Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | 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 | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{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.

2022

This form doesn't appear to exist in Middle English, which only knows the form wrengðe (the word is a Early Middle English hapax). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's difficult to know if you're referring to the use of th in the spelling, or the lack of final e (or both). The nominative form, which would be used as the Wiktionary headword, could potentially be wrengð*, *wrengþ, *wrength, wrengðe, *wrengþe, or *wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If the nominative originally lacked final -e (which is by no means certain), there's a good chance that it would've been levelled in from the oblique cases by the thirteenth century, making it formally identical to them. As a result, there's no justification for having a seperate entry (and if we did decide to create one, it should be located at wrengð, as assuming that a scribe who uses <ð> in one place would use it elsewhere is the most parsimonious option). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I've no qualms about an entry as wrengð, but we should leave wrength as a redirect. It's used with that spelling in references and other listings, and it's useful as a first-stop shop for individuals trying to locate it (i.e. looking it up and not realising that th = ð, or others not knowing where to find ð on their keyboard). How do we handle interchangeable bookstaves currently for Middle English ? like u~v, y~ȝ, w~ȝ, gh~ȝ, etc. I always change a fricative 'u' to v in all my edits automatically, and use 'u' solely as a vowel. In English headwords, we do not use ſ for s, but show s only; and in Old English we abandoned using ƿ for w, although ƿ is really more correct. Doing this for Middle English would be a departure from that logic, but if consensus dictates, then I have no problem with it. Also, we do show non-attested spellings for transliterations, like liufs for 𐌻𐌹𐌿𐍆𐍃. wrength could be argued to be a "transliteration" of sorts for wrengð. Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think we should create a entry at wrengð (in fact, I'm saying we shouldn't, as the nominative might've got the final vowel levelled in). As for creating a entry at wrength, my main qualm with that idea is that we currently lack any policies for handling such modernised forms; I believe there was some discussion about creating a template {{modernised form of}}, but I'm too unwell to go around digging it up. By the way, I wouldn't say there's a urgent need for a Middle English wrength, given that we have a ModE wrength that has a nice link to wrengðe in the etymology. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of policy we have consensus. I agree, there's no need for a Middle English wrength (now removed), the modern form suffices. As to the modernised spelling, I have created wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Middle English. Rfv-sense: "question". This purported sense seems to be a erroneous extrapolation from fræġn; there's no trace of it in the MED or OED, and I don't see any evidence of any attestations that these two dictionaries've missed. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Leasnam (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam Can you confirm that everything in this search is using it as a verb? I can't parse some of these passages, e.g. "þe frain" in isolation could either mean "ask thee" or (hypothetically) "the question", "hir frain" could mean "ask her" or (hypothetically) "her question". I'm guessing it's the verb in all cases, but I just wanted to check. 70.172.194.25 06:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any clear noun uses of frain Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I also searched for frein, freyn, and frayn and came across this which looks like it might be a noun, here ] - the very first instance where it says And at þaim gaue þair fader frayn - if I'm reading this correctly (which I hope I am) it says "And at them gave their father frayn ("question" ?)" i.e. "And their father directed a question at them", and he appears to ask a question in the very next line...but frayn is a slightly different spelling, of course, than frain. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I also should point out that frayn above doesn't appear to likely mean "ash-tree" or "bridle/rein" - two other possible renderings for this spelling Leasnam (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hazarasp Thoughts? 70.172.194.25 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty unwell at the moment, so I can't answer. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Middle English. Rfv-sense: "island". This word apparently seems to have only survived as a place-name suffix after the Old English period; the MED has no attestations of use as a independent nominal. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Scots for "originate". Equinox ◑ 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Here it is in an English novel, but spoken by the character "Mr. Goodie, a Scots gentleman"; another similar example, in which the word is uttered by a "Scotsman". Do we want to count these? Seems dubious. The word also appears on the Scots Wikipedia, but that might not mean much in light of the 2020 revelation that much of the wiki was written by non-Scots-speaking users; not that we would even want to cite Wikipedias in general. 98.170.164.88 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like it if we had a policy that quoted speech within a novel does not count as attestation, since it's eye dialect at best, and there are also novels featuring small children, characters with speech impediments, and talking animals, which could allow us to flood the dictionary with entries like wowwipop .... but there is no such policy, and we have allowed words like this before, such as gonnegtion. —Soap— 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Middle English: “(uncertain) to obtain”. The MED only has attestations with y. J3133 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason here appears to be that the MED has filed the other senses under wainen and this is seemingly an extension of the same term, so it makes sense to move this to waynen, which is the main lemma for us anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

"(slang) To exceed expectations. Your outfit is giving!" I tried some searches and couldn't find any "outfit is giving" (other than longer phrases like "your outfit is giving me a heart attack" which don't count). Equinox ◑ 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've heard this, though I took it to be ellipsis of a broader slang use of give we don't seem to cover yet, which is saying an outfit, action, etc is giving Wednesday Addams, giving boho, or giving Ted Cruz during the 2021 Texas weather crisis, etc, itself a shortening of it's giving Wednesday . (The Atlantic has an article about this, "'It's Giving': A Gift to Language".) I'm looking for cites, but as you say most hits are longer irrelevant phrases. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I added an Elle cite of the other/longer slang use, "it's giving ", to sense 1.5 alongside "it's giving vibes". As I said, I've also heard bare "it's giving.", and can find enough examples on the raw web to confirm it's real — e.g., the first of the few hits for google:"outfit is giving girl" are longer phrases of the other slang sense, "this outfit is giving girl boss" , but the last hits are indeed this RFV'd sense, "This outfit is GIVING, girl!", in comments on tiktok videos — but I have not gotten the sense that it's common enough to meet CFI yet. (Urban Dictionary's top definition will cover it for anyone who looks it up, if we don't.) - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed quite hard to search for, although it's commonly used online. I've added two uses in a tabloid (by the same author but quoting different people). It is used here (page 8) to illustrate the concept of code-switching between language varieties. Einstein2 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This absolutely exists and -sche is on point, it's shortened from positive uses of sense 1.5. Bare "is/it's giving" without anything following it can be found e.g. by googling "giving fr". I'm not sure this is old enough for it to have leaked into any source that is considered durable on Wiktionary, but I have no doubt there is a small army of basic bitches working on remedying this as we speak, give it a year or two. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

One thing to consider: does this exist in other forms, e.g. "that outfit gave, girl!"? "that outfit is gonna give!" (If not, is it really best considered an inflected form of give still, or an (?)adjective giving?) - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@-sche I can find examples of "so giving", "giving asf" on Twitter so I support the adjective interpretation. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Verb: to be friends with. The example given uses "pal around", which is a real verb. I don't think "pal" alone is. Equinox ◑ 09:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to get it cited, but it does appear to be much less common than pal around, with which it is synonymous and so I've changed the definition accordingly. lattermint (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. But they're all pal with, so should this be moved to pal with? Or at least add an inline qualifier "with with". —Soap— 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually i have the same request regarding pal around. i had thought maybe "pal around supervillains" etc would be common, but it seems its really pal around with as well. —Soap— 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It was my impression that when used with "with", "with" is part of the prepositional phrase together with whatever object follows. And the verb itself is intransitive, so the direct usage with an object (in, as you've mentioned, "pal around supervillains") isn't applicable. As for usage without "with", you could say "They pal around together all the time", or "Let's pal around sometime". lattermint (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "pal around" vs "pal around with": I agree that "with" isn't inherently part of the verb / lemma, since you can say some people were "palling around" (and e.g. should "quit palling around"). Regarding "pal": can you say some people were "palling"? If so, that resolves this, but if not... that's tricky, since some phrases do get lemmatized with with, like go with and sit with... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Middle English. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

No verifiable citations. "Category:en:Thirty-six" or "en:Category:Thirty-six" does not exist here or on Wikipedia. Wikipedia article w:Thirty-six exists, but does not mention "sexatrigesimal". This appears to have no actual basis. – .Raven (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories are irrelevant for verification. kwami (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Then (1) a Category should not have been cited when creating that page — (Created page with "==English== ===Etymology=== {{prefix|en|sexa|trigesimal}} ===Adjective=== {{en-adj|-}} # Based upon the number thirty-six Category:en:Thirty-six") — and (2) since it was so cited, that citation should have been verifiable; but no such category was found, and the article of that name doesn't mention this word. Nor was the "Citations" tab filled in with anything at all. Ordinarily I would have expected this page to be speedy-deleted inside a day. It's been up a week, and RfD is a slower process, giving you time to cite RSs, to prevent that. Will you do so? –.Raven (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This community can be a bit rough sometimes. As I understand it, the expectation is that the person who nominates a word for deletion will do so only after taking the time to be sure that the entry can't easily be patched up in order to qualify to remain listed in the dictionary. In other words, we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do. That may just be an unwritten expectation, since I dont see a description anywhere at WT:RFD or the add-new-entry button saying what I'm saying. So we can't hold that against you. Nonetheless, please understand that nobody here is compelled to hop to it and try to rescue these words you're nominating. Neither are we in any rush to delete them .... speedy deletion is used when there is an urgent need to remove a page, which I dont see here. Lastly, I agree these would be better placed at WT:RFV, but I dont hold that against you either since I've been around here a long time and I've only recently gotten to understand confidently what goes best where. Best wishes, —Soap— 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

> "… we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do." — (1) I searched and did not find RSs (e.g. "The major actual English usage of appears to be in multiple pages of xen.wiki, not an RS."), which is why so much time elapsed between these three deletion requests. (2) I was not asking you, but specifically kwami, who created these pages, thus should have listed citations in the tabs for that purpose. If kwami doesn't want to rescue the pages kwami created, then by all means speedy-delete them. Okay? – .Raven (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven When an entry is created, the default edit summary simply copies the wikitext of the created page. So the reference to "Category:en:Thirty-six" in that edit summary was not an attempt at citation; it appears there because the creator chose to put the page in this (nonexistent) category as a matter of categorisation. In fact, the entry was created without citations, as is typical on Wiktionary. Citations are often only added when the entry is brought here to RFV.

As for "RSs", that is a Wikipedianism - we work on the basis of attestation. See the first few sections of WT:CFI.

And as for the word itself, it may be citable from online sources, but there is one hit in GBooks and nothing in GScholar. The form hexatrigesimal should be citable (two uses in GScholar). This, that and the other (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Thank you! – .Raven  ^.talk 03:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's worth observing that this term would be citable from non-durably-archived sources if anybody was inclined to collect some and start a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is this real? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Many of this user's recent creations need attention. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've created Citations:xertz with a couple of cites but the term barely appears outside of "fancy words"-type lists. Einstein2 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The word reminds me of one of those text adventure games from the 80s, the ones played on those old computers. Maybe that's the origin? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Found third cite, even earlier than the rest. (It makes no sense to me, but hey. That's the way things go.) CitationsFreak (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw that cite in my own searches for attestation but didn't add it because IMO it doesn't meet the "conveying meaning" criterion of CFI; it's gibberish (non)word salad. (It arguably doesn't even meet the criterion to include the RFVed, English word, since the assignment of that "jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk" to English seems...debatable.) - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A decent chunk of it are words that can be found in English. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two durably archived cites (one Usenet and one book) and four Twitter cites. This would need a vote in order to be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. Maybe in time a third use will happen. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a third book cite, but it was deleted for being nonsense by -sche. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, because CFI requires that a string of letters not merely exist, but actually be used to convey the relevant meaning, which machine- or human-generated word salads, including the one you added, don't help with. For anyone wondering, the relevant 'sentence' in that book was "gingerly methodical, jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk aloft in thermals' cookiecutter, rom among the ram, diffident, maladroit risible kilest eclat abruptly shines your vague, beatrice, firetruck laving curveball english, defrocked alive, shocking the green knight miming dialectic woodpeckers, hollow, beheaded, impulsing, floating lotus, pugilist moon, window cigarette, enigma rhapsodies rocket to dawn breathless, hyperborean, virgil greyhounds deep outside the antler's womb moans a joyful tune, headbanging mistaken raindrop, bottled up by options ignoring giant wisdom, hazelnut epidermis maelstroming friendship cottoning to the light, yining the yang, the white strawberry climbs upon the arrowing heart, looks adieu, illumination iceblock, drumel, paraphing redwings' jimjam, beard, eyrie, mind whispers, sparrow vermiculated for its geode jaywalking across my heartbeat, gossamer ocean coin flip death is just another threshold, mystical skeletons burn & fade in waves enlightened lux glancing touch, askance, the looks pellucid rue, mouth scissoring through the wind, teaking blindspots, darting feints, I object to your objectivity toenailing a comma, merrygorounding umbilicals' never again of enough raving embezzled ambrosia weightless, the noodle swims with her leg UP. PARAPHING YONDER THAN YET SO WHILE AS THEN-redtape bookworms 71 East North West South." - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: I added a quotation from A Rewording Life (2015), a list of words by Sheryl Gordon and over 1000 Canadian contributors. The word xertz is not defined, but as the quotation is from the word’s own entry (by the poet Charmaine Cadeau), it might not be considered acceptable. J3133 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Good find. The question there is whether Cadeau's sentence counts as "conveying use" or as a "made-up example of how a word might be used", yes? Hmm... it's an unusual case; a dictionary with a few editors providing (uncredited) made-up example sentences is one thing, but here the editors seem to have solicited different authors to use (or make up examples of, depending on how one interprets it) each word. I can find another similarly borderline cite, here, which first has a glossary entry for the word (not acceptable / useful), but later uses the word in the definition of another word (very borderline but technically cromulent). OK, I think between these two borderline instances and the web cites, we can conclude that this exists after all (I've restored the entry). - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I say that the University of Alberta cite is fine, since it uses the word, even though it's defined in the same article. Mrs. Byrne also lists the word in her dictionary of weird words. It's in the 1974 copy. She says that they all came from dictionaries, so this word may be older than we think. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if it is actually word salad, or just a really-hard-to-understand poem. (The "sentence" has line breaks in it, reading "gingerly methodical, jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk / aloft in thermals' cookiecutter, rom along the ram. diffident, maladriot...") CitationsFreak (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There's method to its madness, but it's still madness. I interpret it as a series of things that start to make sense interspersed with things intended to jolt you out of making sense of it all. I'm sure the parts are carefully chosen and their arrangement carefully planned out, but it's not using the words and phrases to convey meaning in the sense that CFI requires. There are cases where this kind of deliberate obscurity can lead to terms taking on new meanings, but that's only after they're adopted and used that way. Rhyming slang, for instance, isn't attestation of the original meanings, but of the new meanings- not on your Nellie isn't attestation of the name, "Nellie", but of a rhyming slang word for "life". Since the quote in question is a one-off, it's useless for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I do feel that "xertzing" is being used as its meaning, although words like "jaap" and "kilest" really adds a question mark to my theory. However, I suppose that this fight is pointless, since we have a better cite (the University of Alberta quote). CitationsFreak (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

unattested alternative spelling Tbilsi Fin (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely just about keepable, although the label is wrong. (sense 6) (nautical sense) etc. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "to discuss varying viewpoints on a given topic". This is defined as an intransitive sense but the only quotation uses it transitively. Perhaps this just needs rewording to something like "expose to public view" (cf. OED2 sense 5a.)? Einstein2 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Expressing boredom? It's doubtful whether this would count under WT:CFI ("conveying meaning"), but even finding quotes for this definition isn't going to be easy. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I remember we already have at least one similar entry for a "keysmash" expressing boredom, but I forget what it is. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

asdfghjkl? くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp? - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Two senses. Zero GBooks hits. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly citable from Twitter and Usenet, but I don't think it has a stable meaning. Pretty much every use on both Twitter and Usenet relies on context. We could perhaps keep this page if we reduced its meaning to a general term of abuse. —Soap— 10:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

All the hits I see refer to the dynamometer Skisckis (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hawai`ian

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(~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)

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)

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))

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

An offensive term. Please add the "offensive" template Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Wonderfool was smoking something when they posted that message. Let's start again with a generic RFV message Not disrupt (talk)

easselward

eassel might also be Scots instead of English. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

I typed up the citations. It's just a question of whether to accept internet news cites (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)

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

failcascade

Apparently jargon of those who play EVE, a specific online game. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be exactly like #never change a running system (except spicier): an English idiom only ever used by Germans, and consequently, only appearing as mentions in German texts. Not sure what to make of it. This, that and the other (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It indeed only seems to be attested in German, so I've changed the L2 header to German and added the only three cites I could find. RFV-failed as English but RFV-passed as German? But absolutely no objection if someone wants to RFD it as not being a real or common proverb/idiom (we are not Wikiquote, to record every phrase that's in three books). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Another variation I've heard used in German is "never/don't fuck the company" (do they correspond to English idioms?) Jberkel 18:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"(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)

"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)

June 2023

Used to have only two quotes, one of which –

• 1855, Edward Nichols Dennys, The Alpha, or first principle of the human mind:

  He has abstorted the Lightning from the clouds

– shouldn't be regarded as a wordform of the adjective lexeme abstorted, but one of the verb abstort. This left only one quote, and I managed to find another; one more quote needed for CfI. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

alternatively, maybe give all three of these quotes to abstort, and rewrite the abstorted entry so that it's simply treated as a participle? 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out there is no entry for abstort in the OED. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

However, many other dictionaries have an entry for abstort, and I have managed to cite the verb. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"A total absence of fear", from pant- +‎ aphobia (< Gr. ἀφοβία, or equivalently a- +‎ phobia). Seems to only crop up in early glossaries, and later dictionaries quoting that. On the other hand, there are extensive sources noting pantaphobia as "fear of everything", from panta- +‎ phobia, = pantophobia. Pantaphobia "a total absence of fear" is exceedingly rare even in mentions, and pantaphobia "fear of everything" seems to exist primarily in mentions as well (but possibly quotable? I haven't looked very hard). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added the ‘fear of everything’ sense with quotes, however I couldn't really find cites supporting the ‘fearlessness’ sense (despite being included in M-W Medical). Einstein2 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

"Relating to the whole of something. catch-all, end-all". Not a suffix. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If it isnt a suffix then what would it be? It creates nouns from verbs. And although all can be a noun, it isnt a noun in the sense that's used here, since the all in "catch-all", "cure-all", and so on is the object of the verb, not the agent. If this were a simple compound, then "all" would be the head, so "catch-all" would need to mean "an all that catches", and so on, which is not what it means. I oppose deletion on grammatical grounds, but this seems like an RFD question more so than RFV, because as above, how would we turn up three cites for -all in isolation? Best regards, —Soap— 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out – that "f this were a simple compound, then 'all' would be the head, so 'catch-all' would need to mean 'an all that catches'" isn't particularly true, in terms of V+(Pro)N compounding in English. There is an inherent error to this argument, viz. a compound is a lexicalised object and cannot be analysed phrasally. But more importantly, please consider the following six (Group A):

• pickpocket, not "a pocket that picks," but "one who picks pockets";
• daredevil, not "a devil that dares," but "one who dares the devil";
• spoilsport, not "a sport that spoils", but "one who spoils the sport (=entertainment)";
• killjoy, not "a joy that kills", but "one who kills the joy";
• breakfast, not "a fast that breaks," but "one that breaks the fast";
• pastime, not "a time that passes," but "that which is done to pass the time";

and the following (Group B):

• singsong, "a piece of verse" < "an instance of singing a song" = "song singing";

and the following (Group C):

• go-ahead, "an utterance of 'go ahead!'"

If V+N compound could only be parsed as "N that V", then none of the above would be valid compounds, and -pocket, -devil, etc., by your reasoning, would have to be considered as suffixes. (Along the same line, V+ProN compounds like do-little, do-nothing, know-nothing also exist and conform to Group A, as well as say-so, which conforms to Group B. If -all should be analysed as a suffix it would only seem fair for -nothing, -little, and -so to also follow suit.) This is obviously infeasible. Catch-all, know-it-all, etc., in fact follows the exact same wordformation pattern as those in Group A; I don't particularly see why they shouldn't be analysed as compounds as well.

Cheers, 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes Im familiar with endocentric compounds. I see a few differences between those words and the words using -all and -it-all. I'll just treat Group A together:

1. These compounds always omit a linking word. In all cases but the first, the patient is indefinite, so the missing word is the. Nobody says *break-the-fast.
2. These compounds always have the second element as a noun, whereas -it-all and -all end with what I would prefer to call a determiner, although I guess there is some debate about that. However this point may be irrelevant so I wont stress it.
3. Most importantly, though, in these compounds, both morphemes are fixed. breakfast is a word familiar to anyone, but outside of ad-hoc coinages, nobody says *makefast or *breakmeal. By contrast, -it-all and -all can attach to multiple words. Only one morpheme is free. I admit that this helps me understand why it is important, as stated above, that -it-all cannot pass CFI just based on know-it-all. Maybe this paragraph is the only really important thing in my reply, but I want to make clear why I'm being so insistent.

As for the others .... Group B just looks like another instance of the Group A pattern to me. I guess it's not endocentric, but it is head-first, which is the most relevant characteristic of English endocentrics as it is the one that's shared by constructions such as know-it-all. As for Group C, I'd say it's just a lexicalized quote; it's not a compound at all, any more than thank-you is.

That's all I have to say for now. Thanks for reading, —Soap— 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :^) On point 2: I'd say all and it all are both pronominal in this case.

You raise a point in point 3; how do you feel about the nothing in do-nothing, have-nothing , know-nothing, get-nothing, and good-for-nothing, though? Going by your argument, -nothing should also be considered a suffix. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 13:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say -nothing qualifies as a suffix, yes, although your last word is another lexicalized quote, and doesnt form a set with the rest. Perhaps being two syllables long explains the scarcity of examples. If naught weren't archaic, perhaps we'd have more words like dreadnought.

Regarding the pronouns ... if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds, even endocentric ones. But I get the impression there are more than two sides here, and we have as many opinions as we have people in this thread. —Soap— 18:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

yes, good-for-nothing doesn't fall in with other verb-headed -nothings, that was on me; but I don't get why you'd classify it as a "lexicalised quote." (Also – circling back a little – I don't know if compounding necessarily excludes lexicalised quotes, but maybe we are operating under different theoretical frameworks.)

I also fail to see why "if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds". All, it-all being pronouns doesn't say anything against catch-all, know-it-all being exocentric compounds, per Bloomfield's definition of endo- and exo-centric compounding.

I'm sorry that I'm probably dragging this discussion unwelcomedly long; I didn't have time to properly respond to your previous reply, and I keep being distracted by the smaller points we're making. Mostly I'm just really confused as to why you would insist that know-it-all, catch-all and do-nothing are stem+suffix constructions, when they are semantically and syntactically motivated in the exact same way as daredevil and pickpocket. (the point 1 you made in your previous reply was a non-argument, as English pronouns like all or nothing cannot take determiners in the first place.) 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very interesting discussion. If you feel the discussion is too long I'd be happy to continue it somewhere else, perhaps at a slower pace. I'd like to leave this thread be for at least the next few days, as I'll be somewhat more busy. Thanks for talking, —Soap— 07:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I understand that three words using this as a suffix are enough to get it through CFI. We could use catch-all, cure-all, and overall. The last has no hyphen, but as it is a noun, and does not mean "an all that is over", it can only be using the same -all suffix as the other two words. More examples can be found ... there is an expression the end-all be-all, though I don't know how often those words are untethered. Collins lists cover-all, with or without hyphen, to describe a similar garment to overalls.

As for the original question of why this is a suffix, I think I've amply addressed that above. —Soap— 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We actually have coverall. We just didnt list the hyphenated spelling. So we have four words using this suffix as a suffix now, and I think this should be considered cited and I'm going to leave it be, as there's nothing more I should need to do. Thanks, —Soap— 07:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that this is cited. Nothing of what you said above demonstrates that this is a suffix. PUC – 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is just part of a pattern of fossiling sentences with a non-finite form of the verb: pissabed and lie-abed aren't evidence for an "-abed" suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Content disputes are a sign of a healthy community. In some online communities, people form into cliques and anyone can predict the winner of a policy discussion from the get-go because the same people always win. I'm glad we're not like that here. However, I still think these RFV's are in the wrong place, as they were simply RFD's by another name, and as such, I realized it would make no difference if I were able to come up with 300 cites instead of just 3, since the same people could continue to say that they aren't being used as suffixes. If we count this as the RFD that I believe it is, I'm outnumbered 4 to 1, and I expect both this page and -it-all to be deleted. I think that's wrong, and still feel that with a proper RFD it may have attracted more attention, but there are more important things to focus on right now so I am going to move on. Best regards, —Soap— 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Mixed-breed dog

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)

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

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

Obsolete nonse word. Not even used in a famous work Ñobody Elz (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a second use (on citations page). This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

RFV of the sense meaning ‘pervert’. There’s some stuff online, especially on Urban Dictionary, mentioning ‘Herbert the Pervert’ from Family Guy but I can’t find any uses. It would be good to find quotes to support the sense of ‘foolish person’ that I added at Citations:herbert too. The first time I heard this was IRL yesterday when an elderly lady I know did something stupid and said about herself, “What a herbert! What a twonk!”, so it can sometimes be used about females not just males but that might be hard to prove. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The foolish person sense can be found in dictionaries (GDoS: “a simple person”, COED: “an undistinguished or foolish man or youth”). It seems to be an extension of the first sense in the entry (“working-class youth”), although I'm not sure if it's distinct enough to warrant a separate definition line. Einstein2 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll try and see if I can find the books that Green's Dictionary quotes on Google Books and add them. It looks like the 'working class youth' sense came later though, in the Punk era, while the dictionaries that you've linked to suggest that the 'foolish person/man/youth' came about in the early 20th century, or in the 1960s at the latest. I'd say the senses are distinct too. I suppose it's possible that the Punk era word came from the 1969 Star Trek episode The Way to Eden, where the 'space hippies' describe those not in their group as 'herberts', thus basically using it as a synonym of 'square' (though you'd expect to find usage of the term in early 70s America before it spread to late 70s Britain in that case). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

An online slang dictionary has "Noun. An dull objectionable person. E.g."He's a real herbert, he watches the news and weather on TV all day." This definition fits better with my recollection of the usage I've heard, eg, that bloody herbert than either of our definitions. I think of herbert as UK, possibly also Aus./NZ. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a quotation using the "pervert" sense from the song D is for Dangerous by the Arctic Monkeys. I don't really see how it could mean anything else considering the context of the line. FishandChipper (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Now fully cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that two of the quotes support the definition. "Dirty herbert" is a pleonasm if the definition is correct. It does not unambiguously support the meaning given. The "D is for Dangerous" lyric seems to support it, if you listen to most of it. DCDuring (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "dirty pervert" would be equally pleonastic, and occurs very commonly. I can't tell if cites support sense either. Equinox ◑ 23:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. The cites do not support the definition unambiguously. Is the term in widespread colloquial use with that meaning? DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of this meaning, which is why I challenged it to begin with, so I suppose that means it isn’t a widespread term but the last two quotes do seem convincing to me. This is because the 2012 one not only uses the word ‘dirty’ to describe Paddy Considine but also accuses him of being ‘corrupting’, thus supporting the sense that he is a pervert. Furthermore, the 2018 quote not only refers to the person described as a ‘Herbert’ as ‘filthy’ but it does this in the context of the referent (the ‘Herbert/Herbert’) being a character in a futuristic world (so not a punk or a modern-day chav) who is accused of having sex with an underage girl. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2012 cite is consistent with the first definition of herbert, labeling PC as being lower class as well as 'corrupting' and 'dirty'. I certainly could be mere pleonasm, but it is not unambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see how the sci-fi uses, either Star Trek or the Morin novel offer any value as cites of use a current terrestrial environment. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless there’s a fictional race of people called ‘herberts/Herberts’ to cause confusion then I don’t really see why not. I suppose the PC quote isn’t unambiguous and the whole situation is complicated by ‘dirty’ and ‘filthy’ (and ‘corrupting’) being polysemous but I’m personally convinced. I’ve added several uses of ‘herbert’ as a term of abuse to Citations:herbert and I could even add some more just by searching under “dirty/filthy/stupid/silly herbert” or “these/those herberts” with a Google Advanced Search but the exact meaning isn’t always clear. I’ve provisionally categorised them under a “foolish person” definition but perhaps we could create a non-gloss definition of “a term of abuse” instead to cover them?

The first definition doesn’t seem quite right, by the way. It seems like the word ‘herbert’ originated as a mild term of abuse, often used affectionately, for children (something like ‘scamp’ or ‘cheeky monkey’) prior to the punk era (as the Spike Milligan quote demonstrates) and then it came to mean something like “an annoying person, especially a working-class one who is a punk (in the musical/cultural sense)” before then being used as an insult more widely. It can be a derogatory but not neutral or complimentary term for the working classes, like scum of the earth rather than salt of the earth. I can’t see any clear evidence at all that it’s used to mean something like ‘square’ (a boring/unfashionable/conservative person). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve now created a generic sense to cover contemptible people who may or may not be perverted. I still think the pervert sense deserves to pass, in fact the meaning in the other quotes is at least as clear (perhaps more so) than in the Arctic Monkeys one, but I wouldn’t object if the community decides to fail this and moves the cites to the new sense instead. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If we accept all three cites as durably archived, I think the context of each one makes interpreting it as "pervert" plausible. there is some discussion of this word (though not the meaning "pervert") here btw. - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe plausibility is the best we can do, but our evidence standards for this kind of thing are questionable. We assume that "ADJ NOUN" phrases are evidence that ADJ is an attribute of NOUN in one of its definitions. Sometimes that might be the case, but much of the usage is at best ambiguous.

In this case, we might leave our normal users better off by simply having a list of collocations with "spotty-faced", "dirty", "filthy", "stupid", "silly", "bloody", etc. DCDuring (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So as a side point, we may want to split the etymology: I suppose all senses come from the given name, but the rhyme with "pervert" is a different reason to choose it. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Rfv-sense "(religion, LaVeyan Satanism) The personification or symbol of pride, carnality, and liberty." This would show up in the Satanic Bible maybe? But in what other books or article not written by Anton LaVey? I am so unfamiliar with this, but I think the entry would be really augmented if at least three cites were on entry for this sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sense 2: figurative "For a woman, refusal to have sex." Equinox ◑ 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"I would not". Equinox ◑ 23:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't find uses, only mentions. There are a fair few songs at genius.com where dn't is used to represent a reduced pronunciation of don't or didn't though, so that might be worth an entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(transitive, warez) To flag a release as bad for some reason or another (for instance, due to being a duplicate of an earlier release or containing malware)." The one "cite" is not durably archived (blog) and a mention no less. I think the sense of "destroy/erase" covers a lot of comparable uses, including this one. - TheDaveRoss 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Etymology 4: "(Philippines) Used to represent the sound of a falling strike." It's not clear to me what a "falling strike" is. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it is the sound of a dull impact: see "w:Cross-linguistic onomatopoeias". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sense 15: "Credit, recognition." The parenthetical example given for this use was "To give someone his flowers." Inner Focus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this sense occurs in other phrases. I'm familiar with phrases like "give people their flowers while they're alive" (instead of only eulogizing them), which is easy to cite — google books:"flowers while they're alive" — and isn't (only) about literal flowers, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to treat that as a sense of flower rather than a metaphor or a longer figure of speech ?give someone their flowers. Occurrence in other phrases would help demonstrate this was a sense of flower by itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW, our only cite for the sense "vulva, labia" is from 1749 but we don't indicate the sense as obsolete like, say, "menstrual discharges". It'd be nice to either add a more recent cite, or a label. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently unused outside of the expression uvic acid, which is apparently tartaric acid Thyself be knowne (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then replace with {{only used in}} (like reojo). - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done that P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"A female given name transferred from the surname Ames". Be careful: this is not the same as etymology 2, which is a girl's nickname, short for Amy. Equinox ◑ 20:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

All the hits were tyops, or parts of words at the beginning of a line 3191 Sever (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There actually seem to be two different medical senses here, as per this dictionary. One means "of the skin", from Gk ἄκρος "tip; outermost point", and the other means not beating; without a pulse, from Gk a-krotos, which is probably κρότος. The fact that both have medical meanings but mean very different things probably killed off medical usage of both words. I wouldnt expect to find this in use either, but if we somehow do, it's worth noting that there are two different etymologies and so every cite we find will have to be checked so we know which etymology to assign it to. —Soap— 15:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Trademarked name of a specific product, may or may not pass WT:BRAND. Binarystep (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Needs supporting evidence. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I only found it uncapitalized in a book that referenced Wiktionary. J3133 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Added two usenet cites (also made the definition slightly less narrow, just in case). 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fawknerfawk: Even if this form passes, it would be an alternative form of the capitalized one. J3133 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed; changed. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense "An irrational or obsessive fear or dislike of pedophiles or pedophilia advocates." Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been years since I looked at things like this, but I believe this word is used by pedophiles to describe the competition, someone who desires a world where pedophilia does not exist. By contrast I dont think this word is in common use by the wider public to denote, for example, someone who imagines pedophiles lurking on every street corner and keeps their kids locked inside and away from social media (a behavior that could be described as irrational). In either case I dont think we will find much attestation of either sense in durably archived media .... probably just Twitter, if even that. —Soap— 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never seen this word used in an unironic sense. I've only ever encountered it in slippery slope arguments by conservatives claiming that LGBT rights are a ploy to normalize pedophilia. I'm pretty sure I first saw the term used in a meme to the following effect (paraphrased):

2015: Let us get married
2017: Bake the cake, bigot
2019: Use my pronouns or else
2021: Let me change your kid's gender
2023: Let me fuck your kid, pedophobe

...Do we have a context label for words that are only used in strawman arguments? Binarystep (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we have one cite in traditional media listed at pedophobic in which it is used sincerely. I believe this sense extends to the word in all its forms, but I admit Im not willing to go searching for more cites, and I dont expect others to volunteer either. —Soap— 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If this stays, I agree with Prinsgezinde that the definition should be reworded. The way it reads now, it looks like we're endorsing the pedophiles' view of themselves as normal and anyone who opposes pedophilia as irrational. It's possible that this word could also be used to denote someone who sees imaginary pedophiles everywhere, as I hinted at in my first post, such that they could be described as having an irrational fear of pedophiles. I would consider such a usage to be completely separate from the use implied by the cite at pedophobic, where it should be clear from context that it means anyone who opposes pedophilia (NAMBLA is an organization that supports legalizing pedophilia). However Im not sure we have a term for what I call the irrational sense, as such people can be described as paranoid or overprotective. So, if we do keep this word listed, with the definition of someone who opposes legalizing pedophilia, I think it should be re-worded. —Soap— 18:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Again I apologize for not helping with the actual search, but I thought of one more thing I wanted to add. This word sounded syntactically odd to me at first, despite my belief that I've seen it before. However, now I realize it makes perfect sense for it to have this meaning given that we have another word, homophobia, built on the same pattern of elision, in this case for homo(sexual)+phobia. —Soap— 11:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anyone's willing to take this on. Leaving it up isn't going to change that. I wouldnt want to be linking to NAMBLA literature anyway, and the only other way to get three cites would be to turn up two more examples of a quote within a quote, like the one we have now. To be honest I don't want to go digging for that either and don't expect anyone else to. So .... should we close this out as RFV-failed? We could add a (rare) label and a usage note for the surviving sense so people don't come away thinking that this word can only mean a fear of children, a use which i suspect is actually less common than what we're challenging. Thanks, —Soap— 10:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

pedophobic

pedophobia's pedophilia-related sense still has no cites after several months. Pedophobic's pedophilia-related sense has only one, so I'd like to RFV it, too. they both need cleanup to address the issues raised above, if kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Rfv-sense <"an initial phase in the psychotic process that is characterized by intense anguish, an experience of hostility and a feeling of imminent catastrophe".> (quotes included in the definition line (yikes!)). Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely citable (quick google scholar search gives on the first page), but we probably need someone medically informed to rewrite the definition. Seems to be first used by Klaus Conrad, explained by a number of sources to be ultimately from a lexical item (sources say Greek, but that seems dubious) meaning "stage fright", so this should be moved to a separate etymology, too. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Noun: "(finance) A long-term investment."

Could be, but I never heard or read it. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It could be that what is intended in "A long-term fixed-income security", which fits the sole citation there now. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I see lots of usage by and about traders with long positions in securities, including equities, not just fixed-income securities, not so much in real assets. We may just need to adjust the wording. Usage seems to be limited to securities trading. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Requesting verification of the first of the two almost opposite senses, namely discrimination against parents. It is indeed used with this very sense in a blog I found at medium.com, but she might be the only one, and the blog entry postdates our entry by six years, so in theory she may have even gotten it from us. The few uses of this term that i've been able to find seem to lean towards the more semantically expected meaning of something parents do, sometimes extending to discrimination by parents against children or against childless people. —Soap— 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have found a whole bunch of citations, and grouped them into missing definitions. I changed the resentment of nonparents definition, because I found no evidence for it, but rather found something that is more like promotion of parenting as a societal ideal. Kiwima (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Synonym of Endless September which doesn't appear to actually have been used. - TheDaveRoss 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

• “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)

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)

Ety 4: "humorous: pronunciation spelling of king". AFAIK, this is specifically used in an anti-black Internet meme against "hotep" types, usually in the phrase "we wuz kangz" (meaning something like "we black people were powerful in the ancient world"). The entry doesn't make this clear at all, and probably should. Anyway does it meet CFI? Equinox ◑ 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is citable, it might not mean king. It seems more likely to me that the term would occur divorced from the well-set expression as a derogatory term for so-called hoteps, or perhaps for all black people by extension. "Look at all those kangz over there", and the like. However, I've never come across this type of usage on the Internet. —Soap— 10:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition given is more specific than the SOP "an activity related to civics", but the usage I am seeing is of the SOP definition. Is there evidence of the narrower definition? - TheDaveRoss 19:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Not much evidence of this being broadly used, and many of them do not support this meaning. - TheDaveRoss 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Eh? There's lots of results in Google Books. They mostly seem figurative, referring to something that falls away abruptly like a cliff. This, that and the other (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added some literal and some figurative cites to the entry and citations page. It's possible the lemma spelling should be spaced (like the infamous coal mine vs coalmine). - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Figurative sense should be split into a separate sense, I think, to make it clear what it means. Equinox ◑ 15:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Two quotes and both are mentions. One of them is on BGC, which also has another book - with yet another mention, not use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The entry is currently set as WOTD for 7 July. Will change the WOTD to another entry closer to that date if this entry can’t be verified by then. Have to say that I did searches on Google, Google Books, Google News, the HathiTrust Digital Library, the Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com, and put what I could find in the entry. I haven’t tried JSTOR yet—maybe that will be more promising. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also didn’t see any image of the skink at the Wikimedia Commons. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't think this entry is going to pass. I had a look at JSTOR and a number of other academic databases like EBSCO and Elsevier, and didn't find anything. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Most of these contrived English vernacular names are hard to cite if we define use in a table as a mention, not a use, not that I think this one would pass anyway. DCDuring (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually didn't know use in a table was regarded as a mention. It isn't quite the same as something like "The word word means ". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, but many, being biased against non-spoken language, rely on the wording "use in running text". DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Twitch interjection. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

---

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

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

• @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)

---

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

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)

Alexfromiowa moved the sense relating specifically to the Weald of Kent to Wealdish. There is no doubt that the word Wealdish, with this specific geographical sense, is also found with a lowercase w. However, I dispute that wealdish ever refers to any weald other than "the Weald" itself. (In other words, I contend that the entry should just be {{alternative case form of|en|Wealdish}}.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "To overburden (a person)"

We have break someone's back. I don't think I have ever heard anything like "it broke the back of John.", whereas "It broke John's back" seems natural. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To house; to lodge. ASppp676 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sense 2: "excessive enthusiasm for multiple things, as contrasted with monomania". Equinox ◑ 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Minecraft Console Edition". A Google Web search confirms that this is real, but it doesn't seem hugely common and probably won't meet WT:CFI. Not a total invention anyway. Equinox ◑ 16:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

• "To apply corporal punishment (compare slippering)."
• This would need to be distinct from sense 1 (to kick: "you nearly booted me in the face!"). Also, if it's real, it seems too vague: presumably caning or smacking somebody would not be booting, but it has to be done with a boot?! (Otherwise I don't see why it mentions slippering as comparable.) Equinox ◑ 16:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I found this. It seems that the officer swings a belt and hits person being punished on the soles of the feet. The person who added the sense may have assumed (as did I at first) that it was instead the same thing as slippering, but with a boot instead of a slipper. It seems that hitting people with a boot does exist as a form of corporal punishment, but I didnt find anyone specifically calling that booting. I coudlnt really find anything else of value on Google Books but it would be easier if there were a way to filter out the hits for boot camp (adding -camp to the query string doesnt really do much). —Soap— 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting! To quote the linked text (in case it goes away): "Booting consisted in flogging a man with a belt on the soles of the feet". Equinox ◑ 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Sense 1: "A leather scourge" (i.e. the whip, not the act of whipping, which is sense 2). Equinox ◑ 16:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: a lonnen Featherruffler (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

OED2 labels it "Scottish or dialect". Probably can be moved to Scots. I haven't looked in EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-senses: A hart or stag three years old. / A castrated man or animal.

Sense 2 looks like a common-sense Anglicization of spado, though I think I've looked at this very word before and found that it's been confused with spay, so even if I find what looks like a match I have to make sure I'm reading about a human male and not an animal. For example, this text seems to conflate spado ~ spade ~ spay all together. —Soap— 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just happened upon spayard while I was looking at the etymology of spay. So sense 1 of spade, if real, is likely a contraction of spayard. Why that means what it does, I dont know. —Soap— 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

(Heraldry.) Can only find this form in French; in English I can find and have cited and created trefly. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I can cite trefle with no accents, and treflée, but not this. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Neither etymology of ithe is present in the EDD, and both have only one post-ME attestation between them in the OED. Furthermore, it seems that both ythe (“wave”) and ythen (“to thrive”) seem to be generally restricted to a kind of poetry replete in old Germanic vocabulary that peters out at the end of the ME period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 22:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries only. This, that and the other (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Adjective sense 7: "random". Equinox ◑ 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books. On regular Google a a pdf describing the game that uses it, but everything else seems to be a mention with the phrase in quotes. Of course, it follows that if you have "schticks" in the game of "schlockey", you could call them "schlockey schticks", but the above is the only evidence I could find of that in actual use. Not that I see a lot of usage for "schtick" instead of "stick" in the context of the game, but the game doesn't seem to show up much in writing: it's a very local, informal term. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

A type of sandwich. Equinox ◑ 06:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• -- the sandwich clearly exists, there are many photos of it. -- 67.70.25.80 06:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Must meet our WT:CFI requirements though. Internet photos don't count. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also recently added: the LGBT sandwich, although that one seems easier to attest (notably because of the media stir it caused). Q/+ look like copycats (with extra queso). Jberkel 13:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: one who assays. All the quotations I see are most probably a pronunciation spelling of seaman, and one even of semen. Cappwe (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

OED has one cite from 1488 which looks to be an Anglo-Norman text: "Et solvit Johanni Francis, sayman, pro lez hallyngs de sago viridi". Anyone got any ideas what that means? Anyway, it's one cite and it's pre-1500 so not useful here.

The word was apparently used by Bacon in the 1600s, although interestingly OED doesn't seem to include this quote.

Nothing in EEBO. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-senses: A crushing blow. and A heavy fall of rain or snow. Some evidence at OED UnHarassing (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So it's not part of etymology 3? A word for head evolved to mean a hit on the head, and then just a devastating hit in general? —Soap— 08:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Only posting to note that our current definition is the opposite of what it was when it was first listed. —Soap— 10:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Even a fairly clueless user is able to do better than SB when it comes to defining words, it seems. OED gives "insatiableness", and the etymon matches. This, that and the other (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The OED currently politely says that it's "apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries", but earlier editions directly call it a ghost word: "The L and Eng. seem alike fictions." So this might be a good case for {{no entry}}. There is at least one case of someone using it to sound authentic in a period novel though, which I added at Citations:abarcy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of word that gets mentioned rather than used, it seems. I'm honestly shocked at how few uses I can locate, even on Twitter/X. A strong case for {{no entry}}. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

To Appendix:English dictionary-only terms This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Luckily for us, he gave up after about 20 entries... This, that and the other (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense

Both verb senses. They're followed by usage notes that make no sense for an English term, so perhaps the creator of the entry conflated this with a related term in another language. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Or it is something only used among speakers of Indian English. DCDuring (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, in principle... it's just a belaboured way of saying that it's not conjugated and the tense/aspect has to be inferred from what's around the verb. There is similar stuff in other English dialects like kena. Can't find any evidence of mukt actually being used as a verb though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sense 2: "shape, form". My queries on this sense:

• It might just be a literal translation of the German (see etymology) rather than something used in English.
• "Shape, form" seems too vague anyhow: presumably this would not be used in geometry to describe hexagons etc.
• Most damningly: the two existing citations strongly seem to belong to sense 1 (meaning something like "personality"). A meaning of "shape, form" makes little or no sense for those citations.

Equinox ◑ 11:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sense 2: In entrepreneurship, the situation where a startup company lacks a profitable business model. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

verolles

virolles

I can find only one English cite of virolles (Citations:virolle), and many French cites (Citations:virolles, presumably an alt form of viroles#French). I think I can just barely cite either virole or viroles (which one depends on whether we view "the singular, used for a singe ring, and the plural, used for plural rings" as different words), but I don't think enough cites exist for the other spellings. PS it's not clear how a bearing of verules as described, "concentric rings" / "a name given by French heraldry to annulets, or great rings, when borne in arms, one within another, with the same centre", would be visually distinguishable from a gurges. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking again, I managed to find one book that uses verules (and the singular, verule) : Citations:verule. But I can't find two more. verolles I can only find as (old) French, like virolles. I have converted verolles and virolles to French. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Heraldry.) I can only find this in the form tergiant, notwithstanding that the ultimate etymon tergum has no i. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added two uses in a non-heraldic context to Citations:tergant. Einstein2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating. Can anyone find a third cite? (Pimbley's dictionary has "Tergant―(ter'-gant) Showing the back part; as, an eagle tergant displayed." but this is not really a use, it's a made-up example.) - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I found this, but the sense doesn't work: it seems like an error for terse(?):

• 1965, United States House Committee on Education and Labor, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the War on Poverty Program, Examination of the War on Poverty Program: Hearings..., page 585:

  DR GIOSCIA. I might, since they are short, if I may read the sentences I originally wrote because they are rather simple and I hope tergant.

And here, someone attests to the use of the word, but does not themself use it, merely mentioning it:

• 1949, The New Mexico Quarterly Review, volume 19, page 494:

  The first period is stylistically the worst, full of adolescent "poetic" writing, cheap ironic effects, high-flown words like "rescission," "tergant," and "macillant," and plain grammatical error.

There's also a Thomas Browne quote about "a thicker tergant" which also seems like a different sense (and POS), and there are scannos of "servant" in handwritten, embroidered, and carved texts Google has digitized, but I simply cannot find a third use in books. There are some uses online, , but ... - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been coined in a fairly recent academic paper, and there a numerous other papers which cite that paper. I am not seeing much use outside of that ecosystem. I am also not totally clear that this isn't SOP, even if it has been used a few other times, but it is not my domain so I am not sure. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem widespread beyond that (2006?) paper, no. Our definition was also missing the crucial point that this is where someone is trying to "make it compile" by making small changes, without thinking about the semantics very much. i.e. it's rather like what we used to call shotgun debugging. So I'm tweaking that. Equinox ◑ 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is listed as a noun, though I am seeing it as a verb form. We don't have the verb concordance, which is probably a miss. No usage found in the plural. - TheDaveRoss 13:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a verb section to concordance. Einstein2 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This RfV is for the sense “plural of three halfpence” (which is the only sense we have). It is listed as an alternative form at three halfpence, and the plural was indicated as three halfpence (the same) by the creator of the entry but SemperBlotto changed it to three halfpennies. J3133 (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this entry is deeply pathological. "three halfpence (plural three halfpennies)" !! It's already plural. Pence and pennies are already (both plural) ways to say the same thing. You've found a real horror, J3133. Equinox ◑ 07:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you make of the 2011 quote under sense 2? I'm not really sure what this sense is on about. It's not even clear to me whether the quote supports this sense. It seems that it costs three halfpence to travel on the train, and there are two intending passengers, so "two three-halfpennies" is a metonymy for "two three-halfpence fares". In the mind of the speaker, it does seem as though "three-halfpennies" is in some respect the plural of "three-halfpence", or at least, "three-halfpenny" as an attributive form.

Sense 1 ("a silver coin") is conceptually, even if not linguistically, countable - what would be the plural? "Two three-halfpence coins"? This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, in the 2011 quote, “two three-halfpennies, please” seems to be using "two three-halfpennies" elliptically to mean "two fares of three-halfpennies"; I'm sure I've seen other amount-terms used similarly to refer to the things which are those amounts, e.g. google books:"two dozens of". But I would regard that as a form of either three-halfpennies or three-halfpenny, but not a form of three-halfpence (why would it be an inflected form of that? is thruppence, also found in the quote, an inflected form of three-halfpence or three pence? no), so I would move the quote out of that entry. (The second instance, "two fares (Margo and me) of three halfpennies each", is arguably not using a lexeme three halfpennies at all, but rather two lexemes, halfpennies and then three to indicate how many of them.) It's also not clear to me why the 1855 quote was put in this entry instead of the entry for the term it uses... - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: There seem to be quite a few quotations for three half-pences on Google Books. For example, “paid all the Pence, Three-half-pences, and Two-pences” (1728); “with a view to the three half-pences that were thus to be acquired” (2003). Is this a plural or an alternative form? J3133 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What I make of it is "an excuse", and it's the mention, not the usage. It's shameful to add such things and act like they are real everyday usages and not some author having a laugh. Equinox ◑ 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do find two similar usages in what I can find on GB ("To the conductor, "Just two three-halfpennies please"." in Mile End by Alan Grayson and "I said 'two three-halfpennies please, one for me and one for the lady over there'. in Swore I Never Would by Harold French ). cf (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Three-halfpenny exists in the singular as well and it means the same thing as three-halfpence. The logical thing would be to list ‘three-halfpenny’ and ‘three-halfpence’ as synonyms and list ‘three-halfpennies’ and ‘three-halfpences’ as their respective plurals rather than having ‘three-halfpennies’ as the plural of ‘three-halfpence’. I can’t see how anyone could object to that solution. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, put three halfpenny with the plurals three halfpennies and three halfpence (Citations:three halfpenny), and likewise for the hyphenated version, as a synonym of three halfpence (keeping that as the lemma, since three halfpence is indeed more common than -y, -ies, or the hyphenated versions). And then give three halfpence (for a singular coin of 1½d.) the plural three halfpences, and three halfpennies (for a singular coin) the plural three halfpennies? That seems like that would cover nearly everything. - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Rfv-sense: "A variety of citrus fruit". Plausible, but only one cite and somewhat ambiguously worded. DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Rfv-sense: "## One or more diamonds and jewelry , especially blood diamonds.

Apart from the ungrammaticality, I don't think the two citations unambiguously support the definition. I particularly don't see any evidence whatsoever to support "especially blood diamonds". DCDuring (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've heard this term before, but for diamonds only. CitationsFreak (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to keep words around that are breaking WT:ATTEST: the cites do not appear to be independent. It may be two (2) independent cites if you're stretching it. Of course I feel the Talk & Citations pages should be kept because maybe one day it will reach WT:ATTEST combined with the current cites. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (Modified)

"Without exaggeration". Equinox ◑ 23:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Seems to only be the (assumed) given name of one individual. This, that and the other (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Atmospheric" Used only in connection with 19th century Australian inventor William Bland's steam-powered 'atmotic airship', displayed in the 1851 Great Exhibition in London. The uses seem to be by him or mentions of his lectures, patents, and the model. I'm not sure which ones should count as independent. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Large number of mentions in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and books about words and their origins for the two definitions. Hard to find genuine use at Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

After a good amount of digging I could only find two admissible citations plus one from a Lulu book: Citations:cyphonism. They all (I think including the Ross one) relate to sense 2 1 (smearing with honey etc). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The first definition might well merit a position in the Etymology, if there were one more cite. Maybe we could find something for cyphonismus in Latin or English. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Now cited that sense. @DCDuring: I added a longer etymology based on the information I could find in sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

After digging into the original sources I've corrected my etymology and expanded the wp article with a fully-sourced explanation. This isn't a case of conflation with scaphism or inventing a meaning—essentially there are two original sources that mention "cyphonism" and one of them goes on to describe a honey-and-insects punishment involving a cyphon pillory, without specifically saying that that is cyphonism. The pillory is involved either way, the question's just whether that in particular is what cyphonism was. That is all etymological info anyway, a generic "pillorying" sense does not seem to have appeared in actual English use. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll bet the OED would be happy to copy our ety for this. DCDuring (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sense 3: "That is lasting. economics". Equinox ◑ 20:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a misinterpretation of sense 1 to me (e.g. talking about the structural problems of an economy). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Only some uses of structural in economics have it interpretable as "lasting" (eg, structural inequality, structural inflation), but some don't (eg, structural adjustment, usage in econometrics such as structural model). IOW, even with attestation (which arguably could be found, though the definition might still be ambiguous), this definition would be very vulnerable to RfD. DCDuring (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Verb: intransitive: "To move like a songbird. A blue jay twittered by me." (I don't know if that sentence is realistic, but I would understand it as "moved past me while twittering", not as a bird-like style of motion.) Equinox ◑ 22:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The usex is awful: blue jay calls are very loud and harsh, about as far from a twitter as you can get. Either the person who wrote it knows nothing about birds, or they were trying to play a joke on us. As for it being a separate sense: 76 trombones has something like "I took my place as the one and only bass, and I oompahed up and down the square." You can do this with any number of verbs in order to imply manner without using an adverb. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought I wrote this already but I cant find it now ... apologize if this is a duplicate post from somewhere. Anyway .... in defense of the usex, maybe the author chose to use a bluejay precisely because the bird's natural call doesn't sound very tweet-like, and therefore it shows the verb really does refer to motion. That said, a usex is not attestation, so this by itself can't save the entry. —Soap— 08:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Definition may be wrong even if this is attestable. Equinox ◑ 01:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Can't actually find this in use. Equinox ◑ 05:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

"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)

vipper

"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)

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)

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)

August 2023

"A deer". - TheDaveRoss 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Cited. I also found this, which is probably a pun on "dearie". This, that and the other (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Was tagged for speedy deletion as "No useful context, clearly an error". It's not an error - it was used by Cruickshank and Steuart to mean "treading or trampling of the earth", and Steuart explicitly admits coining the word, probably from Latin calx (“heel”). It is also used here in the context of estate law, but it seems unlikely to be meant in the same sense. There are also a few rare misspellings for decalcification. This, that and the other (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The estate law one is a print error/catachresis for defalcation meaning embezzlement (the full paragraph can be read at Hathi, middle of column 2). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify the situation here: there are two cites, which I have now added to Citations:decalcation, but a third independent cite is needed. This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: "The quality or state of holding left-wing views or attitudes, in a way that is deemed overzealous, performative, or insincere", added two days ago as a separate sense from "The quality or state of holding left-wing views or attitudes" (itself a derivative of "The quality or state of being woke, aware of social justice issues"). I am not sure if this is distinguishable as a separate sense, as opposed to being something to handle in a usage note about connotations like at woke...? - -sche (discuss) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think aware is a sufficient characterization in the main definition? I think behavioral change is a necessary part of wokeness, at least talking the talk. The association with other political labels doesn't seem inherent to me, so usage notes and/or labels seem like a better place for such discussion. Also, is wokeness now usually used with positive valence? The woke page seems better, a good model for wokeness, though "the state of being woke" might be a better way of handling it, woke (adj.) being much more common, I think. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

About a third of the terms at woke#Derived terms, those with standard/universal affixes, also seem as if they might also be better defined by their connection with woke#Adjective. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

wokeism

The sense and RFV-sense tag was moved from wokeness to wokeism by Fgnievinski in diff. Same question as before about whether the given, very specific, sense is attested separately from the preceding sense and from defining it as sense 2 of wokeness. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Appears in loads of glossaries and dictionaries but not seeing any actual use. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to find two cites so far, in the sea of mentions. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we count this use within a glossary definition? - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@-sche: Those all look good to me. 0DF (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Does this meet Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of academic discussion referencing them but always in the specific context of the universe afaict. The only moderately convincing one I found was this comparison to Augustine's philosophy, though it still clearly presupposes broader knowledge of the mythos. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

PUC – 20:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alt form of Minecraftian (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Alt form of Minecrafter (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Alt form of Roblox (in video games). Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"? Equinox ◑ 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For the very limited results I found, this appeared to be an adjective Pious Eterino (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Well it is a noun, but it can be put in front of another noun. Often with chemicals or substances they can be used in front of another noun, eg iron, can be iron filing, or iron alloy. There are sufficient references, eg

• https://doi.org/10.1039/JR9530003138
• in "Toxic terpenoids isolated from higher fungi" from Czech Mycology.
• https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Heterocyclic_Chemistry/e-LEDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dihydrohydroxyfuran&pg=PT242&printsec=frontcover page 223, second paragraph
• plural on https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Fortschritte_der_Chemie_organischer_Natu/gXbmCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dihydrohydroxyfurans&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover and page 115.
• https://doi.org/10.1021/tx060128f "Metabolism of Furans in Vitro:  Ipomeanine and 4-Ipomeanol"

So it is quite verifyable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; there are many chemical terms which are nouns (because they represent entities which could, in theory, stand alone) but are used almost exclusively attributively (because the nature of subatomic physics is such that, in practice, they can never stand alone). The classic example is ammonium. Also, organic chemistry has several nominal endings that look adjectival to the non-chemist, such as -al. This, that and the other (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

quicumque vult

Can't find attestation of this used in all lower-case. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#clitwad.

I believe it does not meet Criteria for Inclusion. Only 2 independant Usenet attestations, 0 on Archive.org, and 0 on English-Corpora.org. –Vuccala (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Added the 2 Usenet uses. Added 1 Reddit use. And added 4 Twitter uses, that's pretty much all I could find with the hour or so of searching I did. This isn't really a term you'll find in use outside of internet sites, so it will have to be judged according to that. Nervelita (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Compact disc. (Note this isn't the copyright sign, though it looks very similar.) Equinox ◑ 17:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The form 512th note would be citeable.

(Incidentally, 256th note is marked as an alt form, 128th note is an abbreviation, 64th note and 32nd note are full entries, and we don't have 16th note.) This, that and the other (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfving the noun section. The quote that's there doesn't demonstrate noun use, it's just the interjection inserted in a sentence. Compare this with encore just above. PUC – 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Their 'goodnights'" is definitely a noun use, not an interjection, but I've added three more anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not searching for this. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pious Eterino You prude. I had some fun adding 3 quotes, but am not not entirely happy with them - the books in question majorly fail basic capitalization. Jewle V (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a dictionary word, not really any actual usage. - TheDaveRoss 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

In real life usage, I've only ever heard this go up to hemidemisemiquaver. It's possibly attestable, though. Borderline, as some of those look to blur the line between use and mention. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Too rare. —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 19:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's lexicalised with a specific meaning beyond "panic involving Hispanic people". There are a few places where "Hispanic panic" means panic about losing Hispanic voters, i.e. basically the opposite of the given sense (, ). It's also discussed in a few medical contexts in reference to Hispanic people purportedly exaggerating their symptoms (, in full article). Here it seems to mean someone who isn't Hispanic panicking about how to fit in with Hispanic people. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Dictionary-only? Couldn't find anything convincing, though it wasn't a deep search. Chambers, which might be the original source, says the bird is "called also in some of the Philippines catatua and abacay" which suggests it's not English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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))

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)

Hate to do this but it doesn't look like this has any currency. lattermint (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a movie transcript: here. I suspect this may be used as a clever way to say pain in the ass, although even there we would more likely hear coccydynia. Im pretty sure I've seen this in at least one other place, but I cant remember which form of the word it was. —Soap— 15:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I found the webcomic I was thinking of, where a young girl with a love for words calls her older sister a coccydynia during a competition of insults. I suspect the -ous word and perhaps also the -ia word are more often used as a clever way to say "pain in the ass" (adj or noun) than in the literal sense, and that if this word passes RFV it may need a &lit tag for the medical sense since the cites will be for the play on words. —Soap— 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, since it doesn't appear like the word is much (or at all) in medical settings. lattermint (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: "ready belief". Not really sure what this sense means specifically and it's uncited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

The OED says this is only in Spenser. Nothing else on EEBO, and Google Books just turns up long-s scan errors for "accost". The listed etymon, Middle English aquylen, apparently means something else ("to obtain; to track, pursue"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I found a possible use in EEBO:

1593, Matthew Sutcliffe, The practice, proceedings, and lawes of armes described out of the doings of most valiant and expert captaines, and confirmed both by ancient, and moderne examples, and præcedents‎, page 182:

The Corinthians in a certaine battell, hauing put the Athenian footemen to flight, were accoyled, and ouerthrowen by a fewe horsemen.

As for the etymology, gather and obtain are fairly close in meaning. Compare French cueillir. This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(diminutive) Used to form diminutive nouns." The only example given, fascicle, was in fact borrowed whole from Latin fasciculus, not derived by adding -icle onto fascis in English. - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is on the face of it not really different from -cule and the others. It's probably fine to analyse as a (largely) non-productive suffix since it seems to appear in a number of dictionaries (e.g. Concise OED). and is apparently taught as a separate suffix in medicine textbooks. Since we have an entire category Category:English unproductive suffixes being non-productive is apparently not an inclusion issue.

There are apparently at least dialectal examples of production, though: this Jamaican English dictionary lists three words for small drinking vessels produced with the suffix, pannicle, mugicle, cannicle (from pannikin, mug, can). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

At -sicle (from icicle) we show -icle as a related term. Is it? At icicle we say it is equivalent to ice + -ickle. DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not related etymologically. ickle originally meant icicle all by itself, and is a native Germanic word. From that we coined popsicle (with influence from the creator's surname) and from popsicle came all the colloquial words like wolfsicle. It's possible the colloquial words came directly from icicle but it's not really important .... either way, I think -icle and -sicle are "related" in a non-scientific sense by simply looking alike ... perhaps we could change the header from Related to See also, though I suspect there are other pages using the "related" header for a non-etymological relation. —Soap— 13:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's referring to etymology 1 of -icle, the alternative form, not etymology 2 which is at issue here. It should be listed as an altform not a related term. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Cleaned up -icle and -sicle per this discussion, I think. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna, impressive; I would not have thought to look to Jamaican for an otherwise-(?)unproductive Latinate suffix like this. - -sche (discuss) 10:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That word was formed by adding fascis to the diminutive suffix -culus, not to -iculus or something. So this sense seems to be in clear error. A Westman talk stalk 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Passed on the basis of the other words provided by Al-Muqanna, I guess. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense 2: alt spelling of yoo-hoo. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Middle English only? Pinch88 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably, even in the Spenser book (1579 edition) it's glossed. All the other EEBO hits are variant spellings of allege. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Spenser quote to Citations Denazz (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

allege

"To lighten, diminish."

Adding this one here since it's also cited to Spenser and a Middle English citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: Shouldn't this be rfv-sense? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: It's for an entire etymology, which I've seen the full RFV template used for fairly regularly, but since the etymology has one sense I suppose it doesn't matter, I can swap it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You should at least mention that it's only for Etymology 2, so people aren't wondering why this doesn't pass by virtue of clearly widespread use. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, have added the gloss at issue in case people were confused. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Almost unattested. PUC – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

PUC – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

PUC – 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Classical Manipuri

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)

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)

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)

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)

An adjective?? Equinox ◑ 09:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A piece of tinder made of agaric, used in firing the powder hose or train of a mine.. May be redundant to another sense A fuse for firing mines JezperCrtp (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a tyop/mondegreen for rimjob, probably. Certainly fun to search for, anyway JezperCrtp (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

As a “plural of hominin”. It was removed from hominin by Widsith, who states, “I've never seen it used that way. I'm familiar with Hominini used as the name of the taxonomic tribe, but I've not seen it as a straight plural of hominin.” J3133 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

French vice

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

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

German vice

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Compare the RfV for roblox: “Can we somehow demonstrate that this is a "real" form and not just casual Internet/textspeak dropping of caps, as in "im going to new york"?” The ones I found are not suitable: “And user robloxian awesomeness refers to yet another internet meme when he responds “TOO MANY MEOWS! AAHHH! flips table.”” (name of a user: “robloxian awesomeness”); “The site describes KarinaOMG as “the sweetest, adorable and most loving youtuber, minecraft player and robloxian namely karina.”” (dropping of all caps). J3133 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"Sickness; disease". The OED has it dying out in the 15th century. Not to be confused with addle, which has a different derivation: EEBO hits for "adle" are either variant spellings of addle as in "adle brained" or stuff like "cocke adle luddle" for cock-a-doodle-doo. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I can only find this hyphenated (evapo-condensation), any evidence of this without hyphen? - TheDaveRoss 14:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Passed, to the extent that the RFV was mainly concerned with the spelling. It's hard to tell precisely what is meant by the cites, but the definition we have is plausible. One paper says "Evapoconcentration (or evapocondensation) is a method of concentrating a solution by boiling the more volatile solvent, typically water." but this seems to be merely a specific type of "evapocondensation = evaporation and condensation" (being used to basically distill something), rather than evapocondensation inherently referring only to that specific thing; another paper says "Evapocondensation is strictly dependent upon ventilation: condensation typically occurs during summer, while the winter current change brings about an..." and does not seem to be referring to distillation. - -sche (discuss) 07:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not used outside its set phrases Worm spail (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for the second sense. The current citations match one of "breakfast for dinner" (newly-added sense 1), not a fusion of breakfast & dinner foods. Same thing applies to the current sense at brupper (a cursory look for cites brings up "breakfast for supper"). AG202 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised all the cites provided so far for brinner really do specify 'breakfast foods for dinner'; I would've expected it to at least sometimes mean a meal whose timing was between breakfast and dinner regardless of what food was eaten for that meal, analogous to brunch... I guess lunch already fills that gap. I did find two cites of brupper which refer to a meal which combines the functions and the relative (breakfast) vs absolute/clock (dinner) timing of breakfast and dinner, without regard for whether the person eats "breakfast foods" or dinner foods (indeed, in one cite, explicitly incorporating both). Given the current definition (which is agnostic to what type of food brupper involves), I think brupper is cited: Citations:brupper. - -sche (discuss) 08:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Brupper passed (with its broad/agnostic definition). - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: moonlight generally.

I see the plural, "moonbeams" used this way, but not the singular. Kiwima (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

We have the capitalized form Sharonian. Uncapitalized forms for fans of other Filipinas, noranian and vilmanian, failed. J3133 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

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

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)

Is sense 1, "Of or pertaining to clarification", distinct from "That serves to clarify"? I'm not sure what forum is best to raise this in. I suspect this entry from 2010 is just exemplifying the old practice of "give multiple ways of phrasing the definition, but put them on multiple lines as if they are different definitions". But I could be wrong: in theory you could give a lecture about clarification and it could be a "clarificatory lecture" in the way a lecture about anatomy would be an "anatomical lecture". But in practice I think "clarificatory" would only be used if your lecture clarified things, and not if it was confusing, so I think sense 1 should be removed or folded into sense 2. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There are some citations having to do with English philosophy of the middle of the 20th century that could be read that way, I suppose, but seem merely ambiguous. Eg. "Now the features of later Wittgensteinʼs clarificatory models would again be imposed on the objects of clarification in forgetfulness of what such models really are, that is, modes of representing language use." I'd still expect the meaning of this particular quotee to be "clarifying" rather than "about clarification", but there may be some use somewhere in the philosophical discussions that would fit with the "about clarification" sense. DCDuring (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The fun part is to find this term without italics, and without other bits to it like cavo-rilievo, demi-rilievo, in rilievo, mezzo-rilievo etc. Jin and Tonik (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"the rilievos" will find you English plural use without italics. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

Sense 2: "The sound made by a discharging firearm." If somebody says "I heard a gunshot", they mean that they heard sense 1: "The act of discharging a firearm." I can say "I heard an elephant" but that doesn't give "elephant" a second sense relating only to sound. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Oxford joins the sound definition to their first definition "The firing of a gun", which is not exclusively an act; it is more nearly an event. DCDuring (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Unlike elephants gunshots can definitely ring out--"gunshot rang out" gives thousands of google book hits. Likewise a gunshot can be muffled without the gun being fired under a pillow or something, so long as the sound is muted. Look at this book where "A muffled gunshot rang out." Winthrop23 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We still need evidence of actual use (in more than one collocation, I think). Besides "gunshot rang out", maybe "gunshot echoed", "loud/muffled gunshot", or "decibel" + "gunshot". DCDuring (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that any of these would be unambiguous evidence. For example, the attestable expression "the bell rang out" has not lead any OneLook Dictionary to have a "sound" definition for bell. DCDuring (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think collocations of this kind are good evidence that gunshot is sometimes used to refer to the sound made by the firing of a gun:

• "A loud gunshot swept"
• "A gunshot echoed"
• "A silenced gunshot resonated"
• "a popping sound like a muted gunshot"
• "The second muted gunshot"
• "A muted gunshot reverberated off the decaying skyscrapers"

And so on. I'll grant that "muted gunshot" by itself is inconclusive, but muted bells cannot reverberate off skyscrapers, and loud elephants cannot sweep.

Also, just on the point about bells ringing out, I can't help but feel that bells are a special case here in that bells literally ring out--to create sound with a bell is to ring that bell. Elephants do not ring out. Winthrop23 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Unlike elephants, gunshots are instantaneous events. It seems impossible to me to separate the event from the sound it makes. I can't imagine a sentence that manages to distinguish the two. This, that and the other (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s possible if you take into account the fact that sound takes time to travel - “the gunshot reached her after 2 seconds” seems pretty implausible compared to “the sound of the gunshot…”, though. Theknightwho (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• The wording of definition 3 is now more than 110 years old. DCDuring (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest merging and rewriting definitions 2 and 1 along the lines of DCDuring's first comment: remove "act" (or at least make it "act or instance"), and just define it as "the discharging of a firearm", and optionally fold "; the sound this makes" or something into it. I am initially inclined to agree with agree with Equinox, and with DCDuring's point about bells, that the sound is not a separate sense. I'm surprised we have "the sound of an explosion" at explosion and am inclined to RFV that, too (it's been in the entry since its creation in 2004 by LGagnon). Dictionary.com does have "sound" as a definition for that one, but their usex of "loud gunshot" hardly seems conclusive since I can also heard a loud elephant or bell. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble imagining what unambiguous evidence would look like to justify distinct definitions for this kind of cause-and-effect metonymy. In this case the cause (an event) and its effect (also perceived as an event) are so immediately linked in ordinary experience. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

Rfv-sense ety 2 adjective: "Pertaining to upcoming." I don't think this could be attested as an adjective in this sense (rather than the separate ety 1 "happening soon" sense); even if something like upcoming gear for "ascent gear" existed, it would seem more logical to view it as the noun which is also asserted to exist, or the verb; I can't picture e.g. "very upcoming" in this ety as opposed to ety 1. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"A pinkish-red color." Equinox ◑ 16:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

Rfv-sense - verb. This is only ever used as an interjection in my experience. Sometimes the interjection is elongated with a cuz or similar, but I have never heard someone say something like "he was talking to the hand because my face didn't care". - TheDaveRoss 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Are all full sentences interjections, or just imperative and interrogative sentences? DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I don't think this can be called interjection: the "elongated" use demonstrates that it's still being used and understood as a verb phrase. A better solution would be an "imperative" or "usually imperative" label (there are a few examples of non-imperative use, e.g. describing an argument with a threat of violence, "Against one of them, they could talk to the hand, but if they managed to immobilize me, game over" ). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Partially prepared or assembled goods which are sent to factories to be completed". — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A sumo term. I imagine quite a few of SemperBlotto's sumo creations would also fail RFV, so I'll choose this one as a start. Jewle V (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Only found in dictionaries, it looks like. ~ Blansheflur ｡･:*:･ﾟ❀,｡ 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"One who is consistent and focuses on accomplishing one or more tasks", and "One who kicks roughly or wildly". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense "(transitive) To paint, to sculpt." Comes across as Anglish to me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Not in OED. EEBO only has errors for river and divers; I can't even find the sheep sense there. GBooks has the sheep sense and scannos. This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Deliberate misspelling of purple. Inner Focus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Requesting examples of "(Chinese fiction) Junior, child, younger person. (Attached to a name, usually a portion of the given name.)" - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited, it's a thing (though someone might want to cross-reference these with the original Chinese). There are tons of recent self-published translations where this appears on Google Books but durably archived sources are pretty difficult to search for, hence the Women of China quotation of obscure provenance. I'm not sure the comparison to -chan etc. is precise, since if someone is referred to as "Ying'er" just calling them "Ying" seems a lot stranger than calling a "Mari-chan" "Mari". The "er" is generally displacing part of their name and not just suffixed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We should probably indicate that the apostrophe is part of the spelling. Could this be moved to 'er or -'er with this as an alternate spelling? —Soap— 07:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The apostrophe marks a syllable boundary in pinyin, generally where it might seem ambiguous otherwise (so Ying'er just helps distinguish Ying-er from *Yin-ger). IME this can also be written "-er" (with a hyphen), "er" (as a separate word), or simply at the end without the apostrophe, but the last one especially is hard to search for. In practice, for English, it might be better to treat those as separate alternative forms with the canonical lemma at -'er, as you say, though I'm not 100% sure. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Great job finding cites. For now I have taken the path of less resistance and left the entry where it is with a pointer added at -'er, but feel free to swap these around. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed, great work here! This, that and the other (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

New sense 2: Morally acceptable in the context of using computers. (Seems plausible, I suppose.) Equinox ◑ 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Polari slang for TV. Equinox ◑ 18:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at all the results of GB, I see nothing but dicts. CitationsFreak (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything, either. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Hopping on greasy leather bottles??? What the hell kind of sport is that!!! Jewle V (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to fix the somewhat ridiculous definition and added some more etymology, but I have only found italicised uses. This text (footnote 136) seems to suggest that it is not entirely clear whether this term refers to hopping on one leg, jumping on wineskins, or both. I haven't been able to find the referenced paper by Jones though. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To be very scared. Added by an IP, but I'm not sure if I've heard this sense, plus it's not in other dictionaries. Could be regional. lattermint (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense (rare) heir, inheritor (one who inherits).

This is the opposite of the expected meaning, which would be “one who is inherited from” (such as a testator, but potentially other things if inherit is used in a specialised context). I can certainly see cites for the expected meaning, however. Theknightwho (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Might be "unexpected" logically but it's far more common than the ancestor sense, which nowadays seems to be limited to texts talking about East Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) contexts. Neither are rare. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: One easily deceived in buying stocks; an inexperienced and unwary jobber. P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I searched fairly extensively, incuding newspaper archives, and could only find the two at Citations:flunkey. The Week in Wall Street one is given as the citation in old slang dictionaries. The other one I'm not 100% sure actually refers to that sense since I can't find it in original context. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you try the alternative spellings? In my experience the spelling flunky is more common in contemporary use, though I think the distribution of senses for it is probably different. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and also flunkys which appears in 19th c. sources. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The first source given is a poem and the second is a quotation from the first. The third suggests it may have been used more widely, but sifting out what the meaning should be is going to be more of a challenge. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

1. A theorem discovered by Steven H. Cullinane in 1975 that deals with the finite geometry of graphic patterns.

There seems to be some usage referring to various theorems about one sort of diamond or other, but I have yet to see any that mention Cullinane anywhere in any footnote or reference. In other words, the theorem may exist, and the phrase is used, but we would need evidence that the phrase refers specifically to this specific theorem.

A lot of the usage seems to consist of stating a theorem in a text under this name and referring to it elsewhere in the text by that name, so I wonder if this is just an ad hoc term with no set meaning. This is all outside my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others to sort out. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This may be self-promotional, considering the user name of the editor who added it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Likewise at Wikidata. There are several theorems named "diamond theorem". Cullinane's addition of his theorem to Wikipedia's disambiguation page was reverted.  --Lambiam 14:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A woman who chooses to be alone / unmarried / unpartnered for the rest of her life." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"(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)

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

Sense 2: not weeping, but "moaning". Does it mean complaining/whining about something, or a ghostly whooooo, or what? Equinox ◑ 18:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

Seems like is should be a valid word, because it looks wordlike. Citable?. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I added one cite, and Google says there is another here (but won't let me see it). Kiwima (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Young "honky". Nothing in GBooks. The "derogatory term" rule presumably applies if cites are not found in such-and-such a period. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

sparling

Obsolete bird name Jewle V (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Webster 1828 had it as a smelt. See sparling. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of the quotes so far have it as meaning "smelt ('fish')", one of the definitions of sparling. DCDuring (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Two of the quotes are from reference works that provide definitions, but spurling is not a definendum in either but is used in the definiens. There are at least half a dozen mentions in Google Books, too. I don't think we can delete the smelt definition without consulting OED. I don't have so much confidence for the bird name ("a tern"). DCDuring (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Spurling is often defined as an alternative spelling of sparling. DCDuring (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OED has the "smelt" sense, which is probably citeable as all of sparling, sperling, spirling and spurling. There is no "tern" sense there though. There is an entry for sparling-fowl, which may not meet our CFI, but it is not a tern. Instead it is defined as "goosander".

EDD does have the "tern" sense as a Lancashire dialect word. In fact it specifies three senses referring to three different tern species, but each sense is cited to the same book (Swainson). This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A girl's name. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"A stand with a hook to hold a kettle over a fire." I find nothing from a quick search in Google Books. There appears to be a trademark Kettle King, but perhaps not with generic usage nor in lower case, and I'm not sure if it's the identical object. Equinox ◑ 11:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The source given appears to be the only attestation of this word. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"A person who wants to do something but is refused permission to." — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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)

Obsolete plant name in some dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed Denazz (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I missed this one somehow. I'd like to reopen it, since I'm familiar with the term from half a century of reading about plants. It may very well be obsolete as a general term for aquatic iris species, but it still seems to be in use for the stinking gladwyn, Iris foetidissima: here, here, here, and here in old books, as well as a couple of newer ones here and here. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

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)

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)

"To bring forth a litter; have young; litter." Equinox ◑ 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

Two senses: "Capable of being disrecommended. Capable of being hated." Yet there's only one hit for the word in a whole Google Books search. I don't think it's really a recognised English word at all. If it were, it would probably mean "not to be recommended". Equinox ◑ 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe it either. For me it is zero hits on Google Books and one in a mailing-list, also written by a German. disadvisable is attestable though. Maybe we can over time astroturf the word by posting around the advice boards of the internet, currently it is not even a protologism. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

A lovely word but I just can't find any uses: not in books, not in the news, not even on the raw web; all ten pages of Google results this gets are mentions. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Cited(?), although I only found one non-contrived quote. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, the last one is hardly a use. The words on that front cover are more akin to an artwork than things intended to convey meaning. This, that and the other (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a mention: the words in the title are surrounded by a list of adjectives that describe some quality perceived by the senses, and our definition, "pertaining to or made of cotton", doesn't fit- "cottony" might, but not this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, This, that and the other I don't think the third one is mention since xilinous is being used to evoke a cottony texture (silky is also on there). I call it contrived, though, since it's obvious xilinous is only there on account of the initial "x". Ioaxxere (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Input needed on: Is the third citation a genuine use? This, that and the other (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Citation three does not convey "cottony", nor does two. They attest the mere existence of the letter sequence, but not its meaning. DCDuring (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that, despite being contrived, which it obviously is, it is a genuine use. The author is not coining words to make her alphabetical list of adjectives, but choosing words, even if they are obscure. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The 2003 McKean citation is borderline: it seems to be the kind of work that lists obscure words and their definitions, but because it does technically slot the words into explanatory sentences (but in italics...) rather than listing them in a bullet-pointed list and defining them, it's arguably maybe passable. The 2018 Lupton cite is also borderline. If the portion our entry currently quotes ("Beyond pungent, quiet, rank, silky, tart, unctuous, viscous, waxy, xilinous, yeasty, zingy Vision") were the totality of the citation, and that occurred as a sentence (either inside the book, or even just as its actual title), I would say it was on the "technically a use of the word in a sentence" side of the line; however, when considering the entire cover, where the ABC adjectives have been inserted in between the words of the title and are not intended to be read as part of the title (the book's own inside cover lists its title as "Title: The Senses: Design Beyond Vision"), they seem more like a wordlist, and do not seem like uses in any case; the book does not seem to ever use the word. If there were e.g. a lot of uses of this online, that would be evidence that it should be kept even with such borderline cites, but since in fact it appears to see virtually no use anywhere, and since we would have to really squint to generously interpret not just one but two of the only three borderline cites as being arguably-maybe on the 'use' side of the line, I think it's safer to RFV-fail it for now. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Nebulous. The only given citation has "rainbow unicorn ideas", a phrase not found in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There's not exactly shortage on rainbow unicorns (as characters, and not as a metaphor for childlike things) in US/CA cartoons for all sorts of demographics, but even unicorn fans wouldn't usually consider them a separate breed (except plausibly the stock vectors used on greeting cards and soap bottles and such). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No, there's not a shortage of rainbow unicorns, but most of them are simply SOP. It makes a more abstract meaning hard to search for. I am not entirely sure, but I put some cites on the page. Have a look. Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(Nigeria) Hot chocolate." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Nigerian "Tea" (on YouTube). Also, the ref in w:Hot_chocolate#Usage. Voltaigne (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I can find books about Nigeria which contrast "tea, coffee, and hot chocolate" as separate drinks, showing that "tea" doesn't always mean "hot chocolate", it does sometimes mean the leaf-water drink. Indiana Robinson, National Pride - Things (Volume 3) (2017), page 69, says chaklit tea means "real hot chocolate" in Jamaican Creole. Semantic evolution from our sense 3 to our sense 4 to this would make sense (put tea leaves in water → put other plant parts in water → put cocoa in water), as would Wikipedia's explanation (drink tea in the morning → any drink consumed in the morning is a tea). Indeed, defining it as "hot chocolate" specifically may be too narrow; Farooq A. Kperogi , Glocal English: The Changing Face and Forms of Nigerian English ... (2015), page 194, says "in Nigerian English “tea” has become the generic term for all kinds of breakfast beverages. Most Nigerians mix “Milo,” powdered milk, sugar and water, and call it “tea.” Native English speakers would call that “hot chocolate” or “hot cocoa,”" as if hot chocolate is merely one thing that would be included in the Nigerian English term "tea" but the full definition might be more like "any breakfast drink, any drink typically consumed in the morning in Nigeria, such as hot chocolate".(?) I am no closer to finding examples, though. I only managed to find one hit for "a chocolate tea", but I can't tell whether this means leaf-water with a chocolate flavour, or hot chocolate. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Note that circumstance that they don’t employ milk but milk-powder makes the definition as hot chocolate idiosyncratic. We define as “infusing these dried leaves or buds in hot water.” and “infusing parts of various other plants.” This should be expanded to e.g. “Any drink made by infusing dried parts of victuals in hot water”. Who cares whether it is powdered guaraná (the seeds, not a herbal tea!), curcuma (the roots!), mushrooms or milk or lab-grown food? Still tea, the main thing is it is a beverage of hot water in which something dry has been dissolved. (The situation applies to other languages that use a related word, e.g. Russian чай (čaj) is identically broad.) Fay Freak (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nothing in GBooks. One or two Web mentions suggesting (i) it's a nonce phrase and (ii) it doesn't have the synonymous meaning that our entry states. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Im suspicious of the curtains match the drapes too, which sounds like a malapropism. —Soap— 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• RFV-failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably only used by Spenser, and he didn't even spell it right P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

OED2 Einstein2 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• RFV-passed but didn't add OED's cites P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

A tricky fellow; a cheat. I checked 6 cites, they were all in italics, then got bored P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"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)

Sense 5: "emptiness" (of what, a box?). Seems probably redundant to sense 1: "That which is vain, futile, or worthless; that which is of no value, use or profit." Equinox ◑ 12:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "fuck the 12 o'clock curfew". Einstein2 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: obsolete: sexual intercourse there's a Chaucer quote request, which probably means in appeared in Webster 1913, where no modern quote was available P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OED gives "to copulate with" as a sense of the verb tail, with modern citations. Our entry for that verb seems highly deficient. The noun isn't given in OED but it seems plausible enough if it can be found. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly in a single sentence from an essay that's been republished a number of times, and the usual "did you know there was a term for that?" mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

J3133 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Created by Wonderfool, who knows nothing about physics. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Only one result of Google that isn't us or something like "comedic K-dramas", and it doesn't refer to the swapping of Cs and Ks. CitationsFreak (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I dont think that' what this means, no. the comic K Im familiar with is described here, and refers to the choice of words like cocoon when chrysalis would do, and has nothing to do with re-spelling. —Soap— 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Plausible (see w:Inherently funny word#Funny words in English - edit: I see Soap already posted this, and yes it is not what our sense is quite getting at - perhaps w:Satiric misspelling#In humor is closer). I found a use that possibly matches our def here, so perhaps it is a thing to certain people (regional perhaps? some fandom?) This, that and the other (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC) edited 03:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: it may go back to Krazy Kat, or have some connection to old Yiddish/Jewish comedy. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Defined as The surgical creation of a corona penis - I don't think it is defined right P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that corona penis means corona glandis penis, that seems like a quite implausible thing to even aspire to do. As the term is used in the medical literature, it appears to be used to refer to any form of (re)constructive surgery involving the glans penis, whether as part of a procedure for gender-affirming surgery or for correcting a congenital abnormality such as hypospadia.  --Lambiam 16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Given as alt form of tealight, but actually seems to be a brand name. I find little or nothing in GBooks. At least needs some note about the non-standard quirkiness of spelling, if it proves to exist. Equinox ◑ 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

English? Equinox ◑ 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

English? Equinox ◑ 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

English? Equinox ◑ 19:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, though a case could be made for keeping it based on Twitter (but then we could just as easily have an entry for ‘slava Rossiya’). —-Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Slava Ukraina" was widely used worldwide in Anglophone online communities in 2022, but "Slava Ukraini" was certainly a new one to me. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This term and the two above it seem to me like they are used in codeswitching rather than as terms fully incorporated into English. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've mostly seen this phrase used in English by non-Ukrainians, so I don't think it's really accurate to describe it as code-switching. Binarystep (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Sense: “An Alexandrine parrot or parakeet, Psittacula eupatria.” The uncapitalized form does not seem to be used. J3133 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An atom. Some kind of Anglish coinage... Equinox ◑ 16:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

This comes out of Poul Anderson’s “Uncleftish Beholding”, a jocular demonstration of the pervasiveness of non-Germanic loanwords in English by replacing all by made-up neologisms formed from purely Germanic roots. As far as I’m aware, only waterstuff has been used outside the context of this essay.  --Lambiam 09:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The two cites given in the entry are known Anglish texts (Anderson's original and Montinaro's self-published "On the Fromth of the Lifekin"). I suppose if we find a third we would have to keep it (in Cat:en:Anglish, one presumes). This, that and the other (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Syn of cock sock above. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Weylaway (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also changed this to be a hyponym of cock sock because I think it can only refer to a novelty garment while cock sock can refer to either a novelty garment or a modesty pouch used by actors for nude scenes. Weylaway (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "An effeminate or womanish man." as distinct from "One who is bad; a worthless person." Most hits are for ety 2, "a group of ducks", or else are mentions of the Old English word, so I'm not sure enough hits exist to support two separate senses here; maybe they should be combined? Only cites will tell... - -sche (discuss) 18:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worth also noting the RFV for #bæddel, a similar-seeming term. This, that and the other (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I combined the senses; the combined sense now has two cites. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: slang for a bicycle at Oxford (UK) P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Found on a forum: "Where I lived in the 60s a commuting "push bike", usually matt black and rust, was also known as a 'treader'." Equinox ◑ 21:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Cited. The Reeve book has a glossary of Romani terms at the end and says that this sense of "treader" is one... can't find any other evidence of that though. Weylaway (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

Urban Dictionary and what looks like mentions/puns on Google's coverage of social media. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The term seems more than a little offensive in my eyes personally, but what astonishes me most of all about it, is that Google results indicate that the term is used for insulting purposes at least as much by hardline communist groups online as it is by alt-right groups (if not more). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "watchman of a city", added by an IP. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Abbr of social secretary. Wonderfool. Equinox ◑ 16:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox I’ve seen this used, but it’s the kind of thing people write in texts/IMs. Theknightwho (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Tea room/2023/October#you_understood. Seeking evidence that this is used in any idiomatic way, which would help determine whether it should be included. If it's just found in places like "imperative, with you understood", I dispute that that's using a noun "you understood", it seems rather to be using "you" and "understood" separately like "what the, with hell cut off". - -sche (discuss) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Difficult to search for. OED only has our quote P. Sovjunk (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

Noun

(Australia, colloquial) A mandatory subject taken at school.

Adjective

(Australia, colloquial) (said of a subject) mandatory.

As an Australian working in the education sector, I can comfortably say I've never heard these terms. This, that and the other (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a general "mandatory" sense with quotes but I couldn't find anything referring to Australian schools. Einstein2 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

(You're the man doe: you wouldn't know the kids' secret slang... maybe...) There was already a generic "mandatory" adjective sense so I've removed this redundant one. Just the noun remains now. Equinox ◑ 12:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Same user who added mando above. Can't find it. This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to exist but all I could find was 2-3 posts on Twitter and 4chan. We also have male-fail by the same author, which seems to be more common (added two Twitter quotes). Einstein2 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

RFV of two senses:

• (colloquial, metonymically) A person who carries or uses a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
• (colloquial) An expert.

For "a person who carries a gun", our only cite is of "hired gun", but we include hired gun as a separate idiomatic phrase, so I'm seeking examples of this sense of gun being used outside of that phrase. (It's a plausible metonymy.) - -sche (discuss) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The "gunman" sense can be found in GDoS: gun n.¹, sense 9. Einstein2 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A decorative carving of a pineapple fruit used as a symbol of hospitality." I'm not sure whether to RFV or RFD this, but cites could help show how idiomatic or unidiomatic it is. If the cites are just of the same sort as "the boy built a castle out of legos in his room", where we wouldn't add "A small plastic version of a stone castle, used as a toy." as a sense of castle, then I think this too should be removed. If the cites are different, and show it to be idiomatic in a way I haven't thought of, great. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about carving up an actual fruit, as some restaurants do so the customer can use it as a plate? Or are we talking about a piece of metal or wood shaped to look like a pineapple? Regarding pineapples in general .... some funeral homes (e.g. https://blackfuneralhomes.com/ which is near me) have a pineapple motif, which I've never understood. Maybe because they look somewhat like urns. But perhaps that is all just a derivative of the hospitality sense, for which see here. I dont see any reason it would be specific to carvings, though, and Im still not sure which sense of carving we're talking about. Best regards, —Soap— 20:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Several sources states that the pineapple is a symbol for the (American?) hospitality industry. The symbol need not specifically be presented as a carving.  --Lambiam 06:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not the fruit. It is (I think) a pineapple-shaped stone carving you might see on a pillar outside a house. I vaguely remember these outside the house-share of some old Goths whose party I attended in Islington. They had nicknamed their house "Chez Pineapple". Try putting pineapple carving house into Google Images. Equinox ◑ 09:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See a previous, possibly relevant RFC discussion at Talk:pineapple. Equinox ◑ 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Someone who chucks something. Both citations seem one-off nonce usages, and one is capital-C Chuckster. Equinox ◑ 12:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure the term is heavily associated with Super Mario Sunshine, but on paper, the core concept of the word makes sense to me in a general setting, at least: Someone who chucks. For a purely hypothetical example, I'd have called someone who threw wine barrels a chuckster. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dandelion Sprout: Sounds like Donkey Kong ;) The problem with "purely hypothetical examples" is that I could sensibly call someone who nothingizes a "nothingizer", but the evidence for that word's real existence just isn't there. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of results for the name, as a nickname for a guy named "Chuck" as well as a last name people have (especially in Dicken's Old Curiosity Shop.) I can't find any results for what's supposed to be attested. (There was an ad for "Chuck Rocks" in the Jan. 1993 issue of Boy's Life that I thought referred to this sense, but didn't.) Also, maybe the Mario quote has ambiguous capitalization? Can I see a link to the quote? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess this is the closest thing to a link to the quote: https://youtu.be/8ULZz0hXYSg?t=122 . I realised later that I should've used exclamation point instead of a period in the quote, but I didn't feel it was a critical concern at the time. In regards to brand ads, I found a rifle brand called Mossberg Chuckster dating back to 1961, but it was a pretty small brand and apparently ineligible as a definition. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sans hyphen? Equinox ◑ 14:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Added earlier today by Giresunlu1993, along with Gudia. This may seem to be a new user, and if so I would see these creations as simple mistakes, but this user has likely been around a while if my instinct that Johnny281993 is the same person is correct. Both of these similar-looking accounts are blocked on the Turkish Wiktionary: , and while it's not up to me, I'd wonder if this means their Turkish edits might not be of high quality either.

There does seem to be a French word lorique, but it is unrelated in sense to what was defined here. Its English cognate is lorica.

Thanks, —Soap— 20:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It was added with a Request for definition, and I added several citations when I added the definition, so it is now cited. (I also added another meaning with cites for a different etymology) Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:Haircloth; a hair shirt. Only Middle English? P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: "lousy, disreputable, or disgusting place". This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One certain use: “It’s a typical sleazebucket of a place—broken-down bed, filthy floor, and a cracked mirror.” One maybe use: “There’s bound to be one in a sleazebucket place like this.” The latter quotation supports a potential more generic sense, “Something lousy, disreputable, or disgusting”.  --Lambiam 14:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would lump both definitions together into a single one: someone or something lousy, disreputable or disgusting. I don't think the term has connotations of being a person or place or thing - it's just a general term showing one's disgust, with the target of that disgust determined by context. Kiwima (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, this is now cited, along with a third definition for other things than places. But I would not mind if someone combined all of the definitions, or the two that are not people. Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Probably just used by Baxter. Also rfv-sense at hyosternal P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

cited : I can find enough uses by various authors, but they are pretty boring as quotes, consisting primarily of labels on images or appearing in tables of measurements. The most interesting quote (Bradley) is really just a mention, not a use. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• 1871, Edward Drinker Cope, Synopsis of the Extinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America, page 234:

  Thickness hyosternum at marginal suture, 0.007

• 1873, Hans Hermann Carl Ludwig Graf von Berlepsch, Opera ornithologica - Volume 1, page 226:

  Length of hyosternum

  ·
• 1884, Richard Owen, A History of British Fossil Reptiles, Volume 2, page xii:

  hs. Hyosternum

• 2023, S. Bradley, Comparative Ana and Physiology, page 168:

  The central piece, supposing the plastron to be a true sternum, is the entosternum, and the other four from above downwards, the episternum, hyosternum, hyposternum, and xiphisternum.

A group of ferrets. From business by a series of misprints and copying errors; hence, a ghost word. An interesting etymology if ever there was one! Pious Eterino (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Was in use as early as 1967 according to w:Beyond Language, and 1963 in this book. The copying errors were on a circulating list of collective terms for animals, sometimes also including non-animal terms (e.g. a draught of butlers on the book I linked). I couldn't find any citations in running text ... Google Books returns a few books about ferrets that may contain the term, but none of them offer previews of the full page contents. The somewhat less interesting spelling fesnyng is well-cited, and if we can't hang on to this I would suggest redirecting it to fesnyng so people who search for it will get easy access to the etymology. —Soap— 07:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

easy peasy. Equinox ◑ 11:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

From knitting. We have this as intransitive. MWOnline has it as transitive. I suspect that it is both, but we have no cites either way. DCDuring (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

cited I added two transitive and two intransitive citations. There are plenty more out there, but I think that's enough, as I don't think there is any doubt about the word's existence. Kiwima (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

"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)

@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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- -sche (discuss) 19:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Roy Erasmus, who is a Dene, uses the term regularly in his newspaper column. Apart from that, I can also see some usage on Twitter but nothing else. Einstein2 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, you found more than I did! My search before listing it found no English uses at all, just the Italian word. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Noun: "A shag; a fuck; an act of coitus." Then the usage example is simply the word "porking", which suggests a verb, not a noun. I can't find anything like "gave her a good pork last night". Equinox ◑ 13:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I spotted a single use online, in a Honda Accord forum with a dismally unlinkable format, where someone gave "her a good pork while she's" doing something with drugs. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Rfv-sense "To gag on a lollipop." Sounds like it was added as a joke. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

"A collector of walking sticks or divining rods." Equinox ◑ 19:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have added two quotes to the citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (noun) 'An impractical dreamer'.

This is a somewhat pejorative or dismissive connotation. In my experience visionary is used in a positive sense to denote someone who has ambitious and transformative ideas about what the future could look like, and who personally contributes to their realization and/or inspires others to strive in that direction (closer to sense 3, 'Someone who has positive ideas about the future.'). Voltaigne (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The word is frequently used in an aggrandizing manner, but I agree that it isn't dismissive in and of itself. Perhaps that's what they intended to convey but didn't get it quite right. AP295 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Cited, the dismissive sense was the standard one until relatively recently. It might perhaps be considered dated now but I've still heard it used that way in real life. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is dated, but it is definitely less common. Similar sense evolution to revolution. DCDuring (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to know. Interesting that it has been repurposed for hagiography, which hardly seems an impoverished line of work despite the decline of religion. AP295 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This was changed to English in 2009 with {{defdate|15th|17th c.}} but I can only find it in Middle English. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite easily cited: remember to search Google Books before RFVing. Equinox ◑ 16:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

What about the corresponding semihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver? Theknightwho (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox Just 3 (=because of the totally 4 results, 2 are identical), in passing refs. One is striclty "musical"; the other 2 are related to computer programming for musicians. Chalk19 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a legitimate use here. This source is not durably archived, but we could approve it if we add it to a relevant archiving site. However, it's a moot point if we can't find two other uses. This, that and the other (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it in use ? ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Same user created the recently speedy-deleted aaatophobia. Equinox ◑ 04:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Not much out there. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Healthy eating and living using traditional temperate-zone fresh foods." This seems far too specific. I think it should be changed to "Short for an apple a day keeps the doctor away". — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Rfv-sense: "A wooden version of the weapon used for practice." Moved from RFD. Seeking to find out if there is e.g. 'modern dussack fighting' where the dussacks are customarily not the real weapons, in a way that would make this idiomatic. At least for my part, I'm not seeking examples of dussack refering to the item regardless of material in a way that encompasses both the 'real' metal ones and leather or wood training ones (like in this cite), nor anything like "my three-year-old was hard at work building a castle in his room" (where it's a lego castle), as IMO neither type of cite makes dussack or castle mean "a crenellated structure made of legos", "1. a wooden object in the shape of a dussack" & "2. a leather object in the shape of a dussack" & "3. a plastic object in the shape of a dussack" etc, like we don't have a definition at pipe for "a painting of a pipe". - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

RFD discussion:

"Visibly aroused, such that one's package shows easily; sporting a strong erection." PUC – 21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it generally "glad to see me" (rather than happy)? All the actual quotations in the given reference have "glad". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the form, does "happy/glad to see someone" actually mean "sporting a strong erection"? To me it's just a tongue-in-cheek question. I mean, can you say "Look at this guy! He's happy to see her!" meaning "Look at this guy! He's got a boner!"? PUC – 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ve personally only heard “happy…”. AG202 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you really mean to bring this to RFV and not RFD? Anyaway, I added a bunch of cites to the citations page. I expected to just find snow clones of Mae West's famous line, but I did manage to find a few other kinds of cites. Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I am more familiar with the hoary old "is that a in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?" See See is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Filming technique. All I can easily find is this Web forum discussion . GBooks hits are usually bits of phrases like "the presence of shadow acting on the..." Equinox ◑ 10:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Seems to be mentioned far more than it’s used, if at all. Is it attested in English? Mcph2 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In one or two scientific papers. Pious Eterino (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "lichfield", "lichgate", "lichway". Perhaps I just don't know what to search for, but searches like google books:"through the lich" and google books:"in the lich" only turn up cases of lich sense 1 or 2 (dead or reanimated body), or instances of "through the lich gate", "in the lich field", not "lich" on its own meaning "lichgate". - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense The lap. — This unsigned comment was added by Seoovslfmo (talk • contribs) at 21:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC).

OED has one citation Seoovslfmo (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Only one cite available: This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And it's almost certainly talking about something else. I've never come across this term in meteorology or oceanography. Doesnt mean it's wrong, but it must be at best very uncommon. —Soap— 15:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point; it's not immediately clear why isopags (as defined by us) would be of concern to astrophysicists. I'd love to be able to see the whole page: I only get snippet view.

The term does appear with this meaning (or a very similar one, "duration of ice cover") in lists of isoline terms, and has a plausible etymology (from German Isopagen, from iso- + Ancient Greek πάγος (págos, “that which is fixed or firmly set, frost (LSJ)”)). It just isn't used in English as far as I can tell. This, that and the other (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting that the book seemingly misspells Schwarzschild both times it appears on the page. —Soap— 22:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Is end out a phrasal verb like end up? I got it from this song: it's a shame it had to end out this way ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 17:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably erroneous: I can't find "end out this way" in GBooks. For example, could be somebody's confusion of end up and pan out. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I can cite it, so I created it. Kiwima (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"A device that detects and reads identification chips implanted in a household pet." Equinox ◑ 12:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv the verb supposedly meaning ‘to keep going, to progress or persevere’. As far as I can tell, all the quotations currently listed under the verb are not verbal uses but an archaic use of the adverb. In Early Modern English (and even later), a construction existed in which an adverb of direction could, as a matter of grammar, regularly be used with no verb ‘to go’ expressed; compare uses like ‘Let us on by this tremulous light’, ‘we must away’, and the surviving fixed expressions ‘to want out’, ‘to want in’. The current quotes therefore do not demonstrate the existence of a verb sense for this word. To verify that a verb sense exists, quotes would have to be found that are unambiguously verbal, for instance ones that use the supposed inflected form ‘onwarded’. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The cites of the form "We will onward" seem like the same kind of construction as "we must away" - a matter of grammar rather than a particular verb. I moved them to the citations page. This, that and the other (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Of a number, that contains only digits 0 or 1." (But presumably decimal; or at least not binary?) But I don't think this is what the word means, having glanced at Google Books — though it does mean something. @Sundaydriver1. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: false vision. I just moved the primary form of this word from parablepsy to parablepsis. This sense was previously present at the parablepsy entry. This is probably an etymological meaning - every use I found on a brief Google Books search of various forms refers to the scribal error, even if the text glosses the word as "false vision". This, that and the other (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Dubious. Appears in some Middle English. E'en our Shakey quote is spelled differentlySeoovslfmo (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Only Spenser Seoovslfmo (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I can find one other citation that is not Spenser: In By Promise Made by Susan Leigh Furlong (2020), she includes what she calls a "translation from Middle English to modern vernacular" of a poem, with the lines "Thus am I bound by your godlyhead, Which hath me caused, and that in every wise While I in life endure, to do you my service." (She does not state the name or author of the poem). However, many of the Spenser quotes that I find use goodlyhead instead of godlyhead, so that it is pretty clear that the two words are just alternate forms. goodlyhead is MUCH easier to cite, and I have added it with several citations. I recommend that we either call "godlyhead" an alternative form of "goodlyhead" (It is unclear to me whether alt forms of obsolete words like this require 3 citations of the alt form), or at the very least, replace this entry with a redirect to goodlyhead. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense 4: "To strongly feel exasperation, pleasure, or other emotions." Might exist as "plotzed", but probably not intransitive as suggested here. ("I plotzed with rage"?) Equinox ◑ 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Doubt this is a thing. Thadh (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the name of a book on Hitler (mentioned here ) and the euphemism can be easily found on Reddit (, ). Equinox ◑ 15:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

People on social media will resort to ever more creative euphemisms to evade censors, filters, and algorithms (not all the same thing). I'd bet almost anything that could conceivably mean Hitler has been used at least three times on Instagram, Reddit, or Twitter. Instagram doesn't have consensus for CFI but I'd still at least say it could be used as evidence of use to help strengthen a case built on more traditional sites. However, the alt-hist book the Austrian Painter is self-published, and we've at least broached the question of whether self-published books should count as CFI or not, as some of them are pretty shobbily written. —Soap— 18:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I see it unironically every other day (e.g. saw it today). It's very popular in recent meme culture. Whether we can find actual citations for it besides YouTube/Instagram is a different matter, though. This is one aspect in which Wiktionary is not so good because it's not likely that such amateurish meme references to Hitler are going to make it into published literature in the ironic sense that the entry intends. So the entry criteria make it hard for such a widely-used word to be properly included. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it often too. 2804:1B0:1900:E91A:D4AA:F5EB:3499:2286 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we consider simple descriptions like this to be terms that idiomatically and lexically denote specific people, anyway? Hitler is far from the only person I have seen referred to by an oblique descriptor like this; it's hard to find examples, but e.g. one Reddit comment that mentions "the Austrian painter" also mentions "the Georgian nearly priest". (And of course, it's trivial to find news articles about some British actor where the article says "The British actor's next project is about cats", but I concede that's a bit different because the article elsewhere identifies the actor by name and is just engaging in what Wikipedia calls "elegant variation".) Should we have an entry for the more-attested google books:"the Ravenelle Painter" or google books:"the Boucicaut Master"? google books:"the Jewish carpenter"? (Maybe; I don't know.) - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is more a discussion for RFD; I don’t doubt it is verifiable. I agree with @-sche that this sort of expression doesn’t really seem to be very lexical, and I lean towards excluding them to avoid a multiplicity of similar dubious terms (the founder of , the king/queen of . — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I too am totally unconvinced this is lexicalized. We don't even have an entry for the Bard of Avon. PUC – 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I've encountered it a fair bunch of times, it's not isolated. Synotia (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To extinguish a fire. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Vanishingly rare. Not sure it even meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 17:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been only able to find one use in GB, in "A Basic Pitjantjatjara/Yankunytjatjara to English Vocabulary", as the translation for some word. CitationsFreak (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

A colour. This, that and the other (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

By the same user as xertz, discussed above. I can only find this hyphenated, so AFAICT it should be moved and this spelling deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

eassel

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)

Mnemonic for “north, east, south, west”. I searched Google Books, Google News, and Issuu and only found one instance of this form. All others used “shredded wheat” (I added quotations) or capitalized every word. If quotations are found, it should still be moved to the more common form. J3133 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't yet have Naughty Elephants Squirt Water as that is a more familiar mnemonic, to me at least. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Not very helpful, but anecdotally I seem to remember this one from my school days. (Shredded Wheat, capitalised, is a particular cereal brand, not generic.) Equinox ◑ 18:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this one and heard it several times in elementary school. So it's been used in both the UK and Canada, at least. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: Note that there are already quotations (using shredded wheat, as I mentioned). This RfV is specifically for the capitalized/non-generic form, not questioning whether this mnemonic is in use. J3133 (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Old English and Middle English only? Denazz (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I found one (possibly two) uses in very early modern English, but it should probably just be converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: dwelling; wone. In Webster 1913 Denazz (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No post-1500 cites for this spelling in OED. Tough to search for; this is an alt form of various words that we don't list in our entry, especially won (past tense of "win"), although some uses could possibly be some old past tense of woo. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagged but apparently not listed. Seems citeable (here are some cites) but—since I notice that the related fish for compliments was deleted by RFD—possibly SOP. Maybe we should change the tag to RFD? - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

rfv-sense:weeper OED has one hit. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Our citation is for grim sire Fond of sanddunes (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Webster must have got it from somewhere; so presumably another edition of Burton had grimsir. May well be a nonce word though. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Most dictionaries have a habit of normalising the spelling of their lemmas. Even OED uses this spelling, despite not having a single cite for the univerbation.

Richard Chevenix Trench says grimsir is a word he "meet everywhere in our old authors" and gives a quote from Holland's Pliny as an example. However, it's clear that he has modernised Holland's spelling: the original text had grim sir. This, that and the other (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

See Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages. Many of these seemingly can be found in John Russell Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms, but it only lists blusteration, which is well attested.

Chronicling America shows one cite which is hyphenated comblustrification as a (seeming) fanciful variant of combustion. I think this might not ever have been used. grendel|khan 18:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Just in old glossaries según OED Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Just one hit in OED Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

OED has nothing except old spelling of grouse (which we're missing) Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the word that OED lemmatises as groose. Walter Scott used the spelling growze. It is a Northern/Scottish word, related to grue. EDD has some Scots cites. This, that and the other (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Shakey OK. Maybe one crappy old poem too? Fond of sanddunes (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The noun is clearly cited. The adjective, however, only had three cites, and I removed two of them (one actually used "guilty-like" and the other was quoting Othello, which is already cited under the adverb). This, that and the other (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jonson only? Denazz (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Had a quick peek and couldn't find anything else (though I found a surname Gullage, now added!). Equinox ◑ 20:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also its alt form entry blesky. Also check whether "not comparable" is really true: this (now blocked) editor didn't seem to use the en-adj template properly. Equinox ◑ 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

#affatuated → Talk:affatuated failed RFV, and I suspect the verb does too. This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "re-entrant angle; nook or corner". Apologies for this nasty RFV, but this sense is not in OED and moreover, I can't really imagine how it would be used. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on Century (in¹ noun sense 2), this may be a lexicographer's back-formation from ins and outs, as in the ins and outs of a garden (which usage Century defines as "Nooks and corners; turns and windings"). I doubt that in is really used by itself to mean a nook or corner. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is to look for people being wordplayful and writing about "the ins of" something separate from "the outs of" it (in which case we would still need to make clear that this is a back-formation from or allusion to the longer phrase "ins and outs"). I can find various uses of "the ins" and "the outs" to denote people who are regarded as accepted/righteous/orthodox (or the opposite, in the case of the outs) in politics or religion, but I haven't spotted this. - -sche (discuss) 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion continued from WT:RFM § busy

Rfv-sense (verb): "to rush somebody". OP at RFM (an IP) said this doesn't sound right at all -- "He busied her" isn't something I've heard. Is that real at all? — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

English? It's not a noun in any case Denazz (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No Books hits; hardly any Web hits. Compare #shimpan fukubucho. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@-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)

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)

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 " — 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)

After 1500? Ioaxxere (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to the OED, so can someone please check ? I know it lasted up till near the end of the Middle English period, but not sure if slightly after that (except as a prefix, which I know endured till early 1600's). Leasnam (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The 1933 OED doesn't list any cites more recent than 1450 AFAICT (but most cites it lists are from before 1300, so if you happen to know the word was still common in the 1400s, the OED's coverage may just be too incomplete to draw any conclusions from; I also don't have the modern OED). EEBO has 15 results, but they are scannos of "number", "dumb(e)", some (proper?) noun Umbe, or instances of Coleumbe etc split across a line break. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing modern in OED Online. Good find! Note you would need to search EEBO for vmbe too. This, that and the other (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not seeing any results for vmbe. Vmb turns up Vmb. as an abbreviated (?)name, and -vmb- as a non-English word or as a string of letters which forms part of an English or non-English word (vmba, etc); likewise umb (the hits are umbatilis, scannos of number or dumb, etc). - -sche (discuss) 15:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "Chief in excellence." Does this exist in a way that makes it distinct from the other senses? (Not sure whether to post this here, in the TR or at RFD...) - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

RFV all senses. A westman (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's possible to cite the words (Citations:earthrise), but the definitions need to be cleaned up to better expressed what they're actually used to refer to (not the time of day, AFAICT, but the phenomenon of rise, which is turn is due to the observer moving relative to the horizon, or else to librations). - -sche (discuss) 15:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited with changed definitions. - -sche (discuss) 00:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Passed with the changed definitions. - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Appears to be a normalized spelling of a word that did not survive out of Middle English; OED's latest quotation is dated c. 1315. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

MED says 1500 (for an original 1390), as ppt forsoþen. I've been able to find one modern use, but it doesn't look hopeful. May need to convert to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

J3133 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

OED has only Spenser, too, but offers another definition Denazz (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense: “(fiction) A type of supernatural ability from the anime and manga series JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, named for the fact that they appear to 'stand' next to their user.” Added by @FishandChipper in February 2022. The listed Japanese translations, スタンド (sutando), and 幽波紋 (yūhamon), failed RfV. J3133 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be defined in a way that complies with WT:FICTION, and to have qualifying quotations backing this up. A solely in-universe definition won’t do. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Quotations? -saph 🍏 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense #1 (losing an addiction) is probably covered by shake and monkey, making it sum of parts, and you could presumably also form similar phrases with "the", "a", "one's"... monkey. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It has quotations as of now. A Westman talk stalk 23:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited. J3133 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Middle English??? Denazz (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Hastive A Westman talk stalk 20:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@A westman Sure, the words WF's going through are from Webster originally. They even have the {{Webster 1913}} template on them. But Webster (a) didn't distinguish between Middle English anf Modern English, and (b) sometimes altered ("normalised") the spelling of words to match modern spelling conventions. Hence the requests for verification. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

May have another science definition Denazz (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the "ivy" adjective seems unfindable. A few old chemical books say that hederose is a noun: "a decomposition product of a glucoside found in the ivy (Hedera helix)" — apparently C₆H₁₂O₆ ? — but again I only found a handful of mentions, not uses. Equinox ◑ 10:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

RFV sense 1 under Etymology 3. Serious doubt that sense is still used now if it was used after ME at all. A Westman talk stalk 19:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense (informal) Suicide by small firearm.

I've never heard this, and the only thing I can find from a quick search is a bit of a wordplay in this book which is clearly using it to refer to getting shot in battle, but (a) that doesn't fit, and (b) it seems like a creative one-off. Theknightwho (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV failed. Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it was real, it would have to be: "take the bullet train" - "commit suicide". Nyuhn (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Equinox ◑ 02:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Likely didn't survive out of Middle English. The OED quotations year cutoff is 1484. EEBO only returns dictionary results. lattermint (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a letter dated 1772 (published in 1795) - the citation is on the citations page. Other than that, all I found was this, which is far too modern, and which I therefore suspect is either a typo for exhort or an error by a non-native speaker. Kiwima (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

sense: To refuse Denazz (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Should be moved to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Just Middle English or Scots? Denazz (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are lots of scannos, typos and books by presumably non-native speakers. Does this clear the rare-misspelling threshold? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

One "quote" is literally UD (yikes) and all are mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing any English for singular or plural. Plenty of scope for a decent Latin entry, mind. Denazz (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a blend of idyll and idolatry, and probably a protologism by the anonymous creator 12 years ago (!). I can find a handful of mentions online, but I'm not finding genuine uses in permanently archived texts. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Defined as a common noun meaning "A hideous phantom." Is this right? I can only find google books:"an Adamastor", google books:"Adamastors" capitalized, seemingly as a race(?) of specific mythical or fictional giants(?), often of the sort described at Adamastor. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Alt form of pikau. Equinox ◑ 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty suspicious to me. Who would spell an obvious Maori borrowing like that? Nothing in Google Books. Kiwima (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The quotation given on the OED website is "1990: They would arrive about lunchtime with peacows slung over their saddles. T. Watt, Wild Horses & Me 52" (this is the only quotation they have listed for this specific alternate form). Not 100% sure if that's enough, especially because it's more modern when other quotations listed for other variants are from 1836-1969, but it's worth noting at least. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

When you search for this word you get an incredible number of scannos, especially of Greek words like μάσσω (mássō). I could only find one non-scanno use in IArchive: an artwork called Seacock, Peacow by a Welsh artist. This, that and the other (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Tagged but not listed; has some cites already. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion. Has one cite (a typo/scanno?). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A weasel. - Only finding crappy old dialectal dictionaries, most of which say "apparently it is a local term" or the like Denazz (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Very small-scale annotation, typically of images." I can't find much use of this word anywhere, and I'm not quite sure what "small-scale annotation of images" would mean: microscopic size? very short text?... Equinox ◑ 23:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

cited, although this form is far less common than the hyphenated micro-annotation. Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 03:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Not found, only a single website (en.kavkazplus.com) on multiple places. Apparently Atitarev needed it as a translation of грузинофо́бия (gruzinofóbija) (which exists); again English Gruzinophobia I do not find. Maybe one could find more closer to the Russo-Georgian War; who has succeeded to whitewash whom? Fay Freak (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I spy one book using Citations:Georgiaphobia, a use by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and some random web uses (Reddit and the like); it is the same with Citations:Georgiophobia, just one book and scattered websites. If we need a THUB, apparently it will have to be some descriptive phrase like phobia of Georgia or fear of Georgians. - -sche (discuss) 07:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ditto Citations:Kartvelophobia. Apparently no term has yet succeeded as the term for this. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Geometry term for a right triangle (from Chinese). Equinox ◑ 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Unable to find "Gougus", and "a Gougu" has term in question italicized in GB. CitationsFreak (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

British cant for a hole. The OED has only one citation of use, where a short staff has a hole in its head, but the term is apparently also mentioned in Randle Holme's Academy of Armory, where it's defined as "hole, cave, or hiding place". All I can find is ferme as an old spelling of farm. - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

So far, all I can find are place names, such as "Ferme de la Croix". Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

...and that is most likely either "ferme" as an old alt spelling of "farm" in English, or just the French word ferme (“farm”). - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed; I moved the one use to the cites page. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Bird Denazz (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the EDD AFAICT, which only has an entry for tarrock (with cites that spell it "tirrik" and "tirracke"). - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Noun sense, meaning “explosion”. This is almost certainly real, but it’s non-trivial to find. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Searching for the plural, I can find examples of exploding as the ... verbal noun, or whatever we'd like to call it, of explode ... but the finer details of whether this is best defined as just "explosion" or as e.g. {{n-g|verbal noun of "to explode"}} or something else are less obvious. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This has the makings of elimination of the hoped-for benefits of the -ing-forms concept. The idea is that all -ing-forms can be noun-like or adjective-like in their functioning, but that it isn't worth a definition unless the -ing-form has come to assume new meaning. Eg. makings and meaning have new meaning, but functioning not so much (perhaps the euphemism). One can readily find examples of virtually any -ing-form meeting all the grammatical criteria for adjective and noun. I would say it is part of the grammar of English. It is less common that there is actual new meaning, eg, the difference between making and makings or meaning (-ing-form) and meaning (noun). DCDuring (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kiwima Thanks - I've also added blowing up (noun), given it's used in one of the cites (and is probably more common, actually). Theknightwho (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RFV-passed; any tweaking of the definition can occur outside RFV, I think; this can be archived soon. - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Given reason is: "(hell realm, Hell realm, Hell Realm do occur)" This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

cited, but this should probably be an alt form of one of the more common forms such as hell realm, Hell realm, Hell Realm, Hell-realm or hell-relm. Kiwima (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Irregularly formed; no citations given. — Paul G (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added 3 citations. Nub098765 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably didn't survive out of Middle English Denazz (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In OED but just as mentions. Denazz (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

underfong

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)

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)

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

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)

Strangely spelled alt-form Fond of sanddunes (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

We list two senses, but I can only find a single Book hit (which is Monty Python). - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

January 2024

OED2 mentions old dialect dictionaries. We could definitely add totally new sense meaning socklike, though Fond of sanddunes (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the sock they're referring to, which we don't list. It is related to suck and soak, so i think this word would have been soaky if it had come down to us through the standard dialect. (Interesting how all these similar-sounding words — soak, suck, soggy, sobby, soppy, ... and some people say soaping wet for sopping wet — describe things being made wet). —Soap— 14:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed, unless something got lost. Was created by an IP who is now in a rangeblock, but I cannot confidently say if the rangeblock was for this person or just a coincidence. —Soap— 14:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And skar Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any uses in books, although there is interference from the phrase "affect perseverance ". google:"called affect perseverance" turns up one paper which attributes the term to "Sherman and Kim 2002" and google:"as affect perseverance" only turns up a couple hits, so perhaps it never made it beyond Sherman and Kim. "belief perseverance" seems better attested. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW this Wiktionary entry is so old (2007) that the name of the user who created it doesn't even show up right, it's just "imported>Borisu" (unlinked). - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird capitalisation. Brand name? This, that and the other (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Abraham sham

do Abram

Abraham work

Abram work

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)

Tagged upon creation by Graeme Bartlett. Four sources were listed, but only one is valid for CFI purposes (one is a paper, one is a database and the other two are references to the first paper). This, that and the other (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The energy corporation. Tagged for RFD by an IP: "does not appear to meet requirements of WT:BRAND". This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

See #tozy above: apparently the entry needs to be moved and redefined(?). Wright's EDD has tosie, tosy, tozie, tozy, tossie /ˈtozi/ as one word with three definitions: 1. "slightly intoxicated" (2 cites of tosie, 1 of tosy), 2. "intoxicating" (with 1 cite about "meat and tosie drink"), and 3. "cosy, snug, warm; cheerful, pleasant" (with just two cites, which look to be Scots). The OED has "tozy" /ˈtoʊzi/ as one word (citing two places where Scott's St Ronan's uses tozie like a noun), and "tosy" /ˈtoʊzi/ as a separate word (asserting it "can hardly be the same as tozy" as far as the etymology is concerned); the tosy entry takes the "meat and tosie drink" cite to instead mean "warm, comforting or comfortable, snug, cosy", and provides two cites of "slightly intoxicated, tipsy" (both spelled tozy). I have arranged these on Citations:tosie. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

OK: when it was RFVed (above) last October, tozy was defined as "soft, like wool that has been teased", from toze+-y, and tosy was defined as an alt form of that. I've tracked down just enough cites to redefine tozy as intoxicated, but I can only find one cite of tosy (and two of tosie). - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Failed at tosy, moved to tosie. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to exist with this meaning outside Wiktionary. If it fails, it needs to be removed from a few of our entries too: This, that and the other (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(Wasn't tagged; I've now added tag.) This is an SoP phrase and I wonder if the person adding this entry misunderstood it as having this over-specific reference. Equinox ◑ 19:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete. If the term is used on the sense of antonym at all, it will merely be as the application of the general SoP sense in a specific context.  --Lambiam 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(Evidently entered erroneously as a plural: I have cleaned this up and moved the RFV to the singular form. See also Vardrid, related term. May be POV bias against the football club requiring attention.) Equinox ◑ 19:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No results in GB. Miiiight pass if we allow citations from social media. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The pronunciation is given as /naɪˈhɪ.leəɹ.i.ən/, which, if correct, would be very unusual. Words ending -arian are almost always stressed on the third syllable from the end. Do we have a source for this? (The pronunciation was added by Nardog, according to the page history.) — Paul G (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Nardog just touched it up. The unusual stress was added by a different editor who's no longer active here. I agree it's suspicious. —Soap— 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A US editor who wouldn't have added a UK pronunciation without encountering it somewhere. @Apisite. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A user also submitted the word to Collins' user-submitted area of their dictionary with the claim "pronounce the ‘h’ like a ‘k’", which also seems implausible. Perhaps there was a joke among a few people somewhere to assert wrong pronunciations for this word, e.g. "because only Nihilarians would notice or care". - -sche (discuss) 15:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than a joke, I think that some people probably have a genuine notion of pronouncing the word with a /k/ based on the variant pronunciation with /k/ of the Latin word ni(c)hil.--Urszag (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

OED says that George Berkeley was the only person to use it, though it is mentioned in various places. It seems like it might be an inkhorn term that some people write but never actually say. Cnilep (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

nihilarian

I just noticed we also have a lowercase spelling (which also had a weird pronunciation, which I changed); it seems like it may have the same problem of having been used only once. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

All I can find for either capitalization, apart from quotations of Berkeley, is one use as a name, some word-books' made-up examples of use (not allowed by CFI), and uncapitalized use(s) in a work Harley Williams, A Century of Public Health in Britain, 1832-1929, where I unfortunately can't see enough of any of the snippets to work out whether the use in question is an excerpt of a work by Berkeley or Fraser (the "translator" of the Berkeley quote our entry is currently using), or an independent use by Williams or someone else. If it's independent, then combining it with some of the versions of Berkeley that use lowercase, we'd have two cites for some broad definition at nihilarian. - -sche (discuss) 14:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 20:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I can find uses and mentions in online media (alongside various other terms), which I've put at Talk:rebbetzman, but I don't know if it's made it into print yet. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

Sense 2: Needless or useless activity. (If real, may need to be made uncountable.) Equinox ◑ 21:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Can't find much in any language, let alone English. See also WT:RFVI#carpe diem cras. This, that and the other (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(Malaysia, derogatory, slang, politics) a corrupt politician or an elite person." Tagged but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

circovery

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OED has 2 other obsolete meanings, not this swelling + boozing Fond of sanddunes (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Two senses: "1. (obsolete, rare) Changed from a woman into a man" and "2. (obsolete, rare) Changed from a man into a woman". Although the word is discussed in references a lot, I can find only two uses: Browne spells out that he means sense 1; Meredith (on the citations page) is unclear. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any other instances of transfeminated as an adjective, but I did find one of transfeminate as a verb:

• 2010, Michael Salvatore, Between Boyfriends, page 27:

  But in defense of all the "Is he or isn't he?" rumors, Laraby is the only person I know who can transfeminate from frat boy to sissy queen in three seconds flat. And transfemination usually occurred on Monday mornings as a tonic to thwart Loretta's hungover harangues.

I also found multiple references to a work by Joseph Gamble (which is cited as a reference in the entry) that traces the history of the word "transfeminate", so if someone could read that (which is hidden behind a paywall), we might find enough cites for the word transfeminate. BTW, many old dictionaries sidestep the male-to-female or female-to-male distinction by defining the verb as "to change sex". Kiwima (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that (other dictionaries have one combo/sidesteppy sense) too, but it seems like a incorrect copout to me: with "transition" or "change sex" / "sex change", those terms truly are broad, but here it seems like some uses mean specifically one thing (and would use an opposite term for the other thing), and other uses mean specifically the other thing (and would use an opposite term for the first thing), so combining them feels like combining e.g. the two senses of trans man into a sense like "someone who either transitioned into, or away from, being a man": it would technically cover all of the uses, except that no use means that, they all mean either specifically the one thing or specifically the other thing. - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwima The Gamble paper spends much of its time chronicling the passage of the word through dictionaries. It offers no citations other than Browne. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

Rfv-sense: verb. Only quote is Middle English Fond of sanddunes (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't find this (or its supposed plural). Compare the RFV of gurmy. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@-sche The only thing I can think of is that this comes from a printing error of gunnies, since "nn" could look like "rm" if the ink is a bit patchy. Theknightwho (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems to be a printing error on some reference works' part, too, rather than one any user of the term made. (FWIW I did add 3 cites to the expected/normal n n spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So **gurmy was a mistakenly back-formed singular of a printing error that somehow made it into Webster's... Theknightwho (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Just used in rent seck? Demonicallt (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently so, although Middle English secce could be used a bit more broadly so it's possible someone would find cites in reference to things other than rent on EEBO, but scannos of "seek" and real uses of "seck"="sack" crowd it out. Converted to {{only used in}} for now. - -sche (discuss) 14:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

"To make comfortable". You would not say "this chair will comfort you", as far as I know. Equinox ◑ 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

OED has this sense; it hasn't been expanded since NED (verb sense 8). In the quotes, someone is said to be comforted by a stove, and an advertisement (presumably this one - isn't the Internet magical!) describes a beverage as "comforting". The sense is more nuanced than just "to make comfortable" - it is more like "to cause (someone) to be in a state of physical comfort", which is arguably captured by sense 1's broad "to provide comfort to". This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Describing beverages as "comforting" is a common thing (cites), but maybe that's just what we have as comforting#Adjective. Here someone is both "comforted" and "cheered" by a stove, seemingly in the same way he might be comforted and cheered by the thought of some positive thing, which does suggest that this should perhaps just be viewed as the "usual" sense 1 of both "comfort" and "cheer"... - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed / merged into sense 1 as not distinct from it. - -sche (discuss) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

dragon's head

Rfv-sense of these used as tinctures in the manner of Sol#Noun or Jupiter#Noun. The only occurrences of "dragon's head" or "dragon's tail" I can find in heraldic texts are the &lit sense: the head/tail of a dragon. I managed with difficulty to cite Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn, but can only find one cite of Venus (vert), and none of Mercury (purpure) or these two. - -sche (discuss) 20:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a nasty one: six (!) senses (one of which is duplicated at Red Room), and the Google Books results are dominated by literal rooms with red decor. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Room appears in the film ‘Luther:the fallen Sun’ which is still available on NetFlix and according to Talk:Red Room there’s another film ‘Chambres Rouges’ about the concept. I shall rewatch the Luther film and add a quote. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Mostly cited (one sense has only two cites). The most difficult part of this is that Red Room is by far the most common version for all of these senses. Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Kiwima, this is incredible work. I am surprised that all senses were able to be cited! I would merge sense 2 and 3; the cites under sense 3 don't make clear reference to after-the-fact trading of videos of torture etc as opposed to the live viewing of such material. This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

_{Jack Nicholson impression with an accent?}

Sorry. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• One of the cites refers to some kind of legislative chamber blue room, not reflected in the two blue room definitions we have. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Tonight's newly added sense: "Someone, regardless of race, whose behavior is considered to align with any of the negative stereotypes of black people." I gather the comedian Chris Rock famously distinguished between "niggas" and "niggers". But this could certainly use good citations. Equinox ◑ 05:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For lack of somewhere better to say this: I also haven't been able to find the Clark/King quote used to support the sense A member of a group that is oppressed or marginalized in the manner of black people. that was added in diff either. Other dictionaries do have that sense, but they support it primarily by asserting that the common phenomenon of saying "(women|Jews|the Irish) are the niggers of (the world|Europe|our time|etc)" is that sense, whereas I think that's questionable—it seems like a simple comparison; it's easy to alternatively find "women are the Jews of (the world|gender)" or "Jews are the women of (the world)", and I don't know that this means we should define "Jew" and "woman" as "one who is oppressed like a Jew/woman"... - -sche (discuss) 08:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We do have tons of entries of that kind ("you're the X of Y"): Albert Einstein etc. Equinox ◑ 09:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I know what kind of usage the editor bespoke: You behave like an absolute nigger. And that “collocation” enables you to find the worst kind of websites. Fay Freak (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if that's the kind of usage which is meant, then adding this sense seems like a misunderstanding on the editor's part, since that's just using the regular sense of X to make a comparison... if I say "he behaves/smells like a goat", I am not using "goat" to mean "someone, regardless of species, whose behaviour/scent is consistent with the stereotype of how goats smell"! - -sche (discuss) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If we posit that this is meant to cover people directly saying "you nigger!" or "quit being such a nigger!" or the like to people they know aren't black... well, then it's back to being a question of whether or not cites exist, as discussed previously... - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@-sche: These also work, I mean “quit being such a nigger!”, which feels like something I have read in the 2016–2018 period in places which you shouldn’t enter, though even there suspect to be more occasional than lexicalized, hence I don’t find it on the web—or more like because this formulation is too contrived. “I banned you two because you were absolute niggers.”—something like that would be understood in some American circles; yet the overall frequency is so low that "were absolute niggers" has zero hits while "absolute niggers" has some chans. Your argument about comparison and stereotypes works the same way whether or not the word like is used. I tend to be more restrictive about it however; with “are like a nigger” it would totally be the case of being a more-pragmatic-than-semantic simile, with “behave” I don’t think so whether or not like follows.

So we would have to think what kind of search removes the noise. People complained about what kind of slurs we cite from self-published trash literature. Then again it surprises me that a similar usage is claimed for AAVE: “This piece-of-shit car is such a nigger.“ You already put forward an example according to which with “such a” in your opinion it counts.

I agree with the cite part—though it has been relaxed a bit after 2020—, for this is so marginal that quotes are required to pacify readers.

These discussions at least for now document that we do know about senses we have been struggling with. Fay Freak (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, since it's been almost two months since this discussion started (and even more, since the last discussion of this) and we still don't have any cites from which to just whether the definition provided was right or should be altered, RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Scottish: A bold intruder upon the hospitality of others; a mealtime visitor. Denazz (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A slick performance by a lawyer." Ioaxxere (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Encased in a wrapping". Also a form of a verb wroop that we don't have. Equinox ◑ 05:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Used once by HG Wells. GBooks also shows three books by Taylor Anderson, but those all seem to be scannos for "vrooped". This use is talking about chickens making a "wroop" noise.

As for wroop the verb, Holinshed has wrooping . Not sure what it means. Couldn't find much else.

Easy to call this RFV-failed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense

"A passenger vehicle used for drug smuggling that is equipped with sophisticated mechanistic designs". — This comment was unsigned.

Definition has been revised (not by me). It more-or-less conforms to a definition at NetLingo. It still needs citations. DCDuring (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I guess aspects like "has hidden stash spots" makes this idiomatic, but I would just note that trap is productively applied to anything used for drug production or transport or sale, e.g. people have trap phones, trap houses, ... - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

What expression started the use of trap in this way, ie, the AAVE drug sense? From what sense (etymology?) of trap is it derived? DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely the idea is that if you live in the ghetto it’s hard to move out, so you’re trapped. Many of the more stereotypical of the people who live in the ghetto (the ‘trap’) deal drugs, which then leads to a drug car being a ‘trap car’ and so on. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, we have a sense under trap of "An area, especially of a city, with a low level of opportunity and a high level of poverty and crime". Kiwima (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I know, I added that sense myself in fact a while ago. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to ask about the drug-related sense, which should not be too simply connected to the "ghetto" sense. DCDuring (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sense 2: head. (The main sense, bed, is a very famous typical example of Cockney rhyming slang.) Equinox ◑ 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

cited. I also found one quote for another meaning (bread), but could not find two more for that meaning:

• 2019, M J Dees, Fred and Leah:

  "Rations up, sixteen, get your Uncle Ned,” a cockney voice was shouting from outside.

Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

Rfv-sense obsolete form of|en|ruddy Phacromallus (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

terve

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)

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)

Internet slang spelling of "fox". I googled "a fopks" and found basically nothing whatsoever. Equinox ◑ 16:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Logomachies Ioaxxere (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the Black's Law Dictionary. A number of attestations can be found here, though the word appears quite old. Feel free to delete my entry if these entries are not enough. Logomachies (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose to be comprehensive, I should note on this page that I have uncovered three uses in old text: this use, this use, and this use. Logomachies (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We need three uses each for the verb and noun. The noun is cited (I found a third use), but the "not ejurated till the year 588" quote seems to be the only use available for the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Noun RFV-passed, verb RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Rfv-sense: "Sexually frustrated".

Might have something to do with incels. DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted: to "blue-ball" is to sexually frustrate, so someone who is "blue-balling" would be doing the frustrating, not being frustrated (apparently). Equinox ◑ 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless it somehow reversed its meaning in incel world. DCDuring (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ergativity/lability is very plausible here, influenced by ballin'. This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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

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)

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeking examples for "(in nouns) a thing characterised by the specified thing"; as pointed out in an {{attn}}, the one example cited (apostate) "is a poor example - it's a whole Greek word, not a derivative of some word "apost"". - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @-sche, could an advocate advocatus (one who calls to/one who is called for) or candidate candidatus (one who is characterised by shining white) be similar to what you're looking for? The root words (in English) aren't close to what they meant in their original language so I'm not sure if they are quite analysable in this format. I'm not a linguist, so of course, these suggestions may be entirely incorrect. 31.205.18.28 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No...? Because advocate is still a word that was derived intact from Latin; Latin is where -atus was added to advoco; English didn't add *-ate to *advoc. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Middle English: alt form of swyn. Created by Hazarasp, tagged by Sapphire Juniper but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the OED, “Compositorial misreading of meagre, adj.” and the “only evidence for meagry is in the writing of Thomas Dekker” (our quotation). J3133 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Rfv-sense "(technology, of human users) Able to see through a false positive of a digital / computer technology equipped with intelligent behavior"

Oddly overspecific, that's just being smart. - Jberkel 19:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Synonym of Pearl River. This sense has failed RFV for 大江, the supposed etymon for this entry. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Just used by Chaucer, per OED Worm spail (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• RFV failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

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)

Not seeing this Woopingkoff (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Drolma

A transliteration of the Tibetan surname डोल्मा.

Same issue.

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

1. Can we come up with examples showing whether the requested definitions belong at secondary and tertiary (i.e. are these SOP?) or whether they are specific to the moon. Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Just Middle English? Phacromallus (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A pidgin language used in Liberland or by Liberlanders consisting of varying degrees of English and Slavic (usually Czech, Polish, Russian or Serbo-Croatian) vocabulary, depending upon the speaker." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Rfv-sense. A one-off Shakespearean metaphor, methinks. Even then, this can't be said to be a sense of clack dish any more than "penis" is a sense of ducat - but that's an RFD argument. This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be in the nonce-word category, if it fails RFV because it's Shakespeare. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Slang, rare: "To launch oneself off an edge." If the intended sense is something like "he sent himself over the cliff" then it's not slang or rare, and already covered by #1 to move from one place to another. Equinox ◑ 00:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty unreasonable, also there are no GBook hits + "go ahead" doesn't need to be shortened? Heyandwhoa (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a verification, but it has an entry on Urban Dictionary.--Urszag (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One thing you've got to remember about English is that pretty much anything can be shortened, especially when mimicking speech. There are plenty of uses if you know where to look (Archive.org). Cited. lattermint (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised this was nominated tbh. We should really have more terms like this, such as ee yar/eeyar/ee-yar as a colloquial English term for here you are that is used in Birmingham and North of there, especially in Manchester and Liverpool, and the Scouse slang gwed for go ahead. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV passed. lattermint (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sense 2: "Imagining a future employing outdated concepts." Must be cited distinct from sense 1, "Resembling an outdated vision of the future." Equinox ◑ 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "The nonexistence of all of humankind", as opposed to the existing sense "The death or murder of all humankind." —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

J3133 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

just in dictionaries, per OED Demonicallt (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

First, there are no citations. Second, no GBook results at all, books call it "music zine" or "music 'zine" instead. Third and finally, it means this entry was probably rushed to be made. Heyandwhoa (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There are GBooks results. I've just added three. Check that you are searching efficiently: you may need to use quote marks etc. to find the good results. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, didnt realize that. Heyandwhoa (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited. lattermint (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV passed. lattermint (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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 .,

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)

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

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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))

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

Just used in Chaucer? Demonicallt (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Listed as a comparative and superlative, respectively, of over-greedy. -er, -est forms were removed from overgreedy in 2017. J3133 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

"(less common) The hour between 3:00 a.m. and 3:59 a.m., associated with demons." — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added 3 durable cites, though they may seem a bit mention-y. Nub098765 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nub098765: thanks. I don't think the 2017 one qualifies, though. It reads: "Reaching over, I picked up my pocket watch from the coffee table-12:45 a.m., three-quarters of the way through what most people believe is the witching hour." Thus, this seems to be a sense 1 use ("midnight"), even though the author then goes on to say that actually the correct meaning is the hour after 3:00 a.m. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I've replaced it with a quote that definitively fits this sense. Nub098765 (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed. I added an (occult) label as that seemed to be implied by the cites provided. This, that and the other (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Keep by WT:BRAND. This will be an enduring term in AI history - unless the machines wipe us out, that is. - 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

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

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

Hot word for Christmas-like celebration in June 2021, I can't find it in print after September 2021. @Equinox suggested in 2023 that it might not satisfy CFI. Cnilep (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this in print and realised it might be bullshit, or generated by a crap-hole (like those "surveys" that are in London Metro every day). It might have been the rare Equinox error. Thanks for bringing it up. Equinox ◑ 04:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited in 2023 on what appears to be a blog, thanks to User:Nub098765. Cnilep (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that would be a mention, no? This, that and the other (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good call: the blog mentions the word and its coinage. Still no usage per se after 2021. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Only references are for Middle/Old English Denazz (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

OED only has some Scots stuff post-1500. EDD confirms that modern use of the word was restricted to Scotland as well. This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted the entry to Scots while I'm thinking about it. This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed for English, converted to Scots This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Nonce? Denazz (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

1 more nonce Denazz (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Methinkes this bee purelie Middle English Denazz (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Sense: "Having a mental state of being completely distracted and unfocused on one's surroundings and situation; being spaced-out." This seems an invention from etymology. Actual uses on the Web are the Jehovah's Witness sense. Equinox ◑ 21:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A giraffe. One of Jonathon Green's slang books mentions this in passing as an (obsolete?) Americanism, but I find no uses. Equinox ◑ 12:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There a half dozen or so hits for a search for "African skyscraper" "giraffe" on Newspapers.com, most seem to be merely descriptive such "this African skyscraper". The closest I see to uses are The Independent's 14 Jul 1937, Page 8 headline of "African Skyscrapers Observe New York Skyline" and the line from The Paducah Sun-Democrat's 11 Aug 1947,·Page 4 " when a monkey climbed a giraffe's neck and asked the African skyscraper: ". —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "skyscraper" is defined as "anything very tall or high", so this doesn't necessarily argue for "African skyscraper" as a set phrase in English. Compare "this deep-sea monster" if talking of a fish. Equinox ◑ 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In lots of old provincial dictionaries... Denazz (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

Sense 5: A haze caused by heat. The WP article included refers to Saint Lawrence but has no mention of the haze. DonnanZ (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Just Middle English? Denazz (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

cited. Not only is it not just middle English, I found citations as recent as 2020. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: vagina.

It's plausible, but I would like to see some verification. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles any comment on this? Seems to be at best a nonce . This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I get it, a newt < an ewt. Plenty of mentions not so much use Denazz (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Citeable from EEBO: . There are also forms like evet, which needs integrating into the family of entries that includes this entry and eft. This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Dubious — This unsigned comment was added by P. Sovjunk (talk • contribs) at 22:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC).

It's similar to Dutch klewang. Here it's an Indonesian sword. DonnanZ (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

German only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Added three in English (small k). Equinox ◑ 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV passed. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The def is certainly wrong: a word ending in -fication would refer to a process of forming or applying stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves. This, that and the other (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Can only find it in a few papers (mentions only) and various blogs (mostly mentions). This, that and the other (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is usually written Tupi-Guarani or Tupí-Guaraní, but not this Franken-version, which I suspect has been inferred from the ISO names "Old Tupi" (no acute) and "Guaraní" (with the acute). Theknightwho (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It failed RFV in 2011, but I've added some cites showing it passes WT:BRAND as a genericized trademark. 195.146.4.192 01:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Those cites are not generic at all. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Lots of French, though, which I don't know anything about Denazz (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:A bushel basket. Denazz (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I could find it in lots of dictionaries, but no actual uses. Kiwima (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

nonce word Denazz (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a citation, so we now have two, but still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Today's new slang sense: to shoot someone in the head. Equinox ◑ 23:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Only in one academic paper? Equinox ◑ 18:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: verb. Only Wyclif? P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just in dictionaries P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Compare the RFV of harbus above. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Supposedly a synonym of husband stitch, but the citation is not convincing: "didn't you ask for the extra stitch like I told you?" Just seems SoP. Citations needed showing that this is a regular idiom. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete: to mingle, blend. Can't find in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 20:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"To make a joke at one's expense; to make fun of in an embarrassing manner." As pointed out on the Talk page recently, this may be confusion with fuck with. Or can one really say "I fucked him", meaning teased?! Equinox ◑ 17:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think "to fuck with" is what's trying to be said here, but is just used incorrectly. I'm not sure "fucked" is ever used standalone in a manner like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yumigotcha (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Dubious Lfellet (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Cited this dusty old word. This, that and the other (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Just in Chaucer? If so, enm. Lfellet (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In some old dialect dictionaries. Lfellet (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

nonce Lfellet (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)

This term seems to be extremely rare. There is only one cite in the entry, and I am unable to find any others. Perhaps someone else can find some. Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's my mistake: the original entry was a scanno for cothurnopore, where the page is now located. Thus cothumopore and cothumopores should be deleted. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a real prefix. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's more of an RFD question, but the entry is just nonsense, so I'm deleting it. This, that and the other (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a real prefix. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

Looks like a typo for exhaustification. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Another number base. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Usex refers to a "Duodevicesimal Period", a two-word phrase not to be found even in a Google Web search. I would advise speedying some of these Kwama entries. They seem like blatant inventions. Equinox ◑ 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's this, but that's all I can see. When I searched, it tried to give me the results for "Duodecimal Period", but "Duodevicesimal Period" has only the one (there's another hit, but it seems to be basically another version of the same book, and it won't let me view the snippet). By the way: one of the few hits for "duodevicesimal" was a talk page on WP where Kwami mentions how rare it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Another number base. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"400". Ioaxxere (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Kiwima and I independently found what may be the only easily-findable cite, by Stewart Bruce Terry. The far more common use of "great score" to mean an excellent score makes it hard to tell if any other uses exist. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find cites that clearly refer to more than 20, but don't spell out the exact number. Search on "a great score of the Humpt Men" for one that's arguably too easy to find- it's a weird sort of faux-Elizabethan written in 1912. There are others, though, such as this, this, this, this and this. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An advanced Google search for 'great score of men' also yields this, this and this. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these justify the entry "great score", because the stress pattern is wrong: if great score were a lexicalised term then it would be stressed on the first syllable, but I've never heard it stressed that way in collocations like great score of men, where it's just great + score, with great simply being used for emphasis. Theknightwho (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't agree wih that, I've no idea where the stress lies as I've never heard it said and I don't see how it matters. Consider great grandfather and great grandmother which are often stressed on the second syllable. What do you think about great gross? I first encountered 'great gross' as the answer to a crossword recently and I've now linked the teo entries as related terms. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why. Intuitively I think the stress would only have to change if it were spelled solid as "greatscore". Equinox ◑ 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Overlordnat1 great gross is a good example of my point: the stress has to be initial to avoid the ambiguity caused by making it unstressed, because great can be used for emphasis in exactly that way. In great-grandfather et al., great still takes secondary stress (and often takes primary, too, even discounting instances of prosodic stress). Theknightwho (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the first of the examples above, but the others seem much more likely to be the two separate terms great (“large”) + score (“indeterminate (large) number”) (as in "the plague killed scores of townspeople", which I'm sure we could, with enough tedious searching, find used to describe a situation where e.g. 39 people in a town of 50 were killed, it does not have to be 20 even though we currently roll such usage into our "twenty" sense), rather than great score (“400 specifically”). Compare "a great number of Humpt men" or "large numbers of equipment, arms, accoutrements, ammunition and guns", which does not support great number as a term meaning 400 or any other specific number! Compare google books:"and large scores of", which does not mean "large score" means 200. Cites which clearly use "score" to mean 20 and then also use "great score" in a similar context, e.g. "four scores of men and two great scores of cattle", would be much more persuasive; cites that use "great gross" or "great hundred" to denote those specific numbers and then also "great score" might also be persuasive. - -sche (discuss) 16:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Paradise Lot" quote: "Up in those woods of oak and hemlock, we learned to identify wild edible mushrooms and found several great scores of chicken of the woods. Imagine twenty pounds of tender, fluorescent orange mushroom that tastes like chicken breast!" It's worded like a great score is a specific number, but I doubt these would average only a twentieth of a pound (about 22 grams) each. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I'm not sure - I think it can be read as coming across several large patches of mushrooms. Theknightwho (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Obscure. There might be entryworthiness is similar expressions with monkey/ginger... Denazz (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The proverb that I see is "What does the monkey know of the taste of ginger?" Kiwima (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

For the English term and this part of the definition: "used in the Third Reich during the Nazi era". In the Third Reich, the people (usually) spoke German. Additionally, the 1971 quote with "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!" at the Nazi demonstrations, or "Du-ce! Du-ce! Du-ce!" in Fascist Italy seems to be a mentioning of German Sieg Heil like it's Italian Du-ce. So at the very least, brackets should be used (parameter brackets=on):