usually half-assedly, as in this case. But going along with the 'ergative' gag, if the third definition were deleted and the second labeled and worded in parallel to the first things would make sense. Or we could have four definitions, two transitive and two intransitive. See Labile verb on Wikipedia.Wikipedia (Apparently ergative is no longer fashionable.) DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please make separate transitive and intransitive senses if you prefer. How do you get four though? I see two from senses 1 and 3 combined, and 2 as transitive only. How do you see it? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Intransitive examples (vs. transitive) for:

1. extended sense: "The situation clarified with the passage of time." vs. "The passage of time clarified the situation."
2. physical sense: "The cider clarified by sedimentation." vs. "Sedimentation clarified the cider."

DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

This appeared under requests for definition with a comment that it is Italian American slang, but no indication of what it means and no quotes to show use. Without some quotes to go on, I can't define the term. Kiwima (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just updated it! mynewfiles (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{R:GDoS}} gives one quote for the "woman" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find anything for this. Even looking for other slang dictionaries in GBooks, nothing is found. This, that and the other (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added complete reference to the original text, and to the entry for the word in the OED.

This word is obsolete, and was in any case (to all appearances) a nonce-word. I know the guidelines for attestation require 3 independent contemporary references, but for such a word as this, that criterion would amount to a blanket ban. The OED includes it despite its being a nonce-word because of the literary status of the author. Wiktionary is entirely within its rights to maintain stricter criteria for inclusion than the OED, but I'm not sure that is what the guidelines were intended to achieve. PaulKeating (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, for a start, I suspect the definition is wrong. The word only appears in a translation of an Italian poem, and the word it is translating is borsigli. I don't know much Italian, but I suspect that is borsa + -iglia ("a small purse") and in this context presumably means a pouch filled with fragrant herbs (something like this, for instance - a couple of lines earlier, the same character is described as also making cunziere (translated by Hunt rather loosely as "fumigations"), which footnote 568 here says refers to a small vessel containing an aromatic root used for perfuming rooms, which is very much a similar deal). That would mean it's not "a faint smell" but "a small bag of fragrance". That's why nonce words aren't includeable - there often just isn't enough information to work out what they actually mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the definition may be wrong. I didn't write it: James Murray did, in around 1905. I said as much myself in the discussion I referenced: "Taking the word in context, I have my doubts about the definition, because it seems to me that Hunt had in mind not the smell, but the thing smelt: a pomander, maybe." But that's the definition in the only source I have. And I cited Redi's poem myself. The original word borsigli is already represented a few lines earlier in Hunt's translation: "with fans and small upholstery"; and this is not a line-for-line translation. BoarGules (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Small upholstery" seems to be his translation of guancialetti (padding, as in clothing, literally "little pillows" or "little cheeks") - "Fa ventagli e guancialetti", "He makes fans and pads", rendered by Hunt as "with fans and small upholstery". I'd say that the poem does seem to be trying to hew as close to the original as possible given the restrictions of approximating the rhyme and meter (which is why I hate reading 19th century translations of poetry - they always do violence to the original text to make it fit the straitjacket of a foreign language, until you end up with a translation that is both ugly to the ear and loses the meaning that the author tried to convey). Anyway, this is all besides the point - the main point is just that "odouret" isn't includeable in Wiktionary as a word unless we can find evidence of it being used by anyone else. There's no point including a word if we don't know what it means! Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Basically nothing comes up with this form. Google only gives results in Albanian. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Wow. I never thought I'd see an English word with the letter sequence -shit- in it that's considered vulgar, but isn't derived from the English word shit. Khemehekis (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

How about mishit and shitake? P. Sovjunk (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. Einstein2 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense (Jamaica, slang) To be under the effect of cannabis.

This was added as an extra noun sense by a drive-by IP, and looks to be totally wrong since it's defined as a verb. From what I can find on Google, it's a real term that people use in Jamaica ( ), but I'm not fully sure what it means. Theknightwho (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{R:GDoS}} glosses big head and fat-head as "a large marijuana cigarette". Einstein2 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Noun) ‘A thing that is renewable’ Inqilābī 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is really common in reference to renewable energy sources, but usually as a collective plural. Not sure if it’s used more generally or in the singular, though. Probably relevant to note that this was originally added as Something that can be renewed, but especially a renewable source of energy, with the resource sense being split out later, so it may have just been a faulty inference that it could be used in reference to anything else. Theknightwho (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

‘Something that can be renewed, but’ — this part itself needs verification. Mere guessworks and hypothetical senses are liable for deletion, instead of letting them sneakily being merged with a different sense to avoid RFV scrutiny. Inqilābī 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're ascribing a higher level of quality to our existing entries than is warranted. I thought that a wiki encouraged contributions from all and did not require every wording change to be cited in advance. That's why we have RfV etc., for after-the-fact quality control. DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found one use apart from renewable energy sources - "a renewable" can also be a type of fuse - so there are at least other renewables. I'd be happy to have this as the main sense and make the other two subsenses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok "ye" is not a syllable found in modern Japanese. aburahaya seems to be a name for the Amur minnow, Phoxinus lagowskii steindachneri

Oilcarp (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's more discussion here wt:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/July#aburahaye Oilcarp (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If, as the definition says, it is a "Japanese word", then we need to change a few things, ie, it needs cleanup. Fishbase has two different species with the 'Japanese' name abura haya: Rhynchocypris lagowskii, as Oilcarp has mentioned and Phoxinus steindachneri. Fishbase does not have any English name for Sarcocheilichthys variegatus, but has kawa-higai and ヒガイ as Japanese. Fishbase is probably the best source of vernacular names for fish, but it's not definitive. DCDuring (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2 is “A billy goat”, with a subsense, “A male goat; a ram.” As billy goat means “a male goat”, this separate subsense would be redundant; however, a ram is a sheep, not a goat. If billy is used for rams, this should not be under the goat definition. J3133 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any other English dictionary that says billy can mean "ram". Very few (only ones published by Merriam-Webster, in fact) even say that billy alone can mean "billy goat". —Mahāgaja · talk 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Moved from RfC to verify “ram” sense per Mahāgaja. J3133 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first entry correctly notes this is a misspelling of “pronunciation.” However, an erroneously added “obsolete form” entry was added, with no evidence to back up this assertion. The corresponding quotation does not show an occurrence of this form. I am requesting we delete the second entry and only keep the first entry indicating this is a misspelled word—or better yet, delete this page entirely. — This unsigned comment was added by Jordanekay (talk • contribs) at 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC).Reply

Regardless of whether the second sense is verified, I would keep the first entry, since this is a common misspelling – Google Ngram Viewer gives a frequency ratio of about 240 for pronunciation/pronounciation at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., less than, say, the ratio for conceive/concieve at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., which has a page. Fluffy8x (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with keeping the first entry. What is the justification for keeping the second? It is not an “obsolete form.” Jordanekay (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

When dealing with early modern English, the concept of "misspelling" is problematic, since modern standards of spelling were not clearly established.--Urszag (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are 112+138 results in EEBO. These would include some duplicates, but I think this is enough to demonstrate that this form was in wide use in the 1500s and 1600s. Unless anyone is going to formally insist on two more cites actually in the entry, I propose to close this. This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "pathological belief that one is infested with acari or mites". Probably a confusion with acarophobia? Einstein2 (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the singular? Likely a plural only thing Denazz (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gluepix marked this as {{d|It is pluralized as aguas frescas in the vast majority of attestations; very rarely is the form agua frescas used in comparison.}}

I could find quite a lot of hits on Google, and the ngram also suggests that it is used, despite being an order of magnitude less frequent than the "correct" plural. Being "rare" doesn't mean that it isn't attested.

--kc_kennylau (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

minerals are uncountable Couscousous (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily, could refer to varieties of said mineral, like quartzes. Justin the Just (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be if only the mineral had varieties, like in this case, quartz, which bears an enormous amount of types like Herkimer, Agate (which also has varieties shockingly), and more. Not in the case of abernathyite however! Couscousous (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• RFV issue. Inqilābī 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I don't think it is an RFV issue. It has been used in a lot of informational texts like PDFs and etcetera studying it. I doubt abernathyite isn't a word; unless you're talking about abernathyites, which would make sense. Couscousous (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only uses of the plural I can find are in indexes - mentions, not uses, and likely dreamt up by some indexer who knew little about geology, or was used to pluralising all index lemmas (or was told to by a style guide). Taking to RFVE to see if anyone can do better. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If a single example of abernathyite can be called "an abernathyite", then the plural may be assumed: several chunks of abernathyite would be "abernathyites". Since plurals like this have a regular formation, it's implausible that they would be called anything else, except in the collective. The fact that the plural form is found in indexes would seem to support that, even without usage examples. P Aculeius (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Standard English doesn't do that; if I have pieces of quartz, I don't call them "quartzes". That would refer to different types of quartz. But abernathyite doesn't appear to have types. In other words, the question is really whether the term is uncountable. I would argue that it is, and the indexer was mistaken. This, that and the other (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually you can call them "quartzes", just like you can refer to "agates" without them having to be different types of agate. Or rubies, or hematites, or alexandrites, or tektites, or pretty much any kind of rock that can be referred to as a singular one of whatever it consists of. It might not be the most obvious way of referring to them in the abstract, but if, for example, you had a mineral collection with several of them in a box, it would be quite natural to say you had "six tumbled abernathyites" (I don't actually know if you can polish abernathyites, but it's the kind of situation where you would typically refer to them in the plural), as opposed to "six tumbled pieces of abernathyite"—also valid, but it sounds overly precise. And this being the case, I don't expect or require proof that a word that's obviously capable of pluralization appears in print in the plural, although that would certainly be ideal. P Aculeius (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

found evidence this exists in Chippewan, but couldn't find evidence it exists in English. Additionally, In Chippewan it seems to mean "big lake" rather than the State of Michigan. (though the name of Michigan seems to come from the Chippewan word). — BABR・talk 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found and added two citations for its use in English, though one of them may be less than ideal. I also saw that it was the name of a journal, a beverage, and a farm; some of these may be citable as examples, but I'm not sure how to cite something named after a concept as an example of that concept; surely the journal is a good example. Found a source referring to "a Michigana recipe", but decided that it probably was using "Michigana" as the name of the drink, rather than a description of the recipe, and did not know whether or how to cite that. There are probably lots of examples in local news or publications that are not available on Google, referring to Michigan history or memorabilia; more expert assistance may be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The usual form appears to be "what the goodyear". I'm struggling to find it with "a". This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the verification. I created the entry what the goodyear and added four durable cites. mynewfiles (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

English. PUC – 09:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What are we looking for? Uses without italics or quotation marks? Yipelike (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, in Google books:

Bhumdi and Beyond By Roger Stubbs

The Jerningham Letters (1780-1843): Being Excerpts from the Correspondence and Diaries of the Honourable Lady Jerningham and of Her Daughter Lady Bedingfeld By Lady Frances Dillon J

In and Around the Marketplace By Banaphula

Brun Family, Napa Valley, from 1874--Hewitt Family, San Francisco, from 1882 by William Alexander Hewitt

A Childhood Memoir: A Double Childhood By Melanie Lowy

Yipelike (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at (just a few) entries on phrases borrowed from other languages, I'd say that it doesn't really seem to matter whether it's italicized or in quotation marks: just that it's used in English without requiring translation in order to be understood. This is not to say that everyone who reads or hears it will understand; merely that the user expects the phrase to be understood by his or her intended audience, without having to stop and explain it. That's evidence that the phrase has meaning in English, even though it might have additional or slightly different meanings in its original language, or in other languages. P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 1: OED says nope Newfiles (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Funny, my OED says yep. Cited. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you add the citations to the entry then? Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have tentatively folded the senses together as "The scientific study of muscles, typically via myographs." and added three citations (quotations). I am not sure the previous two senses could be distinguished from each other. (I could be wrong.) - -sche (discuss) 12:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

in zoology. OED has differentNewfiles (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited, with difficulty—as a "rare" ornithological term, it's only going to show up in manuals of bird anatomy and technical journals, especially old ones, not the easiest thing to come by on the internet. There may be a second definition unrelated to avian mandibles, but that's another issue. Since this and the preceding entry were both cited to Webster's New International Dictionary, I can only assume that you're flagging any term that's not in OED, even if it's cited to other dictionaries. Perhaps check the cited sources first? Unlike the external link, which is paywalled, you can find old Webster's dictionaries online. P Aculeius (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{R:OneLook}} sources have no paywall. Importantly, their sources include MWOnline, MW 1913, and Wordnik, which, in turn, includes Century 1911. All OneLook references have only the avian definition. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see only one cite in the entry and none on the citations page. DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see lots of mentions, but no pure uses, of the avian sense, defined in dictionaries and in scholarly works. There seems to be a more citable sense for a feature of copepod anatomy. DCDuring (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P Aculeius thanks for your work, but I must say that this entry is currently not cited by Wiktionary's standards. Please check WT:CFI if you are unsure. In short, we require three uses of the word in running text. The entry presently has one quotation - a mention, not a use - and various dictionary references which are not valuable. If the word is (was) really in use it should be possible to find good citations, especially in places such as Google Books. This, that and the other (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. It is certainly a rare term. Many of the uses I located were also written by Horsfield or credited him with contributions to the text. Not sure who "Illiger" is. This, that and the other (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added links: Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger and Thomas Horsfield on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . DCDuring (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cited it as well as I was able without a large, ornithological library to browse. I looked for guidance in CFI and every other guideline or policy I could find for what constituted a "citation" and whether actual dictionaries somehow didn't count, because *anywhere in the universe but Wiktionary* the word citation means "to identify a source upon which something relies". Unfortunately, Wiktionary doesn't even define what is and isn't a citation, though the word appears from time to time; reference templates are used for citations everywhere else, but rarely on Wiktionary.

However, the word was challenged "because OED says something else", i.e. "the only dictionary that matters disagrees with this ", so it seems fair to cite other authoritative dictionaries to refute the claim that the definition is wrong. The one non-dictionary use I could find mentions the word, describes how and why it's used, and cites an authority who used it, although not in a manner that makes the original easy to locate. But this use at least was not a definition, but a discussion of the term that says it's used—if rarely. So I cited it to the best of my ability—thanks for improving on that, but it'd be nice not to be put on the defensive for having put as much time and effort as I could into it, and digging up some evidence for a make-work challenge. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is undeniable that finding via links from this page Wikipedia's use-mention distinction article and then determining how to apply it is not convenient or straightforward. We need to make the text on this page and at WT:CFI (WT:ATTEST) a bit more clear to make it less necessary to go to the WP article. Of course the more text provided, the less likely it is to be read. DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid that even with that reference it's hard to know what to do with a major dictionary: the examples provided are:

Use: Cheese is derived from milk.

Mention: "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word ċēse.

Use: With reference to 'bumbershoot', Peter explained that "The term refers to an umbrella".

Mention: When Larry said, "That has three letters", he was referring to the word 'bee'.

The citations to Webster's and an ornithological glossary clearly aren't mere "mentions" of the word, and while Webster's does provide the etymology, it also explains what the word means, who uses it, and mentions that it's rare, making it appear to be a "use" as in both of the examples, which explain what the word in question means. I did actually know that three citations formed part of the criteria for inclusion, and that "dictionary-only" words don't meet those criteria; but that doesn't mean that dictionaries shouldn't be cited or that they carry no authority.

CFI seems particularly concerned about "someone's online dictionary", by which from other discussions I've read and participated in suggests a strong worry about citations to clearly unauthoritative sources like Urban Dictionary (which seems to have no criteria for verification, or at least none that are obviously enforced) or Wiktionary itself (because it's crowdsourced). Such sources are likely to include absurdities like "hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian", popularized if not invented by Richard Lederer, which really just means "sesquipedalian"—but with ad-hoc and humorous prefixes as intensifiers—and which really only ever appears as an example of "a really long word". The OED and various Webster's (among others) don't normally have words like that, but do include rare and historic words.

I add that, while I agree with our criteria for inclusion as a goal, and attempt to comply with them as best I can, it seems that they are likewise very rarely enforced with respect to words other than neologisms; countless ordinary and undisputed words on Wiktionary don't have three (or even one) citation either as either a use or a mention, or to any kind of authority; yet they may sit here for years unchallenged because they're obviously legitimate words that appear to have the correct definition.

This strikes me as very like Wikipedia, which requires sources (citations) for all but the most obvious statements of fact (the famous example of something that doesn't require a reference being, "you don't need to cite that the sky is blue"), and clearly states that unsourced statements may be removed; articles are frequently nominated for deletion due to having few or no reliable sources. However, removal and deletion aren't automatic processes; even experienced editors will decline to delete things that appear to be correct, and do not resemble "patent nonsense", allowing someone to come along later and provide more and better sources.

Here I did the best I could with a rare term: it was challenged on the grounds that OED doesn't include this sense; but other dictionaries do, and I cited them for it. I also looked for uses, but was only able to find one online. The internet isn't exactly brimming with century-old texts on bird anatomy, and neither plain Google searches, searches of Google Books, or more specific searches of textbooks on bird anatomy, avian anatomy, ornithology, ornithological terms, etc. seemed to be turning up more results. So I cited all of the sources that I could find (avoiding cumulative uses of various Webster's), in the hopes that someone else might find and add more later. Which someone did, and for which I'm grateful. But I don't think there should be any sense in which it's wrong to cite any of these sources, even if the number of them or the type of them isn't ideal. As Wiktionary is crowdsourced, sometimes it takes a village to document a definition; nobody should be discouraged from citing what they can find, and as "citation" isn't defined anywhere in policy or guideline, calling any reference to authority or use "a citation" shouldn't really be challenged, even if some people use the word "cited" in a specialized way to mean, "cited to three uses other than dictionaries". P Aculeius (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P Aculeius I think you come to this with the lens of a Wikipedian, and you probably saw my Beer Parlour post aiming to address some of the issues in CFI so that it better reflects our practices here. To address a few of your points briefly:

• It's well established that a mere entry in a dictionary is not evidence of "use" of the word. To take an extreme example, many words have appeared in dictionaries without ever being used by writers as far as we know: Appendix:English dictionary-only terms.
• When we say "citation" we mean citation sense 6. This is not what Wikipedia means by "citation".
• Citations are only required if the word is challenged on this or another Requests for Verification page. This is why most entries don't have them.
• A deep dive into Google Books, using positive and negative searches (e.g. "myxa" bird -cordia, eliminating references to Cordia myxa, an unrelated plant) is typically required to find good citations. This is what I did to find the three citations currently in the entry. See also WT:SEA.
• There's nothing wrong with referencing other dictionaries in a Wiktionary entry, but at the same time, I feel this type of reference is generally not a very valuable thing to add, unless the dictionary was a direct source for the entry (as Webster 1913 often is for us) or expands on what's in our entry in some interesting way (e.g. OED etymologies). Similar to how Wikipedia would not normally reference other encyclopedias unless they were sources for the entry.

I hope this helps you to understand our process, and I'm sorry it's been confusing for you. This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only issue here is my poor understanding of the policies, rather than policies being used in a way that actually impedes the mission of the dictionary; that I'm an outsider who just doesn't understand the way things work, so you just need to keep repeating the same explanations until I get it. But I'm not an outsider; I've been part of the community for years, though I'm not a frequent contributor; and part of the reason why is because of arguments like this, where the underlying issue—"does the word mean what it's claimed to mean? Prove it!"—becomes secondary to whether even the best authorities meet our standards for inclusion or can be said to prove anything at all.

The issue is that your objections are not to the authorities cited, but the fact that someone referred to them as "citations" using the ordinary sense of the word; that a challenge may be based on a dictionary, but not refuted by one, or by any number of sources that verify the word or sense challenged; that all someone has to do is find a dictionary that doesn't include a word or sense, and that places the burden on the rest of the community to prove by overwhelming evidence that the thing shouldn't be deleted.

Does my experience with Wikipedia suggest to me that this isn't the ideal way to address disputed words or senses? I can't deny it, but outside experience should inform views of policy and suggestions to revise it, or on how to enforce it, otherwise the Wiktionarian community will become insular and unresponsive to legitimate concerns—for instance dismissing them with "you just don't understand how things work around here. I'm so sorry that you're confused."

The "use–mention" distinction (often cited, but not defined in Wiktionary—the only reference provided is to Wikipedia!) as applied in Wiktionary means something other than what it says: the dictionary entry says what the word means; it provides information about its topic. This is what the "use" examples do; the "mention" examples give the word's etymology or the number of letters it has, but fail to tell the reader anything about what the word refers to. To the extent that the reason why a mere "mention" of a word is inadequate, but a "use" of it is allowable because it tells the reader something, a definition in a dictionary is significantly more helpful than say, "interesting, said Dr. Featherstone, looking at the bird's myxa, and making a note," Which is certainly an example of its use, but it tells the reader nothing helpful about the word. This is essentially a "mention" of the word that counts as a "use"—but why it's more helpful for verification of what the word means than a definition or a discussion of the word and its use would not be apparent to anyone else.

In any case, I've said my piece, and you can freely ignore it—I don't mean to continue arguing for days on end—but kindly don't assume that my opinion is due to confusion or a lack of understanding. P Aculeius (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger. In taxonomy, name-dropping is standard. It's not enough to "stand on the shoulders of giants"- you have to mention them by name. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

A practice that, in cases such as this, I think, we should be extremely grateful for! I meant to hunt for Illiger, but didn't have the time last night. Thank you! P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't spotted anything which seems usable; the one example I found ("Larry's inability to fathe a child with Angela. a child fathered by another man ") also uses "father" and is thus almost certainly just a typo of the expected verb, to father (and corresponding to mother). - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 15:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "stolen vehicle" Jberkel 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Plausible as a shortening of hot-wired car. There was an article in my local rag about the term: . This would be one cite. This, that and the other (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's also hotting (“riding in a high-performance stolen car”). Jberkel 09:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Yiddish". Definitely missing a few labels at least. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to find pure cites. IMO, a reference in US-based writings to Jewish newspapers refers to Yiddish newspapers, but that is a probability based on the empirical fact that there are/were hardly any Hebrew newpapers in the US and those that existed had relatively few subscribers. See Category:Jewish newspapers published in the United States on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . WP articles about these newspapers do not always state in what language they are written, but, unless stated otherwise, one might assume they were written in English. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yiddish newspapers are Jewish newspapers, so the fact that a Yiddish newspaper is referred to as “a Jewish newspaper” does not imply that Yiddish is a sense of Jewish. Deer are animals, and here a deer is referred to with the term “animal”, but animal does not have a sense deer. A usable attestation should take a more explicit form such as “he spoke Jewish” or “written in Jewish” while the language referred to cannot be Hebrew. It is more difficult to think of usable attestation forms for the cultural sense, since, as for newspapers, Yiddish culture is also Jewish culture – but not necessarily vice versa.  --Lambiam 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, the RFV'ed sense is the adjective, not a noun (so "he spoke Jewish" doesn't count towards citing it). I have in fact cited the noun sense though, fairly unambiguously, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED says dictionary only. Newfiles (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites to the citations page. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work. I found two more cites where it's hyphenated across a line break; as I've only spotted one cite where it's hyphenated in the middle of a line, I think it's probably safe to use these cites for octoradiated (particularly as the question before us is whether it exists, rather than whether it's more often hyphenated or unhyphenated). - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English only? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

J3133 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even on the web, this instance in the Linux Journal is the only use I spot. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note the spelling: one would expect fauxpenness, which does see some more use, but maybe not enough to save it. This, that and the other (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other: After your note, @Mynewfiles created it, albeit without any quotations (despite the RfV). J3133 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added it to the RFV. User:Mynewfiles, please stop creating entries which either previously failed RFD (as in previous cases), or (as here) creating entries without quotations for entries which are actively being discussed as probably not attested. In general please try to learn to have a better grasp of what is includable. - -sche (discuss) 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've brought this up to them before, especially with WT:DEROGATORY, but it doesn't seem like they've stopped. AG202 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'll definitely be more attentive. mynewfiles (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Easily found: google books:"his peeder" This, that and the other (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

unlisted Denazz (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

??? Denazz (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited, though only just barely. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

NopeDenazz (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

unsure Denazz (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definition makes little sense to me. MWOnline defines this as a color. DCDuring (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Might it be a variant of "rambling rose"? That seems to indicate roses that grow from vines (instead of woody shrubs). P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't need speculation. We need citations that show how it is actually used. At its best speculation in this kind of matter generates useful hypotheses about how to find citations. DCDuring (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"An animal that leaps the dyke surrounding its pasture."

I don't think we can find actual uses for this definition. DCDuring (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my definition may definitely have to be revised. It is a rather obscure word, and seems to be used mainly in Scotland. mynewfiles (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citations are particularly important for obscure terms. It is also a good idea to read definitions in other dictionaries carefully. The current "definition" looks more like an etymology than an attestable definition. DCDuring (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for the wise advice. mynewfiles (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would have been wiser for me to have said "It is also a good idea to read definitions in other dictionaries carefully, but skeptically. Also, I should follow my own advice. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, thank you kindly. mynewfiles (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

removed one of the quotes because it was mention only, but the other two listed seem alright Akaibu (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

working on entries that have been touched in over a decade and stumbled across these three, wasn't able to find any example of these strings at all Akaibu (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

A lot of results on Google Scholar, but all from the same author. Looks like the invention of one particular mathematician that never caught on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definition:

1. a furry themed Utau character.

Does this have enough usage on the web to make up for the complete lack of presence on Google Books? Does this meet WT:BRAND? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was sth called a noctidial globe, thoPhacromallus (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited (but only just barely). I'd hit it with either an "obsolete" or a "rare"; there is one modern use (on the citations page) but it seems to use the word in a nonstandard sense, and also spells crazy as crasy. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Passed, just barely. - -sche (discuss) 14:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No citations. Attested mainly on the English Wikipedia, who may have gotten it from here (or the other way around). The much more common adjective is "Artsakhi", or just "Artsakh". Renerpho (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noun: Someone who really loves a certain person or thing.

Added by IP editor 82.14.225.108 an hour ago. I tried Vocabulary.com, but it has very few sentences for "glazer", and none seem to support this usage. Inner Focus (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume this is the slang use of glaze that has become recently popular in some online spaces, but the usage I've seen isn't best defined as "someone who really loves someone/something" but "someone who (perhaps excessively) hypes up or praises someone/something". Maybe there are examples in song lyrics. "Glazer" occurs in "MY HATERS ARE MY BIGGEST GLAZERS" but I can't tell exactly what it means there. More promising is "Yall real ones (JUSTIN CHANG, Dec. 17, 2023) which has "The whole ass fucking group chat you guys all just glaze one another" as well as "Everytime you talk you summon your glazers like what the hell". There are also plenty of social media examples.--Urszag (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

this seems like vandalism to me, someone having a gaff between hairdoo and doo-doo, but was asked to put it up here Akaibu (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

If the term were to exist, I would expect it to have the meaning of "a bad hairdo". CitationsFreak (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense: "members of a college fraternity." Not listed in any major dictionary. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "To provide someone with an opportunity for significant advancement." PUC – 12:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are a really weird set of senses: the first one, allowing someone to rest, doesn't look idiomatic at all, but sum-of-parts; and the challenged definition seems too narrow: I believe the phrase really means something more akin to "granting a boon" (a bit archaic, but clear), and is closely related to sense 2, to stop annoying or harassing someone—also perhaps too narrowly phrased. I think these two might be merged, and sense 1 eliminated. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible that the RfVed sense is sum-of-parts with break having its sense 8, "a significant change in circumstance, attitude, perception, or focus of attention", as in "big break"? 166.181.86.58 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is, but that would be SOP to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would remind you that the sum-of-parts issue is for RFD, not RFV. This is merely to show that the phrase is actually used in the defined manner. Kiwima (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unlike gweep, which was added to Wiktionary at the same time and crosslinked, which appears in late editions of the Jargon File, and which turns up attestations, I cannot find any valid cites of fweep in the sense given ("a person who used early minicomputers solely for playing games or using electronic mail"). Everything seems to be either bad OCR of ſweep or onomatopoeia. 166.181.89.182 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited, assuming I did that correctly. 166.181.86.58 04:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Meaning well-gone, apparently. Probs an error Denazz (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it's the opposite of welcome. It's the same as a Pali definition which is at RFD. Justin the Just (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've changed the def to "one who has made a spiritual journey", there are some Buddhist cites available to support something like this. Also something to do with Japanese swords. Justin the Just (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: pertaining to (reddish-brownish) copper rather than (green) copper rust.
I noticed we had entries for both eruginous and aeruginous, and in the process of trying to check which spelling was most common (apparently aeruginous? per Ngrams, but maybe something is skewing Ngrams?), I couldn't find cites of this sense in either spelling, and it doesn't seem like it would be expected based on the etymology (Latin aerūginōsus (“rusty”)). - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

However, I see the OED does have "eruginous" defined as "Partaking of the nature or substance of verdigris, or of copper itself" and does cite a remark by Browne (1646) about "ferreous and eruginous earths" and a remark by Harvey (1666) about "an adust stibial or eruginous sulphur", which could be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WF added the template last year but I guess never got around to putting it up here, looks to have only a single citation Akaibu (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry about that. Occasionally I start a process but don't get round to finDenazz (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
• A few minutes of searching uncovered additional uses. Having trouble locating the original of one of them, but I can cite it from a dictionary in the meantime. Will get it done in a few minutes. P Aculeius (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Took a while, but I found the original texts (or reprints of them), and added several quotes. Hope this will be enough to verify it! P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in Chaucer? Denazz (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

couldn't find anything on this Akaibu (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(US) Areas of public land on which it is possible to hike, etc." (From 2006.) The only cites I can find are about the UK instead, and seem to be ~place with many pubs, in the vein of the Irish sense of flatland being a place with many flats/apartments. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Land that has been degraded by fires." From context, I might suspect this is a term used in the sciences, like bareland, but almost everything I find in the singular or plural is just the capitalized proper noun placename Fireland (Tierro del Fuego) or the Firelands (in Ohio) instead. The only two lowercase cites I found and put at Citations:fireland are 1) referring to the Ohio Firelands, and 2) seemingly a typo for firelane (mentioned in the preceding sentence), respectively. (Likewise, I can find "fireland-access road-wildlife strips" in the 1991 Guide to Abundant Wildlife, but this too elsewhere uses, and probably meant here, firelane.) - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Searching for "fireland + soil" seems to strip the extraneous hits and finds a couple of environmental science works. A lot of hits also appear on Google for some part of a piston engine? It seems to mean the top ring of a piston, or maybe the area inside or above that ring ("fire land" is the more common form). Someone who knows more about car engines should add the relevant sense at land as well. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The Ndiang'ui cite is probably valid: I'm a little uncomfortable that it only uses this word once, and assuming it intended the definition we list, the sentence is somewhat redundant/awkward ("perpetuates a land degraded by fire degraded environment"; it could alternatively be an error for just fire, "fire degraded land", but I admit that's arguably less plausible than assuming it does mean fireland). The ISPRS cite has a lot of NNS/grammar errors but I suppose it still counts (and it does use the word multiple times, which is helpful). I haven't spotted a clear third cite, though there's a report about Apalachicola on Google Scholar which uses capitalized Fireland in a way I haven't had time to work out the meaning of. (I don't take the "Ashleys of America" cite I added to be this sense, because it's referring to lands in Ohio not degraded by fires, which were given to people in Connecticut who'd suffered fires.) - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added two quotes to the Citations page, although both use the term in a metaphorical sense. Einstein2 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't make sense of the formation of this word, particularly the "to" between de- + sulfa- and hirudin, then couldn't find any quotes for it after that, so i'm suspecting this is maybe the "to" is a typo of an actual chemical morpheme. Akaibu (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Akaibu: It probably has something to do with sulfate. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Discovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitors#Hirudin derivatives. For future reference: rfv should only be used if you think an entry may need to be deleted because there's no usage. This kind of inquiry would be better at the Tea room or the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-sense "Heathland; land full of heather." We list two senses: the other is "Moorish or watery land.", which is the sense I can find in other reference works; I haven't spotted cites of this "heather" sense. (Honestly, it might or might not be possible to scrape together three cites even for the "moorish land" sense.) The EDD sort-of combines the two senses (in their entry in ros), which might be advisable if we manage to find enough cites between the two senses but not enough to cite them separately. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This clearly does not pass the fried-egg test. Is there any way to justify its inclusion? Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is it an adjective? I think it should have the same POS as no, which seems to be a determiner. Also seems to pass the fried egg test to me. Justin the Just (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

yet another shavian term that needs verification Akaibu (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

adding per WT:Derogatory, attestment might be difficult due to a similarly named event Akaibu (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On google books looks more like AAVE. Justin the Just (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

All the stuff I can find on the first few pages that isn’t a surname is in several books by the same the same black American author Red Jordan Arobateau Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added six durable cites from Google Groups. mynewfiles (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

methinkes thys bee onely Gascoine and Chaucer. Phacromallus (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

All I could find on Google books was Chaucer and "lickerousness of dominion" which I don't understand. Justin the Just (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chaucer is Middle English, so does not count for modern English. I found three cites in modern English, but the definitions are divided so much, that they each fit a different def. I suggest we merge them all into the first one (state, quality, or condition of being lickerous), in which case it is cited. Kiwima (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, thanks Justin the Just (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Akaibu (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So rare! Phacromallus (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found 3 on Google books, think it's ok. Justin the Just (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A female singer; songstress. Newfiles (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam special. Linkyspoot (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move to Middle English. It's hard to search for (one can imagine all kinds of spellings being used) but OED finds only one ME use, and I'd be content to believe that.

Incidentally the etymology seems to be missing something. Perhaps it should read be- +‎ comsen (noting that such an ME form is mentioned at commence)? This, that and the other (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

1. Any larva of an indefinite number of species of the beetle family Coccinellidae, that is covered in waxy threads and feeds on aphids and similar small prey.

The only quote in the entry is discussing the writings of a French author and mentions that he calls a ladybird beetle larva "l'hérisson blanc", or "le barbet blanc". A quick search in Google Books turns up lots of references to birds, but I don't see anything related to beetles. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a plural form of thermos (“bottle, flask”); added by 76.68.10.133 today. J3133 (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anthony Burgess used it, so I wouldn't be surprised to find a third cite. Only two for now. This, that and the other (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited now, with quite some effort. This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Of food odors: malodorous, flatulent, pungent: smelling of sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, or hydrogen disulfide.
• Of animals: variegated, speckled, multicolored; usually used in the phrase brockle-faced.

The compounded form "brockle-faced" is easy to find, though. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Humorous misspelling of burger." Is this a humorous misspelling or just a misprint/typo? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a form of the verb mojo. J3133 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

122.56.85.105 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find one paper using "dauerized" but nothing else. This, that and the other (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let me RFV dauerization, too. It gets two Google Scholar hits (one is the same paper that uses dauerized), but it's not obvious to me whether they're related to the only sense of dauer we currently list; we may be missing a sense (which some instances of dauerize might then also be using). The two hits are:

• 2019, CE Richardson, C Yee, K Shen, "A hormone receptor pathway cell-autonomously delays neuron morphological aging by suppressing endocytosis", in PLoS biology:

  those in RD, we asked whether dauerization could be a method to We find that dauerization indeed dramatically reduces the Remarkably, pan-neuronal dauerization reduces

• 2022, ME Murphy, A Narasimhan, A Adrian, A Kumar, et al, "Metabolism in the Midwest: research from the Midwest Aging Consortium at the 49th Annual Meeting of the American Aging Association", in Geroscience:

  A neuron-specific genetic modification (dauerization) was used to generate a dauer-like The constitutive endocytic process is strongly suppressed by dauerization. This physiological

I also looked for but did not find dauerise or dauerisation. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2022 paper cites the earlier work of Richardson when talking about dauerization so I'm not sure if the two quotes can be considered independent. The meaning seems more specific than the one in dauerize, it suggests something like "to induce a genetic modification in (a neuron) that generates a dauer-like state", rather than "to form a dauer". Einstein2 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A person, generally one with a background in construction or civil engineering that reviews properties to find issues, faults and fixes to be remedied by the construction company before the client buying the home moves in (Republic of Ireland). --Svartava (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited and cleaned up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smurrayinchester We probably want a corresponding sense at snag. It falls under "a problem or difficulty with something", but it's more specific than that, as they're issues that prevent a development from being deemed complete (i.e. they get in the way of the developer being able to hand it over to the buyer). Also, I'll have a think about reviewing the definition given here for snagger, because it's also used in commercial property development, and I don't think it's any less common in the UK than it is in Ireland. Theknightwho (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scots. Nominated by User:Rakso43243 with rationale "This word doesn't exist, check dictionaries". Ultimateria (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

122.56.85.105 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Presbyterian." Quote does not have press button. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added a cite, there's a second one in the GDoS entry. Einstein2 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"viz.", probably a misreading of "videlicet". Wikiuser815 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WT:BRAND — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed; related Russophrenia seems to have barely passed RFV. Ultimateria (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Abbreviation of Saint. (Always capitalized.)" If it's truly always capitalized then it belongs at St; if it's not always capitalized, we need to change the qualifier. I suspect there are some rare uses of it in lowercase, although searching just now, looking especially for the plural and for use as an abbreviation of the common count noun, I haven't managed to find examples. - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

All except the last two quotes look either fake or like typos. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the last one doesn't support the entry, it's a clear verbal joke. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense: “(Australia) A marker; a felt-tip pen.” Removed by @BenAveling: see Talk:texter (“Citation needed. Texta has this usage, I don't believe texter is used for this.”) J3133 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As an Australian, I've never seen this spelling. (The usual spelling is texta.) But I guess it's plausible. This, that and the other (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. Doesn't seem restricted to the Philippines. There is also bikenapping, which may have a stronger shot at attestability. This, that and the other (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

fieldfare — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 05:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Mentioned in some old bird books, not in running text — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 05:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Bird. Was name of a plant — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 05:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Bird — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 05:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Bird — This unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:3D29:5000:6D9A:1B35:728A:4500 (talk) at 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Old bird name — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 16:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Old bird name. Lots of French, and old spelling of drain — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 16:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

"A compound word characterised by blending with the word pussy." Used by anyone besides Dow? @Arafsymudwr Ioaxxere (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Certainly used away from keyboard: adding it was prompted by constant use of the term in discussions about documenting specific examples, which is of course hard to document. Some uses online, one of which placed as a quote. It is a term used in particular circles, but readily understood by linguists and associated people in social media who do not know each other.

Relevant if consensus decide against retaining: I also added mention of pussy blend to -ussy before seeing this. Arafsymudwr (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surface to air missile. Really also in lowercase? - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old bird name. The barn owl. Appears in some dialectal dictionaries. Denazz (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Said here to be an English verb, derived from Middle English gressen, from Old English *gressan, from Proto-Germanic *grasjaną, but I can't find cites of either the English or the Middle English word: the Middle English gresen we have is said to be from *grasōną instead. - -sche (discuss) 09:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The best I can find is ‘gress’ and ‘gres’ listed as old Scots here. Everything else with ‘gressed’ or ‘gressing’ is something like ‘(pro/re)gress(ed/ing)’ or a typo for dress(ing/ed) or greas(ed/ing)’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 3 — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 14:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-sense old shoe — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Spenser? — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

And he spelled it differently! Denazz (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find anything other than Spenser. I suspect a lot of the stuff in Category:English terms suffixed with -head (abstract noun) is like this. It seems that -head was already an archaic suffix by the end of the Middle English period. This, that and the other (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in Chaucer? — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 14:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

Just Fuller? — This unsigned comment was added by 80.247.19.221 (talk) at 18:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC).Reply

As noted way back in a talk page comment, this doesn't appear to refer to nauseating specifically so much as the already noted "questionable" that's already present. This was originally listed as Australian slang, but got changed at some point. Still, I can't find anything to back this up. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You could just as easily say "it smells dodgy in there", but that doesn't mean dodgy has a specific olfactory sense. Just delete it, I reckon. This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Chaucer? Denazz (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs at least two more qualifying quotations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do people really think of poo(p)? I just thought Pootin was a playful respelling of his name, along the manner of stoopid, not specifically intended as vulgar. —Soap— 18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. My question remains, though. Is it really a poop joke? It seems simultaenously so childish and so lowbrow that I'd think people would avoid it in insults. Again stoopid exists. But oh well. i'll go to the talk page if this RFV closes with no respones to me. —Soap— 18:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Selden? Denazz (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

only Cowper?Denazz (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found the following quote:

• 1808, Mary Addington, Heraldry in Miniature, page 70:

  The hatchment having the ground without the escutcheon on the dexter side black, denotes the man to be dead; and the ground on the sinister side being white, signifies that the wife is living; which is also demonstrated by the outmantling.

which looks to have another meaning entirely.... Kiwima (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

egg yolk? Denazz (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found and cited four uses in English-language scientific literature. Probably more available, but I had to wade through a lot of dictionaries and treatises in other languages. Could not find full bibliographic information for one instance, so I kept searching until I had four. P Aculeius (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A bird." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attestable, by cursory examination of Google Books. Move to RfD. DCDuring (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attested in Google Books. Keep. Do not send to RfD. Merriam-Webster online has an entry for "avian dinosaur." 2600:1700:4410:47A0:E498:45D8:6D38:A091 01:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Nynorsk dictionary states that the Norwegian idiom stopp en hal is borrowed from Dutch stop en haal or English stop and haul.

It could be that the dictionary makes no claim that this is a idiom in either language, but is there any evidence this exists as an expression in English or Dutch, as opposed to simply being stop followed by haul/haal in these languages? Arafsymudwr (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in Swedish? Denazz (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only quote I could find is John Wycliffe, which would make this Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in Milton? Denazz (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a verb, all I can find is Milton and a somewhat similar passage by Godwin, but as a noun it is quite easily cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. Einstein2 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find a thing on this supposed suffix. Akaibu (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find anything besides the genus name Pelorosaurus. The etymology also looks wrong. Einstein2 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense adverb (Southeast Asia, Hong Kong, nonstandard) Now.

The entry gives a reference for this:

Nury Vittachi (2002) “From Yinglish to sado-mastication”, in Kingsley Bolton, editor, Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity, Hong Kong University Press, page 213: “Another word with what is apparently a direct translation is the word 'first', which is 'sin' in Cantonese. The two words do seem to have largely identical meanings, except 'sin' also carries the meaning 'now'.”

It's not totally clear from this passage, but I think it's saying that English first is used as a direct translation of Cantonese 先 (sin¹) in all senses, including the additional sense "now". However, it would be good to see some actual use. Theknightwho (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find adjectival uses. Einstein2 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A place where two rivers meet." — etymology != definition. Introduced in 2022, referring to a non-specialist book that simply writes At Walla Walla — whose very name means “where the waters meet”. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's in 1 more. 2??? Newfiles (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: emblem of cuckoldry. I'd think it was the cuckold themself.... Newfiles (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: I recall a previous discussion at which it was generally agreed that definitions along the line of “a symbol of X” for things are generally unacceptable as a multitude of objects can be symbols for things. A rose can be a “symbol of love” or “symbol of secrecy”, a tennis racket “a symbol of tennis”, and so on. Moreover, “symbol of X” is not a definition of such an object—the object is simply a rose (“type of flower”) or a tennis racket (“equipment used to play tennis”). This may be more suited for an RFD discussion. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk:pineapple? (which was RFCed and then RFVed.) - -sche (discuss) 14:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

A type of Indian silk. I can find no evidence for this. Kiwima (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima: In some Indian scripts or languages such as Devanagari (कलगी), Bengali (কল্গী), Urdu (کلغي), etc. the "uh" sound is often transliterated as "a", so the "culgee" at the end of this page and the beginning of this one can also be spelled as kalgi. That shows the word is real, but it doesn't show it in use with the right English spelling and the right sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Clear invention. Creator's edit summary was: "It only makes sense that this term should exist per God-Save-the-Kinger, it's just a word that has to exist." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C92F:A444:8ECC:C889 09:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This entry used to simply be defined as Synonym of otherkin, but was expanded by new user Wanderingdrake. This user wrote at the Grease Pit that they personally identify with the term and felt the definition failed to accurately reflect the way the term is used in the community. Perhaps the real problem is the definition at otherkin is too vague. In any event, it would be good to see some citations (WT:") to assist in verifying alterhuman, especially the very specific sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wanderingdrake also deleted a citation because s/he didn't like it. Should probably be restored. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C92F:A444:8ECC:C889 09:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am confused as to what @Wanderingdrake means. It seems like a synonym for otherkin, at least going by our definitions. Wanderingdrake defined alterhuman as "an opt-in label and umbrella term for identities that are not considered typical to the human experience" and later added the examples "otherkind, therianthropes, phytanthropes, celestials, soulbonders, spiritual mediums, and plural systems".

However, our definition for otherkin says pretty much the same thing: "A person who claims or believes that their soul, essence, or identity is non-human" i.e. everything he listed above; otherkind, therianthropes, phytanthropes, celestials, soulbonders, spiritual mediums (save maybe for plural systems?). So, it sure seems like a synonym? Either way, it is good to meet a fellow alterhuman, @Wanderingdrake. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Middle English? Denazz (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yep. Moved to peyrement P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old fossil thing. Apparently appears only as Palmacites, an old fossil genus? Denazz (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not in OED, Google Scholar pulls up nothing, nor do shadow libraries. Akaibu (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very little quotable. Pious Eterino (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

(slang, chiefly Australia) Gender-neutral.

There's a few Twitter citations on Citations:gendy nooch. Does Twitter alone count now? I'm not up-to-date as to where we are on that. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha We tend to keep terms with reasonably widespread usage in online-only sources. A CFI vote (WT:ATTEST: "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks.") may be a solution for such terms, see e.g. Talk:objectsona. Einstein2 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All contributions by this editor probably need to be reviewed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: young leveret. OED suggests only dictionaries. I tried "par/parre" too, sans luck Denazz (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed +remoed P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in Langland? That'd make it Middle English Denazz (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed, now enm P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

synonym of parament. Any other cites? Denazz (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jonson used it, but the sentence is "Your Spanish Host is never seen in Cuerpo, Without his Paramento's Cloak and Sword", which is obviously not a useful cite.

I couldn't find anything else, but it's tough to search for. There's some evidence it might be used in engineering to mean "retaining wall", but I couldn't find much for this either. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found a use of the plural: This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

vanishingly rare Denazz (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Challenge is to find this in singular! If not, it should be plural-only-fied Denazz (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: English etymology 1. OED's evidence for this word extends no further than the mid-1400s. This, that and the other (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same situation exists for Etymology 2 (the verb) as well.

(It's worth noting that OED has no modern cites for Etymology 3 either, but we do. So it is not an infallible resource.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very difficult to know how to search for this. There are thousands of hits in EEBO; the few I sampled were almost all alternative forms of moan (“audible lament”, noun) - occasionally alternative forms or moon (a sense our entry misses), or errors for moue = move. I found two that looked like possible hits, but the intended sense in each case is very difficult to discern: and there was another one but I lost the link. @-sche any searching ideas here? This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried checking in the MED what collocations/phrases this occurred in in Middle English, and searching for those in (early) modern English.: " "was his mone", "without mone", "in mone", "mone's man" ("no mone", "(without) man's mone", "woman's mone", "flesh's mone", "of mone" and bare "his mone" would probably still bring up too much "moan"). The only hits for "was his mone" at EEBO appear to be editions of Chaucer which we probably wouldn't count. These hits for "without mone" could possibly mean something like "compassion" or "companionly empathy", but they probably just mean "moan", as e.g. this more clearly does. The 19 hits for "his mones" also seem like "moan" (and although the cite you link about wights' mones is indeed opaque, I can also find another text about wights' mones in which it means "moans", so perhaps it's an awkward poetic use of "moan" in yours, too). Many hits for "in mone" are also "moan"; others are opaque. (Aside: I can find "wal" and "wall" as obsolete spellings of "wail", which we're currently missing.) The MED's cites are concentrated in the 12- and 1300s with only a handful of cites from the first half of the 1400s, so it's possible this died out before 1500. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@-sche thanks for helping out! Looking for collocations from MED is a great idea. On this evidence I'd be comfortable to call the noun RFV-failed. I want to check verb forms (moning, monyng etc) before failing the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Spenser? Langland in Middle English Denazz (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

—Ultimateria (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited and combined the two senses into one. Einstein2 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: anatomy, relating to the arachnidium. Is there such a thing??? Denazz (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there's a Wikipedia article on it, though I'm not sure if this is the right adjective to describe things that relate to arachnidiums/arachnidia or not. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Something rising in a conical shape; a hill rising to a point. Denazz (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: “expression that can refer to virtually any referent.” I am only familiar with the sense “expression that refers to a preceding expression.” —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Corresponding to exactly 2 items in the opposite order they were listed." Ioaxxere (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know from experience this word is used this way on rare occasion, usually when they accidentally list the corresponding items in the opposite order. May be colloquial but I wouldn’t know how to go about providing hard evidence the word is used this way. But trust me it is. 104.35.197.130 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English only. OED suggests the possible existence of busyhead to mean "busybody", but that is different from what is currently in the entry (and a different spelling to boot). This, that and the other (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old. This, that and the other (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English only. Nothing found in EEBO's word indexes. This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did find one from 1525 under an ultra-funky spelling, but still nothing more. This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surprisingly little quotationment here. It's called rudder-tube, apparently Denazz (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was seeing if we had the nautical sense of this term, as we do in the case of thick stuff, and instead found the two dubious(imo) terms instead. Akaibu (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first sense is easily attestable, although the definition could be expanded to include heroin. The "milk" sense is not in Green's (and was added by WF), but I haven't checked it in other sources. Einstein2 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was a famous series of adverts by the Dairy Council of Great Britain a while ago that even at the time were considered racist by the professionally offended with the slogan 'The white stuff, are you made of it?'. see the following youtube clip of an advert from 2001.

Green's has 'white stuff' meaning all of morphine, heroin, cocaine and China White (apparently an opiate resembling fentanyl more than heroin, I mistakenly thought of it as a form of heroin until I checked the link but then I claim no expertise in such matters!) and 'white' meaning all of those things except 'China White'. We have some of those meanings listed at white stuff and white but not all of them. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I expected to see "snow" as a def. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting; I would've thought it meant cocaine, and can find cites of that. I don't know which drug is meant, but this (which I am not presenting as durably archived, just as evidence that terms like this are still in common/current use, since I saw it yesterday by chance, before I saw this RFV) contrasts "that white", with "that green"/"the green stuff"/"weed". - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In different contexts it has or had different meanings beyond those now in the entry. We may wish that they all could be dismissed as SoP, but I'd bet on that wish not being fulfilled in reality. Cocaine seems to be white stuff, as does some brain matter, "crust which surrounds the carborundum crystals", white phosphorus, certain oleomargarine, lime, etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense as an adverb: By itself; of its own.

Given with the usage example It is nothing to worry about sui generis, but in context of the other factors it's alarming indeed., as a synonym of per se.

This sounds strange to me; I've only ever heard the legal sense, which is an adjective. Theknightwho (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To me, too, it seems like an adjective. Why do law dictionaries call it a noun? DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring It can also refer to something that is sui generis in legal contexts. Theknightwho (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No dictionary except for legal dictionaries call sui generis a noun. The legal lexicographers must have a reason for calling it a noun. What is the reason? Is it short for "a thing (law, decision, situation) that is sui generis". Or, better, where are the cites? DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A few cites (of the noun) for you:

• 2013 June 29, Bimal K. Matilal, A. Chakrabarti, Knowing from Words: Western and Indian Philosophical Analysis of Understanding and Testimony, Springer Science & Business Media, →ISBN, page 100:

  It is word-generated knowledge or knowledge by testimony ( K. T. for short ) – a sui generis.

• 2020 May 21, Michael R Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Inter-Varsity Press, →ISBN:

  Prior to the 1990s a large segment of New Testament scholarship maintained that the Gospels represent a sui generis, that is, a genre unique to them. This sui generis was viewed as a type of mythology.

• 2021 October 5, Sze Ping-fat, Carrier's Liability under the Hague, Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules, BRILL, →ISBN, page 124:

  Insofar as none of these approaches has ever been formally overruled by the highest Court of the land, the law of deviation remains an area of controversy and is practically treated as a sui generis - that is, as a law quite distinct from the general law of contract.

These look like adverbial cites:

• 2003, Canada. Parliament. Senate. Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Délibérations Du Comité Sénatorial Permanent Des Affaires Sociales, Des Sciences Et de la Technologie:

  They came up with a program that the federal Minister of Agriculture and his provincial colleagues agreed was a good and appropriate approach to handling that particular problem. They did it sui generis.

• 2014 August 7, Jonas Ebbesson, Marie Jacobsson, Mark Adam Klamberg, David Langlet, Pål Wrange, International Law and Changing Perceptions of Security: Liber Amicorum Said Mahmoudi, Hotei Publishing, →ISBN, page 5:

  Another possibility is that the council acted sui generis and expressed a one-off view on the facts with no precedential significance.

• 2015 December 31, Llewellyn Howes, Judging Q and saving Jesus - Q’s contribution to the wisdom-apocalypticism debate in historical Jesus studies., AOSIS, →ISBN, page 62:

  The refutation of Kleinliteratur conceptions enabled Kloppenborg to do away with the idea that Q was created sui generis, which, in turn, enabled him to compare Q with other ancient literature (Kirk 1998:35–36, 64).

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added to defs. in entry. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring The reason it's used as a noun in legal contexts is because it's a convenient shorthand for "something that is sui generis". Outside of law, it's not a term that people use very often. Theknightwho (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Smurrayinchester There is also a plural form, sui genera (), though it mostly seems to see use as a declined adjective. Theknightwho (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv: both senses. I can find two quotes (Citations:Pasithean), both of which use the term in reference to Pasithea, a festival in 2nd-century Ephesus. Einstein2 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found no quotes except for one use of Callichorean with a different sense (Citations:Callichorean). Einstein2 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv: all senses. I could find two cites for a "related to the Taygetus" sense (Citations:Taygetean), which seems to be more common as Taygetan and Taygetian. Einstein2 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv: both senses. I found a single cite for the first sense (Citations:Iocastean), which is an alt form of Jocastan. Einstein2 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv: both senses. Einstein2 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Didn't find... didn't look so creatively tho... Denazz (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

really dull RFV. Sorry Denazz (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

alt. sp. English Denazz (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Island. Denazz (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

4 meanings, found in some glossaries. Most hits are pronunciation spellings of "sleep" - needs adding Denazz (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dialectal Denazz (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Spenser? Denazz (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe Middle English? OED only has Spenser for this form. In any event is really a form of hoe Ety 3 (which could use some context labels) and/or how Ety 2. This, that and the other (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

eloquent Denazz (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited and tidied This, that and the other (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: sphere. Not in OED, which does include other meanings Denazz (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any examples of this as a phrasal verb, just quotes about "taking guff off someone". Kiwima (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have managed to cite the Australian slang, but I can't find any other meaning for the RFDef. Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Denazz what hast thou to say for thyself? This, that and the other (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

We already have itzcuintli and its cognates. I propose adding this guy: itzcuintlipotzotli, aka „yzi-cuinte potzotli", „itzcuintepotzotli”, „ytzeuinte porzotli", „itzeuinte potzotli”, „itzcuinte-potzoli” (all from Nahuatl, here is the proof) - the most developed (by me) references are now in its plwiki entry, e.g. Desmond Morris, Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 Dog Breeds, Trafalgar Square Books, 2008, page 590, ISBN 978-1-57076-410-3, or its 19th century versions:

John Richardson etc., The museum of natural history; being a popular account of the structure, habits, and classification of the various departments of the animal kingdom: quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, shells, and insects, including the insects destructive to agriculture, New York, J. S. Virtue, 1877, page 60 : "Of the three different species of Dog included by Fernandez, in History of the Animals of New Spain, ... the generic name Alco, Button, rejecting at once the hairless Dog, identical with the Bald Turk of the Old Continent, admits readily the species called Ytzcuinte potzotli — a Dog, short-necked in an unusual degree, and humped in shape, with silky hair ... "

Frances Calderón de la Barca (quite famous and popular in her days), Life in Mexico 1843 : "Hanging up by a hook in the entry, along with various other dead animals, polecats, weasels, etc., was the ugliest creature I ever beheld. It seemed a species of dog, with a hunch back, a head like a wolf, and no neck, a perfect monster. As far as I can make out it must be the itzcuintepotzotli, mentioned by some old Mexican writers.... " Zezen (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not seeing it. March off? Whalespotcha (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Ford? Phacromallus (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seeing French, not enough English Denazz (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

only Chaucer? Denazz (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sources listed appear to be the only ones. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

1. Initialism of Shuvo Noboborsho.

I changed the language code from bn (Bengali) to en (English), but this looks like it was meant to be Bengali শুভ নববর্ষ (śubho nobborśo, “Happy New Year”). Is this acronym actually used in English?, and do we really want a redlink to a Bengali term spelled in Latin letters? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: critical. Lowercase? Denazz (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: relating to stupor Denazz (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

See this Google books search. Mostly from 19th C. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Alternative form of 'ton (“proton”)". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Alternative form of 'tron (“electron, neutron”)". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Clergyman with multiple ecclesiastical livings -- Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. Kiwima (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adjective: "Able to use technology to maximize the use of resources." I'm sure Buckminster Fuller used it, but did anyone else?

We also have Dymaxion, somewhat gauchely defined as "A structure or device that is dymaxion in nature" - a better def would be "(attributive) A name applied by Buckminster Fuller to his inventions.", but perhaps we can do better than that. This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

RHU (via InfoPlease} has: "noting or pertaining to R. Buckminster Fuller's concept of the use of technology and resources to maximum advantage, with minimal expenditure of energy and material."

It still needs cites, though they should be findable in discussions of Fuller's works. DCDuring (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The two problems with the dymaxion entry are the adjective POS and the lowercase "d". I can find occasional references to some of Fuller's inventions spelled with a lowercase "d" (dymaxion house, dymaxion car) but these uses only support dymaxion as an alternative case form of Dymaxion and nothing further. This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs to pass the 3 independent uses criteria of WT:CFI. AG202 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the alt form gegagedigedagedaoh. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

This was added as a synonym of absence makes the heart grow fonder, but all I can find are quotes that mean quite the opposite, or are at best ambiguous. Can we find any clear support for this interpretation? Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems unlikely. absence makes the heart grow fonder belongs in the etymology. Could this kind of rhyming derivation be worth an etymology category? DCDuring (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. If this phrase were used in the place of "absence makes the heart grow fonder", it'd be erroneous. It almost feels like an eggcorn for that other phrase, if used in that sense. ScribeYearling (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense. I haven't seen tgia usage and I don't know how to search for it online. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Geographyinitiative tgia? DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if it's a coincidence that g/h and a/s are next to each other on the keyboard... Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tgia usage is now cited. Tganka you! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

This entry was such a mess that it was hard to figure out what to do with it. If I understand it correctly, it was originally supposed to be an alternative plural of sriracha, and thus an alternative form of srirachas. A quick look at Google books shows it to be used in the singular, possibly as an alternative form of sriracha. I made this an rfv-sense because it's obviously in use, and I don't have the time or energy to sort out the usage. I have no problem with this ending up as cited or resolved, and will be happy to withdraw my nomination if someone who has looked at the usage thinks I should. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in Taylor? Denazz (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Spenser? Denazz (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pretty sure OED has numerous cites for this one. Will check again later. This, that and the other (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

NED has a cite from Browne's Britannia's Pastorals: "Peregall to nymphes of old, From which their beastlihed now freely start." The modern OED also includes a curious quote from the 3 January 1887 edition of the New Mississippian, which is hard to find (anyone have access to Newspapers.com?). This, that and the other (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find a use in Ford's Christian Repository which is probably(?) this sense, although I'm not certain. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A Google Books search turns up a bunch of dictionaries, not actual uses. The one use found, in Spenser's Faerie Queene, is questioned by the 1909 Oxford edition: "III. viii. 30 l. 3. frory] frowy _1590_, _1596_. The reading of _1609_ is established by comparison with III. viii. 35 l. 2. ‘Frowie’ occurs in _S. C._ (_July_ III); but it means ‘musty’."--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs quotes that aren't just quoting the Ice Spice song. AG202 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/think-you-the-shit-bitch-you-not-even-the-fart ScribeYearling (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just used by Spenser? Denazz (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was looking for an etymology or a different attestation for this term, but as an internet friend of mine pointed out, it would be easiest to interpret this entry as a faulty interpretation of the plural helioses, which might equally well be the plural of heliosis. This interpretation would have the advantage that heliosis has the meaning "exposure to the sun" according to LSJ, which is much closer to a meaning 'solarium' than just plain helios. One further argument is that the authors of the quotations on helioses also used solaria, not solariums, implying they were knowledgeable enough about classic languages and especially proper plural formation.
Chuck Entz, you reversed the edit, is this enough justification? — This unsigned comment was added by Suryaratha03 (talk • contribs) at 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Suryaratha03: Let's see how the rfv plays out. As for the revert: you just removed Etymology 1 and left Etymology 2 hanging. That was bad enough, but this is a cooperative project: someone took the trouble to find the quotes and do the data entry a couple of years ago, and you just obliterated it without explanation. You may be right and it may be a misinterpreted plural of heliosis, but even then, this is an English entry and English doesn't have to follow Latin grammatical rules. It might even have developed a new singular in the same way that pease (plural, peasen) gave rise to pea. The key is whether anyone can find usage of the alleged singular. By the way, your ping didn't work because you forgot to sign your post. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't delete the quotations, I moved them to heliosis because I think that is the correct lemma form. As for the Etymology 2, I will personally adjust that should the move be confirmed. Looking at google books, heliosis is very often used for Ancient sun-therapy and once possibly for a sunroom ( , though the context: "practiced by the Greeks in the "Heliosis" or resting places" makes me think it's either a typo or a qualifyer of 'places'). As far as I can see it looks worse for plain helios though (no relevant results for "helios" + "solarium"/"sunroom"/"sun parlor"). The problem at root in my opinion is actually that the idea that the Ancient Greeks had any kind of named sunrooms is actually some kind of misconception derived from a line of citations that leads to no classical or archaeological source. Even Latin solarium just means any part of the house exposed to the sun, mainly the flat roof. In that case its dubious whether a few citations, solely in the plural, warrant a dictionary entry. If anything, the meaning "Ancient Greek practice of sunbathing" would be justified, though it usually only occurs with an added explication anyways
Suryaratha03 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Weird. poake is easily citable Denazz (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

1) puddle 2) porridge Denazz (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce Denazz (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

heroin Denazz (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in Fletcher? Denazz (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

warfare; contention; opposition. 3 cites for each??? Denazz (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In old technical dictionaries. Little IRL use Denazz (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does not seem like a word with much if any normal use. All usage examples in the entry specifically contrast this term with typo, as if the writer does not expect the reader to understand it without this context. Arafsymudwr (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say the quotes in the entry still count as proper uses (see WT:CFI#Conveying meaning), despite using the term in the context of typos. Einstein2 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

i agree with @Einstein2 that they are still proper uses, but it does seem that the status of writo (and indeed most of the words listed as coordinated terms of typo) as a word with actual currency will be clearer if we can find attestations that are independent in context to typo. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source given appears to be the only source for this word (and it's a mention). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just seeing old dictionaries Denazz (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED2 suggest only 1 hit Denazz (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In non-Middle English? P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense:importence - mentioned in OED2 P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged, not listed. Einstein2 (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: clawed. Not finding outside Thomson Denazz (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

non-Latin / non-italicised please Denazz (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obsolete synonym of burst (verb), with the nonproductive prefix to- meaning "in two ways".

However, the OED has no citations using this spelling, and even lemmatises it at to-burst. The citations post-dating 1500 variously use to brist, to barst, to-bost and to-brast, with to-bursten only occurring in Middle English. Theknightwho (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps a move to to-burst as the normalized form is in order (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense noun: A passionate individual.

What? Theknightwho (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED has a noun sense: "A person who is affected with passion or strong emotion". Einstein2 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noun: censored spelling of semen. 2804:7F7:DF00:55CB:4000:2976:C7D0:54FF 00:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't really find uses that are not referencing the line from Shrek (which doesn't really count as an attestation for an "anus" sense). Einstein2 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added one. TDHoward (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only the 1856 quote supports the sense (looking up the 1986 quote, there's a footnote that explains that Birminghamize here means "Reform Ireland's local government along the same lines as Birmingham's"), and I can't find any use of it by other authors. Every Google Books seems to be quoting Emerson. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We could probably attest this if we generalised the meaning a bit to ‘to do or say in a Birmingham/Brummie manner’ - the ‘make ersatz’ meaning is after all a specific subsense of that based on offensive stereotypes. Compare Birmingham screwdriver, in fact there are some websites claiming that Birmingham had a reputation for minting fake coins at the time of Emerson too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nominated for speedy deletion a month ago. WF, if you'd just brought it here, it would be resolved by now... Ultimateria (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks for following up. It won't pass. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

interestingly paragraphistic passes. added the Fletcher quote to Citations:paragraphistic as an aside —ragweed theater _{talk, user} 15:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Full of gambols or tricks. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

NED defines the adjective sense as "Smartly, showily, or gaily dressed" with four cites. The quotations are not especially enlightening as to the exact denotation of the term, but OED's definition does seem to fit better than Webster's. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm just seeing Foxe Denazz (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: with ease Denazz (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce?Denazz (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

2 senses Newfiles (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entry says it is Internet slang for flattering (adjective). Every other website says it's a drag queen thing, meaning showing off a feminine-looking body (or something?). And probably a noun. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9DA8:7B66:71F9:5846 14:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in April P. Sovjunk (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Type of melon. But the phrase only appears in the Wikipedia article, so probably just vandalism. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9DA8:7B66:71F9:5846 19:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find any cites. Einstein2 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "a dagger". there is a reference for this sense, but does it actually pass CFI? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Milton was probably just playing with the term's etymological meaning, "that which is held in the hand". (Actually he more likely knew that the word was used to mean "dagger" in Ancient Greek.) Century and OED don't include a "dagger" sense. This, that and the other (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

can't find other quotes than the one in the entry. possibly a nonce word? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "of or relating to Helene, the Saturnian moon". Einstein2 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't find cites for either spelling. Einstein2 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

senses: A sharp-pointed instrument. An eelspear. Denazz (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Huxley? Denazz (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old dictionaries only? Denazz (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A person who supports a political figure chiefly out of selfish interests."

This seems backwards to how I'd understand a henchman (who is not selfish but is working in their patron's interests) and I can't find any cites. Even dated hits for "henchman + political" and similar (such as this from 1928) seem more like sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

To my surprise, MWOnline has this definition: "a political follower whose support is chiefly for personal advantage", so it might be worth a hard search. DCDuring (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Century has: "A mercenary adherent; a venal follower; one who holds himself at the bidding of another". DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I have cited this. Kiwima (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the main issue here is that the primary meaning of ‘henchman’ is ‘an evil supporter or follower’ with the ‘servant/groom’ sense being archaic and the more neutral or positive uses of ‘henchman’ being vanishingly rare. Of course in the Venn diagram showing the intersection between ‘evil supporters/followers’ and ‘selfish supporters/followers’ the intersection is so large that we’re nearly just looking at a single circle. An interesting usage of ‘henchman’ to refer to a political supporter in a more positive or neutral light is the following which also uses the phrase ‘hand someone their card’ to seemingly mean ‘hit someone’ - similar to the phrase hand someone their cards (fire them). Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone. As Overlordnat1 says, the Venn diagram overlap means I'm not sure about 1 or 2 of the quotes, but I've added one more and I think there's enough to call this cited. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No hits on Google Books, Google News, or Google Scholar. Seems to be a nonce word, as "Pluto-centric" seems to be much more in use. AG202 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

raising these additional two here. see over at the wikipedia talk page for "Lists of orbits" for more info. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

actually, the following should probably be all called into question. bulk-added by the same person, the only derived terms are the -centric ones. (i hope that adding subheadings here for additional rfv is a welcomed practice, please tell me if i shouldn't do this.) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just in wordybooks? P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

English? Or Scots? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Svartava (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The word comes from this video Hydrogen astatide (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "partly conscious," distinct from "not accessible to the conscious mind." The latter sense was labeled "dated." What do people think of that? Do you agree with what wikipedia has to say about the usage of subconscious and unconscious (w:subconscious)? Should that sense maybe be split into a technical usage and a colloquial usage? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

‘Dated’ seems a strange tag to me. Perhaps professional psychobabblers don’t use the word ‘subconscious’ any longer but the general public do. I’ve also never personally used or encountered ‘subconscious’ as, essentially, a synonym for semiconscious. I’ve made a few adjustments to reflect this, we might also consider merging the translation table for ‘partially conscious’ at subconscious and the one at semiconscious. —Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good idea. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Confirming something by referring to one's own experience." Nothing is jumping out at me from google books:"martyrium" rhetoric, and while some of the hits for google books:"of martyrium" rhetoric look like they might not be sense 1, they don't look like this, either (they seem like they might mean something like martyr-ness or martyr-ification). Perhaps I just don't know the right collocations to search for. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

Can anyone cite this as an adverb? Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This does appear to exist (although very rare). However, I think we have the wrong continent and probably the wrong taxonomic name too. This, that and the other (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ping our taxoboffins @Chuck Entz, DCDuring This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The RfV question remains, but the entry was wrong about the links and the continent. If it fails RfV, the content should be moved to one of the attestable vernacular names. DCDuring (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

this Google Books search shows attestability. It seems dated or even obsolete. It looks to be derived, possibly, from Malayalam. DCDuring (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Verb sense: "(informal, British, transitive, intransitive) To punish, reprimand or intimidate. "Get the hell out of here!" Dante monstered when Santa approached the high school carolers." — Added by an American. I've never heard of it in British usage. The usage example does not look British either ("Santa" would be Father Christmas; "carolers" would have two Ls). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:580C:F1AF:B902:5AA6 10:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We might need help from the creator here, @Flame, not lame. They credited "Oxford Languages" - not sure exactly what resource this refers to. OED has two transitive senses marked "originally Australian", one which essentially means "to harass", and the other which roughly corresponds to this sense, although the meaning is closer to "demonise". This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I searched "monster meaning" on Google when I was 15 and it showed the dictionary. As a verb, it defined monster as an informal British verb for criticize or reprimand. The example sentence stated, "Mother would monster me for getting home late" as in indicator monster is a transitive verb. The bottom of the default dictionary on Google states Oxford Languages is their source. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 11:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am American, so I am not perfect at British vocabulary. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 11:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Flame, not lame thanks for that, that's very helpful. Needless to say, Oxford is a reputable lexicography provider, but my cursory searches are really not turning up any evidence for this sense. Maybe Kiwima will be able to find something. This, that and the other (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other Is this not just the same as sense 3 ("to harass")? As a Brit, I have never heard this. Theknightwho (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ve not come across this either but ‘monster’, especially in the phrase ‘monster it’ or ‘monster them’ can be easily found online used by British and Australian authors to mean ‘do well at’, ‘do well against’, ‘defeat’ or ‘succeed in’. I'm also seeing 'monster him/her' meaning 'defeat him/her', 'monster' meaning 'devour/demolish' in culinary contexts, also 'to turn a truck into a monster truck', 'to drive a monster truck over' and 'to strike with monstrous force' or 'move forcefully'. There are interesting results if you search for 'monster one's way' and 'monster it over'. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(intransitive) to be troublesome." I find an intransitive sense in some dictionaries but I can't actually think of a true intransitive use. I think the adjective annoying doesn't count. Nor do the contexts in which you can use almost any transitive verb with an implied object, like "Don't annoy!" ("Don't disturb!") or "Mosquitos are designed to annoy." ("Some people just love to humiliate.") Rather, is it actually possible to say something like "The dog's howling annoyed all night long"? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense. — This unsigned comment was added by Polomo47 (talk • contribs) at 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ara-ara ScribeYearling (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

has cites on Twitter. it would pass if we say in a vote that it does. probably hasnt caught on much outside social media —Soap— 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly coined by the writers of a blog called Shakesville (one writer, Melissa McEwan, writes "Today in Manclaiming" as if it's already an established term). But since it's so simialr to mansplaining it may have been coined more than once, and McEwan's uses of it are about fashion and don't seem so angry. —Soap— 21:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

All I can find are quotes where this appears in italics or scare quotes to indicate code switching. Can we find 3 uses that unambiguously use this as an English word? Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

wordbooks only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: bad-mannered P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv the English. PUC – 19:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Not an uncommon phrase, also used figuratively. Einstein2 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Franken-entry that can't decide whether it is English or Middle English. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it should be both—Johnson’s dictionary has 3 cites for (Early) Modern English, and the MED has one for Middle English. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two senses, "nonsensical talk" and "miry bog": sadly, I can't find the first sense (the EDD has two cites for "nonsensical talk", see the talk page, but they're both spelled vlother), and I can only find the second sense in the placenames Robinson Flothers and The Flothers. If more placenames could be found, ideally in the singular, I at least for my own part would be willing to accept placenames as cites (whether keeping the entry at lowercase flother, or moving the semantic and etymological info to Flother(s) and defining it as "used in placenames"). Apparently the bog/placename sense is also found as flodder, flotter; Flodder Hall was formerly known as Flother. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

vlother may well be citeable: see This, that and the other (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for flother (“nonsensical talk”) itself, I found and .

Also "At last and suddenly, / beyond the blinding flother of a squall, / the ice is gone ... creeping fogs, / then sudden whirling flother of blind snows, but the sense seems to be different. This, that and the other (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The EDD has a sense "foam, froth, lather, esp. in phr. all in a flother; also used fig." which it seems like that cite, and the "hotchy potchy in a flother" cite, might be using. I put the two cites you linked onto the cites page. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

With your cites and others, I've cited and created vlother. Between "flothers ... The Flothers", "Flothers", "Robinson Flothers" and "Flothers Wood", we (arguably) have enough cites to support either the "miry bog" sense of flother or a place-name sense Flothers (or Flother). If we interpreted the last three cites on the citations page as meaning "state of disarray", we would also have enough for such a sense as that... - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hate to RFV such an interesting word (ety 2, "wet, marshy"), but it doesn't seem to meet CFI; I can only find one cite. The 1796 Encyclopaedia Perthensis presents a Shakespeare line as another example of this sense, but in context it seems to mean "wiry" instead: "In the fair multitude of those her hairs; Where but by chance a silver drop hath fall'n, Ev'n to that drop ten thousand wiery friends Do glew themselves in sociable grief". Cites at EEBO are likewise about wiery-meaning-wiry hair or nets/snares. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: young salmon. It is easy to establish that sperling / spirling / spurling was used in parts of the US to refer to young herring caught and used as bait, but I'm struggling to find much evidence that the spelling sparling was used in North America at all, let alone that it referred to salmon rather than herring. This, that and the other (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense: inexperienced cowboy. I suspect this may be a misinterpretation of the sense "dandy, tourist, Easterner," which would certainly fit the quotation provided for the sense. Jtle515 (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Given name for animals." The only citation is a reference to the character Baloo the bear from The Jungle Book. No evidence of generic use (for bears or any other animal). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A41A:1766:9A8C:F7E9 21:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: (Appalachia) A red spruce, of species Picea abies (syn. Picea rubra).

I have not yet found support for this at Google Books, but I haven't looked elsewhere, eg, DARE. DCDuring (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

prostitute. I'm seeing this (in italics) as something wooden... rannel-tree P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

ESpecially Given to the commission of rape. - what's that??? P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Appar used in The Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, Duke of Byron ("To teach the rapeful Hyeans marriage"). Can't find full text since Archive.org is down, but later try here: . 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 11:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

just in wordbooks? P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abbr of "freedom of speech". I think this is always FOS in capital letters. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Four senses, all very rare at best in Google Books. I couldn't find anything for these two: (i) "(intransitive) To become cheesy (overly dramatic, emotional, or exaggerated)"; (ii) "(transitive) To make (someone) smile". Beware scannos of "cheered up". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 14:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a protologism at best. mynewfiles (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, the genius Kiwima wasn't able to locate any cites pertaining to its definition. mynewfiles (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(obsolete, nonce word) The act of digging up again P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in Hall This, that and the other (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Said to be "a type of skunk".

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia does mention this and its alternative form atok as a South American name for a type of skunk, but the only other references to this name all seem to use the "atok" spelling, and there only in lists of names. I'm not so sure that establishes this as an English word, since South America in that time period had no English-speaking populations. With the final "k", and the mentions of Quito I would guess this is from some language such as Quechua or maybe Aymara- so not even Spanish. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Instances of this in Google Books look like misreadings or misprints of prisoners. 2601:640:8A00:DC30:F908:BB18:FBDA:EFCF 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and there are no results for "a prisoness". Delete. This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A wicker basket for fish. - from Webster 1913 P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A relative; a relation - 1913 P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "excrement", recently added by IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I managed to (mostly) cite rith and rithe, but haven't been able to cite this (which is also listed as having a somewhat different definition). - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense (informal, of visual art) Pornographic. Theknightwho (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only 1 hit? P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This one? "We had great trouble in our iourney, for that euery day wee were taken prisoners, by reason of the great dissension in that kingdome: and euery morning at our departure we must pay rescat foure or fiue pagies a man." That's all OED has too, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The party in whose favor a rescue is made. Only wordbooks. BTW, what rescue? P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It means the noun sense 3 I just added. Anyway, the cite in OED isn't even for this term (it's for rescussed). I did find one latter-day use in a translation of Sanskrit, but nothing else. This, that and the other (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Someone or something that is both flawed and awesome". At least one of the sources is not durably archived, and the editor who added this sense appears to be one of the authors of the other one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am a co-author of one of the sources quoted. Is that a problem?

As I wrote in the discussion on the entry page, a quick search of the word flawsome on Amazon retrieved 19 books published since 2016 with the word flawsome in their titles, along with dozens of t-shirts, wall art, mugs, and products using flawsome in this sense. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Flawsome&crid=38ARPH88PPRO4&sprefix=flawsome%2Caps%2C1320&ref=nb_sb_noss_1 I'm happy to find more usage of it, it that's not enough.

I'm truly baffled by the resistance to adding it. The concept is meant to combat the dangerous mental and physical effects of perfectionism, which include depression, anxiety, anorexia, chronic migraines, and even suicide -- well documented in the research and a growing problem among young people. Embracing flawsome is an important idea and we should all be eager to validate this sense of the word.

If it's just about using my own work, by all means delete that part. But please keep this widely used and understood meaning. TomCollins842 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Easily cited from books.

@TomCollins842 thanks for your contribution to Wiktionary! We have objective rules for deciding whether or not to include words (WT:CFI#Attestation). These rules do not align well with your suggestion that we should "all be eager to validate this sense of the word", but equally, the identity of the person who creates the entry is of no consequence. Surjection drew attention to your conflict of interest as it is often a sign of spam, but it is clear that this word is genuinely in use by people who are entirely independent of you, so it will be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

UK slang: to live somewhere. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:91DB:35AE:96FC:5768 17:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WF thinks this is a rare misspelling that deserves a speedy, but it would at least be attestable per WT:CFI, were it not to be a misspelling. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

From a speedy. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

---

Arangas, a least in Russian, is the singular, not plural, also used in official documents (well, kinda, official, but like museum documents and news), also massively in different kinda stories. Can not find so much ethnographical material with usage in Russian or English. The -s ending is anyway not plural. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tollef Salemann are you arguing that the word doesn't exist? Or that the plural is wrong? Either way, those issues are for WT:RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

aranga doesn’t exist, because arangas is the singular. What is aranga I don’t know. What plural is for arangas I also don’t know. But it is RFD for aranga, not arangas. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

---

"doesn't exist" → needs to be dealt with at RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's actually easy to find this (in italics) in English texts . The Buryat word for the concept is аранга (aranga) according to https://buryat-lang.ru/. This, that and the other (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice! I never knew that Buryats had this concept. Tollef Salemann (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only wordbooks?P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I created the "Trevon" page using the basic template structure and what appeared to the best of my knowledge the correct inputs. Nevertheless, I am sure there are things that can be fixed and or improved, as well as more to be added. Any suggestions, edits, and or overall help is truly appreciated. Thank you. GrahamTrev (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense ribbon or string

Wordbooks only? Linkyspoot (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Invention? Nothing relevant in Google. Maybe check the Paulistania entry too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:756A:CAA2:165E:E801 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:756A:CAA2:165E:E801 18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

replying to IP, I added quotations from Twitter. Juwan (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

One is a dead link (404), the TheKervAlt tweet. Not durably archived? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3DE6:D319:85F9:3589 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

it's not a dead link, I can access it just fine. this might be because Twitter is a horrible platform and may hide NSFW posts if you are logged out. viewing these on an archive works, but the Internet Archive is still down and read-only. if you know any other archiving solutions, please post it and I can archive these properly. Juwan (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never had a Twitter account in my life. However, Wiktionary had its "hot word" policy for words that popped up quickly. I'm not sure it was intended for words where a Google Web search finds about 20 results, all referring to the same initial tweet. -- (Funny Eqx story) My client had their Twitter account permanently blocked (and like Google there's no way to actually contact them and restore it) because the social-media intern set the "age" to 20 years, meaning "our organisation has existed for twenty years". Twitter immediately decided "you must have been underage when you set up the account then" and banned it forever. VERY funny. I've been telling them "nobody uses Twitter any more anyway, for political reasons" but... yes, they shouldn't listen to my marketing ideas, in the same way I don't allow marketing to edit my program code. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:89DB:E713:C8BF:E57E 21:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Translucency

Only Latimer? Linkyspoot (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

#MeJew. The two quotations are article titles; more mention than use. Ultimateria (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was the name of a panel at Sundance 2023 and a blog at The Times of Israel, and it apparently also appears on T-shirts sold by an entrepreneur. I can find no evidence of it being used as an actual phrase in general, recognizable use, certainly not to mean what the page claims it's used to mean. Hydrangeans (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Spenser — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.185.210 (talk) at 07:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

Just dumping a bunch of cites here for now, as it's clear that Spenser's sense is not the only one in use. I found this NNSE use (note "ovarian circle" instead of "cycle", and the "percentege" misspelling, as two NNSE hallmarks just in this small snippet) and something here. An old use and some poem. Another Japanese NNSE use potentially, a chemistry use. That's about it in GBooks. Need to sort these later. This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

3 definitions. forthglide listed as a synonym is also suspect — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.185.210 (talk) at 07:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

Probably legit. OED and Century have it, with two senses each. Century cites John Gregory (1665) Notes and observations upon some passages of Scripture and this poem. I think "pass away" just means the same thing as "pass by" in this context, as opposed to being a direct reference to death. This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense transporting; ravishing — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.185.210 (talk) at 08:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

Only Taylor — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.185.210 (talk) at 08:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

Taylor seems to have quite fond of the plural form. As for the singular, this and

1968, James Kirkup, Bangkok, page 47:

I walked past the Giant Swing I should have liked to try such transvolation, but the seat of the swing had been removed.

will do. This, that and the other (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added along with another quote from George Henry Calvert. Netizen3102 (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not English. Our sense line would hardly persuade you otherwise:

1. (Latin phrase) See the Latin section for definitions.

At best it's Translingual. Of the four cites, two are italicised and three are mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lots of Latin phrases are used in English, and this is one of them. I'm finding various examples on Google Books where it's used as a stand-in or substitute for a person of unknown (or concealed) name, or as the name of a hypothetical person in examples (besides the ones where it's just defined, but not used, which come up first). Will try to add some citations in the next couple of days if nobody beats me to it (feel free, I may not have time tomorrow or Thursday). P Aculeius (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, well, look for French and German (etc) results too. You may well find it's Translingual. This, that and the other (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since I'm not fluent in French or German, I'm not likely to be able to find and sort out mentions from uses. I'm just saying that you can't infer a phrase not having a meaning in English because it's Latin, which is what the first two lines appear to say. It's not clear from reading your post whether the discussion of the cites relates to "at best it's translingual" or what grounds there are for that assertion (which, to be clear, I am not attempting to refute). My reply only concerned its use in English, because that's the reason it's here, and that's the only language (besides Latin) that I'm able to verify its use in. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Shakespeare? P. Sovjunk (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: diseased; disordered P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: (African-American Vernacular) Of suspicious character, typically secretive or deceitful; shady.

No. I disagree. It generally means lazy / work averse. — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:FB90:8DA5:849E:AC39:C1B7:6911:ED6 (talk) at 00:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

Your def is a better fit for the given quote. Needs to be confirmed with further evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-sense: ‘a deliberate misspelling of cat’. This seems unlikely, surely this is a rare and accidental misspelling? There may be some bad puns where car is used to mean cat but I can’t find them. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems very improbable. I can't find any sense of a general usage of "car" as a deliberate misspelling of "cat". Hydrangeans (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that originally it was a misspelling of the word 'cat', which I'd consider rather probably considering the "r" key being left of the "t" key on a keyboard.

For the sake of the discussion and to set a more proper example, I feel this video ironically enough kind of demonstrates the thought process behind the connotations between cats and cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GhBIYctoRs

All in all, my best guess would be that it started as a misspelling, which in turn let to the jestful connotations between the two. 79.142.230.126 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anecdotal but I've seen people use "car" to mean "cat" before. https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/193c6bn/car_instead_of_cat_all_over_insta_and_facebook/ ScribeYearling (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

that definition can be easily found by just searching "i love cars" on tiktok/twitter Dentsinhere43 (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I’m hereby withdrawing my RFV nomination due to the non-durably attested but real uses on Reddit/Insta/FB/X(Twitter)/TikTok/YT mentioned above. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(UK, dialect) A watercourse." I managed to cite droke, for a valley sometimes with a watercourse, and can find cites of drook that appear to correspond to cove (a valley on land or an inlet of the sea), but haven't managed to find cites of drock in any water-related meaning beyond the one the EDD has (which I've put on the citations page) which they define as ~a drainage ditch. I can find drock as a word for a plough-part. I also noticed that a surprising number of people hyphenate be-drock, mu-drock, re-drock like that... (The etymology of all these words is also obscure.) - -sche (discuss) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only in old wordbooks P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A hobgoblin. Not in the OED.

I have a feeling this is intended to refer to hobgoblin (“a source of dread, fear or apprehension; a bugbear”), but that isn't what springs to mind when I read "hobgoblin" in isolation, as it's a figurative use of the term, so if that is the case then this definition needs improvement. However, if it truly is intended to refer to hobgoblin (“small, ugly goblin that makes trouble for humans”) then it definitely needs some citations. Theknightwho (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reference to a hobgoblin is present in Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged originally published in 1993 and reprinted by Könemann (page 2204).-- Carnby (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 1993, p. 2204.

Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms (1859), "Spook. (Dutch). A ghost; hobgoblin. A term much used in New York." Webster's New International Dictionary (1911) gives: "A spirit; ghost; apparition; specter; hobgoblin." In these two, the words are treated as synonymous; for some reason the Wiktionary entry separated "hobgoblin" into its own sense when it was created back in 2005. OED (1919) gives fewer synonyms: "A spectre, apparition, ghost."

I haven't added any examples yet because I'm not sure whether "hobgoblin" should be folded back into the main sense. It's also a bit difficult to figure out how to tell whether "spook" describes a hobgoblin other than by searching for the two together. But I find: The Optical Journal, vol. XI, No. 6, "Tales of an Optician: In the Form of a Man" (1903): "Nevertheless, it was such a relief to find he was not a ghost, hobgoblin, spook, spirit, apparition, or some such airy substance..." Arthur Kent Chignell, An Outpost in Papua (1911), "Peter, in the afternoon, when he came to me with a cut finger, explained that it was all the fault of a Dau (devil, ghost, spirit, spook, hobgoblin, what-you-please)." Tom Stoppard, in "Shipwreck" (2002) has Turgenev playing with Karl Marx' suggestion of the phrase "the ghost of Communism" by replacing "ghost" with "phantom", "spook", "spectre", "spirit", and finally settling on "hobgoblin". This is of course too early to have been influenced by Wiktionary, so it appears to confirm that all of these words can be considered synonymous, even though for many of us "hobgoblin" instead calls to mind an imp, rather than a ghost.

There are likely other and perhaps better examples; I came up with these three in the first three pages of Google Books results. But I'll wait to add them until I have an idea whether to recombine "hobgoblin" with the first sense, since we may not need so many examples for each synonym. P Aculeius (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the underlying issue is whether hobgoblin should be used as a definiens in this entry (or possibly any entry). It was apparently a synonym in the US of one sense of spook. Maybe it still is a synonym of one current definition. An even deeper issue is whether we should use as definiens any term that currently has multiple common definitions. DCDuring (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that gets us anywhere; not only is it a possible meaning of "spook" explicitly given in numerous sources (if we include the many dictionaries that say it is, as well as those that seem to use it as such), but all of the other terms seem to be defined by reference to each other: "ghost", "spirit", "spectre", "spook", "apparition", "phantom"—and nearly all of them have multiple common definitions. And I think that no matter what verbal contortions we resort to, any particularly useful definition of "spook" is going to depend on other words that have different possible interpretations. The fact that the best dictionaries all do so would seem to make this inevitable. P Aculeius (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where it could get us is a differently worded definition or, better, placement as one of the synonyms of the first definition of spook.

At least some dictionaries don't define their words with synonym clouds: I think Webster 1913 does so the most. We should place hobgoblin where various thesauruses (not ours, however) place it: as a synonym of ghost, spook, and other members of the cloud. It could be slipped right in under def. 1 of spook. DCDuring (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F4A2:444C:8F54:4AC2 13:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Easily searchable as 'bee-mothers' (I've moved the entry to the more common spelling) as seen . Leasnam (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cite 2 at bee mother refers to a beekeeper, not a queen bee. The preceding sentence in the text is "...today the active lady takes care of 23 stands". Cite 3 is also a little dubious ("bee father"? Drones are not known for their parental nurture). This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can tell from the context in the first quote that it refers to individuals that aren't queens, but are capable of laying eggs because they were next to queens when they were larvae- literally bees that are mothers, and nothing more. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I yoinked the cites to the citations page, as none support the sense in question.

GBooks results are problematic, not only for this reason (e.g. one text discusses how Ancient Romans purportedly mixed up the bee sexes – "king bees and bee mothers") but also because a lot of them call into question the term's idiomaticity (e.g. one text seems to intentionally avoid the term "queen bee", so uses "bee mothers", but also "mother bees" etc; another text has "honey bee mothers"). So if this RFV passes, a trip to RFD would then be in order.

The word can't even be found in EEBO, suggesting it fell out of use very early. This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added sufficient cites, being more careful this time. Please see Leasnam (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm satisfied to call this cited now. The 2024 one is still dubious: "Nox Ap, the bee mother seems to appear from the great beyond as the bumblebee queen crawls out of her warm hiding space." The "bee mother" here is not the "bumblebee queen". But the rest are sufficient. This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "a mountain pass". (If this is real, I suspect the definition is ... more complicated than just "a mountain pass". For example, reading Merriam-Webster's definition of kratogen, I can see how a kratogen might happen to be a mountain pass, but it doesn't mean "mountain pass". And they define orogen as an antonym, so it would sooner seem to refer to a mountain than a pass...) - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term would probably cover any orogenous zone, not just "mountain pass". DCDuring (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense:

• "(Africa) A sheet of water, or marsh."
• "(Africa) The river feeding a lake."

I can only find this meaning "lake". - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: the regional US usage. I haven't managed to find a vlei in the US. I can find vly, but vly is a separate word with a different pronunciation, slightly different meaning, and different etymology (not involving Afrikaans). - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

a longstanding page, added originally as a misspelling, recently converted to a US spelling. I doubt that it is a valid US spelling. But Im not sure it even passes the CFI requirement for a misspelling, since even if we find cites they could be typos.

There are also unembracable and embracability, added by Special:Contributions/2601:182:D7F:5470:0:0:0:B219. the same person who changed the first page to a US spelling. Thanks, —Soap— 09:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now has 3 cites. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B977:C884:A1B0:2E60 10:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"(Philippines) The following hour after the subsequent hour." Do people even say "next hour"? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B977:C884:A1B0:2E60 10:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are many lects in Anglophonia. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(RFDing based on next next was another option. But this one I can't find even when I search filtering by site:.ph on Google.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1A1:860C:900E:E6C7 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense - the sexual sense. I don't think this is a term. I can find references to "magnetic play", but not "magnet play". Kiwima (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Needs a real definition, but might not exist outside the one book mentioned, anyway. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not in GBooks. A few joky Internet uses, nothing serious. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any chance that the author was confused by the appearance of "ſpoon" in older printed works? Someone unfamiliar with 'long-s' would likely mistake it for an 'f', and perhaps assume it to be a hybrid instrument, like a spork (which evidently dates from a later period; the name seems to be twentieth century). I suspect occurrences of "fpoon" in Google Books from around 1800 or earlier would usually be scannos for "ſpoon". P Aculeius (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added one. TDHoward (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure that the first two citations are either independent or uses of the word: they are both examples of how spoonerism doesn't work in real life—both pointing out that "spoon and fork" are spoonerized as "foon and spork", not "fpoon and sork". Which makes them hypothetical examples of a phenomenon that is also explicitly said not to occur. And the fact that they both make the same point about the same combination of words—nine years apart—suggests that they arise from a common source, although neither is available to me, even in snippet view, and in neither case is the author of the article cited. It seems likely that they have the same author, or that the first was used as a source by the second. I'm also not sure that the third citation counts as a use either: it is simply an example of someone intentionally blending the two words as a joke. What we don't have is an example of somebody using a "fpoon" or finding one in a drawer: these three citations are two examples of making up a word for the purpose of demonstrating how they make it up, but never using it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's one Twitter (X) quote for Don Don's here and several for Mc Don Don's (also there's one Trip Advisor review for a 'Mc Don Don's). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

McDonald's nicknames, apparently created based on red links in Thesaurus:McDonald's. Einstein2 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I worked with someone who called McDonald’s ‘Dirty Don Dons’ and in the time that I worked with him I sometimes used that phrase myself as did some other work colleagues. I haven’t heard it without ‘dirty’ in front though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

(UK, dialect) rank in growth - WTF does that e'en mean? P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED just calls this a variant form of ruddy but has only Middle English evidence for it. I guess Webster only found roody in the sense "vigorous, robust" that is seen in "in ruddy health" (incidentally, our entry completely misses this sense). Nothing useful in EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A moth of genus Acontia.

Seems to be used mostly in collocation acontiate anemone. DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

1 use Whalespotcha (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed, looked and didn't find more This, that and the other (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: fastened as with buttons. Whalespotcha (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

nonce - Spenser Whalespotcha (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shakespeare nonce Whalespotcha (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce? Whalespotcha (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nappy cloth. Not sure which kind of nappy - judging by the quote The lips grew so painful, that she could not endure the wiping the ichor from it with a soft rugin with her own hand. it is not a diaper. Whalespotcha (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe appeared in 2 books? Whalespotcha (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

5 requests for the price of 1Whalespotcha (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: The amount paid by one road for the use of cars of another road. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I read that and was like, WTF? Whalespotcha (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think the rail and auto labels are reversed. Railroads in the US, pay each other for the use of their railcars. Something similar must happen among the railroads of the EU and wherever there are interconnected systems. DCDuring (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Or both labels should be for rail transport. DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've found just one hit for this exact phrase in Google Books; it looks like a mistake for the same phrase ending "to hell", which makes more sense (though, shouldn't "Hell" be capitalized, as it refers to the name of a particular place?). It looks like both entries were created by the same author. I'm not sure how to categorize the phrase for Wiktionary, since it's not really idiomatic, but seems to be a common collocation. The current description seems inadequate. But in any case, "in Hell" doesn't make sense, since by definition anybody in Hell has already been damned. That might account for its scarcity compared with "to Hell": it's an occasional, but nonsensical mistake. P Aculeius (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense synonym of "decline" (in the grammatical sense). Zacwill (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's out there, but perhaps rare enough to be regarded as an error. I've added two. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 19:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noun sense 2: "chosen one". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Euphemism for "dick", i.e. penis. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(slang) walk the fuck out". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

methinkes belonge to middel Engliſh P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citeable from some 1500s texts: and . Will cite properly later. This, that and the other (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited now. This, that and the other (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense of go being Clipping of go to the. in the UK. I've heard multiple British people say "go ". This is attested since 2018 and does not appear to be used by immigrants. I, a Canadian, always say "go to the "/"go to 's" except for "home". I've seen Americans teach "go " to be bad grammar, but I can't find anywhere including on Wiktionary saying this British construction exists.

• Can this be said in a formal British workplace/court/interview?
• Do other verbs allow omitting "to the"?
• Is this construction transitive, i.e. is the "" a direct object or an adverb?

76.71.3.150 12:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's informal and I can't think of other verbs that allow this construction off-hand. I'm not sure about your last question, it's unlikely that someone would say 'I'm going big shop' or 'I'm going really big shop' instead of 'I'm going shop' if that's what you mean. It was surprisingly hard to find evidence of this quite commonplace informal use of 'go' online but I did find the following Australian website (I'm gonna go shops on Monday arvo) which demonstrates that this is found in Australia as well as Britain, at least occasionally.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would have never thought of "?I'm going shop" because the "I'm going shopping" I say blocks that. I do agree I've never heard it with adjectives / adverbs / other words in the middle. Compound words are a related grey area like the "going steakhouse" I just saw.

This might be similar to the "he tended bar" construction. "He tended bars" is 72.25x rarer, while "going pubs" is 8.24x rarer on Google. To me, the second word becomes uncountable, but the data isn't conclusive.

Nevermind my last question. Some things that follow verbs "are not customarily construed to be the object" even if they're not prepositions, but in this case "pub" is seemingly used as an adverb. In this case, I found the following tests to determine the construction is transitive:

• "I went pub" → "*the going of pub by me" but "I built a house" → "the building of a house by me" (test for direct object, distinguishes the rfv-sense from the sense "(transitive, colloquial) To enjoy. (Compare go for.)")
• "I went pub" → "*I am pub" but "I seemed upset" → "I am upset" (test for subject complement)

I added your Australian quote. The source saying "Sometimes key words can be left out, such as ‘to’ or ‘the’, which makes it sound lazy." implies other verbs allow this construction but I can't find attested quotes either. 76.71.3.150 23:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a Victorian I've never heard this. Maybe the sentence in that primary school slide deck is a weird NSW-ism, or belongs to some emerging sociolect I'm not familiar with. But I'm dubious. This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I'm also dubious, particularly about the "UK" tag. In England, I don't hear people saying that they are going to "go pub" or "go shops", not in ordinary language, not even colloquially. The citations that we presently have are from low-quality sources and seem to me to be somewhere between lazy (or possibly deliberate) abbreviated writing and just plain bad English. I expect we could find instances of "staying hotel" or "living USA" or "arrived the airport" or any other kind of broken English or telegraphese. It doesn't mean that we have to recognise it in the dictionary. However, if other people feel that "go pub/shops/etc." definitely does exist at a sufficiently established level of usage, then fair enough. Mihia (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It’s a very real phenomenon. We already have entries for go toilet and go potty and it’s easy to find hits using a Google Advanced Search for ‘go Tesco/Sainsbury’s/Asda/Morrisons’ too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  "Go toilet" and "go potty" are baby-speak though, and Google hits exist for almost any broken English or telegraphese phrase that you care to type in. Is this "go pub", "go shops", "go Tesco" thing something that you have personally heard significant numbers of British people saying? Mihia (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Yes I have. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well, fair enough, perhaps I need to get out more ... you know, get out pub, get out shops, that kind of thing ... Mihia (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense : small drain — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.186.108 (talk) at 13:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

{{R:EDD}} has "A groove; a shallow line in the ground; a furrow; a trench; a small open drain." and cites "Dev.2 w.Dev. MARSHALL Rur. Econ. (1796. Cor. N. & Q. (1854) 1st S. x. 441" as well as Glossary of words in use in Cornwall, which has "a groove or furrow; a trench. Qy. a line. In describing heavy rain a countryman said the streams were 'like trones from the tids of a cow.'" Not sure if we can take that as a use? This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Marshall is just a mention in a wordlist. I don't particularly doubt that the folk of Cornwall and Devon used the word, but it's going to be tough to verify. Targeted GBooks searches turned up nothing but wordlists. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

There's no point in having this page even with the {{no entry}} template on it. The template claims, "Some information about this term is available in Appendix:SI units", but that's not true; the appendix only lists the actual spellings kilometer and kilometre. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think kilo-meter might be relevant to this as well. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:4996:ED56:2800:E202 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• RfV If this were to pass RfV, it could be created as an alternative form. Here's what you get from a Google Books search Purplebackpack89 20:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a question for RFV. If the term exists it should have a proper form-of entry. If it doesn't it should just be deleted. I'll move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not too easy to search for thanks to end-of-line hyphenations. There are also some "primer" type texts that spell out "milli-gram(me)", "kilo-metre" etc when first introducing the terms, then use the single-word form throughout the remainder of the text. This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seeking quotes, given that a definition was requested. I found two not very enlightening quotes, and nothing else. Kiwima (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to my psychic powers, the second one is a scanno involving a repeated line:

professional and industrial class founded upon wealth and

legalism. That again is yielding to the rule of pro-

legalism. That again is yielding to the rule of the pro-

letariat, founded upon work and association.

The non-busted text can be found at , in which no prolegalism is to be found. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A sowing or planting. - OED has 2, including our quote. P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Etymology 1 - 3 terms. OED just shows old dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The EDD has a few usexes (quotes from their informants), but none in this spelling (but soar, sawr); other reference works highlight how narrow the term's distribution is, and the few apparent uses I can find ("saur ground") turn out to be scannos, or look to be typos/pronunciation respellings of sour. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 3: A supposed language or dialect spoken and understood by women. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:24A4:A456:B71E:24F0 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Failed RFV many years ago but has now been around another 10 years. Not seeing much. Ultimateria (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "One who is wolflike in appearance or character". Ultimateria (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be from a specific fiction series: "Blood and Ash" and "Flesh and Fire" by Jennifer L. Armentrout. So should not be included. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FC:ACA7:543A:629 18:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A shard or fragment.A shard or fragment. P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can find a variety of works using this, but in works where the term only appears once, it's hard to be sure it is intentional as opposed to an error (of typesetting, etc) for shard. In the 1921 Lyceum Magazine, volume 31, page 20, it is perhaps even an error for score(?) : At Chautauqua, N. Y., the lost and found bureau reports that this season they received 14 watches, 34 sweaters, 168 pocket-books, 161 pins and brooches, 97 umbrellas, 42 books, 47 bags, 28 pairs of glasses, 25 fountain pens, 21 shawls 43 scarfs, and scards of other articles from powder puffs to toy elephants.
However, the 1911 Palæolithic Chronology by Fredrik Arentz uses the word repeatedly, and never uses shard: The so-called neolithic dagger as well as pottery scards are really palaeolithic, Fragments of pottery were only found in few places and as small scards. in this hearth some pottery scards occurred. Of pottery 22 scards of the oldest thick-walled vessels, in each place only one or two scards, . I can also find potscard mentioned in various books. It seems to be real but rare. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arentz is the only clear user of the term I can find. It's in the EDD as a word used in northern England, the Lake District, Yorkshire, and Lancashire; Wright mentions that it was used in the 19 June 1897 Yorkshire Halifax Courier, if anyone can find that. - -sche (discuss) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dung - in the old dungheap of a book A Collection of English Words Not Generally Used from 1674. We'd do well to RFV all WT's entries referencing that. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: To conceal P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: To make broad; spread; P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Probably copied from . Mihia (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

... but as you say above, ultimately from the unpromisingly named A Collection of English Words Not Generally Used. Mihia (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: To pass or escape while dreaming P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(Japan, slang) Used to denote an unusually low intonation". Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit; mentioned, not used; never caught on. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit; mentioned, not used; never caught on. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit; mentioned, not used; never caught on. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit; mentioned, not used; never caught on. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find it as a single word. Always spaced or hyphenated. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had given up on finding any cites for waterthief and was about to remove the page, but then I started seeing a few. Leasnam (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tagged, not listed. Can't find it. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lots of ſcannoes for scorn + linebreakos for discern. OED has a Spenser quote for scerne. P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jotting sth down. Confuse not with abbbr schediasm. P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found in . Need to properly cite This, that and the other (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nonce P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED just has our quote. Obvs there's lots of con-scious hits to be ignored P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

4. (cricket) To get a batsman out via a run out (see runout)

Jackson was run out for a duck in the first over.

5. (cricket) to be got out in this way.

RFV sense 5. This apparently refers to usage such as "Jackson ran out for ten". Never heard of this and can't find examples. Does it exist? Mihia (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV sense "A talk about one's pet topic, especially when only tangentially relevant to an ongoing discussion". This was originally combined with sense "the topic itself". I found some evidence of the latter, so I split that out, but nothing for the former. (Note that, certainly in my opinion, the word "soapbox" in phrases such as "on one's soapbox", does not mean the talk, nor indeed the topic. It is simply a figurative reference to the literal box-as-platform.) Mihia (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I love the chained sense evolution, where each of the first six (sub)senses derives from the one above it, and this would be a natural seventh step in the evolution, but I've never seen it used this way. Someone may have heard on his soapbox and misunderstood. —Soap— 21:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Senses 3, 4, and 5 are all just metaphorical uses of sense 2, and should be deleted—although possibly some of the quotes can be salvaged and added to sense 2 (I haven't looked closely). Since this is RfV, this should probably be sent to RfD. P Aculeius (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The burning of a wad of pea straw at the end of harvest. specific to 18th century Hereford. Most specific language item I've seen in yonks P. Sovjunk (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just used by Donne P. Sovjunk (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

nonce P. Sovjunk (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lathe — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.185.107 (talk) at 13:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

Use outside Shakespeare? P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"To influence in style. No other poet has inflected me in style as much as Milton." The phrase "inflected me in style" cannot be found in Google (except for this Wiktionary entry) so it is at best a poor usage example. I doubt the sense exists at all. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C3:4992:FA7C:740B 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to find much even for "inflected me", other than obvious errors, typos and rubbish, probable correct/intentional uses of the "curve towards" sense, or dubious examples from low-quality sources. Could be a blend of "influence" and "affect", I suppose, possibly deliberately coined, perhaps independently on occasions, or accidental mixing up of words. Also, if the word itself means "to influence in style" then it seems unnecessary to say "No other poet has inflected me in style". Mihia (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added 5 years ago by @Tooironic, who is still with us. This, that and the other (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't make sense to me, as defined. You may e.g. deliver over a captive to the guards, but not "into" the guards. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C3:4992:FA7C:740B 15:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can deliver over something into the hands of someone, though. Or into custody, etc. But this is just sum-of-parts: deliver + over + into. I note that we don't have "deliver over", presumably since it's transparently sum-of-parts, and the only reason we have "deliver over to" is because the same user created both of them simultaneously. There will be plenty of hits for these on the internet, but none with any other meaning. I think both of these should probably go to RfD instead of here. P Aculeius (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those words are real grammatical terms, but "preverb" is used for a large variety of languages, much more than the definitions in the articles, and "prenoun" does not appear to be specific to Algonquin languages. 87.88.150.15 22:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense The lower head, in two-headed creatures or robots. — This unsigned comment was added by 85.48.186.76 (talk) at 06:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

• That was a Wonderfool's monthly prank for Feb 2021. Removed P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Can anybody verify this? It feels awkward to me. — This unsigned comment was added by Sinus46 (talk • contribs) at 21:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

I don't see this as benefitting from an RfV. It seems like an RfD candidate: many not-precise terms can be be used in hyperbole. DCDuring (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how this would be verified or refuted. Any such phrase can be used accurately, inaccurately, misleadingly, ironically, etc. The potential to exaggerate something using a phrase doesn't give rise to a separate sense of the phrase. P Aculeius (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "breaking news". The current cite is just the regular participial use, "Breaking:" followed by the news item. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would guess that this is just a misunderstanding of what "breaking" means in that cite. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "to prank". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Carrying a shield or buckler. - nonce term P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Found two uses in nineteenth century architectural descriptions of medieval churches, both referring to carvings of angels, in the first instance at least bearing the arms of the family associated with the church. Cited those—how many citations does a "nonce word" require? All other instances were dictionary or glossary entries, though some of them are quite old—the OED cites one from the 1650's, but there are a number of others up to and I think later than the Webster's entry. I suspect that the biological term is derived from this use. I saw one use of "scutiferous" in a recent graphic novel, but it was hard to tell whether the literal or biological sense was intended—I think it described some creature, so probably the biological sense. There are more and still older attestations in English for scutifer, a shield-bearer, from which the adjective is derived. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

7 birds. Good luck P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some definitions are ascribed to the Orkney Islands, one to Ireland. There are also fish referred to by this name.

The avian definition could possibly could be saved by combining into a single definition: "(mostly regional) A sea or coastal bird, variously ...". There is more hope for the gunard definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The various species attributions could be relegated to Usage notes or even the talk page. DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• May I point out that the jackdaw is not a sea or coastal bird anyway. You get them anywhere. Mihia (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  As the usage seems mostly regional or even context-dependent, it is still plausible that birds capable of flying to Iceland, the Faroes and even North America might be called sea crows. This collocation is close to being SoP, as some two-part vernacular names can be. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Defined as "The period of adolescence". That's consistent with what I see in various slang dictionaries listed in Google Books, but I can't find any actual usage (of this idiomatic sense) in Google Books, Google Scholar, or Project Gutenberg. I know slang from before the Internet age can be hard to find in writing, but I worry this could be a ghost word. —Kodiologist (t) 16:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just added four cites to the entry page. Not sure why you would label the entry as RFV. mysteryroom (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

No quotes. Possibly a protologism. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 02:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't find this term used anywhere. Seems to be invented. Gelasin (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: An inspector of leather. P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Curiously, I once mentioned this in my rap song "Lederhosen" from my 2014 album More Songs about Trousers, but these lyrics don't pass.
Check out this jacket, better than ever
Made with nuffink but the hottest German leather
You know u wanna buy the Berlin merch-a
this'll dazzle every muthafukkin' searcher. P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your rapping ain't based, man, it's quite basifugal.
Some searcher you are, if you didn't find Google.
You can yap off your mouth, with your jacket all padded,
But check out the three cites my homies just added.
2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8565:D9E0:D5AB:25D2 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

At first I thought this might be a synonym for "finder" or "buyer" (but "finder" doesn't have this sense). But when I googled "leather searcher", I found a report that clearly defines the job, and added it to the entry. I would say that this sense is verified, but perhaps Sovjunk would like to weigh in first. P Aculeius (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Jonson? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like nonsense. What next? Will seeded tennis players be described as 'semined'?! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV sense:

• (Internet slang) A person's current interests

I'm in my fitness era.

The sole example does not fit the definition, and in fact is just a special or quirky or hyperbolic usage of the ordinary sense. Most probably this is just a muddled entry, but listing here just in case someone can see anything in it. Mihia (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A person's current interests" seems, atleast to me, to be a poor definition but from the example given it seems like the author of this sense is claiming that 'era' can be a near-synonym of phase (in the sense of the word used in the sentence 'teenagers go through a rebellious phase') or period (in the sense used in the sentence 'I like Picasso's blue period'). If we can use 'era' in this way then it seems subtly different to me from sense 1 of 'era' ( 'a time period of indeterminate length') in a way that I can't quite put my finger on at the minute. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the difference in this case is that "era" is normally too weighty a word for, say, a fitness phase in a person's life. It seems to me to have been deliberately chosen for this dramatic effect. If thought important enough, this could be a subsidiary sense or usage line for "A time period of indeterminate length" (which does literally fit), where the ordinary use of "era" for matters of import is contrasted with this what I would call exaggerated use for something relatively trivial. Mihia (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree that this is the ordinary sense. It's unusual to use "era" this way, but the meaning is still as transparent as if the person had said "period" or "phase". P Aculeius (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

antepenultimate. Seems to be an Urban Dictionary invention. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:706E:1E2C:7A3A:8647 01:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't find anything online. OED has only one citation, from 1463 (so should be Middle English?). Wouldn't we require three though? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8565:D9E0:D5AB:25D2 15:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV sense: "The people who live during a particular period."

Previously raised at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/November#age_(3).

In my opinion, examples such as "This age thinks well of our departed Bishop" will not do, since this kind of transference is a regular feature of English -- e.g. "This century thinks of itself as digital and connected", "This town thinks it's important" etc. etc., -- so logically we would end up having "people who live during a particular century", "people who live in a particular town" etc. as definitions, which seems unnecessary. Mihia (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mostly agreed, though perhaps this should be noted under sense 6.1, which seems to be the sense in question: "by extension, the people or institutions of said time", or something similar. P Aculeius (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"third person preferred: indicates that the speaker prefers to be talked to in the third person." Doesn't seem to exist, from Googling. I don't understand the concept anyway. Does it mean you would have to say "they" instead of "you", to the person's face, like "how are they today, Bob?" — Might exist as an abbrev for "third person pronoun" in grammar though. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7D11:FDAF:E251:2C46 16:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it means Bob wants you to say to him "How's Bob?" instead of "How are you?" ?--Justin the Just (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also '3rd person plural' is what I expected to see. --Justin the Just (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: If you google for "3PP" and "third person preferred", you find (only!) the home page of one particular person who seems to have coined the phrase (and has some really bizarre preferences in how they are addressed). So a clear protologism I think. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2138:4E06:355:268E 09:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't feel self-promotional to me. Even if I can't find anything that's unambiguously this sense. CitationsFreak (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense not sweet — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.24.126 (talk) at 13:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Added by @Domeas.demarest, apparently an English first name. All I can find on Google is "The Domeas Symbol of the Renaissance", apparently a typo of "The Dome as ", also some Danish website called "Domea", genitive "Domeas", and what is probably the aforementioned user's Soundcloud. Wikiuser815 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need a copy of my drives license, birth certificate, and social security card? 107.116.170.129 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing wrong on that page. Everything is equally okay. Namanjobab (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

We just need citations. See WT:ATTEST. DCDuring (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly just a dictionary word. Wikiuser815 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Deliberate misspelling of peak." I've personally never seen this, and there's no quotes. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 17:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only used in Joseph Hall — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 17:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Can confirm. This, that and the other (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense humiliate — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 17:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-sense improperly — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 18:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Has probable ever meant “that can be approved of”? Fay Freak (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe it has, but I have no evidence. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Shakespeare — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 18:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Noun sense. Quote is Middle English — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 18:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Nice phrase, though — This unsigned comment was added by 213.143.60.229 (talk) at 18:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

The reply button doesn't come up if you don't sign your edits :(

A cursory search of Google Books certainly gives you the impression this is a dictionary-only phrase, but OED does have a few real uses. Looks like this one calls for some deeper searching. This, that and the other (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added three cites. To the nominator: you're adding a lot of RFVs. I hope you are checking (on Google Books etc.) for yourself before bringing them all here. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4F5:C417:56AC:AEAD 10:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Middle English only — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.46 (talk) at 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Just Middle English — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.46 (talk) at 21:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

A Scottish legal term apparently. — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.46 (talk) at 22:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Created on the basis of a mistaken quote (the original text had ‘adrip’, not ‘adrop’), but could it be citable nonetheless? There seems to be another alchemical sense, too, that we currently don’t have, so any quotes that can be found should be checked for what sense exactly is being used in context. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old mining term — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.198 (talk) at 08:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Just Browne? Poe, too, any third? — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.198 (talk) at 11:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

I've done my best to find uses through Google Books; found two journals using it, and added them along with the Poe quotation, but I'll leave it to those who know better whether this is adequately cited now. P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think all the quotations except the one by Browne belong under the much more common word circumvallatory, for which we currently have no entry. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 05:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought of that, but the forms given were inconsistent and not spelled as a single word, besides being the best evidence I could find that "vallatory" is still considered a valid and useful word. There may be other instances; a Google search certainly doesn't account for the whole corpus of the English language. My search was hindered by dozens of hits for dictionaries, word-books, and encyclopedias, alongside many repetitions of Browne. P Aculeius (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vorziblix is right, these are clearly cites for circumvallatory. These texts turn up repeatedly in searches, and most editions write the word as one word. This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surely circumvallatory, which has just been created, is from circum- + vallatory, not as it currently says, circumvallation + -ory. Since we know from the Browne citation (also, I checked, the one given in OED) that vallatory predates circumvallatory, the latter would seem to have arisen from it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P Aculeius circumvallatory has a direct semantic link to circumvallation, which in turn comes from Latin circumvallō, so expressing the etymology in terms of a derivative of circumvallō seems more accurate to the actual path of derivation. It's entirely possible that vallatory had an influence on the form of the word, of course - "perhaps influenced by {{m|en|vallatory}}" could be the way to express this. This, that and the other (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Fletcher — This unsigned comment was added by 84.78.26.198 (talk) at 15:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

In lowercase — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.185 (talk) at 09:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Saph668, Sundaydriver1 have a difference of opinion over whether this is entry-worthy. Bringing it here for resolution. This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merge with block-ornament. I moved it back since I didn't think trying to normalise it was good practice but looking now the Westminster Gazette may be the only place where this spelling is found. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 14:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it is only found once, we should delete this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense noun — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.185 (talk) at 10:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Only Spenser — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.185 (talk) at 10:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Alternative form of wally (“(of eyes) unusually pale, etc.”)? There are more quotes at that entry. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OED just shows wordbooks P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Browne P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found several quotes where "serrous" refers to a saw-toothed shape or motion, and added them to the entry; I am confident enough to say that IMO this is adequately verified, but I will defer to others to close this RfV. Most hits on Google Books are typos/scannos for "serious" or "ferrous", and it also seems to be an alternative spelling for serous. I was not able to tell if "serrous iritis", an eye disease, relates to the saw-toothed meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just Tasso, whose translator spelled it wrong...ſeruiceage P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how it's misspelled; that's merely an older typographic convention, where 'u' and 'v' are not distinguished. This dictionary has two uses in Tasso, one of which did not come up on a Google Books search, and a second meaning in William Fulbecke, which also did not appear in my search, and which I did not search for separately, since I did not think it would go toward verifying the current entry. I also saw a few 20th century agricultural uses, where it seems to refer to hiring male livestock for breeding, but these were snippet views and possibly from newsletters, and again would not go toward verifying the entry as it stands. Perhaps I'm mistaken and these can be used somehow. P Aculeius (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses A slovenly farmer. /// A jobbing tailor. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entry title most likely misspelled. Also, I feel that the two senses should be merged, if we can find evidence that people actually say this. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

All of this user's entries need urgent attention. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 17:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added by @Duke of slang. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also see:

• floptok
• game is game
• I got 2 phones
• silver tooth kid

 

Of these I doubt floptoker (I don't even think that's spelled right) or floptok meet CFI. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never heard of it. No GBooks hits for "mint choco is" or "love mint choco". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F9AC:CC62:6541:2A8E 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have choco as a shortened form of "chocolate". Most probably "mint choco" has been used or said somewhere. However, just because "choco" is short for "chocolate", it doesn't IMO mean that we need to separately include the "choco" version of all phrases involving "chocolate". By the way, isn't mint chocolate SoP anyway? Mihia (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "polymer material made to look like natural leather". Seems odd that the -wear suffix would be used when it doesn't mean clothing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F9AC:CC62:6541:2A8E 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having wounds — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 09:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Anything beyond Middle English? — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 13:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Yappy dog. — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 13:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-nautical sense vb — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

One possible: "Stand by to in all studding-sails, and to ware to the eastward." Mihia (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two more possibles on the same page at .

Mentions. — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 14:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

I added a mention and three uses from a. 1500 to 1857, with 19th century ones referring to 16th or 17th century texts. It appears to be quite obsolete. Cnilep (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just appears in Faerie Queene — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 14:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've heard in use before. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-sense "a grocery store".

Never heard of it where I live (in England), not in the normal sense of a single-entity store or shop. If verified, we should ideally label where, when and/or by whom this sense is used, Mihia (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this is somewhat common in the US (usually to mean "supermarket" or occasionally "green grocer"), but it turns out to be hard to search for as political economics texts seem to crowd out more "homely" usage. Cnilep (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even if we can't find actual citations, I think confirmation by AmE speakers that it is in use will be plenty good enough to verify. Probably then we should also label it AmE. Mihia (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

AHD has "1a A store or shop that sells agricultural produce: bought vegetables from the corner market." That accords with my idiolect. I don't know about general applicability of market to a supermarket. I suspect that people would accept that a supermarket or grocer was not the same as a market ("produce market"). There is a grade of stores that differ in the portion of their sales that are of produce rather than other grocery (and other) items. Probably people differ in where they draw the line between a (produce) market and a supermarket or grocer.

I don't hear greengrocer being used in the US.

Google Ngrams does not help much with separating market ("grocery store") from other senses of market. Comparing shopping at the supermarket|market|grocery store|grocery in Google Ngrams US English corpus shows them being used almost equally, with shopping at the supermarket much more common from the 1950s through the 1960s, becoming less common that the others.

Inspecting uses of shopping at the market finds most to be in non-US contexts or by apparently non-US authors.

FWIW, according to Google Ngrams, in US, comparing grocer,grocery store,grocery,greengrocer,green grocer,produce market,supermarket:

1. grocer was by far the most common in the 19th century.
2. grocery store accounted for nearly half of the total uses of grocery in 2022.
3. grocery/grocery store are much more common than greengrocer/green grocer/green-grocer/produce market combined.
4. greengrocer, green grocer, and green-grocer combined have become more common than produce market.
5. From 1950s until very recently, supermarket was more common than grocery store. DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. (stenoscript) Abbreviation of merchandise and related forms of that word (merchandising, merchandised, merchandiser, etc.)

We have a number of stenoscript abbreviations at Cat:English stenoscript abbreviations but I am dubious that they can be attested according to WT:ATTEST. Let's start with this one. This, that and the other (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "An assault deliberately filmed to be shared on social media."

This is a hot sense from 2022. I suspect that it may have been used by educators or the like at the time, but not so much by the youths whose behavior it is supposed to refer to. I found a handful of uses in print between June 2022 and May 2023. Do editors in the UK use/know it? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Compare MLE pattern up, which I gather is used for something like "punish, put in one's place". Cnilep (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

‘Pattern’ can have that meaning when appearing on its own, not just when followed by ‘up’ with the result that ‘patterning’ is the participle/gerund form and basically means ‘assault’ (though not necessarily one that’s filmed or recorded in any way). We could source these definitions for ‘pattern’ and ‘patterning’ from British rap songs at genius.com, I’ll add some when I get around to it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

2 fish — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.143 (talk) at 07:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

I was able to find many (and cite three) uses for Epinephelus nigritus, but only one unambiguous use (there were also a handful of mentions) for Epinephelus itajara. E. itajara seems to be older, but possibly obsolete or archaic. I also found one use for Mycteroperca bonaci and some ambiguous grouper/jewfish, so I added a higher-level sense as well. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

E. itajara is now also cited. Cnilep (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pollination via the feet of elephants. Apparently occurs only in dictionaries and those Indian multiple-choice revision guides. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5DAD:DEFF:9D45:D65F 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• An indispensable word in my daily vocabulary ... Mihia (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

2 senses — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.26 (talk) at 13:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Added several quotes, all 17th-century. A couple of them look like they could go under either sense, since it seems to me that the writers are deliberately comparing girls to the fish; I originally put the Heywood quote under sense 2, but here a man is addressing his lover as a whiting mop, so I decided it was probably an example of sense 1. The Jordan quote I initially thought was a literal example and sense 1, but evidently it refers to the sea-man's lover, who is ashore, while he is at sea with the whales and sharks. The Massinger one reads like a reference to the fish, but in fact (as several notes make clear) Camillo is referring metaphorically to Mirtilla, with whom he is speaking. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. An act of pretending; a false or simulated show or appearance; a false or hypocritical assertion or representation.

   He visited the king under the pretense of friendliness.

   "Lady Little", the title that she used, was just a pretense.

2. Affectation or ostentation of manner.

   She was a plain-speaking woman without a hint of pretense.

3. Intention or purpose not real but professed.

   with only a pretense of accuracy

4. An unsupported claim made or implied.
   • 1899 September – 1900 July, Joseph Conrad, chapter II, in Lord Jim: A Tale, Edinburgh, London: William Blackwood and Sons, published 1900, →OCLC, page 9:

     He was gentlemanly, steady, tractable, with a thorough knowledge of his duties; and in time, when yet very young, he became chief mate of a fine ship, without ever having been tested by those events of the sea that show in the light of day the inner worth of a man, the edge of his temper, and the fibre of his stuff; that reveal the quality of his resistance and the secret truth of his pretences, not only to others but also to himself.

5. An insincere attempt to reach a specific condition or quality.

Possibly I'm just having a mental blank about this word, but I am struggling to see as many distinct senses as we (and in some cases even more so) other dictionaries list for it. Even sense 2, which I added myself, is arguably just a "false show or appearance". But what about senses 3, 4 and 5? Can we come up with examples that do not actually on inspection simply mean "a false show or appearance", per sense 1? I don't see how the existing examples achieve this. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Def. 2 is distinct by reason of uncountability.

I'd expect some definitions to be of neutral phenomena and others of negative ones, though an "especially" or "usually" might make one def. cover both.

MWOnline has four definitions (of 7) that have one-word synonyms: pretentiousness, pretext, make-believe/fiction, simulation. These are not synonyms of each other.

Google Ngrams has the following nine "adjectives" as the most common ones directly preceding pretense: false (nearly twice as common as the other eight combined), mere, such, little, other, fraudulent, hypocritical, slightest, only. The plural adds various, specious, frivolous, plausible.

I'm not sure whether this means that pretense is intrinsically neutral and needs a negative adjective or that pretense is usually used in cases where the negativity warrants extra emphasis. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"false pretence", also "false pretences", is very much a set phrase, and I would expect it to be conspicuously common. Nowadays the word "false" seems strictly unnecessary (I can't think of any modern neutral or positive uses), but apparently this phrase dates back hundreds of years, so I suppose it is possible that at one time there could be a "true pretence", or perhaps it was always strictly redundant and just used to reinforce falseness. I really don't know. There is certainly, as I alluded to in my post, no shortage at all of multiple different definitions of this word in different places, but what I would like to see at Wiktionary are examples that actually illustrate the alleged differences between our senses in a clear way, so that definitions of one sense can't just as well be substituted into examples of another. And, in particular, modern examples that on inspection are not essentially "false or simulated show or appearance". This is what I am struggling to come up with. Thanks for reminding of the countability issue. Sense 1 is (or should be) actually both countable and uncountable. I'll address that. Mihia (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am having difficulty separating senses 3, 4, and 5 from sense 1; they all seem to be slight variations of it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some SI unit nobody has ever used, presumably. User has numerous edits that seem not to have been checked before adding them. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5DAD:DEFF:9D45:D65F 23:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dictionary-only word? Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Should be added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. It's in all the 17th-century dictionaries, starting with Cockeram - and even survives in modern OED online. Impressive for a word never used once, as far as I can tell. This, that and the other (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, FWIW (as someone pointed out recently, it's hard to prove something doesn't exist, but it's helpful if people who've tried and failed to find an RFVed term comment) I can't find anything, either. The only hits on Google Scholar are scannos ("the poem’sevocation"). The few hits on archive.org are (upon inspecting the pages) clearly scannos, except one which is not as clear but on a balance is most likely a smudged printing of revocations: here, in the clause that starts "Boston was hardest hit", the first letter of _evocations is only partially printed, and looks like it could be s, but the text uses revocations in other sentences, so that is doubtless what was meant, whether it's what was printed or not. Here, too, the first letter of a word _evocation is not printed as clearly as most of the text, but it can't be s because the text uses long s and whatever the letter is it's approximately x-high. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I found lots of scannos for "revocation(s)" too. This, that and the other (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

name not listed on any reputable name list website, can't find any real person with the name (except a fictional character from FIFA 20 who is male, and besides this article was created years before that), *if* it did exist it would probably be an abbreviation of Reverie but i can't imagine almost anyone is seeing this name out there in their daily life Toffeenix (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Send to RFV Polomo47 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Searching a database of old census records, I did find some women (and some men) with this given name in the US, and examined the photocopies of the records to confirm that this was the spelling used. It may be a variant of Revie or Reva. I added two records of women with the name, and two fiction books where men have the name. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might also exist as a surname, see e.g. google books:"Mrs. Revvy". - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"ghost-related (from ectoplasm)". I see no derived terms that are ghostly. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E8B7:11D5:BE4A:D778 14:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. ectometer (a device for detecting ghosts):
   • 1995 02, Web Games, Keith Bailey, Web of Stars, →ISBN:

     This handheld ectoplasmic scanning device was developed to detect spirit activity within an area. It has a location map to pinpoint a spirit's location and an ectometer to determine density of trace matter and spirit strength

   • 2011 October 6, Justin Evans, The White Devil: 'An intelligent, bristling ghost story with a stunning sense of place', Gillian Flynn, author of Gone Girl, Hachette UK, →ISBN:

     I can't go about with an ectometer, scanning for murder scenes and Lord Byron's lost socks.

   • 2012 August 7, F. J. Lennon, Devil's Gate: A Kane Pryce Novel, Simon and Schuster, →ISBN, page 113:

     I rub my finger around the rim of the goblet until it hums its menacing tone. I tune the ectometer and find Karl quickly this time.

2. ectoblaster or ecto-blaster (a gun for shooting ghosts)
   • 2010, Andrew Newbound, Ghoul Strike!, Scholastic Inc., →ISBN, page 174:

     A scaly hand grabbed Gloom's ecto-blaster and pulled it from its holster. A second ugly Ghoul examined the weapon closely.

   • 2011 July 21, Simon Spurrier, Contract, Hachette UK, →ISBN:

       whether he's a prize bare-knuckle fighter who'll beat me to paste then chew off my nose, whether he's an ex-Nazi sympathiser with a secret Thule Society ectoblaster instead of a cock 

   • 2017 July 11, Kevin Hearne, Besieged: Book Nine: Stories from The Iron Druid Chronicles, Del Rey, →ISBN:

     We could use Holtzmann's ecto-blaster thingies right about now.

3. ecto-mist (vapour associated with a ghost, or a supposed ghostly blur in a photograph):
   • 2011 February 8, Melba Goodwyn, Chasing Graveyard Ghosts: Investigations of Haunted & Hallowed Ground, Llewellyn Worldwide, →ISBN, page 69:

     The majority of graveyard ghost stories that involve voices being heard and ecto-mist or full apparitions being seen could very well be the work of a cemetery guardian.

   • 2020 March 31, Samantha Irby, Wow, No Thank You.: The #1 New York Times Bestseller, Faber & Faber, →ISBN:

     There were no tipped-over bottles or clouds of ecto-mist swirling near the baseboards, nothing other than that weird, ominous moaning and the rattling of the walls that accompanied it.

   • 2021 July 13, Ryan Douglass, The Taking of Jake Livingston, Penguin, →ISBN, page 157:

     The shout sends ecto-mist ripping through his body so he rips apart at the cheeks and chest, his body splitting open at the neck and knees, until he pops in a burst of red smoke and then exits through the crevices of the door.

4. Nonce uses:
   • 1994, Computer Gaming World:

     The big difference is that you blow up this haunted houseful of spooks with an ecto-gun type of weaponry.

   • 2021 November 16, Charlie Jane Anders, Even Greater Mistakes: Stories, Tor Books, →ISBN:

     It's made of some kind of ghost material, ecto-whatever, but the stem is solid

   • 2013, Christopher Hastings, Adventures of Dr. McNinja Omnibus, Dark Horse Comics, →ISBN, page 367:

     So you were at the cemetery when Dr. Franklin set off that ecto bomb.

   • 2010 March 12, L'Aura Hladik, Ghosthunting New Jersey, Clerisy Press, →ISBN:

     From the ghost singing in the control booth to the “helper” ghost who hid the workman's hammer, Stanhope House is home to the blues with shades of “ecto-gray.”

Various terms from Ghostbusters too - ectomobile, ecto-trap, Ecto Cooler, etc, which I think popularized the term. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks verified to me, pending everything being quoted in the appropriate entries. I think you should link to Ghostbusters on Wikipedia, if not to specific articles that seem potentially AfD-able: proton pack, which might correspond with "ecto-blaster", although according to that article, the actual particle beam emitter is a "neutrona wand"; "ectometer" appears to refer to the psychokinetic energy (PKE) detector (not mentioned in the article). Ghostbusters also refers to mists or vapors, though not to "ecto-mist" as far as I know. To the extent that these words are presumably being used to avoid copyright infringement with Ghostbusters, or they refer to concepts that might already be defined in Wiktionary in relation to the paranormal, those connections should probably be made. P Aculeius (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense: a woman's breast. And the associated plural; I'm not sure whether I need to tag that as well. I believe this is a misunderstanding of a sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the ruler of the swamp castle is trying to persuade his uninterested son to go through with an arranged marriage. He says, "she's got huge... ...tracts of land!" But I don't think that he's using "tracts of land" as a metaphor or euphemism for "breasts".

There are two issues here: 1) is the character using the phrase "tracts of land" to mean breasts, and 2) has the phrase entered general usage with that meaning? There is a second definition in the entry, but it is literal and sum-of-parts; not sure if that needs to go to RFD if this sense is deleted.

As for 1): I think the editor misinterpreted the line. It's unclear to me which of three interpretations—all jokes for the viewer—should be placed on the line, but in none of them do the words "tracts of land" refer to breasts. A) the father is about to say "breasts" or some equivalent, but changes his mind and instead refers to her literal tracts of land. B) because he knows he cannot refer directly to her breasts, he gestures in such a way that his son should understand that, while he can only mention her literal tracts of land, she also has huge breasts. C) he only ever meant to refer to literal tracts of land, but the gesture was meant to mislead the viewer into thinking that he was going to say "breasts" or some equivalent.

As for 2): irrespective of whether my assessment of the scene is correct, has the phrase entered general usage to mean "breasts"? There are (predictably) many internet references to it, but all or nearly all refer directly to the Monty Python sketch. A search on Google Books for "her tracts of land", which I would expect to find if writers use the phrase to mean "breasts" reveals only references to literal tracts of land. For that matter, scanning 25 pages of results for "huge tracts of land", I still found only references to literal tracts of land. Not even one trashy novel! I'm almost surprised by that; but then, I don't think that anyone would understand such a metaphor without being familiar with the Monty Python sketch. As a metaphor for breasts, as opposed to a visual gag, the phrase is rather clunky, and I do not imagine there is any significant usage that does not refer directly back to the film. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can readily find examples of this:

• And everyone was too busy staring at her tracts of land to actually ring it up.
• You can see him glance straight at her...tracts of land...right before he goes in for the embrace.
• Big-Breast Pride: She is rather proud of her...tracts of land.
• Her lower body seems scaled up, and her tracts of land do not really hang like sacks of fat
• You can see him glance straight at her...tracts of land...right before he goes in for the embrace.
• I think some of the fat from her butt was taken and given to her tracts of land during her transformation

... and I could go on. On this basis, I don't see why we shouldn't keep, but we could consider whether to make the plural form the primary entry. Mihia (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

But are people really using this, or just referring over and over to the Monty Python sketch? You can find lots of random internet content, but how much of it is actually citable to published sources? The film is almost fifty years old, but the most likely collocations found zero hits in Google Books. And it's so awkward that nobody would understand what it means without somehow pointing baffled readers to Monty Python. Are there any good sources that are completely independent of Monty Python? Because the entry has been tagged requesting examples for more than three years, and there's still nothing there. P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would you consider to be a use "completely independent of Monty Python"? I mean, how would you recognise this if you read it or heard it? Mihia (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would only exclude uses that mentioned Monty Python, the specific skit, or the actors therein. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would also only search for usage in publications after the airing of the skit (c. 1975). DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I might be wrong, and stand to be corrected if so, but I got an impression that P Aculeius was looking for something more than this – looking to exclude cases where the speaker was "mentally referring to" or "thinking of" the sketch, even though it is not explicitly mentioned, but I don't know how it is possible to tell, short of actually contacting them and asking. I mean, you could say the same about e.g. bucket list or other phrases that have an exact known origin. Were the people quoted in our citations of bucket list "thinking of" the film when they used the phrase? Does it disqualify the entry even if they were? Mihia (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think what we want are citable uses where the author provides no indication that he or she is alluding to the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and relies on the reader to understand that "tracts of land" means "breasts" without any other clues. If the author has to explain what he or she means by alluding to Monty Python, including clips, stills, or more extensive quotes from the movie, then the phrase isn't idiomatic. I didn't find any obvious examples in books, and a general search turned up clips, memes, or random message board posts, most of which relied on the reader to recognize the exact joke from Monty Python. I didn't see anything that looked citable. Maybe someone else will have better luck, and the entry can be verified. P Aculeius (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

My examples above "should be" absent explicit reference to Monty Python (that was the intention!). I'm not sure where we stand at the moment on "random" Internet mentions. These were apparently sufficient in the recent case of "go = go to the". Personally I believe that we should accept these, provided that the source is not just "rubbish", e.g. bad or broken or non-native English, "telegraphese", etc., which can be a value judgement. I think that these sources are most likely to throw up words and phrases that readers will not understand and will wish to look up in the dictionary, and hopefully ours, if we include them, rather than UD. Mihia (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

And they may be fine, but I don't know where any of them are from, so I can't really comment—except one of them looks like it might be from TVTropes, which is a lot of fun to spend (or waste!) time reading, but I don't think it's citable. I may be wrong! P Aculeius (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've had time to look over the citations for "go = go to the", and there are five: two from Twitter, two from Reddit, and one from a pdf file produced for a school. I would not have thought these counted as durably archived sources, though a search of the Beer Parlour brought me to a 2022 debate about whether certain sources were allowable, which ended with no consensus about either Twitter or Reddit (of the two, Twitter seemed to have more support).

With no consensus, I suppose there is no formal obstacle to using them if they can demonstrate that "tracts of land" is understood to mean "breasts" without any context pointing to Monty Python. That said, I would not regard them as particularly good sources, because I do not know whether they are durably archived or whether the hundreds of billions of tweets that have been tweeted will still be available—and searchable—in another five or ten years (particularly as they can be edited and deleted, along with the accounts that posted them, at any time). I know even less about how Reddit works. And I have no confidence at all in what is basically the electronic version of an anonymously-authored school worksheet.

I'm not a policy warrior, and I'm not making it my mission to eliminate quotes from sources I don't feel are very good. I just think that we ought to be searching for sources that demonstrate lexical use, other than by an insular community of people who've all seen the same movie. P Aculeius (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Made up for a poem, no use in zoology texts — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.202.246 (talk) at 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Removed zoology gloss. Added three citations. One is the poem; another is a commentary on the poem. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E8B7:11D5:BE4A:D778 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"A biscuit made with cocoa and desiccated coconut". Sounds like a brand name; a cursory Google Images search turns up several different products. Ultimateria (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a reference to the article since the article didn't have one. — This unsigned comment was added by 73.216.182.68 (talk) at 15:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Meaning to polish — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.235 (talk) at 08:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-sense throw of dice — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.17 (talk) at 17:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

While I have read some commentators pointing to a connotation of dice throws in the use of this term by John Gower or Gerard Manley Hopkins, it does not seem to be part of the denotative meaning - rather, it looks more like definition 2 (a consequence). Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ignore the quote ".. thini na whatee chhor so ニコー benator GOLDWATER SOS 10 το rat 4M MY GELLERY Aggesting the wawangars ave " — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.17 (talk) at 18:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Please check EEBO before bringing to RFV: two if not three cites in EEBO phase2: This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mentions — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.17 (talk) at 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Was able to find one instance that I think would count as a use, amid dozens of definitions in various dictionaries and medical references. Also a lot of hits for other things beginning with agro-. A bit surprised I did not find more uses in literature pertaining to Indian medicine; perhaps someone else will have more luck. P Aculeius (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any use? — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.153 (talk) at 05:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Only used by Bacon? — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.153 (talk) at 05:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-sense Lower-case form of Curtis Yarvin's "the Cathedral", i.e. American media/academia with its alleged left-wing bias. It seems to always be capitalized as a proper noun.

Note: An earlier revision I made includes a characterization of Curtis Yarvin's position. I try to be terse, and sometimes this leads to miscommunications. I do not endorse Yarvin's positions, even if it might have come across that way in that diff. I hope my false step doesn't distract from the RFV. Wikiuser815 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense girdle. Chaucer-ism P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is an RFV of the sense "A television game show where word puzzles are solved by filling in the missing letters". The sense was previously discussed 17 years ago, but only two editors participated substantively. The sense requires quotations which are, among other things, not "about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service" or "about the type of product or service in general", and do not "identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author's intent": WT:CFI. The quotations currently in the entry all seem to refer to the American game show. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should try to capture TV shows under WT:BRAND - I mean, yes, there is commercial value in the intellectual property of Wheel of Fortune as a trademark and as a concept, but that doesn't make Wheel of Fortune a "product or service".

In any event, we should still exclude the names of TV shows, but it's really an RFD question. See the recently concluded RFD for Friends (bottom of the page at Talk:Friends). This, that and the other (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

...although having said all that, it may be possible to find evidence of figurative use of this name... This, that and the other (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sense:

(obsolete) The crown (of the head); also the head itself.

The stature is bowed down in age, the cop is depressed.

14th–15th c. is Middle English. J3133 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

ẵRfv last-sense — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.175 (talk) at 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

The definition appears in Century 1911, without any citations. DCDuring (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not in A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, which does say: 'Perhaps because so many rhetorical figures involve a "counter-turning" of some sort, this term has attracted a cluster of different meanings in addition to the above ." I've found it hard to cite rhetorical terms. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Only Milton — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.175 (talk) at 13:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

IP added a new definition — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.175 (talk) at 16:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

A plural. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1D65:5ECD:A51F:A81F 22:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Limited use. One in a weird poem, awkwardly rhyming with Mahometry. — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.18 (talk) at 08:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Old dictionary mention only? — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.158 (talk) at 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

A snippet view of the current OED says "The only known use of the adjective aptable is in the early 1600s. OED's only evidence for aptable is from 1611, in the writing of Randle Cotgrave", presumably referring to his 1611 French-English dictionary. Google's scan of the original OED (1888) is blurry, but appears to have only one instance, giving "COTGR" and "1611", and Cotgrave's use is: "Accomodable. Fittable, aptable, appliable." Under successive entries ("Accommodation", "Accommodé", "Accommoder") Cotgrave also uses "apting", "apted", and "apt" (as a verb), so it doesn't seem to be a mistake, but a deliberate usage that is not followed by other writers. So far Google Books is yielding only dictionary entries (though it's in a lot of dictionaries, occasionally as part of the definition of another word, instead of as an entry) and typos/scannos for "adaptable" or "at table", "AP table" and similar things. P Aculeius (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Send to RfD. This appears to be nothing more than shorthand for "a textbook case of" fear, i.e. "fear in its basic definition", which seems like the sum of its parts. Nothing in the entry suggests that it is in any way idiomatic, and I do not think there is anything to search for. It might make sense as a gloss of "bibliophobia", but that does not seem to be how it is defined. P Aculeius (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• As far as I can understand it, the distinguishing feature of this sense of "textbook fear" is supposed to be that you hear or read about something being difficult/dangerous/frightening and fear it only for that reason. So, for example, if you often encounter spiders in your house, and you are terrified of them, you might have a "textbook fear" in the sense that it is a "classic" fear described in textbooks, but it wouldn't be "textbook fear" in our sense because you originated it yourself. Whether this is a clear and valid distinction, and, if so, whether it is a property of the word "textbook" or solely of "textbook fear", I do not know. (By the way, our definition seems poorly worded. The phrase structure seems not to be totally coherent.) Mihia (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cleaned up the formatting, but I'm very skeptical. I look forward to any citations that show support for any non-SoP definition. This smells to me like someone misinterpreting standard attributive use of textbook. If enough people misinterpret textbook as it seems from the RfVed definition, there should eventually be citations that support a further extension of the meaning of textbook. I wouldn't think that fear would be the only noun modified by such an extended sense of textbook, so, even if this collocation is cited, we should see whether there are other collocations that show the same extended meaning of textbook.

At textbook#Adjective we have: "Having the typical characteristics of some class of phenomenon, so that it might be included as an example in a textbook.". DCDuring (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

On the subject of textbook#Adjective, I added an example there, "Well done everyone, the tree fell exactly where we planned. That was textbook", partly to try to bolster the case that this is truly an adjective (which is ambiguous in many of the existing quotations), but then it struck me that our existing definition, that you quoted, does not exactly capture this kind of usage. The "tree felling" example does not describe something with "typical characteristics" so much as something "done exactly correctly, in the way that a textbook might describe". Do you think we are missing a sense? Or is it all part of the same sense? Mihia (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The predicate-use example helps. BTW, some other dictionaries use classic as a synonym. Maybe we could broaden the current definition, perhaps "typical or ideal"? DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, ", so that it might be included as an example in a textbook." does not really define the term, but rather explains the (obvious?) sense development. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the end I found it difficult to broaden the definition in a way that appealed to me, so I made a separate definition. Anyone who prefers to merge them, please go ahead. Mihia (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't distinguish senses 2 and 3 under "textbook", as they seem to be describing exactly the same thing. That said, I haven't tried to merge them, so I can't really comment on how difficult it is. But to return to "textbook fear", I fear we still haven't escaped the textbook use of "textbook" as an adjective. It still seems to be a textbook example of a phrase that means nothing more than the sum of its parts. P Aculeius (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Returning to the RFV, I think it might be difficult to find examples that we can be certain are meant in this alleged special sense rather than the general "textbook" sense. I had a quick trawl of Google results, and found some that could be read as our sense, but all of them could be read in the "normal" sense too. Perhaps someone else might have more luck. Mihia (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Let's just give it its 30 days here. We can then RfD it and have our debates there, if necessary. DCDuring (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added as a synonym of Nheengatu. I couldn't find any mention of it online, and the name itself doens't make much sense, as the language is spoken in the Amazon region.

The other synonyms added at that page don't have references either, but I was able to found some mentions:

• Geral
• Modern Tupí
• Waengatu
• Yeral

Trooper57 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. This place; this location.

   Here is where I met my spouse twelve years ago.

   An Alzheimer patient's here may in his mind be anywhere he called home in the time he presently re-lives.

2. (figuratively) This point or stage, visualised as a location.

   I'd like to continue my story, but here is where I must stop.

   I've done as much as I can; you'll have to take it from here.

3. (abstract) This time, the present situation. (Can we add an example for this sense?)

RFV sense 3 as distinct from sense 2. It already had a request for examples; I can't think of any. Mihia (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In mining

specifically "a mistake made when speaking". ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply