Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.	Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.	Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
{{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 any Italic language, i.e. Latin, its sister languages (Oscan, Faliscan, etc.), or any Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, etc.).

• For English entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.
• For Chinese/Japanese/Korean entries, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/CJK.
• For entries in a reconstructed language, see Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction.
• For all other entries, 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.

Recording negative findings: Editors who make a fair effort to find citations but fail to do so should state their negative result on this page (even if it only repeats another editor's negative result).

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.

French. Not familiar with this. PUC – 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see a few uses, sometimes hyphenated, but (grammatically) as a singular: , , , (the last one is a mention). In the following case I think it means a head of white hair, so the sense of a white-haired person may be metonymical: .  --Lambiam 17:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Needs citations in the appropriate place. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The common French expression for silver hair is "poivre et sel" but it's only used as an adjective, not a noun, and neither is "cheveux blancs" used as a noun to designate a white-haired person. 193.54.167.164 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Des cheveux poivre et sel (wfw. "pepper and salt hair") means mixed black and white hair, often appearing grey. All-white hair is des cheveux blancs and donner des cheveux blancs à quelqu'un (wfw. "give someone white hair") approximately means "endlessly get on someone's nerves". — Tonymec (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Tagged by Greenismean2016 on 4 November 2018, not listed:

“it looks like this should be coccum + fero” J3133 (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Normally, the suffix is -fer – I don’t know the rules of formation of taxonomic rules in all fields of biology but this is incorrect Latin, so the page should be coccifer probably for both Latin and Translingual, ignoring now the distinction between Latin and translingual. So the taxonomic names with that form seem to be illegally formed. Scyphophorus cocciferus is one of the cases where a word is only attested in miswriting. Pinging @SemperBlotto as the author. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• It looks OK to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It what sense is it illegal? It isn't really bad Latin. Lewis and Short have deiferus and infructiferus. While obviously occurring far less often than the 166 entries for terms ending in fer, the ferus ending seems to have occurred in classical Latin. DCDuring (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • @DCDuring, SemperBlotto: L&S is pretty careless about manuscripts. As with the ghostword zirbus, Georges has it differently and right as Georges lacks both these two forms and lists infrūctifer and deifer with the same two singular quotes as in L&S. The two 2 -ferus forms seem ghost words and their manuscript appearance, as well as their appearing in nominative singular in those singular quotes, is doubtful. We read in Rosén, Hannah (2000) “Grammaticalization in Latin? Two Case Studies”, in Glotta, volume 76, →DOI, page 105. »The inventory of these nouns up to the 6th century comprises ca. 190 -fer words (of which 60 are Late Latin, 4th to mid-6th century) and ca. 80 -ger words (of which 35 are Late Latin). Apart from variant forms there are 2 isolated (exclusively) -ferus words: Late Latin infructiferus and hybrid theoferus.« He goes on about some being calques of Greek terms with -αγρος (-agros) or -φόρος (-phóros), which explains deiferus which is however also deifer. You do find some New Latin quotes for infructiferus but mostly mentions and infructifer is rather in use. equiferus mentioned by Rosén is also a ghost word, one reads that we have “equifer als echte Nominativform durch die Glossen erwiesen”. The occurrences are all so rarified in attestation that they can be considered non-existing in native speakers’ Latin. In any case Wiktionary needs to have are coccifer, infructifer, deifer etc. as main forms, the others can only be had as dubious forms. @PUC, Brutal Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we have an entry for coccifer#Latin? DCDuring (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DCDuring Hey, thanks for the ping. I think it makes sense to distinguish between the ancient and the new latin usage. In Latin as a living language, at least for some speakers, these syncopated/non-syncopated, or more likely restored pairs were definitely alloforms. There are parallel pairs for -ger(us), and some words only exist with the full ending (mōrigerus). The situation can be further complicated by the reinterpretation of some of these as 3d declension forms, at least in some varieties (no examples come to mind there are some for sure, even if only detectable through Romance). There also exist forms like mascel, sicel for the regular masculus, siculus, albeit it's often suspected these are Sabellicisms (note the final vowel that escaped the regular u-colouring by the velar L, meaning the L had to have been geminate - or the word had to be borrowed). These then would be legitimate, native-speaker Latin. — Another thing altogether is New Latin, in our case used as a polite term for the Latin of the people who don't know Latin but make use of it in coining nomenclature. Their authority is a typical school grammar, and when their word-formation disagrees with the prescriptions of a school grammar, it's to be treated as a simple mistake on their part (this fine creation comes to mind) instead of referring them to any process characteristic of a living language. Now, these scientists' mistakes often coincide with attested non-literary Late Latin or reconstructed forms - no big surprise there - but I imagine they themselves would admit to simply having made an oversight in coining the term, and would hardly try defending their creation by appealing to attested non-literary Latin or any such whataboutisms. It's not a peculiarity of their idiolect of Latin or a specimen of ongoing grammatical change, it's a simple mistake coining a word in a language that you don't speak. — Ultimately, however, if a name is used, and isn't blatantly ungrammatical, I don't see what we can do about it other than list it as it is. Would anyone propose marking it as mistakenly formed and redirecting to coccifer? I hesitate to call that prescriptivism any more than I'd call it that when a teacher corrects a student. Even so, if a name is in use, we certainly need to have the entry - but what if the schoolgrammatically-correct name isn't used at all? Retroactively "correcting" what the editor perceives as "bad Latin" is hardly the task of a dictionary editor (imagine the task they'd have on their hands with Mideval Latin! xD). Brutal Russian (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, DCDuring: Tangential, but I sorted out deifer by moving deiferus and creating an altform entry at the source before seeing this discussion, so I thought I should leave a record here. Just to note, L&S's citation under deiferus, Cassiodorus's 6th-century Ecclesiastical History, is not Classical and does not have it in the nominative anyway (hominem deiferum), so this just seems to be a back-forming slip-up on their part. They also seem to have gotten the citation wrong (in the standard Migne it's only at 7.9, as Gaffiot has it, not 7.1, unless they were using some other edition I can't find). Apart from Deiferus being the personal name of a medieval saint, deiferus as adjective is a somewhat common alternative to deifer later on—it comes up in an early modern translation of John Damascene for example, which supports the -φόρος calque point—so it makes sense to keep the altform entry. I would tend to support Fay Freak's suggestion for coccifer and infructifer too, though I haven't dug into the terms. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The overt contempt for "non-standard", non-Classical usage seems inappropriate for a descriptive dictionary. Does Latin attract folks who don't like language as it is spoken and written by normal people, you know, evolving? Is such evolution only accepted once it has acquired an army? Many languages actually have alternative forms, unless they a suppressed by a language academy. DCDuring (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I very much agree; in the case I am talking about "deifer" is merely the sensible main entry simply because it is more common and earlier. I personally think it makes no sense at all to talk about proscribed forms and the like in post-Classical Latin unless there is for whatever reason good evidence of them being proscribed synchronically. I don't know the situation of the other two. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Sense: “across, sideways, sidelong”. Tagged by Imetsia on 12 September, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

French. Old entry created by me, apparently unattestable. PUC – 11:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PUC Not sure what qualifies as attestation, but this is a very common expression. There are even more senses than just the softening of an order. "je passe un coup chez le dentiste" (rapidement), "un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus" (tantôt... tantôt),... Lots of hits on Google. Sitaron (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it's real, we need citations. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

fr:coup sense 12 says it is used as a synonym of "fois" (like here) but the first two (of three) examples given there belong to a more usual (less familiar) level of language than here. The third example, though, is exactly the colloquial use mentioned here, and it is a quotation from a well-known French author: J’ai eu du chagrin de savoir que ton neveu s’était fait refuser aux postes encore un coup. — (Marcel Aymé, La jument verte, Gallimard, 1933, réédition Le Livre de Poche, page 25). — OTOH as a native French speaker I confirm that je passe un coup chez le dentiste or un coup il me croit, un coup il me croit plus do exist, as part of familiar spoken French; a tiny wee bit less familiar (more "standard") would be je passe en vitesse chez le dentiste and tantôt il me croit, tantôt il ne me croit plus. — Tonymec (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I took the liberty of adding the example above from fr.wikt at un coup. Passe un coup le sel! instead of Passe le sel, s'il te plaît. is very familiar but it is used in colloquial spoken French. — Tonymec (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tonymec: Thanks for adding sense 2 and its accompanying quotation. I also found some discussion related to sense 1 at w:fr:Français de Nouvelle-Calédonie#Un coup. Using "un coup" with an order may be especially common in that particular dialect, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist in metropolitan French or other dialects. But what we really need is a durably archived example of such usage. Have you been able to find any? 70.172.194.25 20:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@70.172.194.25: A durably archived example ? I dont have any, and it might be hard, considering that it is used mostly in spoken rather than written or literary language. Myself, I'm not a New-Caledonian but a Belgian and I would have thought it especially frequent in the "spoken dialect" of Paris but known to different degrees by radiation in most or all of the French language areas. — Tonymec (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tonymec: Would you say that the use of "un coup" in any of these would count as sense 1? . The problem is that these are all articles by one author in one paper (from Mauritius). And there's also this article on Mauritian French which uses it quite heavily (although we can't cite the latter, because they're technically mentions instead of uses). My methodology to find these was to search for "moi un coup le/la" on Google, hoping that the inclusion of "moi" would tilt the results towards imperatives like "dis-moi", etc., and the inclusion of "le/la" would get adverbial uses of "un coup" instead of cases where "coup" is just acting as a regular noun. But there actually aren't many results. I'm not going out of my way to search for French spoken on remote islands, it's just what seems to pop up when looking for this for whatever reason.

If this is commonly used in Parisian France, wouldn't it be possible to find a song, TV show, magazine, or something that uses this? 70.172.194.25 08:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@70.172.194.25: I would count "un coup" as sense 1 if it can be replaced by "s'il te plaît" at the end of the sentence with no change of meaning; I would label it as "familiar" or "colloquial" and also "spoken language". Finding it in a song or magazine, I don't think so. In a TV show or even in a cinema film, I'd say maybe, if the characters are using colloquial spoken language. Teenager characters, maybe. But I wouldn't bet my head on it being easily findable.

In sense 2 "un coup" can be replaced by "une fois" at the same place in the sentence and I copied a quotation from fr.wikt about that sense. It is also "familiar" or "colloquial" but it has been found at least once in published text. — Tonymec (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@70.172.194.25: Maybe in some dictionary, but recent dictionaries might be copy-protected (in France, until the 31st of December following the last living author's death plus 70 years) and older ones might be unaware of such a recent evolution in the language. I don't know how far we can make use of the French "exceptions to author's rights" allowing "short citations for use as example or illustration" and "extracts for information" (see fr:w:Droit d'auteur#Exceptions au droit d’auteur with footnotes sending back to the Berne Convention).

In addition, "moral rights" are in France part of intellectual property rights; they are perpetual and can neither be relinquished nor given over, even by testament ("perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible"): the author, and after him his "natural heirs", cannot avoid exercising them. — Tonymec (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Senses:

1. on time, in time, punctually (not tagged)
2. temporarily
3. for the current time, for a while, at present

Tagged by 2003:DE:3702:3E91:54CA:403:2464:75BF on 20 February, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

L&S lists the senses, ”For some time, for the time being, for a while, for the moment“, giving references to Cicero, Livius, and Tacitus. Le Gaffiot gives the same Cicero references for a sense of “pour un temps, momentanément”.  --Lambiam 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Romanian. Rfv-sense "(vulgar, slang) extraordinary, super, excellent". Removed by IP (diff) with the comment "never heard it being used as an adjective, ever; add it back ONLY with a reference". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robbie SWE, Bogdan: I found nothing. I'm also not familiar with this use. Fytcha (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely a real slang use, a synonym for pizdos. It's hard to find slang usage online, since it's a colloquial use (and when I google this word, I get only porn sites), but here's one proof of usage: "spectacol pizdă". Bogdan (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found it used as an adverb in a song: "Suntem tot ceea ce crezi tu că sună foarte pizdă". Catlop (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Latin: “genitive plural of merx”. It was in the declension table instead of mercium (see Talk:merx). Should it be re-added to the table or deleted (i.e., it is wrong or not attested)? J3133 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Georges: "merx, mercis, Genet. Plur. mercium, f. I) die Ware tabes mercium, verlegene W. 2) meton., der Preis der Ware, der Warenpreis, mercium quantitas, Cypr. de habit. virg. 14. ". But well, it could also depend on the edition (or manuscript), which is something which foolishly gets ignored here quite often...
• Gaffiot 2016: "merx, mercis, gén. pl. mercium", but without any source.
• L&S is without any note, so foolishly mercum could have been assumed, or be generated from the declension template without checking anything or without realising that the template could be wrong...

Additionally, mercum could also exist but be a low or medieval Latin form, which then should be mentioned but also should be marked. — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3718:E994:460:76A7:3F46:2AC5 (talk) at 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC).Reply

, a third can certainly be fished out in google, but this form is a clear solecism even medievally. I would relegate it to an Alternative form linked at mercium. Brutal Russian (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Tagged by 2003:DE:3728:BF61:3CEF:6BEC:3439:FB55 on 7 June, not listed:

“for masc. gender.

L&S has "subst.: vŏlantes, ĭum, comm., the birds", but some other dicts only have f. (logeion -> LaNe: "subst. volantēs, ium en um f (poët.; postklass.)", Georges: "subst., volantēs, ium, f. (sc. bestiae)") and sometimes L&S has guesses, unattested information.”

J3133 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, it could be masculine or feminine when used as a substantive, depending on the context: (vermes) volantes or aves (volantes). Maybe all attestations happen to refer to feminine animal nouns (aves, columbae) and not to for instance culices or passeres. Do we need such attestations to verify the inherent gender ambivalence? An entirely different issue is whether we should list such obvious nominalizations at all; we do not list a noun powerful, even though its use as a noun is fairly common; and we also do not list an (attestable) noun sense for flagellantes.  --Lambiam 11:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying GianWiki, Metaknowledge, SemperBlotto, Ultimateria, Jberkel, Imetsia): Created by User:SemperBlotto, supposedly an adjective meaning "glove" in a relational/attributive sense. Unlikely to be correct as an adjective ending in -a, and not in any dictionary I can find. Benwing2 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can't really find any dictionary supporting the existence of an adjective like guantario, except this, which I believe might've been used as a reference for the Wiktionary entry. There are a couple of usage examples I can find online – either as an adjective or as a noun (an alternative form of guantaio (“glovemaker”)) – but that's all. — GianWiki (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it's more likely that wordsense pulled it from Wiktionary. The entry has been around for 7 years. – Jberkel 12:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Treccani seems to use it (industria guantaria). Also in Google books: from 1937 (industria guantaria), from 1939 (industria guantaria, attività guantaria, produzione guantaria). As for guantario, there's this book (problema guantario), from 2006 (maestro guantario), from 1959 (settore guantario). - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

SOP: "vampire-slayer". Benwing2 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

google books:ammazzavampiri seems to have enough results (even though several have Buffy l'ammazzavampiri = Buffy the Vampire Slayer) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:DE:3720:3741:3181:23C1:CDC2:56E4 (talk) at 22:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC).Reply

French. The French Wiktionary entry lists one of the meanings of abeillage as "Élevage des abeilles", i.e. the raising of bees, or beekeeping. However, all of the uses I found online were referring to the other historical senses of the word. If this sense is kept, it should at least perhaps be tagged as rare because it seems the more common translations for beekeeping are apiculture or a multi-word phrase like "élevage des abeilles", "industrie abeillère". 70.175.192.217 18:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody confirm the gender? This and also Lagopus and λαγώπους give the gender as feminine (the latter offering both masculine and feminine). However, λαγώς and πούς are both masculine, so I can't see how the compound could possibly be feminine. If it really is, something needs to be added to the etymologies to say how this counterintuitive gender has happened. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

As for Lagopus zoologists treat it as being feminine, as can be seen by the species epithets of two of the three species, the other one not being helpful. Lewis and Short asserts Latin lagopus as being feminine. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ancient Greek λαγώπους (lagṓpous) is a nominalization of an adjective meaning hare-footed; compare the adjectives ὀκτώπους (oktṓpous, “eight-footed”) and ἐρυθρόπους (eruthrópous, “red-footed”). For these adjectives, the masculine and feminine forms are the same. The gender of a nominalization will usually be determined on semantic grounds; if seen as a shortening of ὄρνις λαγώπους (órnis lagṓpous, literally “hare-footed bird”), it will inherit the gender of ὄρνις – and thus still can go either way.  --Lambiam 11:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford Latin Dictionary agrees that lagōpūs (“ptarmigan”) is feminine. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek says that λαγώπους (lagṓpous, “ptarmigan, white partridge”) is masculine (the neuter λαγώπουν (lagṓpoun) is also substantivized and refers to some sort of clover or other trefoil). I'm pretty sure when LSJ says "λαγώ-πους, ποδος, ὁ, ἡ" it means that as an adjective the masculine and feminine have the same form. However, it doesn't look like this word is ever actually used as an adjective meaning "hare-footed". It's only ever used as a masculine noun meaning "ptarmigan, white partridge" and as a neuter noun meaning "clover, trefoil". —Mahāgaja · talk 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dioscorides and Oribasius use non-neuter λαγώπους (lagṓpous) for the clover. The grammatical gender cannot be discerned from the brief mentions (γνώριμος can be feminine), but Pape gives ἡ λαγώπους as translation of Hasenklee (hare’s-foot clover), and Johann Adolf Erdmann Schmidt gives this as translation of Waldhonig, probably not referencing the substance but a type of clover from which honey is obtained.  --Lambiam 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam: In your last example, ἡ λαγώπους is actually the translation of Waldhuhn, so it's referring to the bird. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for the correction; I overlooked the -xyz entries. It is somewhat unlikely that the Latin writers borrowing lagōpūs from Greek would have assigned it the feminine gender if they were not following a Greek example.  --Lambiam 09:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's also the possibility, that the Latin gender isn't attested, but just assumed on whatever grounds. If that's the case, there maybe should be a usage note explaining the situation and the assumption.

In Latin dictionaries it's:

• L&S: lăgōpūs, ŏdis, f. - 1. bird, 2. herb
• Gaffiot: lăgōpūs, odis, f. - 1. bird, 2. plant
• Georges: lagōpūs, podis, m. u. f. - 1. m. bird, 2. f. plant

So they agree, that the herb/plant is feminine. As for sense bird, all three reference works refer to Plinius: Plin. 10, 133 (Plin. 10, 48, 68, § 133). That is, according to edition:

• LacusCurtius: "capitur circa Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax, luteo rostro niger, et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
• Carolus Mayhoff, 1875: "iam et in Gallia Hispaniaque capitur et per Alpes etiam, ubi et phalacrocoraces, avis Baliarium insularum peculiaris, sicut Alpium pyrrhocorax luteo rostro niger et praecipua sapore lagopus. pedes leporino villo nomen hoc dedere cetero candidae, columbarum magnitudine."
• transl. John Bostock & H. T. Riley, 1855: "It was formerly reckoned among the rare birds, but at the present day it is found in Gallia, Spain, and in the Alps even; which is also the case with the phalacrocorax, a bird peculiar to the Balearic Isles, as the pyrrhocorax, a black bird with a yellow bill, is to the Alps, and the lagopus, which is esteemed for its excellent flavour. This last bird derives its name from its feet, which are covered as it were, with the fur of a hare, the rest of the body being white, and the size of a pigeon."

--16:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Latin. Can this form, alleged to be a genitive plural of the Latin adjective memor, be attested, or are we dealing with a so-called non-i-stem variant?  --Lambiam 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Template:la-decl-3rd-1E has been retired to a template farm upstate, but I suspect this was the culprit, leading to an erroneous auto-generated entry. @Benwing2  --Lambiam 01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A&G mentions the ablative singular of it. --Myrelia (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Might it be that A&G is mistaken: ? For some uses of the ablative memore, see , , and .  --Lambiam 10:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

That looks like Medieval Latin or Anglo-Latin. Georges: "Abl. Sing. bl. memori" = Ablativ Singular bloß memori = ablative singular is only memori. --Myrelia (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary, Medieval Latin is Latin. So it seems both forms of the ablative can be attested, but only one may be Classical. Still, what about memorium – can this form be attested?  --Lambiam 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

ML. is Latin, but there should be a qualifier/note.
As for gen. pl.: Can the other, memorum, be attested? Or is it just an assumption, a form generated by an inflection template? Maybe it can by: "hunc crebro ungula pulsu incita nec domini memorum proculcat equorum, Verg. Aen. 12, 533"? --Myrelia (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.

(French) RFD sense of the fictional character: "One of the Three Musketeers." It already says this in the etymology, and IMO that's enough if it's a rare male given name derived from the book. This RFD goes along with the RFD on English Aramis. Note the inconsistency also; we have Aramis as English, Porthos as French, and no entry for Athos. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 10:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Send to WT:RFVN and check regarding WT:CFI#Fictional universes? --21:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 2003:de:373f:4037:3c6c:85b5:850a:bea0 (talk).

• Needs figurative use. Ultimateria (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are not given names; they are family names, patronyms. So is d’Artagnan. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "neighbour". Is this restricted to the biblical sense of neighbour (“a fellow human being”), or is it also used for the literal sense of "person living on adjacent land/house/apartment"?__Gamren (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think this is specifically biblical. In the Vulgate this translates ὁ πλησίον (ho plēsíon) (“one’s neighbour”) in the Septuagint, a nominalized adverb derived from the adjective πλησίος (plēsíos) meaning near, neighbouring. Latin has the feature of zero-derivation nominalization of adjectives, so perhaps Jerome simply used the nearest Latin equivalent of the Greek adjective as a noun. (Jerome could instead have used vīcīnus (neighbour), also a nominalization of an adjective; we can only guess why he did not do so.) IMO there is hardly a reason to list this separately under the PoS “Noun”. When used as a noun, the term has a spectrum of meanings depending on the different senses of closeness, including “someone living nearby”, but is more likely to mean “next of kin”.  --Lambiam 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Are days of the week capitalized in Middle French? --TongcyDai (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese.

As it's slang, it's more difficult to attest it in writing. --2804:1690:806:2D50:63D2:7057:A6A8:E9D6 07:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Probably made up and probably belongs in RFV, but oh well. It was in a crappy song Pierdeme El Respeto but not much out there. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to RFV. Thadh (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to the authoritative text 'Rivet & Smith (1979) The Place Names of Roman Britain' (p315), the Latin name is indeclinable. What is the authority for a previous editor stating that 'Condate' follows a Greek-type' declension. If none, then this declension table should be deleted. — This unsigned comment was added by Avitacum (talk • contribs).

@Avitacum: I moved this from the English requests page (WT:RFVE) to this one. This, that and the other (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. My mistake! Avitacum (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• L&S (which often is old/incorrect): "Condāte, is, f."
• Gaffiot: "Condātĕ, is, n."
• Georges: "Condātē, is, f."

But well, could be that gender and/or inflection isn't attested.. --16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Latin. Apparently Pliny used etēsiās once, but the Latinate first declension singular is unattested. It's a plurale tantum. This, that and the other (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Originally marked for {{speedy}}, but I’m not sure this cannot be attested.  --Lambiam 13:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tagged it for speedy because Oedipus is a proper name with no plural. But you're right, it does seem to exist. The question then becomes, what does it mean? This, that and the other (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Max Beerbohm is reported to have said, “They were a tense and peculiar family, the Oedipuses, weren’t they?”.  --Lambiam 12:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, many of the Latin cites (e.g.) seem to relate to the same meaning as Oedipuses often has in English: multiple different tellings of the Oedipus story. -- Visviva (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looks like we need a better way of handling plurals of proper nouns, not only in Latin but in other languages as well.

As far as Latin is concerned, we currently have a lot of genitive plural form-of entries for Latin proper nouns (but no other cases, oddly). These genitive plurals are "orphaned"; there is no reference to them in the lemma entry. In situations where the plural of a proper noun is actually attested, it ought to be added to the lemma's declension table, perhaps with some kind of special note. This, that and the other (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lewis & Short: "Oedĭpus ... plur. acc. Oedipodas, Mart. 9, 26, 10". So plural is attested (maybe not in gen. but only acc., but that's usually no hinderance of giving all forms if they are predictable). Open Questions:

• What does it mean?
• Is it still a proper noun? Maybe the proper noun Oedipus (some king) became a common noun (with a meaning like 'mother-lover')

--22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

All cases of the plural are abundantly attested in post-Classical Latin so this seems rather pointless. Whether they're displayed in a case table in the main entry is one thing, but either way the non-lemma entry at Oediporum should certainly be kept. As an example of plural use: "Proinde principes, quibus hoc monstrum periculosius occurrit, si damni praecipitium evadere, et monstrum hoc enecare voluerint, aut Oedipi, ut ita dicam, sint, aut Oedipos, hoc est, consiliarios sequantur necesse est." ("Accordingly, those princes whom this monster rather threateningly attacks, if they wish to escape the precipice of injury and slay this monster, should either be Oedipuses, so to speak, or follow Oedipuses as counsellors" ).

I don't think it's wise to treat personal names in general as automatic singularia tantum: the ways in which they can be used as plurals are fairly predictable (most obviously a group of people with the same name, but also different versions of a historical or literary personage, applying the name metaphorically to multiple people as in the case I quoted, or different aspects of a classical god). Whether they're then downgraded from "proper nouns" to "common nouns" is a question I'll leave for the scholars. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: perfect passive participle of cādō. This PPP is claimed to be indeclinable, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What's more, dictionaries (including TLL) don't mention a PPP for this verb. A supine stem is given, but given how widely-used this verb is, you'd expect to see some kind of reference to the PPP if it existed. This, that and the other (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the idea is that it only occurs in the compound forms of the impersonal passive construction (where the subject is always neuter singular), as shown in the conjugation table on cado. I just tried to search for an actual quotation exhibiting the use of impersonal PPP casum + auxiliary, but I haven't found one yet.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Italian: "(usually humorous, sometimes menacing) Said when someone is unwilling to repeat what they have already said.". I created Citations:Paganini non ripete but I'm not sure the quotations actually support the definition given. 98.170.164.88 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this? 98.170.164.88 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The citations are all correct. Paganini non ripete is a super-common expression, you can find it in every good Italian dictionary, too. Sartma (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Goldoni and Consolemania quotations do seem to be using it to express unwillingness to repeat something said. Servi is using it for refusal to perform a musical encore, which is the same as the original story. Chirichelli and Odone are using it to refer to things that cannot be repeated because they are unique, etc., the same as what Paganini originally meant; but repetition of speech is not involved. Barbiera requires more context to understand, but I think also falls into this metaphorical category.

I'm not disputing that the expression exists with some meaning, but if it's super common hopefully we can find three quotations that are unambiguously using it to refer to refusal to repeat speech. And maybe we should flesh out the non-speech meaning too (something that cannot be repeated because it was improvised, etc.). 98.170.164.88 18:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDN.

Latin. Described by @Theknightwho as: "Fake participle formed from the fake supine of absentō" (they meant accanō). This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Created by User:SemperBlotto. Appears to be a nonexistent back-formation based on radioassistenza. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: It's a real word. Zingarelli has it too. Sartma (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sartma Thanks. However, we need citations; if it exists, it's rare enough not to be in reverso.net or Google ngrams. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sartma All cites in Google Books are from dictionaries. I still think it doesn't exist. Benwing2 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: It is a technical term, so it might not be easy to find, but navigazione radioassistita is something even common people talk about. radioassistere (and servoassistere) are given in all major Italian dictionaries. I'm not interested in any of the fields where those terms might get used more regularly, but still, as a native speaker, I know those words... Reading you writing that they are "nonexistent" is a bit weird. Sartma (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English.

French: Apparently this is the name of a former country in Africa. Probably just used by one author and copied elsewhere. Dunderdool (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Googling it throws up a historic map of Senegal. Is this wolof? Theknightwho (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the country being referred to is the Kingdom of Jolof and its predecessor, the Jolof Empire, which is the same word as Wolof (also Djolof, Yolof, etc.) and which we treat at Wolof#English (sense 3). Although the definition there may be a little misleading, since in the Kingdom period, it was only one of multiple Wolof-speaking states, the others including Waalo and Cayor (). 142.166.21.76 14:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Belongs on WT:RFVN, although FWIW this looks very easily citable in French, and might even pass CFI in other languages like German, Italian, and English. 142.166.21.76 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

French. See Wiktionary:Tea room/2022/October#French: se donner le mot. If the term cannot be verified as a synonym of passer le mot, it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect to se donner le mot.  --Lambiam 16:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Taken from Gaffiot. Gaffiot, with du Cange, gives one citation, Tertullian Ad nationes 1.9 "abaliud a maiore defenditur", and apart from various scanos on Google Books it seems to be a hapax. But modern editions of Tertullian do not treat this as a word and instead render the passage "si ab aliquo aliud, a maiore defenditur" (e.g. Borleffs 1954). Von Hartel 1890 already comments, "An die Existenz des Wortes abaliud glaubt heute wohl Niemand" ("nobody today believes in the existence of the word abaliud"), and Schneider 1968 gives the emended sentence and labels abaliud a ghost word. I can't find any reliable source disagreeing with this assessment. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Easily 'attested':

• Tertullianus, Ad nationes , lib. 1, cap. 9 – in some editions, e.g. Bibliotheca patrum ecclesiaticorum latinorum selecta. Ad optimorum librorum fidem edita curante E. G. Gersdorf. Vol. IV. Qu. Sept. Flor. Tertulliani opera. Ad optimorum librorum fidem expressa curante E. F. Leopold. Pars I. Libri apologetici., Lipsia, 1839, p. 141:

  Abaliud a maiore defenditur.

And also found in dictionaries:

• abaliud in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré latin-français, Hachette, page 3.
• abaliud in Georges, Karl Ernst, Georges, Heinrich (1913–1918) Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, 8th edition, volume 1, Hahnsche Buchhandlung

Add Category:Latin ghost words (done) and a usage note (missing). --Amicus vetus (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Amicus vetus: Please re-read my comment above: the modern consensus is that it is not found in Tertullian, it is an error of manuscript interpretation (and not therefore used in actual Latin). By definition, it cannot be both a ghost word and attested. (Well, it can, but in this case it doesn't seem to have crept into actual usage anywhere, hence my RFV.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've read your comment carefully. It's found in Tertullianus -- at least in old editions thereof and an example was provided (and it's different from misprints/typos). That it is an error (scribal error in the manuscript, misreading, wrong conjecture or whatever) doesn't change that. Thus the entry is justified, and an explanatory usage note ('it's a mistake/ghostword' etc.) what is lacking. --Amicus vetus (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Amicus vetus: I think we're arguing at cross-purposes a bit. My point is that if there was never a word abaliud used by Tertullian or anyone else to mean "on the other hand", then our gloss is entirely spurious and should not be listed as a sense (it can be in the etymology, usage notes, or whatever—from elsewhere on this page some people might prefer this to just be a link to an appendix, I don't care too much either way). The only sense listed should, I think, be "alternative form"/scribal corruption of ab aliud. The fact that it is found in older editions of Tertullian does not support listing it as a sense, which is a matter of how the text is interpreted rather than how it is printed—and it's the sense that's being RFV'd here, since I'm not at RFD requesting the entry itself be deleted. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk)

Recently, I deleted several transliterated Japanese names and surnames created by a single IP that had little evidence to be in use in Portuguese language and looked like simple copies of the English entries. After a message from @Benwing2, I've gave some thought to this approach, so I'm opening this discussion in order reassess if the deleted should be restored or if the remaining unattested terms in Portuguese surnames from Japanese and Portuguese given names from Japanese should be removed as well. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1 My sense is that surname entries like this should be kept if they convey some useful info that is specific to the destination language, otherwise deleted. For example, if the surname is common enough to have a fairly fixed pronunciation, and we include that, this counts as "useful info". One example is Fukushima, which has a pronunciation given (maybe because it is also a toponym, and in the news a lot). I would say, on the contrary, that an etymology that is simply copied from the English entry doesn't count as useful info. Basically, we should discourage people from creating entries by just copying the English entry and making automatable changes to get an entry in another language. The intended result of this is that only sufficiently common or well-known surnames from foreign languages (e.g. names of famous Russian composers, in the case of Russian surnames) end up as entries. Otherwise we could end up with endless autogenerated surname entries swamping a given page. Not sure if this explicitly matches with CFI, but probably to the spirit of it. Benwing2 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Latin, feminine declension in -os, -oe. The Latin RFV IP wants to add this declension but I see no evidence for it in sources; expected phrases like res adespotos, res adespotoe, oda adespotos etc. look unattested (res adespotae is passably common, and indeed appears in the NLW entry, "quasi res anteà fuerint adespotae"). The form adespotoe looks totally unattested and my immediate searches did not turn up any instance of forms in -os, -orum modifying a feminine noun. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• adespoton can be found. Masc.nom.sg. to that is adespotos (not adespotus), even if it weren't attested.
• How about these? , ; .
• BTW: adespotωs

--04:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2nd point, first link, "adespotos" is either agreeing with "impressus", not "Vuittenbergae" (it's not in the genitive), or being used as an adverb (thus -ōs?). Second link, sermo is a masculine noun. Third link (assuming "vita Arist. adespotos" is meant, and it's the vita that's adespotos) may count, although perhaps a rather thin basis. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

(this asked for forms in -os in general, regardless of gender. --06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC))

Latin: “genitive singular of caeliscalpium”. Mentioned by Al-Muqanna at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/January § Option to suppress archaic -ī gen. sg. in Latin nouns in -ius/-ium. J3133 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does actually appear at this website but I assume it's a mistake (and not a valid citation anyway). Looks fictive otherwise. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deleted, but the inflection table on the lemma entry still generates a link to it. - -sche (discuss) 01:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can't find evidence of this being used in (New) Latin texts, although it appears in some Latin-style names for diseases (e.g. retinopathia congenitalis). Maybe just Translingual? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is used in English and German, and appears as a "new Latin" style name, so perhaps this should just be marked as English. Translingual won't account for individual language conjugations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

In German it's capitalised Retinopathia (accusative Retinopathia, not Retinopathiam) as in Retinopathia pigmentosa. So like baby-foot is French and not English, and footing (exercise walking, jogging) is French, Italian, Spanish and not English or Translingual, retinopathia can be English (and also French etc.), and Retinopathia German. See also: Category:Pseudo-loans from Latin by language. --14:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Italian. Also RFV'ing atrovarsi. @Catonif, Sartma Both are these are another wonderful SemperBlotto creation, claimed to be alternative forms of trovare/trovarsi. No references given as to where these terms came from and they are not in any dictionaries. Attempts to Google them produce lots of typos for a trovare/a trovarsi but not much else (and excluding trovare from the search yields no hits). Benwing2 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I placed two quotes, though I normalized at attrovare per the sources and because a- instead of a*- is just an obsolete orthographical practice once greatly used especially by northern authors. The TLIO link shows great use in northern dialects. Hopefully I'll find a third quote in proper Tuscan. Catonif (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Created by User:SemperBlotto again. This is a dialect word from Neapolitan and Calabrese but I can't find any cites in Italian per se. Benwing2 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Convert to a normal Neapolitan entry? Nicodene (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Romanian. I found this in DEX, but I havent been able to find it actually in use ... everything I turn up seems to be a dictionary, a list of words, or (in just a few cases) translation of an English-language text . I can't find a pronunciation given anywhere. There may be some French influence, as the definition given in DEX somewhat resembles that for pitchpin in this French dictionary.

I would be willing to count this as a valid use, but not this since the latter is clearly machine-translated. But that is all I could find. —Soap— 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded the entry with another use in a popular novel (albeit somewhat mention-y). I couldn't find any other examples of the term in Romanian texts. Einstein2 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bogdan You added the Romanian section last year, perhaps you can dig up a third use for this term? Einstein2 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looking into it again, DLR gives another use of the word, so this is possibly cited now. Einstein2 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if you regularly consult DLR/DA, you’re going to love this: https://dlr1.solirom.ro/ —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do Romanian pitchpine and French pitchpin refer solely to North American pine species? “pitchpin”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé , 2012. says so. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think so, yes, though it's a bit of a mess, since as our own entry indicates, the pitch pine can refer to more than one tree. The DLR dictionary gives only Pinus palustris as the definition, but Wikipedia gives only Pinus rigida. Since the habitats of the two trees dont overlap much, I suspect at one point it was in use in English to describe both species, and that people probably still call Palustris pitch pine today, but as arborists have become more standardized, they ended up going with Rigida as the one true pitch pine. Whereas the foreign dictionaries were probably compiled much earlier.

Anyway, my Romanian isnt good enough to tell at a glance whether the cite given in the DLR dictionary is good enough to qualify as a use rather than a mention .... I'll trust you all if you say it is, and we can let the word remain listed in our dictionary. And we even got a pronunciation out of it, too. However, without the full context and with my limited skills in the language, I can't say on my own whether the DLR dictionary's cites are really uses in running text or more like "this is what they call a pitchpine" examples. Thanks, —Soap— 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

In English, it would not be surprising to me that Pinus rigida was usually the referent for pitch pine, but that the term was also often used for any pine that potentially yielded pitch economically. MW just uses an "especially" for P. rigida. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can rest assured it passes. There’s the quotation you found (which is better than you might have realised, as it is a transcription of an actually published text), then there’s quotation #1 from DLR, where it is used without explanation in a technical text, then there are these two occurrences in a forestry magazine. That makes three uses (as opposed to mentions) even if you don’t count DLR quotation #2 (which, as Einstein2 said, is more of a mention/English embedding indeed). Do these need to be on the page itself or does this mere discussion legitimise the entry? —Biolongvistul (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would be better if they were in the entry, but we sometimes let users enjoy multiple link chases, if indeed they trouble to look at the talk page (where this discussion should be archived in due course). DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is allegedly a Latin adjective meaning "Maronite", but the main word for that in Latin is definitely Marōnītae (usually found in the plural, like most words ending in -ītae), which I just added. I'm having a hard time figuring out whether "maronitus, -a, -um" actually exists as more than an occasional mistake. I added one citation of "Maronitorum" that I think is not a misprint (but could be interpreted as a grammar error; compare this similar example with -arum), so I guess that qualifies the word for inclusion based on https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Limited_Documentation_Languages, but I wanted more eyes on this to check.

Two candidates I found that do seem to be misprints/typos or mistakes: this book refers to "la Grammatica arabica Maronitorum (París, 1616)" but the actual 1616 book seems to use the spelling "-arum"; and an example of "nomen Maronitum" in this book seems to be a mistake for "nomen Maronitarum".

I also found an example of "Colegium Maronitum" used in an English text. Given that "Colegium" seems to be misspelled, I'm not that confident in the Latinity of this. Urszag (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag: I think the best solution is just to tag it as a nonstandard altform of Marōnīta (more common than -ītēs when I checked). Though I'm aware many Latin dictionaries lemmatise demonyms and the like at the plural, given that that singular form is decently attested I think it's unhelpful for Marōnītae to be treated as a plurale tantum. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that only acuāle is attested and aciāle is a reconstruction. @Hazarasp -- Sokkjō 07:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it's attested once in a Late Latin translation of Oribasius; see Adams and the cites at the bottom of the page. By the way, I would reconstruct Proto-West Germanic *akkjul or *akkil, with adaptation of the suffix to native *-ul, *-il, given that OHG usually has <o> or <i> in the suffix. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Old French Etymology 1 "beer". Appears to have been tagged late 2022, but possibly never listed here (?). Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

First attestation dates to 1429 per the TLFi and FEW, squarely in the Middle French period and hence a borrowing from Middle Dutch. Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin. This is apparently a way of writing Ⅿ (“one thousand”), but I'm pretty sure it should be ⅭⅠↃ. Putting brackets around the letter I might be visually similar, but smells like BS. Theknightwho (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can we delete this already? A lot of the page content seems like it needs moving, though. Polomo47 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Added by @Trooper57. I can't attest this. - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled upon some videos about Azorean Portuguese. I should've put it on the references. Trooper57 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.

Italian. Only found in personal and place names. (The current definition claims "especially", implying the word would be attestable outside of those, which would make this an RFV problem, but that's contradicted by the onomatology label, so I'm bringing this to RFD.) Very unlikely to have ever been an Italian word in any case, as all the names it is in are Germanic coinages. Catonif (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose deletion: it is a rare poetic word; see here, where it is listed in a vocabulary of poetic words.--37.163.130.70 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Ok, moved to RFV (sorry for the confusion. If it isn't clear, see the beginning of the page for explainations of how this works). The example you provide is curious: the glosses (prando together with polve, ritorte, etc.) are clearly about the sonnet in the preceding page (it's not a vocabulary), though in the sonnet, alongside polve and ritorte we find brando, which is widely attested also elsewhere. Looking at the gloss closely, I suspect that P is actually a B that lost its lower belly either in the printing or in the scanning phase, or alternatively a straight-up misprint. Note that even if we were to consider it a voluntary P, it would still not be enough to keep the entry per our criteria of inclusion. Catonif (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Does not appear to be spelled as one word in reality. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

one word e.g. in , (according to google printed in the 15th century).

Portuguese. Is the lemma registered in Portuguese or only occurs in Old Galician-Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do these contents help to attest it? SentientBall (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese or just Old-Galician Portuguese? - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Middle French. Tagged in 2021 but seemingly never listed. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added a citation. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

French: "# cashmere goat (Capra hircus angorensis or Capra hircus laniger)"

No citations present. The subspecies are not recognized by Mammal Species of the World, the Catalog of Life, WP, or Wikispecies. It is my understanding that the goats that are the source of cashmere are breeds that do not have well-defined links to subspecies. DCDuring (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The entry is confused, but that's no reason to post a confused rfv. This page is for verifying usage of a specific term, not goat taxonomy. Let me try to explain the main issues involved:

First of all, cashmere and angora are types of goat wool named after places in regions where they have historically been produced: cashmere from Kashmir and angora from Ankara. They are each produced by a specific breed of goat. French Wikipedia claims, based on this reference that the Angora breed was introduced to Turkey from Kashmir, and infers that the two breeds are basically the same animal, along with similar goats in places like Tibet. English Wikipedia, based on its own sources, says that the origin of the Angora breed is unknown and treats Angora goats and Cashmere goats as separate breeds, with the Tibetan goats included in the Cashmere goat article.

As for the taxonomic names: back before the taxonomic treatment of breeds and cultivars was somewhat standardized, it was common practice to assign them to taxonomic ranks like subspecies. I haven't done a very thorough search, but the taxonomic names in question do seem to have been in use (Whether the Angora-specific Capra hircus angorensis is used for Cashmere and Tibetan goats is another question entirely). IMO the entry would be better off without them, since they're obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading.

Which brings me to what I think is the real issue: there is at least one book that says "La chèvre Cachemire - égalment appelée Chèvre du Tibet", so for at least some people, they're synonyms. The sticky part is determining whether "chèvre du Tibet" is a term for cashmere goats in general, or merely for the goats found in Tibet, which are inferred to be the cashmere goat breed. In other words, would someone use the term "chèvre du Tibet" for a goat in Kashmir or China? To use an analogy, even though people in Brussels and in Paris both speak the same language, would anyone say that Parisians speak Belgian French? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry if the RfV caused confusion. I am challenging the definition, at least the part that includes the taxonomy. The taxonomy is probably old, very new, or informal, should the definition prove to be attestable. If there is evidence of usage with these taxa, then it stays. I usually do not challenge entries that at least use current or recent taxonomy, leaving that for others. There is a similar problem with respect to a German entry for Angorawolle. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did not want to take it on myself to delete the taxonomy and leave the rest, as my skepticism may prove unwarranted. DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. There are currently 192 entries in this category, most of which are not listed here. The tagging was largely done by Sarilho1. I am making this listing so that Portuguese editors can look through and either cite or speedy delete any obvious entries. This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this. However, most of the entries are names and surnames. I opened that discussion above some time ago. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Most of the tagged terms seem to be names and surnames that are either pretty common or very common in Brazil. Finding citations for a hundred terms is gonna be quite the tiresome ordeal. MedK1 (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

French. PUC – 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to exist: "Ce cocktail bière brune, liqueur de café, sucre et demi-expresso est un "after dinner"" ; "Que ce soit pour un apéritif en tout début de soirée ou un after dinner, le Bar du TIGRR est un des endroits incontournables du centre du village" . Don't know whether it meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 11:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Old Galician-Portuguese. The entry was just a copy from the Portuguese one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Never heard this adjective in Portugal. Portuguese dictionaries don't register it either, so if it is indeed a Portuguese expression, it is at most colloquial. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "misspelling of chuva molha-tolos". Ultimateria (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a 'misspelling'. MedK1 (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Originally tagged for speedy deletion with rationale "This entry is mispelled. The semiconsonant j- is widely accepted as a simple i- when derived from Latin nexus pl- and fl-". That may be the case but there is an entry at scn.wikt with several other spelling variants. Ultimateria (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Tagged in 2021 but not listed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Spanish, "foreign countries; abroad". This might be an error for el extranjero, as defined by RAE.es and the Spanish Wiktionary entry. It seems roughly parallel with how in English we say "I moved to the country" to mean "countryside" and the article cannot be omitted. Perhaps since this is such an unusual construction in both English and Spanish, some people are getting confused. Thanks, —Soap— 02:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If deleted, a placeholder definition should be added to redirect to el extranjero, as most people won't think to search with the article. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but my two cents are: it's simpler and it makes more sense to keep it in one entry. It's the same word; it just means something a bit different when you add the article el. The Gran Diccionario Oxford Español-Inglés/Inglés-Español includes the sense of "abroad" in its entry for extranjero. Not to mention the RAE entry doesn't bother creating a whole new page for el extranjero; they just make sure to distinguish the noun sense from the adjective senses.

Ascadian Idler (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Attested. I agree that it's simple to just keep this as one entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aragonese. Aragonario gives vaca as a translation of Spanish huelga, DOA gives vaca and vaga. Santi2222 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to the Diccionario Ortografico de l'aragonés (Seguntes la P.O. de l'EFA):

bada f. ‖ lat. vulg. de batare ‖ cast. rendija; paro laboral; huelga; aburrimiento ‖ cat. badall; aturada laboral; vaga; avorriment

Im not sure where they got their data from and it's a source that doesn't where it's said or why how many, but nonetheless is a reliable source. Jinengi (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. Rfv-sense: "tartan". Weylaway (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. "Namoral" absolutely passes RFV; it's got thousands of hits on Google and even definitions in Dicionário Informal. I see it pretty often too. It's understandable that @Sarilho1 hasn't encountered it before, though: it's slang from Brazil and most likely not really used in Portugal. MedK1 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then you can add quotations that attest it and close the discussion, no? - Sarilho1 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure can. What counts as an okay quotation source? Surely you don't expect to find nonstandard spellings of slang in books, right? MedK1 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

WT:CFI - Sarilho1 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lol if that's enough for you, then it falls under "clearly in widespread use". MedK1 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it were clear, this entry wouldn't have been tagged for verification. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's a nonsensical statement. You putting an RFV tag on an entry doesn't make any difference to how widespread the term is. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not hard to find this online or even in recent books; I've added a couple and untagged this. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Passed as clearly widespread. Someone can easily find a third one if they want to. Polomo47 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. This does meet the criteria. It is exceedingly common and there are loads of pages, videos and Google hits regarding it. MedK1 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Compare WT:CFI: 3 durably archived usages are needed. --16:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese. A quick Google search shows you many Brazilians with this name (among others that got RFV'd). One of my IRL friends has this name, spelt this exact same way. Seriously, what is up with all the random RFVs for anything Brazilian? MedK1 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The requests for verification are for Portuguese words, not "Brazilian". - Sarilho1 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

??? @Sarilho. Are you unaware Brazil speaks Portuguese? We don't have any name laws over here. The RFVs, per definition, are on a per-language basis. It doesn't matter that they're not a thing in Portugal, they exist in Brazil and any three-second Google search would tell you as much. Just mark the term as (Brazil), duh! That's what you do with every other Brazilian term. 189.90.66.85 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

As you perhaps might be unaware, in Wiktionary there is only a Portuguese language, not a Brazilian one, except for etymological purposes, so all the rfvs I mark are Portuguese rfvs, not Brazilian rfvs. If I find that a Portuguese word needs verification, then I mark it with a rfv. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1: You two are just talking past each other. I hope you're at least making a rudimentary check for Brazilian usage before posting rfvs, because we're all volunteers here and it's not a good idea to waste people's time verifying common words. I suppose it might be annoying that people don't think of Portugal as much in relation to Portuguese as they think of England in relation to English or France in relation to French, but that's not something Wiktionary can do anything about. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

What wastes people's times is to 1. mass create unadapted names and surnames with no care for verification of usage, 2. mass create misspellings and eye pronunciations without proper attestation. The first, mass created by an IP some time ago, includes names and surnames from languages such as Bulgarian, Russian, Romanian, French, German, Polish, or Japanese, needs to be thoroughly verified (and everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion above on the topic or engage in that cleaning). The second, given their clear colloquiality or specialism (in case of eye dialects), clearly requires careful attestation. I've attested several misspellings, such as pristino, metereológico or Azerbeijão to justify their inclusion, I don't see why the same work shouldn't be expected for other misspellings such as namoral or mecher. I stress that we are not talking about common nor standard words here (I haven't mark for verification the various Old Tupi derived terms that have been created and can be easily verified as standardized terms, for instance) so your collective attempt to claim that I'm engaging in a crusade against the so-called Brazilian is completely senseless and unfounded. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

PS: Just to illustrate the dire need of properly attesting misspellings is the current attempt to label seteto as a misspelling from Portugal, completely ignoring the fact that the entry was created by a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. Instead of mindlessly including misspellings and label them as from Portugal or from Brazil when they seem strange, maybe we should request that the WT:CFI are applied first, as the word might actually not even exist in any variant. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of COURSE the entries are unadapted! Like I said, there are no laws stating names in Brazil need to obey standard Portuguese orthography rules. Barely any names in English get attested either. You see names like Bradleigh go by unquestioned precisely because English doesn't have that rule; you can find English speakers with that name if you google it!

You're being intentionally disingenuous and obtuse here. It's exactly as User:Chuck Entz said: you're making people (me in these cases) go around verifying extremely common words for no reason. You're also the only one making the moronic implication that "Brazilian" might be a separate language from Portuguese: in my original RFV, I was explicitly talking about "Brazilian" as a region; a Brazilian form rather than an European or African one. "As you perhaps might be unaware" my foot!

You should be utilizing common sense and looking up the terms you're unfamiliar with before going around marking everything with RFV just because Portugal hasn't had any major influx of Japanese immigrants or anything in the past century. You should quit wasting other people's time by making them look for random people with normal names such as Furuhashi. Mark stuff for RFV only if you can't find any results for it or less than three as CFI asks. You literally RFV'd an ex-president's surname. An ex-president for crying out loud! And not a minor one, either — it's the one that got coup d'état'd by the military in 1964.

I didn't add "seteto" you know. I made sure to only add the ones that I come across online daily, ones that Google provides hundreds (sometimes thousands) of hits for precisely because they're common.

As a human being, I'm not infallible either. One mistake with septeto doesn't make your bullshit any more justifiable. Quit the dishonesty already. If you have the time to mark hundreds of random words as RFV willy-nilly, you have the time to find proper citations for a couple of them — not that they really need many anyway. John as a proper name only has one quotation. MedK1 (talk)

The discussion of the surnames is above, not here. You opened this section exclusively for the entry Nathan which is still unverified. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Way to go dismissing everything I said when you brought up those other words too, right above my response. MedK1 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are not on Reddit for me to feel the need to address your off-topic remarks and petty insults. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good thing there are no off-topic remarks nor petty insults here and just expressions of my disapproval for your actions amidst perfectly on-topic thoughts regarding all the random RFV markings. It's not off-topic to provide examples of what I'm talking about, but it is pretty derailing and unconstructive to point out that my paragraphs are a few lines too far down the page and say nothing else. It's not hard to engage with what is, in fact, on topic. Your distaste for my wording doesn't change the words' relevancy. MedK1 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You call it 'unverified', but wedged in the paragraphs you neglect to read is the mention of someone (among truly many, many others -- it wasn't even hard to only take soccer players for the sake of the examples here) with the name. I linked that same guy again. Maybe that'll be enough to sate your thirst for common name citations? Maybe we should RFV Henrique next, maybe it doesn't pass CFI even though there are thousands of people with the name. MedK1 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you are ensure, about the validity of Henrique, then open a discussion, rather than uselessly raise that possibility. Someone more knowledge than you will try to verify it and, with that, keep the quality expected of Wiktionary, rather than lowering it to include every and any unverified mass-copied garbage (like trying to justify a word as Portuguese by given the example that is used by people born in the Netherlands with no connection to Portuguese-speaking countries whatsoever). - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Ensure". Nice. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarilho1 Your conduct is unacceptable: you are abrasive and rude, and you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting everyone who disagrees with you. If you continue to do so, I will block you for a week. Theknightwho (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that the first person to throw around vulgarities such as "bullshit" here and attacking the other person was MedK1, so I'm not sure calling Sarilho out for his rudeness is entirely fair... PUC – 21:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Supposed misspelling of septeto. Some users attempted to mark it as European Portuguese misspelling, however the creator of the entry is a Brazilian Portuguese speaker. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Some users". No comment. I see plenty of hits for "seteto" online, among them something written by a Portuguese teacher. I see it in aulete too. This actually makes me think that not only is it attested enough for CFI, but it's also not a misspelling at all. MedK1 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some users. You and some IP, which makes it some, not one. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is "septeto" always or usually pronounced with , or can it also be pronounced with just ? From what I could see, the 1990 spelling reform alleges that the correctness of "pt" vs "t" in spelling depends on whether the word has "nas pronúncias cultas da língua", so it doesn't seem possible that "seteto" could be a simple misspelling (unless by just omitting a letter): seems more like an alternative form representing an alternative pronunciation, and whether that pronunciation is stigmatized or unremarkable should be marked in the entry.--Urszag (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The IP that edited the entry claimed that "p" is never omitted in Brazil. I'm not aware of it happening in Portugal either. It's possible that it occurs, but so far the claims are that it doesn't. - Sarilho1 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I meant that "seteto" couldn't be a 'misspelling of septeto' in Brazil because upon saying "septeto" out loud, the tendency would be to say it as "sepiteto"; the P wouldn't be omitted. The only way you'd get "seteto" is if it actually were an alternative form of the word... which does seem to be the case since I could find it in texts by Portuguese teachers and dictionaries alike. MedK1 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. This is about the 3rd sense. Are we positive this isn't just the 2nd sense but with the word moved to the end of the sentence (perfectly normal in Portuguese)? I'm saying the example sentence for sense #3 means "We could dine together tomorrow then." I added some synonyms to the second sense, and both of them could apply to the 3rd one too. "Podíamos jantar juntos amanhã então" is definitely something I can see myself saying. Is this really something only used only in Southern Brazil? Granted, that's where I'm from, but it sure doesn't feel like a regionalism and I don't think I've ever raised any eyebrows using it in São Paulo or when talking to people from the Northeast. MedK1 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Come to think of it, perhaps I used the wrong template. I'm not questioning whether it's used like that (because it is and I do), but rather if it warrants being listed as a separate sense (I don't think so). MedK1 (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

--13:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Tagging for deletion.--Urszag (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can't find anything in Latin, only other languages (searching for various cases). RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looks like BS. PUC – 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PUC I know nothing about the merits, but this IP geolocates to Tunisia- which does have French-speakers. I suppose there might be local usage that doesn't show up anywhere we can find it. That said, I've seen them editing in languages that they would have no personal experience with, so I wouldn't take their word on anything without independent verification. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Le Poucre" seems to be a surname. Otherwise there's this but I'm not really sure what it means here: https://books.google.com/books?id=1PhNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA56--Urszag (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's some more on it--apparently, the surname is also spelled "Le Poulchre" (which isn't too surprising an alternative spelling): https://books.google.com/books?id=hnVSk04SIdgC&pg=PA453 Still not sure if it's attested as an adjective though.--Urszag (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

There was an edit on the entry that said, in the edit summary, "This rare word is used in Vendée and means "impressive" rather than "beautiful"." This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. PUC – 21:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@PUC I think this is meant to be parallel to ĵ in that it's specific to phonetics as used in France. Theknightwho (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

As noted on Talk:ẑ, Wikipedia (in English and French) offers some other uses of this letter that may be worthy of mentioning in a Translingual section, particularly the Macedonian transliteration (if it indeed caught on in real-world use). This, that and the other (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

French. Nothing on fr.wikt, fr.wikisource. Maybe Canadian French? Jberkel 15:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. The spelling is attested in Latin, and the Latin word does descend from Sicilian, the question is whether the spelling can be found in Sicilian running text. @Hyblaeorum as creator. Catonif (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can find some attestations of frangula in Latin as a botanical name, but not as an adjective meaning 'fragile'. Daniel Sennert's Epitome naturalis scientiae (1637) includes it in a list: "...Buxus, virga sanguinea, frangula, Evonymus".--Urszag (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag In case you haven't already seen this: in modern taxonomy the name "frangula" goes back to Linnaeus as the specific epithet for what is now Frangula alnus. The reference to "Dod. pempt. 784", evidently refers to this and the following page in Stirpium historiae pemptades sex by Rembert Dodoens. This is the 1616 edition, but it also appears in at least the 1583 on as well. As you can see, it's all in Latin- not "taxonomese", but real Latin. Of course, that has no direct bearing on Latin frangulus. It does discuss names on the top of p.784 and says that this name was in use by others at the time, so an explanation of the name may exist in writing somewhere, and it might be derived from Latin frangō due to brittleness of the wood, as the Wikipedia article on Frangula alnus claims. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted the Latin inflections but I have also repurposed actinocarpo (and its inflections) to Portuguese. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Through some research and discussing with @Kc kennylau at Wikt Discord server, I can safely assume actinocarpo is a ghost word, i.e. a term that only exists in dictionaries — and a pretty old aone, one of the earliest mentions is from 1937. Basically, all hits are either from dictionary entries or definitions in some compilation work, I couldn't find any usage example of this word.

My guess is that someone wanted to explain what the specific epithet actinocarpus meant in scientific names and made a calque along the way, as both actino- (actinomorfo) and carpo (mesocarpo) exist in these kind of compounds in Portuguese. The etymology of all these is a mess too, but that's for another day. Trooper57 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. Adjusting to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

All seem to have been created just because of the taxonomic names. Urszag (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

And that's a problem because? DCDuring (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is just a regular RFV. As I view it, and I've seen other editors agree in the past, a taxonomic name by itself doesn't count as a usage of a word in the Latin language. Therefore, we should either verify that these have been used in Latin or move them to Translingual.--Urszag (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd really be OK with just moving them to Translingual. I doubt that we have many readers or Latin botanical species descriptions coming to Wiktionary for help and not finding them under Translingual. There are plenty that are real Latin, but compound ones like all but lycioides of these four are very rarely 'real' Latin. And I wouldn't argue about something ending in -oides either. I don't know about frangulus, but it was not an arbitrary sign: I'm sure it was intended to mean something based on some vintage of Latin and/or its morphology. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! While I suspected they might not be attested as 'real' Latin, for some of them I'm genuinely uncertain about if uses in Latin exist, so if they do, I'd like to know about it. I think I'll try to follow up on the lead found by Chuck Entz for frangulus and do more of my own searches for the others before moving any of these.--Urszag (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. @VGPaleontologist. See also: Talk:albifrons. --08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

--08:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

French. Never heard this. PUC – 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Checking Google Books, there are a few 19th-century recordings, however, they mostly refer to a type of shot in pool:

• Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture inventaire raisonné des notions générale les plus indispensable à tous
• Dictionnaire national, ou: Dictionnaire universel de la langue française
• Les jeux de la jeunesse
• The Royal Phraseological English-French, French-English Dictionary
• Dictionnaire historique d'argot (only non-billiard example I could find), also cited here

I would suggest rewriting the entry as doesn't appear to be a synonym of coup bas. Sidenote: I found usages of "coup de bas en haut" / "coup de poing de bas en haut" as a translation of "uppercut". Io Katai (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. Brand of cubed cheese snack. I'm not convinced there is significant generic usage. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Theknightwho has now added the English version apericube which seems equally uncommon... Equinox ◑ 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox I’ve definitely heard the English form used (albeit rarely). Theknightwho (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho: Maybe you have, but you need to find citations and prove generic usage. You may have just heard everyday talk of a trademark like "let's get another of those Babybels, they are good on crackers". Equinox ◑ 02:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Discussion moved here from Talk:adventurus.)

Couldn't find this word used at all, Searched PHI and . Theoretically it could be the future active participle of adveniō, though I was unable to find it used that way. The word you are looking for is likely either periculi (trials or perils), iter (journey), or cursus (travels/race). I believe it would be best if we removed the noun form from this definition.

Kiwiroo (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Edit: Adding in a search through the dictionaries I have on hand:

Cassell's Latin Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found

The New College Latin & English Dictionary (→ISBN) Not Found

Kiwiroo (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In addition this supposed noun is in the wrong gender; it should rather be adventūra, which is in fact attested as a borrowing from one or more Romance descendants of Vulgar Latin *adventūra.

I would imagine that the assumption of an *adventūrus resulted from a misinterpretation of the etymology of the English adventure, that is, 'from Latin adventurus' could be read as implying the existence of such a noun in Latin.

It appears that @TheMouseAvenger, who added the noun, has been inactive since 2018. Nicodene (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

French. PUC – 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be in RFD for being SOP? MedK1 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which definition of cheval means "foolish"? DCDuring (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Catalan. Created by Wonderfool several years ago. Not in any dictionary. This is definitely a possible internationalism but if so we need attestations. Benwing2 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I searched through all the catalan diccionaries that are listed in the catalan reference templates, and they only attest "intersecar"; the only hit I got was this in Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (Ctrl+F "intersec" - four hits). If it exists it was probably modeled after the noun, like the English and Portuguese equivalents. I think it's safe to delete, I'll even create the proper one under intersecar. Sérgio Santos (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(colloquial) to own; to defeat; to overwhelm". Tagged by MedK1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "(derogatory) upstart; nouveau riche" and the corresponding adjective. Tagged by Sarilho1 but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aromanian. Tagged by Super Dromaeosaurus (talk • contribs) ("I have not been able to find proof of this being the Aromanian name for the city, it might be original research or a hoax") but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Tagged by an IP in 2022. I can't find it, but even if I could it would be SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spanish, was removed out of process. Jberkel 19:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging creator @Apisite for input. Ultimateria (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jberkel, Ultimateria: At least there's secutar per the R:es:DRAE reference template. --Apisite (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

With a different meaning, though… Jberkel 23:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. For dat. sg. "Pammenē", acc. "Pammenēn", abl. "Pammenē". --11:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For quotations using this term, see Citations:Pammenes. 0DF (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uses of translingual Pammene (“tortrix moth”) swamp the results of google books:Pammene. I feel disinclined to wade through them to find any datives or ablatives of the name. They're going to be just as difficult to verify as the ablative Pammene and vocative Pammenē. 0DF (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, the single result for Pammenen is post-Classical, New Latin. If there's nothing in ancient Latin (Old, Classical, Late Latin), this should be marked in the entry. And while abl. Pammenē might then be based on analogy (e.g. sophistēs), this doesn't apply to dat. Pammenē. --00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve changed the RFV text to “We only have citations (see Citations:Pammenes) for the genitives (Pammenī, Pammenis) and accusatives (Pammenem, Pammenēn) right now. What about the nominative, datives, ablative, and vocatives?” 0DF (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not an isolated example, there are analogous complications in the declension of Alcibiadēs, Thūcȳdidēs, Herculēs, Achillēs, etc. These can generally be analyzed as third-declension nouns with some anomalous forms (including potentially the genitive singular). I've adjusted the table to remove dat. sg. "Pammenē"; the length of the vowel in the ablative does not seem determinable from the current citations.--Urszag (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag: Thank you for citing the nominative and ablative. Re removing the Greek-derived dative, I would say that the Greek-derived dative Hercule͡i (of the Latin Herculēs) is just such an example of a borrowed dative that analogously supports a dative *Pammenē (even if the orthography is different). If *Pammenī can't be attested, then IMO either both datives should be given (asterisked) or neither dative should be given. 0DF (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As the note on that page mentions, the spelling "Herculei" probably corresponded to a pronunciation that ended with the vowel /iː/, like a normal Latin third-declension dative singular form. We could compare "Orphei" = Greek Ὀρφεῖ as a dative singular of "Orpheus" (Verg. ecl. 4, "Orphei Calliopea"). From a Latin-internal standpoint, I think the use of "-ei" to represent /iː/ in forms like "Herculei" can be interpreted either as the archaic digraph spelling (also seen sometimes in nominative plural or dative/ablative plural forms) or as a case where "e" is slurred over by "synizesis" with the following vowel letter i, with the latter representing a long /iː/ sound (compare the use in poetry of Pēleō, Nēreō as disyllables, or of the native Latin words aureō, aureīs, ferreī). Whichever explanation applies, the irregularity would be a matter of spelling or of the form of the stem, rather than the use of an irregular terminal vowel for this case/number category. I don't think Pammenē, with long /eː/, is a likely form, as /eː/ is not normally found at the end of Latin dative singular nouns. It's conceivable that Pammenī might have an alternative spelling Pammenei (pronounced the same way) as a Graecizing variant, but I don't think we should go out of our way to present such irregular spellings, when similar names such as Alcibiades are attested in Classical Latin with the dative spelled as Alcibiadi.--Urszag (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cited the dative "Pammeni" and added it to the citations page. The only still-uncited forms are the vocatives. It isn't that uncommon for this rare case form to happen to be unattested in Latin, and we don't in general require every case form of a Latin noun to be attested. So unless anyone thinks we need to hunt out for those or remove them, I'm marking this as RFV-resolved.--Urszag (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag: I'll agree with that. Excellent work! Given the vocatives are unattested, should we give them as Pammenē and Pammenē̆s, do you think? And do you want them asterisked or not? I also wonder whether an accusative Pammenē and genitive Pammenūs exist (following the third-declension Greek forms). 0DF (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: a female screw. I looked through the links at the bottom of the entry and found a few Latin texts with this word, but I couldnt find anything in which any sense other than the literal ones would be the most natural interpretation. Im skeptical that there is a sexual meaning that would be used three times in Latin in order to pass through RFV. One-off sexual innuendos might be there, but that's not CFI-compliant. It's also possible that the originating author misread something, or was copying from a source who had, and that the word actually means a literal female screw (search hardware sites etc), but Im not sure Roman carpenters even had screws, let alone the less common female form. —Soap— 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Number of citations: "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate . For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate ".

Latin is not a WT:WDL. Regardless of considering it extinct (which Early, Old, Classical, Late, Medieval and Vulgar Latin are) or alive (New Latin; Church Latin), 1 source is sufficient.

But feel free, to consider using {{lb|la|rare}} or {{LDL-sense}} (cp. {{LDL}}).

As for a source, L&S has: "The female screw, Plin. 18, 31, 74, § 317.". Georges, which is younger and often better than L&S, has: "b) rugae, der Schraubengang, die Schraubenmutter (griech. περικόχλιον), Plin. 18, 317." (i.e. in plural). Gaffiot translates it as écrou.

You're welcome. --08:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Latin. --10:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to make this request. We have sēdēs listed as an i-stem, and so the genitive plural is given as sēdium. However, my textbook claims this word to be a consonantal-stem of the 3rd declension, which would have a genitive plural sēdum. German Wiktionary lists the non-i form instead; Latin Wiktionary actually lists both (and notable doesn't include the accusative plural variant sēdīs which we list). If this is indeed a case where variation occurs, we should probably include note of that and in what contexts/language stages this is the case. Could someone please verify? Helrasincke (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is indeed the right place to request verification of inflected forms of Latin words. It looks like this is discussed by other dictionaries. Lewis and Short says "gen. plur. sedum, Cic. Sest. 20, acc. to Prisc. p. 771 P.: sedium, from form sedis, Liv. 5, 42 Drak. N. cr.; Vell. 2, 109, 3)". The doctoral thesis Aspects of the Phonology and Morphology of Classical Latin, by András Cser (2016) suggests that consonant-stem inflection would be expected overall, saying that third-declension words with the nominative singular ending -ēs "do not show other i-stem forms apart from GENPLUR nubium and cladium (the latter varying with consonant-stem cladum; no GENPLUR forms attested for fames at all). In Latin historical linguistics -ēs is known as a typical feminine i-stem ending for the NOMSING originally" (page 126). I'll take a look for what other attestations might be found.--Urszag (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. It's essentially synonymous with carmen, and so it seems suspicious that it has the same nominative/accusative plural form carmina. Is it a medieval/Late Latin backformation, or a backformation in the mind of a modern editor? No other dictionary I have seen lists it. Urszag (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised this has lasted sixteen years. It is without a doubt the result of an editor's unfamiliarity with the language. There's of course nothing like this in any Latin dictionary, and searching forms like carminum brings up sentences where that is clearly genitive plural (=carmen); carminō doesn't bring up any sort of dative or ablative singular (only the verb carminō); etc. Nicodene (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been edited now with an example of "carminorum"; I also saw some other examples of that form. The question though is whether this actually implies a second-declension singular "carminum, carmini", or if it is best interpreted as a heteroclitic form (like vāsōrum and various post-classical genitive plurals in -ōrum).--Urszag (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am relieved that there is nothing in the Catalogue of Life that uses this. DCDuring (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. Rfv-sense: "shaped like that of a crow or raven". Seems like a weird definition and Wiktionnaire doesn't have it. I added "corvine" and made the previous definition a gloss. If it's citable, it may simple mean "related to crows or ravens". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The adjectival sense is noted in the GD "2. Corbin, adj., de corbeau : Le genre corbin." (Corbin, adj. 'of crows': the crow genus). However, when I looked at the referenced work L'Histoire de la nature des oyseaux (book 6, chapter 5), the original phrase is actually "C'est la plus petite de toute les especes du genre Corbin" (It's the smallest of all species in the genus Corbin), which doesn't support the adjectival sense. I would suggest removing it. Io Katai (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Tagged by Nicodene with reason "Is this actually attested in the sense that underlies the Romance outcomes?" This, that and the other (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The burden of proof is on the entry's maker, namely @LatinGuy87.

- Nicodene (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Galician. Rfv-sense: "where, whereby". The quote from 1264 was moved to Old Galician-Portuguese.

Tagged by MedK1 but not listed - please remember to list your RFVs as soon as you tag them!! This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Previous discussions archived at "Talk:E=mc²" established that only the following idiomatic sense should be kept in English: "A formulation or realization that captures a profound thought in simple terms." Is there are corresponding idiomatic sense in French? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The French version of the page cites two examples where it's used in the idiomatic sense of "simple, yet genius principle". There was also an RfD requested in 2013 on the French Wiktionary, but it was kept due to the idiomatic usage. That said, searching Google for idiomatic instances of "le E=MC2 du/de" or "le E=mc² de/du" turns up maybe only 22 unique results and of possessive forms like "Mon/son/etc. E=MC2" gives 3 or 4 results.

You could say it fails WT:ATTEST as it doesn't have widespread usage and you'll be hard-pressed to find enough citations from durably archived media. Io Katai (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 23:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Haitian Creole. I suspect this isn't actually spelled with parentheses; rather, it can be spelled either plan pye or pla pye. If so, we should move the content to the more common spelling and have the other be an alternative form. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Created by an Australian IP who has no clue what they are doing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This entry seems unattested, see Hesperus where the latter is in no way adjectival according to Charlton T. Lewis and other sources. Adjectival forms formed from the stem are either Hesperius or Hesperis, both in all caps.

Responding to the above request (not sure how to do this - I'm not a regular contributor): I can't speak to whether "hesperus" was used as an adjective in classical or ecclesiastical Latin, but it is used as an adjective in botanical Latin. For example, there is a plant species whose name is Parietaria hespera.

There are about 330 names of accepted non-extinct species at Catalogue of Life with forms of hesperus as (sub)specific epithet. About 50% more with names that are unaccepted or for extinct species. I'm guessing that the meaning is usually "western" for these. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about that ! But the real issue is the entry not being referenced as being of New-Latin usage and also being used in etymology headings (english Hesperus) when it's derivatives are uppercase-only and seems itself to be.

I've noticed the same thing with Camena/camena which shows perhaps a common problem on wiktionary about not uppercasing latin entries that should in fact be upercassed. I'll check on that and do the changes accordingly concerning the Hesperus paradigms. Though I'd rather leave hesperus to someone else as I usually don't deal with new latin stuff. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

For most such terms we have entries for both upper- and lower-case forms. The lowercase form is usually attestable as New Latin or "Translingual" in the names of species. We haven't spent too much time on the matter because there is neither much interest nor consensus among contributors. In the case of hesperus, it is easy to attest to its wide and continued use in scientific Latin with the meaning "western". I am not sure about other meanings, nor about use in other vintages of Latin, though "Italian" might be in use or have been used in Ecclesiastical Latin. I don't understand the implications of or evidence attesting the "relational" definition "evening", specifically why it differs in semantics or syntax from attributive use of a noun in English. Is it just that the term is inflected by gender? Or is it just a tradition among Latin scholars or certain Latin scholars? DCDuring (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you meant. I'm sorry to ask but do you know how latin adjectives work? Hesperus is strictly a masculine noun and new latin hesperus (apparently) only an adjective. A proper (as not New Latin) latin adjectival form of Hesperus would be Hesperius, suffixed with -ius and thus inflected in gender, case and number according to what it qualifies. But again I probably misunderstood what you wrote. I do think the entry should be cleared up and added a new latin lb tag to avoid confusion and for correctness' sake. Tim Utikal (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd be surprised to find that it was hesperius rather tahn hesperus in all Latins, eg, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin. In any event, resolution requires citations.

BTW, how do you think we should present the etymology of the 107 accepted genera of extant organisms? Are they likely derived from Hesperus (Latin), hesperus (Latin or Translingual), or hesper- (Translingual)? All three seem like possibilities. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite ignorant regarding new latin word-creation so I don't have anything to compare this exemple to. Each way you propose seem likely, though I maintain lowercase+adjective hesperus is quite aberrant and can't find any quote supporting it. It may just be a rethinking of the word from some scientist who didn't know his latin well enough (hardly credible) or may be a common thing to create new latin specific adjectives from former noun stems (it's for you to tell me if you know better). Either way hesperus is not incorrect if used in scientific context, just a completely different word which again should not be confused for the other and given its new latin/translingual tag. Tim Utikal (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. Rfv-sense: asteroid. Einstein2 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Romanian. Almost certainly does not exist in the meaning given (‘remote control’, as in the device). Google Image Search shows nothing of the sort and the dictionaries make no mention of such expression. If anything, it means ‘control from afar’, which is unidiomatic. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mirandese.

Mirandese Wikipedia has this at Ourganizaçon de las Naciones Ounidas, and I can't find much of anything at this spelling- but there's not a lot out there. Pinging @Ultimateria, who knows more about this language than I do. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I don't remember which sources I used to use for Mirandese but I can't find them anymore. Attesting anything in this language will be difficult. Ultimateria (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In some articles (Nuoba Iorque, Die Anternacional de la Lhéngua Mai, Burro de Miranda) the Mirandese Wikipedia spells this Naçones Ounidas.  --Lambiam 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: nonsense, bullshit. Every dictionary I've checked only seems to list the mouse droppings sense. Weylaway (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rudi Laschenkohl Can you verify this sense? Weylaway (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Tagged but not listed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I view this exactly as another eye-dialect–spelling for Caipira "vermelho". Less common than "vermeio", but it shows some social media results, for what that's worth. Polomo47 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: "worrier". Ultimateria (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. PUC – 09:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

--20:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• cisgenus n in cisgender
• non binarium n in non-binary
• transgener in transgender
• transvestitus m, transvestitor m, transvestitrix f, transvestitrum n in cross-dresser

--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• lingua Arpitanica f, arpitanica f in Franco-Provençal
• Latin translations of langue d'oïl, Astur-Leonese, Aragonese, Extremaduran, Mirandese, Galician, Piedmontese, French, Valencian, Catalan, Portuguese

--09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

--05:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Latin.

All descendants point towards scloppus, which was once the spelling we used. The sole cite that I can find points to this site which actually has seloppo. This could be a scan error, but it's more likely a scan error for scloppo than for stloppo. (The suffix is because it's in the ablative case, i think.) And the onset stl- is only found in Old Latin anyway. Basically looking to see why we're insisting on using a spelling that seems to rest on so many unproven assumptions. There may be infomation here in the page history and here too. but i couldnt find the reasoning for this. @Nicodene if youre around sorry to bother but you seem the best person to ask. Thanks, —Soap— 21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Soap: I was not aware that the form scloppus may actually be attested. I'll have to look into that. As for stloppus, it is attested in Persius and Marcellus Empiricus. As an onomatopoeic formation it may postdate the earlier /stl-/ > /l-/ seen in locus, etc.

The descendants are are in any case consistent with both forms. For /kl/ < /tl/, cf. capiclum, viclus < capit(u)lum, vit(u)lus (both examples from the Appendix Probi) and siclus < sit(u)lus. Nicodene (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

but isnt that supposed attestation the same text i just linked to? i dont know the source material we're working with here ... parchment, stone tablets, or maybe even modern paper? ... but it seems to me that the people saying stloppus might've been looking at a single instance of a word, a hapax even, where the second letter was difficult to read. i'd be more convinced of the unusual -t- spelling if the Perseus text i linked to had it, but it has a spelling that suggests the word form was *seloppus. this could be a misreading ,but as i said above it seems more likely that it'd be a misreading for scloppus, which uses the traditional L onset cluster that all the descendants point to. is there a text we can look at that shows the -t- spelling, as opposed to a scholar who merely says that it's there? thanks, —Soap— 09:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's just a website- there was probably a scanning error somewhere along the way. And that is only one of the two attestations mentioned.

The texts are parchment copies of copies of copies reaching back across millennia to the Roman originals. Having delved down that rabbit-hole before, I am not eager to repeat the experience without a more compelling reason. I'll settle for finding more comments by reliable sources. Nicodene (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene This text has some discussion of the matter in the footnote, which spills onto the following page. This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was just about to cite Jahn. As you can see from the critical apparatus, forms starting with stlo- such as stlopo do occur in some manuscripts, and as Nicodene said stl- turned regularly into /skl/. Jahn says Priscian cites this word as an example of a word starting with stl.--Urszag (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attested as a whole word? Or is this assumed based on Old Latin ceip-? — 2600:4808:9C31:F400:78F8:25D1:580F:9F12 21:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

L&S: "cippus (cīpus), i, m.".

But it's without source, and not in Georges, Gaffiot, just L and DMLBS at .

(old) mentions a source: "cippus, auch cipus geschrieben z. B. Gram. lat. IV p. 574, 7 u. Var. bei Hor. sat. 1, 8, 12". Horatius' text can be found at . This old ed. (1520) has it with cipus. (1864) gives cipus as varia lectio. So both can be mentioned in the entry:

• occuring in quite old eds. (which, of course, can be of lower quality)
• appearing in some old manuscript and being a varia lectio (likely of lesser quality/accuracy/etc.)

--10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Latin. --2003:DE:3717:71AC:A1D3:7211:AD2D:387E 06:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move to illei per source. Not problematic for Romance derivatives, due to the regular change of /ae/ > /ɛ/. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. Tagged but not listed. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Domus is currently listed with three possible dative singular forms: domuī, domō, domū. The first two are attestable, but is the third? It seems most grammars of Latin don't list it. Hypothetically, it might be possible, given what Gellius says about Caesar's argument based on analogy for using -ū rather than -uī in the dative singular of all fourth-declension words: "C. etiam Caesar, gravis auctor linguae Latinae, in Anticatone, “unius,” inquit, “arrogantiae, superbiae dominatuque.” Item In Dolabellam actionis I. lib. I.: “Isti, quorum in aedibus fanisque posita et honori 9erant et ornatu.” In libris quoque analogicis omnia istiusmodi sine “i” littera dicenda censet." But it's not clear to me how far Caesar's prescriptions were ever put into practice (even by himself). Anyway, if "domu" is unattested in this use it seems better to omit it, so as to avoid confusing learners about the declension of an already tricky noun.--Urszag (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Georges: "Dat. archaist. domo (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 6463. Cato r.r. 134, 2. Hor. ep. 1, 10, 13) u. domu (Corp. inscr. Lat. 3, 231 u. 5, 1220), klass. domui:" with reference to Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum (see e.g. ). --05:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Latin. --21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Italian. Imetsia (talk (more)) 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. PUC – 17:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• autres pays, autres coutumes would be expected here Phacromallus (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The latter is easily attested, as is autre pays, autres coutumes.  --Lambiam 12:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  We do have an entry for autre pays, autres mœurs (and of course autres temps, autres mœurs).  --Lambiam 17:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spanish. Listing seven subsenses seems excessive without any supporting quotes. Einstein2 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

French, uncountable noun. Jberkel 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

French doesn't really have uncountable nouns. Nothing in GBooks but there are examples on the wider web. Moreover, haschich has a plural given. I'm inclined to keep. This, that and the other (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Claimed to be youngster's slang. - Sarilho1 (talk)

Latin. This is a bit of an unconventional RFV, as there is a quotation, but I would argue that it does not warrant inclusion: the quotation is Varro giving this form as an example of a word that theoretically could exist, but actually doesn't. I wanted to check if anyone over the centuries has ever actually used this word. Per CFI, Latin entries must be attested be either "one use in a contemporaneous source" or "one mention ... subject to the below requirements: the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention, each entry should have its source(s) listed on the entry or citation page, and a box explaining that a low number of citations were used should be included on the entry page (such as by using the LDL template". Does the community of Latin editors agree that mention of a form by Varro as a nonexistent word is an appropriate basis for a Latin Wiktionary entry? Or maybe the entry should be retained, since it appears in some dictionaries, but rather than "hapax" the label could be changed to something indicating it has 0 actual usage examples? I'm not sure whether either "ghost word" or "protologism" quite fit.--Urszag (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree that the current quotation doesn't count, because it's a mention. Theknightwho (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mentions in texts old enough count, but this one does not because it is mentioned as a not attested word; Varro would have starred the word, weren’t it that the star of hypothetical words only developed in the later 19th century CE. Fay Freak (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete, no point keeping a word only attested once as an intentional non-word. (Yes I know this is RFV, but it's an exceptional case.) This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gaffiot and Georges have this word. Why not include, as it's in an ancient source (and part of a limited corpus), but mark as non-word? --01:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other The term may be attested in the following texts: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Graearms (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point, we can keep it as a Medieval term, perhaps with a usage note to clarify its Classical (non-)attestation. This, that and the other (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, those are helpful examples to add to the entry.--Urszag (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Urszag, @This, that and the other I have updated the page accordingly. Graearms (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese.

Seems "emirato" is in Priberam, and "Emiratos Árabes Unidos" inInfopédia. Although, the Portuguese Wikipedia page says the name is used "wrongly" because it isn't in VOLP... doesn't seem like a misspelling, but maybe proscribed? Polomo47 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Lewis and Short says "public talker of nonsense, a comically formed name, Plaut. Pers. 4, 6, 21 (703) Ritschl N. cr." This blog post suggests the form is "possibly completely conjectural". If it is a conjecture, we should at least give some context of who proposed it and why.--Urszag (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WT:FICTION? Cp. Talk:Pyrgopolynices#Deletion discussion. (Though Callidamates, Misargyrides, Philolaches and maybe others exist as well.) --22:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of Plautus's character names make it as taxa, but the Catalogue of Life doesn't have this one. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in November 2022 but not listed. I think it's attestable, given Google readily shows many articles correcting the misspelling. Polomo47 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Seemlingly a hypercorrected protologism for actual partugallu. Sicilian dd corresponds to Italian ll in inherited words, though it is not the case for recent loans such as this one. (The word first surfaced in Italian itself in the late 18th century.) Catonif (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. See Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#English_vice (which will eventually be archived to Talk:English vice): as in that case, the question is whether these terms are used idiomatically, or only in descriptive "homosexuality is the English vice", "Boris Yeltsin is the Russian president" type ways (which notably do not make Russian president a term meaning "Boris Yeltsin") - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Tagged by Sarilho1 in May 2023 but not listed. Polomo47 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this really necessary? . Theknightwho (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm just listing it for bookkeeping. As for whether it really should be added... it's indeed a surname, yeah, but do people other than the musician really have it?

It seems a lot of other languages do list Mozart — even though, for some entries, the only sense listed is the musician (I don't think that's allowed?) — so I guess it probably makes sense to have it in Portuguese too. Polomo47 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think for names of famous people, it makes sense to have entries in multiple languages even if the last name isn't actually used by native speakers of that language, simply because the pronunciations will vary from language to language. It's not always predictable. For instance, the English pronunciation of "Einstein" is typically /ˈaɪnstaɪn/, but in French its more commonly /ˈaɪnʃtaɪn/. In more inflected languages, these names can also have additional forms that are not found in the source language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: "genitive plural of pus". I suspect this noun actually isn't used in the plural, at least not in Classical Latin.--Urszag (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled, because slight similarities it has with Sicilian which lead to an italianized writing system. The actual form is de-sonorized: cuntatinu". Ultimateria (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Rationale: "This entry is mispelled. The initial ⟨i-⟩ is always a semiconsonant ⟨j-⟩." Ultimateria (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese.

google:"Senhore"&"Sr.e" show it's used. For example, here and here. The ordinal indicator ᵉ is used here and here for Srᵉ. Web-julio (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

L&S has "Note: 1. Act. form tŭĕo, ēre: censores vectigalia tuento, Cic. Leg. 3, 3, 7: ROGO PER SVPEROS, QVI ESTIS, OSSA MEA TVEATIS, Inscr. Orell. 4788." This, that and the other (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. It looks like Priscian mentions this form, but are there examples of it actually being used?--Urszag (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rationale: "The term is a protologism. None of the linked references attest the word (the first two go nowhere; in the second one, orthodoxissimus doesn't actually appear)". Ultimateria (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This stuff should be immediately deleted. The user produces crap entries based on 'AI', see Wikipedia.

Based on lack of response, @Jeaucques Quœure should be immediately blocked. Exarchus (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Quote from the Wikipedia thread: "The fact that JQ is ignoring this discussion makes it even more outrageous. They need to be blocked to prevent further disruption." Exarchus (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found a bunch of uses of "orthodoxissimus", but I've just had too much going on to find them again and verify them. But I plan to do so, so please ping me before closing this discussion. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are now cited (only one cite for catholicior, however, and I can't recall if Latin's an LDL). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed.--Urszag (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same. @Jeaucques Quœure. --07:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: "to put on a baby's nappy/diaper". Tagged, but not listed by User:Whitekiko.

Sicilian. Ultimateria (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Just Translingual? Ultimateria (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Asturian. Ultimateria (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDI.

This word is fake, I haven't found it in any dictionary, or elsewhere on the internet, nor I've heard of it irl. Fueyo221 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Post to WT:RFVI. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All dubious entries by one IP that had been tagged for deletion. Ultimateria (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cites sent to me by Trooper57:

Corea

• (1813) https://www.google.com.br/books/edition/Escola_nova_Christ%C3%A3_e_politica/8hEUAAAAIAAJ?hl=pt-BR&gbpv=1&dq=Escolla+Nova+Christ%C3%A3+e+Politica&pg=PA218&printsec=frontcover

Koreia

• (1904) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=761788&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20190&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=9
• (2005) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=028274_05&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20200&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=94819

Koréia

• (1994) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=030015_11&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20199&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=145940
• (2015) https://memoria.bn.gov.br/DocReader/DocReader.aspx?bib=898678&pesq=Kor%C3%A9ia&pasta=ano%20201&hf=memoria.bn.gov.br&pagfis=13570

Polomo47 (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

Portuguese. Tagged for RFD by MedK1 a year ago but not listed. Etymological h’s were removed at the same time accent marks (like ê) were added. Polomo47 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe keep, as it's a somewhat common misspelling in mistranslations. Davi6596 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just remembered this spelling is actually valid as prescribed by the 1931 Orthographic Agreement. Will change categorization accordingly.

For now, though, I'd like to see this misspelling in CFI-compliant quotations (which may be found in 1931-orthography texts). I think such modern "mistranslations" are never used in actual prose, and definitely not by anyone with a hint of knowledge of the language. Polomo47 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Unusual (i.e., rare or nonstandard) use of diacritics pre-reform. Should be hard to find in 3 independent sources. Polomo47 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found it as a misspelling. Davi6596 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this was the normal spelling for a bunch of 1600s official documents... Probably worth keeping as obsolete, then. Let's see. Polomo47 (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, this is actually pretty noteworthy. Now that I’ve read more 16–1700s texts, I’ve indeed noticed that many of them use ⟨`⟩ instead of ⟨´⟩ and, for that matter, the sequence ⟨aõ⟩ instead of ⟨ão⟩ (this one lasted up to the mid 1800s). Though it’s kind of a clutter, I think we should make entries for these, yeah... Maybe the grave vs. acute could be reasoned... @Trooper57, MedK1 (god, do I love pinging!) Polomo47 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I expect Achilles instead of this, because that would be the proper etymological spelling. Polomo47 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cited Achiles (and this suffices for calcanhar de Achiles) Polomo47 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Auassú can be cited. Auaçú cannot. Polomo47 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Not a differential accent, so what is it? Polomo47 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Could not find 1930s sites in memoria.bn.gov.br, not any cites in bndigital.bnportugal.gov.pt. For that matter, aplicativo is just as rare in the former, within the same time period. Polomo47 (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. There already is ningit and the references for 'ningo' either point to 'ningit' (Lewis and Short) or simply don't give 'ningo' (Gaffiot). So should those 1sg. quotation forms exist at all when they at most occur in some dictionaries? Exarchus (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed 'ningo' to 'alternative form of ningit' and removed the Gaffiot reference, but there's still the question whether these pages should exist at all, given that ningit is given as 'impersonal verb'. There apparently exists a page for pluo, saying this verb takes a subject, but is this attested for "to snow"? Exarchus (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am of the view that this is the situation where a hard redirect could be used, as it's very plausible for someone to read "ningit" in a text and think that they should look it up under "ningo". This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then you're hoping no other language will show up having 'ningo' or 'ninguo'. Li Niha has 'ningo' redirecting to 'ingo', apparently 'ningo' is a mutated case marking form. Exarchus (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had to deal with this situation at consum. This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

êle and elle were indeed used. ; . I know a source mentioning "êlle", however I tried to access and it's gone. LIrala (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, êle was widely used between 1911–1945 or 1943–1971, while elle was used prior to 1911 or 1943. Accented spellings like êlle would've been a rarer form that I'm working on deleting via this RfM. Would appreciate your input there, by the way. Also here, another RfM for which your input would be good. Polomo47 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This post mentions it, but the cited links don't work. LIrala (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed neither of those counts for attestation. That second article also makes me want to end humanity. Polomo47 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Added by @MedK1. Polomo47 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. This is a word that should be relatively modern, but it's spelled in a very strange way. I'd expect multirracialismo and multi-racialismo, but not this. Can this be attested? Polomo47 (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

move to multirracialismo or multirracialidade. LIrala (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I call misspelling. Google Books has a few attestations in African Portuguese-speaking countries, in a time when they followed the Orthographic Agreement of 1945, which of course did not spell the word like this. Polomo47 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "beef (meat)". Polomo47 (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Galician. Tagged by @Trooper57 but not listed. Polomo47 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JnpoJuwan explain-se! Polomo47 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

some people do use, not sure what do I have to explain. Juwan (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Romanian ghost word, only known from the 1825 Lexicon of Buda (page 725) and only featured in the most comprehensive and academic of later Romanian dictionaries. I have been unable to uncover any other uses.

Note that I am not in support of a strict three-attestation rule for terms featured in professional dictionaries as long as they are understood to be genuine regionalisms sourced from works of dialectology; my sympathy does not extend to inkhorn terms. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

French. Converted from speedy request. – Svārtava (tɕ) 08:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spanish. Rfv-sense: noun, 'vacant lot'. Are we positive this is a noun and not an adjective? MedK1 (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Some of many inadequate semi-automations by @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. chímico was already deleted out-of-process by @LPedroMachado.

It definitely isn't a misspelling. This doesn't look like a real pre-reform spelling because it has this weird accent; thus, I'm RFVing for a potential sense of "pre-reform spelling". For this purpose, attestations of the lemma chímico suffice. Polomo47 (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: "vampire". Has been here for 20 years (diff), not sure what creature they're referring to, or where they got it from. Catonif (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to various books, William of Newburgh's Historia Rerum Anglicarum uses sanguisuga in reporting on four vampire-like beings: one was the ghost of a man, who some could see and some could not, who returned from his grave to attack his wife and town in Buckinghamshire ("the firsthand account of it from Archdeacon Stephen of Buckinghamshire"), another was the ghost of a wealthy man who died at Berwick-on-Tweed and "had an odour of decomposition which affected the air and caused plague"; two other sanguisugae are reported "in the north of the country". Some books imply that Walter Map's 1193 De Nugis Curialium may also use the word when relating the story of a sort of demon who tried to bleed people. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

(I added a cite of Newburgh.) Passed? if there are not objections... - -sche (discuss) 08:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spanish. I suspect this is just a rare misspelling that doesn't belong. Benwing2 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-senses: stick, penis and use as an adjective

I personally have never heard or read this word with any of this senses, only 3 and 4 (orgy and chaos). I wasn't able to attest them, either. Trooper57 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Found a 1899 use of suruba as an adjective: "É suruba o cabra!". RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. If it existed, it was not used in the provided time period, per the text in the 1911 and 1943 reforms. Polomo47 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it existed, would it be archaism? LIrala (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite understand the question: if it existed, I would mark it as {{lb|pt|rare}} {{pt-pre-reform|br=43|pt=11}}.

But given how pela is considered unstressed, and how Portugal frequently omits the e in pronunciation entirely, I find it unlikely. This is why I nominated the word for RfV. Polomo47 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Isn't this Old Galician-Portuguese? Current quotation is from the 14th century, and thus OGP. Polomo47 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term is from OGP and is practically unused in modern-day Portuguese (we should defo make the OGP entry). But it still shows up in plenty of fixed expressions, linked at the bottom. So we can't just delete the page. Or can we? MedK1 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if we could actually have the entries to begin with. Regardless, I think we cannot keep the definition as it is if the word cannot be attested outside of the expression — we’d need to change it to “Only used in...” Polomo47 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Retracted Changed to RFV-sense, actually. Polomo47 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spanish. Added by User:Type56op9 (aka User:Wonderfool) in 2015. Likely misspelling of sénior. Benwing2 (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Spanish Wiktionary, it is an antiquated (possibly meaning outdated or obsolete, I'm not exactly sure, but regardless existent) courtesy vocative:

Singular senior / Plural seniors

1. Vocativo de cortesía que se antepone al nombre, apellido o tratamiento de una persona.
   • Uso: anticuado
   • Sinónimo: señor.

Translation:

Singular senior / Plural seniors

1. Courtesy vocative that is placed before a person's name, surname or title
   • Usage: antiquated
   • Synonym: señor

Since I'm not sure about the exact extent that anticuado implies here, I have marked it as "dated or obsolete", since some I have seen some entries labeled as such

~ JGHFunRun (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Seems to have use spelled separately, as guard rail, and it’s that spelling that’s listed at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Does the hyphenated spelling also occur? Polomo47 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. The term exists on Priberam and Dicio but both of them mark it as OGP.

I couldn't attest it anywhere. Not in modern Portuguese, not in OGP either. MedK1 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Managed to find mentions of it in Ciberdúvidas, in the Corpus do Português and in some very old books. I'll be improving the page according to these findings. MedK1 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

In occurs in Auto da Barca do Inferno, a Gil Vicente book that almost every Portuguese student reads. Changed obsolete to archaic due to that. - Sarilho1 (talk) Sarilho1 (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Tagged en masse by @Sarilho1 in March 2023 but not listed. One of the few worthwhile tags of the bunch. Polomo47 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Usually seen as interrobangue. Polomo47 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

A kind IP just created the entry interrobangue, and I went to edit it thinking I would find easy citations. I actually did not! So I’m RFVing this. It’s a complicated deal, because if someone wants to use a word for the topic, it’s got to be this one... it’s just an unusual topic, and Ciberdúvidas (plus Wikipédia) are, like, the only websites that mention the word.. Polomo47 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Polomo47 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I expect n'aquelle, naquelle. Polomo47 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I think this is a poetic form spelled of'recer. Polomo47 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about this one. Though there are many hits for it online, none of them point towards it being an archaic form. I'm actually thinking whoever wrote it as "archaic" meant to say "obsolete" since 'archaic' spellings are by and large etymological/hellenic. You'd expect offerecer.

Most instances for ofrecer are in otherwise already badly-spelled texts or from messages on social media like Reddit by non-native speakers. Maybe it could still be a dialectal form? I haven't been able to confirm that for sure.

The form doesn't exist in OGP (per our references) and doesn't show up in Pero Vaz de Caminha's letter either (only words beginning in of- are what we'd now write as oficiar); so it really doesn't appear to be "obsolete" either. MedK1 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Is there a word ampola with the o pronounced /ɔ/? Polomo47 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

eye dialect? LIrala (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see it. This RfV is for the word as a spelling with a differential accent (i.e., in use between 1911 and 1971). I believe the word may have been a misspelling in that period, but as a misspelling it would go to RfD instead, and I'd of course vote delete (useless to keep old misspellings). Polomo47 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It reminds of Angola, which is pronounced Angóla in Brazil. LIrala (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Marked for speedy deletion by Saumache, who said "the word is repetundae (in the plural), short for pecuniae repetundae". However, Sallust appears to have used this form. I haven't gone looking for a translation. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The passage of Sallust you are refering to uses a variant of repetendus in /u/ (see labundus besides labendus, and the same used in pecuniae repetundae), the passive futur participle of peto in the ablative singular feminine (with libertate).

Sallust: " dum vos metu gravioris serviti a repetunda libertate terremini."

my translation: as you are detered in the prospect of reclaiming your liberty, scared by the advent of even greater servitude.

We could create the page repetundus, I'll try and find some more uses of it besides Sallust and (pecuniae) repetundae.Saumache (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added the page and put a few other examples I found. Usage other than in combination with pecuniis or pecuniarum seems negligible.--Urszag (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Another word listed as OGP in dictionaries. It seems modern texts all use frangão, though it's unclear whether they mean this or frangão. VOLP nevertheless includes the word. Polomo47 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. Rfv-sense 2: "eggcorn". PUC – 11:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Created by User:Masonthelime, who has been known to make up entries in the past. It's in Lewis and Short but not in Gaffiot, which makes me very suspicious that it's a mistake. To make things worse, User:Masonthelime added a bizarre perfect tense autumnēsit that almost certainly is complete garbage, and forgot the long vowel in -ēsc- in the verb conjugation, which propagated out to the non-lemma forms he created using the accelerator mechanism. @Urszag. Benwing2 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in Brepols Library of Latin Texts for anything commencing autumne... except autumne itself. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lewis and Short cites Martianus Capella, who is given by some editions as having "autumnascit". Latin is a LDL, so we don't necessarily need more than one citation. The question would be whether Lewis and Short is citing an attested manuscript reading. I think the answer may be "yes": the footnotes in this edition (which gives "autumnescit" in the main page text) suggests that "autumnascit" is an emendation proposed by Grotius. I think it makes sense for us to include both forms, marked as alternative forms (I'm not sure which should be selected as the main form). I'm not sure though; the "-escit" version isn't listed in the critical apparatus of this edition, but is mentioned here.--Urszag (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have added the macron (-ēsc-). If this fails, autumnēscēns (“approaching autumn”) and its forms should also be deleted, but if not, I do not know whether it needs to be verified separately. J3133 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I can find two cites (from the 17- and 1800s) which appear to be of Citations:autumnescens. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The number of works (google books:"autumnescit") which interpret Capella as having autumnescit makes me think it makes sense to mention it, if not by having an entry then at least by mentioning in a usage note in the -a- entry that some people read the word (in Capella) as autumnescit instead. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. Tagged by @197.31.143.99. Binarystep (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I don't even know how you're supposed to attest a surname in another language. Trooper57 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. Trooper57 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. While certainly not a felicitous entry, as the last name of a former Romanian president it is without a doubt sufficiently attested in press. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Surely you would need names of people born within the lusophony? Otherwise, how would the name be, hm, lexicalized?

I’m not sure of the attestation process for names, but this shouldn't be it. Polomo47 (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: Cranefly. Is this legit? None of the dictionaries back it up. MedK1 (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

irregular or not, people use it that way too. LIrala (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MedK1: This one is a bit tricky. Craneflies look a lot like big mosquitos with very long legs (in the UK, they're known as daddy-longlegs), so it may not always be clear without context which is referred to. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

In fact, the word melga is used both to refer to mosquitos and crane flies. There is even the widespread belief that mosquitos and crane flies are the same species, just different sizes. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. RfV-sense Etymology 1: (rare, prescriptive) Alternative form of autópsia.

This is how the definition is now worded after my changes. This is for a prescriptive pronunciation (and therefore spelling) of the word as something like IPA^(key): /ˌaw.tuˈpsi.ɐ/, compare how Ciberdúvidas describes it happening with necrópsia / necropsia.

The problem: this form should be basically unseen in modern times, and prior to the first spelling reforms both forms would've most often been spelled the same.

Audio pronunciations with stress on the /i/ may prove a better source of attestation. Polomo47 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. This doesn't seem legit. I've never heard it and there are no hits on Google with that meaning. Closest we get is a band's name and someone's nickname. MedK1 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. I only found examples of Thyias, Thyiad-.--Urszag (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

In English that spelling is abundantly citable from Google Scholar, which might offer some clues relevant to a search for this term in Latin, eg, Thyia plicata. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: The genus is named after Ancient Greek θυία (thuía). Ancient Greek υ (u) is transliterated in earlier Latin loans as "u", but later loans as "y". Intervocalic Ancient Greek ι (i) could be either a vowel or a semivowel (assuming it has the accent for orthographic reasons), the latter of which could be spelled in Latin as a "j", which might explain the variation in spelling.

That said, the capitalized proper noun is from a different word, probably Ancient Greek θυιάς (thuiás), which L&S defines as "inspired, possessed woman, esp. Bacchante", or perhaps related to Ancient Greek Θυῖα (Thuîa), which L&S defines as "festival of Dionysus at Elis". If I had to guess, I would say that they all come from some word for fragrant smoke or incense, as would the Ancient Greek ξύλον θύινον (xúlon thúinon) in the book of Revelations, which the Latin Vulgate translates as lignum thȳinum. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't advancing Thyia plicata as a taxon. I thought it was just a phrase in what seemed like a non-taxonomic article.

FWIW, taxonomically, Thyia is a subgenus of genus Pedionis of cicadellids and thyia is used as a specific epithet for several insect species. thuia is less used, once related to Thuja. The Catalogue of Life has only one species in the subgenus, Pedionis (Thyia) thyia. There are other more remotely derived taxa, but we have already diverged from the matter at hand. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I've seen -e terminations and -@ as well. Every mention of -x that I've come across was from a non-native though (see the infamous Latinx).

While trying to attest them, "moçx" returned like two hits repeated ad infinitum, and "meninx" returned the English word, singular of meninges. Do these pass CFI? MedK1 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

meninx

1. https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-62025281 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Nneiwgres (2.4 mi), see https://www.locus.ufv.br/bitstream/123456789/30826/1/texto%20completo.pdf
2. https://lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/255346/001163239.pdf?sequence=1
3. https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/lil/article/download/8660785/27348
4. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/opiniao/artigos/meninx-e-histeria-de-genero-8wxtq5yxqluawa4pnemyqb67i/

moçx

1. https://repositorio.ufc.br/bitstream/riufc/46657/1/2019_art_dcantunes.pdf
2. https://tede.ufrrj.br/jspui/bitstream/jspui/4278/2/2017%20-%20Carolina%20Pereira%20Peres.pdf
3. https://portal.uern.br/patu/dlv/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/05/Debora-Caroline-Pereira-Silva.pdf
4. http://www.revistaversalete.ufpr.br/edicoes/vol3-04/26AionRoloff.pdf

LIrala (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can someone fix the template {{-a-o-x}} so these aren't added in Category:English terms suffixed with -x (gender-neutral)? Adding "-a-o-x|pt" doesn't work, neither for Spanish (I think it used to work before). LIrala (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

J3133 LIrala (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@LIrala: Fixed; as stated in the documentation, {{-a-o-x}} takes two parameters (the first for the language section of -x, the second for the category, hence {{-a-o-x|pt|pt}}). I could make it take one parameter for both, but it was implemented this way by @WordyAndNerdy. J3133 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like I jerry-rigged this three years ago to get it to automatically add entries like goddex etc. to Category:English terms suffixed with -x (gender-neutral). There weren't entries for Spanish terms with the -x suffix at the time, so I guess trying to implement functionality for multiple languages wasn't an issue (and was obviously beyond my noodling)? Thanks for fixing this! WordyAndNerdy (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This, along with tsendu, was added by @HeliosX in 2019. Supposedly these mean “hundred” in Aromanian. I've searched far and wide and could not find any word for “hundred” in Aromanian other than sutã.

Paging @Catonif and @Word dewd544 as well. Nicodene (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are not in the three major Aromanian dictionaries that are digitalized at http://www.dixionline.net/ so either it's a very obscure dialectal word or it's made up. Bogdan (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I haven't seen it before to be honest. And I agree with Bogdan about it being either very obscure or fabricated. If it is real, it almost sounds like one of those words it borrowed somehow (maybe indirectly) from Italian cento, like tserclju, and adapted somewhat. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Only listed in one major dictionary, and said to be "seldom used". Couldn't really search in Google Books and I don't know where else to look. Polomo47 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

w:pt:postil. the adjectives google:"póstil" and google:"postílico" seem to be rarer. LIrala (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed that Portuguese Wikipedia page would be useful if it cited any references in Portuguese. No surprises, sadly. Polomo47 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

nvm i just noticed that page was created these days. anyway, it's a (re)cognizable translation, just like quartil and so on. LIrala (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "to haggle". I've never heard it and it seems to only show up in two European dictionaries, so I've marked it with the Portugal label. Can we verify whether or not it's a w:fictitious entry? MedK1 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin neologisms for superhero and antihero. Added by @TheWikipedian1250. Theknightwho (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. For the Hebrew letter qoph. The Vulgate has coph, and Latin words almost never end in f, even when they're indeclinable. Theknightwho (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Infopédia and Léxico mention it is used in Brazil. User:Munmula states it is not and it is rare everywhere. All attestations I could find where actually examples created to distinguish the verb from hesitar (example: Guia do Estudante). - Sarilho1 (talk)

• I claim clearly widespread usage. If misspellings are common enough to get webpages dedicated to them, that shows me it's widespread. I've also personally seen this misspelling, and was confused myself a while ago. Polomo47 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  The widespread usage of the misspelling in no way proves the existence of widespread usage of the non-misspelling... - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Here are a few uses found in the wild: , , , , .  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Aren't all those examples of the misspelling? I was asking to verify the sense «to succeed», not the misspelling. That's what I'm not able to attest. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, of course. It seems the two of us misunderstood you. I’ll try and look in some more places. Polomo47 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Rationale was "Sicilian languages do not use masculine nouns to call trees". Ultimateria (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I can see capitalized uses of Translingual Bougainvillea in running Portuguese text. Polomo47 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a start, one can check this page. It's a rare use that's neither capitalized nor italicized, and it also spells things weirdly. I might just argue, if three citations are found, that this hasn't been lexicalized. I wonder if RfD is more suitable... Polomo47 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spanish. WT says it means Sicyases sanguineus, but DRAE says it's a synonym for rape (Lophiidae). DRAE describes it as having an "enormous, round, flat head", which in my opinion fits more with Lophiidae. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: noun "a person who is assumed to have done something"

Is this a law term perhaps? I have never heard this before.

I don't think it is very common to say "il presunto" on its own, and I wasn't able to find it defined as a noun on any other dictionary.

In Italian, you can use article + adjective as a "pronoun", that, with singular definite articles, means something like "the adjective one", so this could be referring to that. But this is general for all adjectives, and, for example, "il rosso" meaning "the red one", that is way more common than "il presunto", is not defined as a noun; it is implied that you can use it that way from the adjective definition.

Unless this is a term that is commonly used as a noun in some field, and a label that explains in which field it is used is added, I think this Noun definition should be removed. Emanuele6 (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed. Deleted. Emanuele6 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: archaic form of leggero

leggère is supposedly an archaic form of leggero (“light”, adjective) with its same inflections: leggera f sg, leggeri m pl, leggere f pl.

I was only able to find this word in the Olivetti further reading. That Olivetti entry has an incorrect pronunciation (The pronunciation of lèggere (verb).)

Other dictionaries don't mention this archaic form.

However Garzanti, Hoepli, and DOP mention the spelling leggiere, that would be pronounced IPA^(key): /ledˈd͡ʒɛ.re/ like leggère. Olivetti also has an entry for this word, but calls it a "literary form" of leggero rather than an "archaic form".

DOP says that archaic leggiere can be used as either m sg or f sg, and there is also leggieri that can be used as either m sg or m pl.

Does the leggere spelling mentioned by Olivetti actually exist? Is it different from leggiere?

References:

Emanuele6 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. I can't find any attestation of the word outside of a singular forum post from 2014, including checking Google Books. Aika77 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Compound of sii (be, “imperative 2nd person singular”) and -lo enclitic form of the lo "subject complement" pronoun (cfr. French le (Pronoun)), meaning "be it!"/"be that!"/"be what you just said!".

Dubiously deleted by Gamren after failing this rfv started by SemperBlotto.

Of course this word actually exists: here are some random results from the internet:

• ma siilo veramente, siilo frescamente

  but be it truly, be it spontaneously

• se dici di essere su un cammino spirituale… siilo veramente.

  if you say you are on a spiritual journey… be for real.

  (literally, “if you say of being on a spiritual journey… be it(on …) for real.”)

• MACBETH: lo sarò, amore, siilo anche tu ti prego

  MACBETH: So shall I Loue, and so I pray be you

  (literally, “MACBETH: I will be it, love, be you it as well I beg you”)

The second person plural siatelo, and the first person plural siamolo exist as well.

Also note this 2012-04-19 Corriere della Sera post that clarifies that siilo is the correct imperative form for esserlo (as opposed to sialo):

• https://forum.corriere.it/leggere_e_scrivere/19-04-2012/fuori-tema-2047081.html

Additionally, I also mention that the similar siine (sii +‎ -ne (“of it”, enclitic form of ne, genitive pronoun)), that also doesn't have an entry on Wiktionary, has a dedicated entry on DiPI, and can also be found in an example on the Treccani entry for paura (“fear”):

• siine pur certo

  be sure of it

References:

Emanuele6 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems pretty obvious from this that the original RFV was wrong; if you can find three durably archived sources as per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation, you should be fine going ahead and recreating the entry. I personally don't see the need for an RFV thread. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 03:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could not comment, on the archived RFV; and on Discord I have been told that to contest an old RFV, I have to create a new RFV. Also, last time, a user tried to stop the RFV, but they were disregarded, so I thought that maybe someone would have had something to say about this. Emanuele6 (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The previous RFV was obviously wrong. These forms are trivially found on GBooks. Just go ahead and recreate them, with some helpful evidence in the form of cites. This, that and the other (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Emanuele6 also whoever told you "to contest an old RFV, I have to create a new RFV" was wrong. You simply recreate the entry with evidence in the form of cites. It's a different story for RFD of course. This, that and the other (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, ok, thank you! And thank you for mentioning Google Books as a way to find valid citations; Italian wikisource doesn't have much for this word. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved. Emanuele6 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian.

The ne is pleonastic if you specify . The ne sounds redundant in this example: you would only use it, maybe, for emphasis in a conversation. ("right dislocation")

A Giovanni, non gli frega niente di quello

Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that

A Giovanni, non gliene frega niente di quello

Giovanni doesn't care one bit about that

Also, except in some cases (e.g. conditionals/questions) where you can get away with specifying the "someone" only with , for example:

dovrebbe fregarne qualcosa a me?

should I care one bit about it?

dovrebbe fregarmene qualcosa?

should I care one bit about it?

dovrebbe fregarmi qualcosa?

should I care one bit?

dovrebbe fregare qualcosa a me?

should I care one bit?

..I think, in most cases, it is still necessary to use the dative clitic (gli) to make the sentence work even if it should be made redundant by (a Giovanni) being specified explicitly.

Also, you almost never actually use fregarne as infinitive for this meaning. You either use fregare with a dative and optionally ne: fregarmi, fregarmene, fregarti, fregartene, fregargli, fregarle, fregargliene, fregarci, fregarcene, fregarvi, fregarvene; or fregare with proclitic pronouns.

I think these senses of fregarne should be moved to fregare#Italian since the ne is not strictly required. And maybe something should be done about these kinds of idiomatic verb meanings that, optionally, strongly require dative clitics.

o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Istriot.

This looks very Spanish, not Eastern Romance at all. I don't know much about searching for Istriot usage, but I don't trust the IP who added this to know what they are doing. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Istriot is not "Eastern Romance". Emanuele6 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. @Nicodene: what do you think? Should I withdraw this? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I have noticed that "Istriot mierda" has been mentioned as a descendant of Latin merda since 2010-04-13, originally added by another IP user in Special:Diff/8834870. I think that is probably where the new IP that created Istriot mierda got it from. I don't know whether "mierda" actually exists in Istriot though, since I don't know the language. Emanuele6 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz It’s credible on the basis of mierlo, pierdi, tiera (Nicolini 1999).

Finding a reliable source mentioning the specific word mierda has been challenging. This is the nearest thing to one I’ve turned up. Nicodene (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Edit:) mierda is also apparently attested in Vatova 1954. For me this (finally) tips the balance towards RFV-keep, unless there are objections. Nicodene (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: mistake, blunder.

This sense sounds unnatural to me, and it was added by a non-native speaker. Protegmatic (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. In Greek, βοῶπις is a feminine epithet with the stem βοώπιδ- (boōpid-), and there is a distinct masculine noun βόωψ with the stem βόωπ- (the name of a fish, and the source of Boops). From the example "Cyamus boopis", I see that boōpis in taxonomy has at least been extended to the masculine gender. But I haven't seen anything yet that confirms it has been reinterpreted as an i-stem adjective as opposed to a consonant-stem boōpid-. Are the relevant forms attested?--Urszag (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: Noun sense: the height

Added by Wilhelmlux. Also added an unformatted reference url. - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old Latin. Gaffiot + Lewis & Short give this, but later works don't and {{R:ine:LIPP|page=592|vol=2}} says the attestation is dubious and doesn't prove long vowel in uls. Already discussed here by Rozwadowski in 1894. @Mellohi! Exarchus (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 00:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I could find:

• pernuiter and pernocter in Middle French (Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (DMF))
• parnuitier in Old French (Dictionnaire Étymologique de l'Ancien Français (DEAF))
• pernocter in Old French (Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle (GDF))
• parnuiter (parniter, parnuter, parnuitier) in Norman (Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND))
• pernoctare (pernuytar) (W. von Wartburg, Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes (FEW))

These forms are considered obsolete in modern French but all fit the expected French reflexes of pernocto, whereas *parnuire does not. I couldn't find any attestations for that form nor entries in any French dictionary. Io Katai (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very good work. Agreed on all points. Nicodene (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Rfv-sense: "with" (from contraction). The only dictionary that lists a contraction sense is Priberam, and it says it’s of “ca” + “a”. I think someone was confused when they made this. Polomo47 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. The only attestation I've found online is from a non-native speaker (quoted there), the other hits are from automatic translations. Trooper57 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. 1sg. is given as 'apiō' by de Vaan and others. None of the quotations indicate the need for a lemma 'apō'. Exarchus (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense 2: a beastmaster. Presumably not the video-game senses (Romans weren't big gamers) therefore needs to be the 3rd sense, "a fierce wrestler", distinct from the other Latin sense of one who fights with animals. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old Galician-Portuguese. Williams ("From Latin to Portuguese", 1962) cites the Old Portuguese form of verme as vermem, not vermen. Williams also gives an incompatible etymology for the ending, writing "These nouns generally adopted the masculine ending in the Vulgar Latin of the Spanish territory: nōmen > *nōmĭnem > Sp. nombre. Inasmuch as the ending -ĭnem did not spread in the Vulgar Latin of the Portuguese territory, it is not likely that OPtg. vermem came from a V. L. *vermĭnem nor that OPtg. vimem came from a V. L. *vimĭnem. The spelling vimẽe (FM, II, Glossary) is of no significance as unaccented single vowels were often written double in this document (FM, I, xxv). Nor is it likely that Ptg. sangue came from the Latin masculine form sanguĭnem through an OPtg. *sanguẽ. See Comp, 116. For vermem, see § 96, 2 and for vimem, see § 77 B."; at §96, 2, Willams writes "A nasal consonant ending a group sometimes nasalized the following vowel as an initial consonant did: vermem > verme > vermem (old) ; *remussicare (for re-mussitāre) > remusgar > resmugar > resmungar (cf. Nascentes)." I do see "vermen" listed by Meyer-Lübke. I also found a book that seems to say it can be found in the Cantigas de Santa Maria ("un vermen a semella") but I'm unsure whether that's some kind of normalization, as another book seems to say the spelling is "uˈmẽ": I can find both spellings online (vermen, uermẽ). --Urszag (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene Thanks for adding the quotation; would you be able to comment on my concerns about whether this is actually an attestation of the spelling "vermen"? I see that Wiktionary:Old Galician-Portuguese entry guidelines says "Tildes being used to represent nasal vowels followed by another vowel should not be normalised. Spellings whose tilde is used as an abbreviation of n (such as cõ for con and lĩnage for linnage) should be included as abbreviations, with the unabbreviated form lemmatised (even if not attested)", but I don't understand whether this falls under that point, since it doesn't explain how to determine if the tilde is an abbreviation of n. Based on the example "con", should I understand that the convention on Wiktionary is to normalize the spelling of word-final nasal vowels in OGP as vowel + "-n"? That's OK I guess, although I would find tilde a more natural convention for that function. @MedK1, Stríðsdrengur, Froaringus --Urszag (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough I hadn’t looked at this thread when I added the quotation. That would’ve saved me the trouble of tracking it down.

It seems the original manuscripts do in fact have ⟨u̕mẽ⟩:

1 (left column, line 24)

2 (p 142, left column, line 3)

As for Williams’ examples, I’m not sure why they couldn’t just as well be explained by a development like hominem > omẽe~ome > homem~home? Nicodene (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

For what it is worth, the source is (Old) Galician, and in other coetaneous Galician works the spelling appear to be uermẽe / vermẽe (homẽe, virgẽe, etc), later verme, home, virge.

http://ilg.usc.gal/xelmirez/xelmirez.php?pescuda=+%5Bvu%5Derm%5Be%E1%BA%BD%5D&corpus=historico Froaringus (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thank you. Using this resource I have tracked down a manuscript example with plural ⟨v̕me͡es⟩ (source: page 37, line 5). Also worth mentioning are the numerous attestations of nomẽes ‛names’. These disyllabic endings are clearly of the * type.

There are also, it should be mentioned, various modern words with final -em (< *) yet without a preceding nasal consonant: ferrugem, fuligem, jovem, ordem.

Nicodene (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Actually, in Galician most of these are written (and pronounced) without the nasal: ferruxe, feluxe, xove, orde (but dialectally you can also find ferruxen, xoven, virxen, pronounced with a final /ŋ/ which also usually nasalise the vowel).

On the form of the word, I understand that ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ should be edited as vermen, but I think that the "standard" form of the word for the 13th century should be the trisyllabic vermẽe. Maybe they used ⟨u̕mẽ⟩ instead because of syllable count or something? Otherwise, maybe bisyllabic renditions of this word, or these kind of words, were already common by the 13th century. Froaringus (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apparently this cantiga has a ten syllable count for each verse; the verse is "e tiroull'end un vermen a semella": e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men a - se - me - lla. That implies, I think, that here the tilde is not an abbreviation, and that the word should be edited as in "e tiroull'end un vermẽ a semella", so that "mẽ a" counts as a single syllable. But I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this subject, so maybe I'm totally wrong. Froaringus (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly, in the search results that you shared, it appears the singular is consistently disyllabic and the plural consistently trisyllabic.

I wonder if it started the same way as alternations like casal~casais < *, with an early loss of * in the singular and then later loss of intervocalic and leading to various allomorphic shenanigans. Nicodene (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene: Wow. You're right. I was assuming that spellings such as vermẽe (elsewhere) implied it was trisyllabic, but it's not: in the Cantigas de Santa Maria vermen, home, omage / omagen, virgen, etc, usually have one less syllable than their plurals vermẽes, homẽes (but sometimes homes), omagẽes (sometimes omages): http://www.cantigasdesantamaria.com/concordance/

On the syllabic count, I was wrong: if a verse ends in an unstressed syllable, this syllable don't counts, so vermen must end in a consonant: e - ti - rou - llen - dun - ver - men - a - se - me - (lla): http://www.cantigasdesantamaria.com/csm/69/44 Froaringus (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where I wrote "so vermen must end in a consonant", I should have wrote "so maybe vermen must end in a consonant", because I'm not sure at all. Froaringus (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gotérrez 2016 offers some interesting data/analysis on the subject. Nicodene (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin, for the plural forms.--Urszag (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edit for more context: I initially started this RFV based on my suspicion that the invariant "echō" plural forms recently added to the default declension pattern for words of this type were just a theoretical generalization from the singular. After now reading the linked source, I see that the situation is more complicated, so I'm not sure this RFV was really the best reaction. In any case, over the next few days I'll be trying to add citations for the Latin forms.--Urszag (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Other dictionaries and grammars say the genitive plural of venter is always ventrium; if ventrum has been used postclassically with this sense, citations and a label should be added. Googling, I see some examples where "ventrum" is used for "ventrem", either as a typo or (accidental?) 3rd-to-2nd declension shift.--Urszag (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed. Relabeled as a misspelling of "ventrem".--Urszag (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This doesn’t seem to be a real term.

• Nothing on LOGEION
• Nothing on the Internet Archive (with the exception of one false positive), even for the infinitive.
• Nothing on Google Scholar either
• No references on the page and no descendants
• Searches for adfidentiare also don’t reveal anything
• However, *fidentiare does seem to be reconstructed term that does appear in certain sources.

Graearms (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can’t find any evidence for this in Latin either. Judging by its morphology it’s almost certainly based on a Romance verb, for instance Portuguese afiançar or Spanish afianzar. Nicodene (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene The original user who created the page, Aearthrise, also—on the same day—edited the etymology of afianzar to claim that it derived from affidentiare. In the original version of the page affidentio, he also listed the Spanish term as a descendant. The next day, he edited the Portuguese term to also claim that it derived from affidentio. I assume that the Latin term was reconstructed off the basis of the Spanish and Portuguese terms. I suppose either you already found this information for yourself or guessed perfectly.

I cannot attest to the accuracy of this reconstruction as I lack knowledge on Romance sound shifts. I do find it interesting that both the Spanish and Portuguese terms have basically the same morphology, with both utilizing similar words for "bail." Perhaps such similarities could lend credence to the reconstruction?

I attempted to search for unprefixed *fianzar and *fiançar as I thought they could perhaps serve as cognates to French fiancer (if derived from *fidentiare). I found this Spanish text containing fianzar and two more dictionaries that contained the same Spanish term (, ). The Portuguese term also appears in a bunch of texts (, ). It was at this point in the research process when I discovered another dictionary which explicitly claimed that fianzar and fiançar derived from a Latin term *fidantio. It mentioned several other Romance cognates that are mildly intriguing: Italian fidanzare, Franco-Provençal fiansar (see also), and also French fiancer. Moreover, I find it mildly interesting that Italian fidanzarsi supposedly evolved a similar meaning to French fiancer.

Overall, I don't really know what to make of all this information. It seems like there might be sufficent justification for a Proto-Romance or Late Latin reconstruction, although I cannot create that entry myself. Some sources (, , ) suggest that these terms might go back to a verb *fid(e/a)ntio, which was itself a denominative to *fid(e/a)ntia, which itself might go back to fidens + -ia. Perpahs this *fid(e/a)ntia is identical with fidentia, although this dictionary does reconstruct the term with a long -ī- vowel not found in the actual Latin term. Graearms (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of the edit history there.

In short what we have here is Latin fides (noun) > *fidare (verb) > *fidantia (noun) > *fidantiare (verb) > *affidantiare (verb).

Of the asterisked forms, the first is securely placeable within some form of Proto-Romance, likely also the second, but I’d hesitate to say so for the third, and I certainly wouldn’t endorse the fourth.

As is often the case, there is always the risk of a word merrily calquing its way around the Romance languages at any point, up to and including the present. Without recourse to reliable dates of first attestation, we have no way to tell whether the Italian fidanzare dates back the first millennium or was formed, say, yesterday based on French fiancer.

So setting up the proper reconstructions would be a matter of patience and obsessive research, as ever. Nicodene (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed per the above edit: not yet, per the below. Nicodene (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems unlikely this will be cited, but it hasn't been a month, so this hasn't failed the RFV process yet.--Urszag (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed

I believe it has been a month now, so it should have officially failed to the RFV process by now. Graearms (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Praenomina were highly restricted and women often didn't have one. Wikipedia has an entry for w:Claudia Marcella, which indicates this occurred as an cognomen of the Claudia gens: I wonder if that sense was mislabeled.--Urszag (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. It undoubtedly can be used as a gentilic name.--Urszag (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina.--Urszag (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin. Rfv-sense: praenomen. Doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of feminine praenomina. The legendary w:Verginia seems to be a family name, since she's the daughter of Lucius Verginius.--Urszag (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. Tagged by User:MedK1 but not listed. Also República de Burundi. MedK1 claims that the spelling should be República do Burúndi with an accent on the second u in Burundi. In fact both the spellings Burundi and República do Burundi are easy to attest in Google Scholar, probably to do with the fact that Burundi is an unassimilated borrowing in Portuguese. What is not easy to attest is República de Burundi with de instead of do; this is the Spanish form but appears to be an error in Portuguese. Benwing2 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's quite easy to attest in official sources: Portuguese MFA (page 45), Brazilian MFA, as two examples. - Sarilho1 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. See previous entry. República de Burundi is the Spanish spelling; the correct Portuguese spelling is República do Burundi. Searching for a República de Burundi or da República de Burundi to exclude Spanish hits reveals very little. Benwing2 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It does seem to occur, albeit very marginally. Examples: 1, 2, 3. Nicodene (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Cronica by Anonimo Romano

I have found and added a quotation thanks to the above tip from 79.47.148.170, the creator of the entry. The source text also contains two other occurrences of the word. Nicodene (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense:

Since peccare is defined as only intransitive despite having avere as auxiliary (also by other dictionaries); how can peccata, peccate, and (currently only defined as plural of Noun, but the headword of peccato links it) peccati exist as inflected past participles? o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

On Google Books, you can find results for 1700s/1800s uses of "peccarsi". If it exists as reflexive that would justify the inflected forms since past participles with reflexive verbs agree with the subject: e.g. *noi ci siamo peccati (unless there is an accusative clitic or ne in which case it agrees with the clitic.)

However Treccani, Garzanti, and Olivetti do not have this reflexive. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: grape

That is the first defition in constrast to the other definition (collective noun) grapes.

I have never heard anyone use "uva" to refer to a single grape. A single grape is usually called acino d'uva, and a collection of grapes is called uva singular. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Remark. In English, the grape can be used in a collective sense:

• In France the grape will not thrive in open culture to any extent in the northwestern and northern provinces.
• The grape is very subject to rot in some seasons, ...
• Still the grape is harvested, and harvested without union labor.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, if it is referring to the same meaning, there should not be two definitions only one of which labelled as collective noun. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam Also note that grape is missing the collective sense you mention with regards to the fruit: it is only mentioned for the plant while it says the fruit is only referred to countably. Emanuele6 (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2 has (countable, uncountable). We could use, for clarity, (countable, uncountable with the), as in sense 4.4 of breakdown. Or, even clearer, we can separate the definitions of the countable and uncountable sense, while noting for the uncountable sense, (uncountable, with the). Compare the definitions of sense 1 of Mouse, sense 17 of stage, senses 8 and 9 of turf and sense 2 of French océan.

The article Uva on the Italian Wikipedia begins with “L'uva è il frutto della vite (Vitis vinifera) e di altre specie o ibridi del genere Vitis.” This is also an uncountable sense, but this time of the fruit, not of the plant. It is also found in print.  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Emanuele6 that unless citations can be added showing Italian uva is used in the sense "a single grape"/"one grape", it should just be defined as "(collective noun) grapes".--Urszag (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam Yes, Italian uva is used to refer to the fruit uncountably, not the plant. Sense 2 of grape that is labelled also uncountable is about the grape plant, not the fruit (sense 1). So if you say grape can also be used uncountably with "the" for the fruit, that is missing from grape that instead actively suggests that it can only be used like that for the plant. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the user who added that definition 21+ years ago was not understanding that "uva" is uncountable: looked it up, it's not a plural form. (It couldn't be, Italian is pretty regular concerning that) Special:Diff/34226; another user (User:Paul G that is still active o/) corrected them the next day in the following edit adding the second "collective noun" definition, but leaving the first one that just says "grape" Special:Diff/49830.

I think we can probably just change the definition to something like this then:

===Noun===

uva f (usually uncountable, plural uve)

1. grapes

Unless there are objections. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Emanuele6 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. prudemmo, pruderai, pruderei, pruderemmo, pruderemo, prudereste, pruderesti, pruderete, pruderò, prudessi, prudessimo, prudeste, prudesti, prudete, prudevamo, prudevate, prudevi, prudevo, prudi, prudiate, prudo

I don't think this verb is ever used as anything other than third-person in dative constructions.

It is defective of past participle; DOP says it is third-person only; Treccani and Garzanti don't say it explicitly, but only show third-person examples, and conjugations. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems that e.g. "prudevo" can be found on Google Books in some books

Here are all the four results found:

1876, Bollettino del Club Alpino Italiano‎, volume 10, number 25:

e prudevo dal desiderio di arrampicarmi

and I prudevo from the desire to climb

2023, Stefano Sciacca, La sola ricchezza che conti‎, →ISBN:

prudevo eccome.

I certainly prudevo.

2021, Meghan Maslow, translated by Sara Linda Benatti, Attentati a Elderland‎, Quixote Edizioni, →ISBN:

prudevo dalla voglia di aiutarlo.

I prudevo from wanting to help him.

2007, Cristina Ali Farah, Madre piccola‎, →ISBN:

più andava avanti con i racconti più prudevo di nervosismo.

the more he continued telling his tales the more I prudevo of nervousness.

Except maybe for the second one prudevo eccome for which I cannot see more context on Google Books, its use seems to be similar to English itch sense 2. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Romanian spontaneous humourous diminutive creation with only one attestation:

• 1931 October, Damian Stănoiu, “Pocăința starețului”, in Viața Românească, year 23, numbers 9–10, Bucharest, page 354:

  ― Ii lasă gura apă… dar nu mai e puterișcă, — îl necăji Pahomie.

Any other hits are from scholastic dictionaries and linguistic articles culling word lists therefrom. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, @Benwing2, you may see here that |start_month= does not function. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ktom I'm pretty sure that |start_month= does function, but only if you specify |start_year= as well. Benwing2 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I would’ve never figured that out. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a misspelling of 𐌅𐌉𐌍𐌖. The spelling "uimu" is not mentioned by Buck, Poultney, De Vaan, or Ancillotti. Graearms (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. One of those automated creations from a while back. I wonder how to find this — likely an obsolete spelling. Polomo47 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: to return, come back

Does this really exist? I cannot find it in other dictionaries.

I only know tornarsene.

The only case in which you can, maybe, say mi torno that I can think of is tornarsi a prendere ...: mi torno a prendere ...; example found in the wild:

Quasi quasi mi torno a prendere il W5000

I am thinking about going back to get the W5000

(literally, “Almost almost for myself I return to take the W5000”)

But I think, the reflexive here applies to prendere ("I take for myself"), not to tornare: it is just an equivalent form of tornare a prendersi, torno a prendermi. o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Compound of past participle avuto (“had”) + dative clitic gli (“to him(/them/her)”).

I don't understand how this combination can exist:

I think e.g. gli ho can only occur followed by a past participle to form a compound tense, e.g. gli ho detto ― I (have) told him.

I don't think it is possible to form a "compound past participle" with past participle "avuto" as auxiliary, and I cannot think of any use of avere meant as "to have" that can accept a dative, so I cannot think of a way to use this avutogli. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

P.S. it is currently misclassified as "verb form" instead of past participle, so fix that if it passes rfv. Emanuele6 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Emanuele6 I don't know much about Italian, but I suspect the term may appear here:

, , , , , Graearms (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Graearms Four of your links are quite clearly avuto gli (literally “ had(past participle) the(definite article m pl) ”)}.

But is interesting:

Lutero, avutogli lungamente riguardo o compassione, e celiato sulla sua pretesa di «camminar sopra le ova senza schiacciarle», e ripetutogli che «lo Spirito santo non è scettico», al fine gli lanciò una lettera delle sue, e ripetute ingiurie cordiali (I).

Italian avere riguardo (literally “to have regard”) means to care about something or someone, but you would not normally use it with "a someone", so I wouldn't expect a dative to work there: "per ...", "di ...", or avutone would work. To make a comparison with English, it's like saying "I had him respect" (as in "I payed him respect") instead of "I had respect for him" or "I had respect of him".

As expected you cannot find many use of "avergli riguardo": on Google Books, "gli ho riguardo" and "gli ho avuto riguardo" both yield only one result each:

• Il Gondoliere ‎ (in Italian), volume ANNO SECONDO, number 1, 1834, page 66: “ chiunque trovo in casa altrui bene accetto, io gli ho riguardo ”
• Lodovico Dolce, transl. (1508–1568), Le orazioni di Marco Tullio Cicerone, tradotte da m. Lodovico Dolce‎ (in Italian), translation of The orations by Cicero, published 1727, Parte 2, page 347: “ per questo gli ho avuto riguardo ”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Emanuele6 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Funnily enough, if you search English "have him respect" on Google Books you can find a good number of results. :-) Emanuele6 (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sicilian. Rationale was "This entry is a creole blend of Italian "giorno" and Sicilian "jornu"." Ultimateria (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any time you have a regional language dominated by a related language which is the national standard, things get messy. It looks like interpreting results is going to be tricky.

I wonder how Sicilian ghiornu figures into this: both are said to be alternative forms of Sicilian jornu in different environments. Also, the two senses are redundant, since Sicilian jornu has the same definition as the first sense. If we get rid of the first sense, that might mean we would have to look for jornu / giornu / ghiornu to verify this. I would also note the existence of Sicilian bon giornu. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Rfv-sense: lempo: archaic, dialectal alternative form of lembo.

As many of these unsourced {{alt}}s without a dedicated entry (and with incorrect {{alt}} usage Special:Diff/85200177), added by @IlleScrutator.

I demand a source for this archaic, dialectal "lempo" because I cannot find it myself.

o/ Emanuele6 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The alternative form can be found on the "Grande dizionario della lingua italiana" (GDLI) entry.

Even though it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else, I thought to add it for completeness. IlleScrutator (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@IlleScrutator I thought to add it for completeness That is perfectly fine in my opinion, but please always add a reference to where you found the information when adding these archaic alternative forms if they are not already mentioned in the further reading. Don't just copy the information without a citation. Thank you for adding the citaiton now Special:Diff/85225365: that is perfect!

Even though it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else This morning, I looked for instances of it, and, among a myriad of tempo (“time”) mis-scans, I have found these two:

• pel desio di toccare il lempo del suo vestimento.

  from the desire to touch the hem of his garment.

• Alzò la donna il lempo del mantello,

  The woman raised the hem of the cape,

RFV-passed. Emanuele6 (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

And other linked pages like tunnelli and tunnelle. It could be a cross-wiki vandalism (all interwikis are recent creations by new user or IPs). I search on dictionaries online and I found nothing. Otourly (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

French. Rfv-sense, both noun senses:

1. (slang, vulgar) penis
2. (slang, vulgar) a stupid or contemptible man

This was added by an IP geolocating to England back in 2017. Another IP, geolocating to the US, doesn't think this is real, and has tried several times to just remove it.

In case they're reading this: We're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not on authoritative aources, and this is a good example of why it's necessary sometimes. Vulgar slang is often ignored by reference works/sites, and many native speakers either don't frequent places it's used or want others to believe they don't- so it requires checking for usage before we can be sure it's not real.

If there's no usage, it will be deleted and documentation left on the entry's talk page so people will know not to add it back. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I recommend that both senses/the noun section for "prit" in French be removed. I've never heard these and can't find any usage online. They also don't appear to be Verlan. The definitions also look like they were copy-pasted from the Oxford English dictionary definition for "prick". Io Katai (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese. I see the first usually spelled xenônio, and the second I don’t see at all. Polomo47 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Italian. Listed as an alternative form of Forlì (with an accent) but I suspect it's just a misspelling. Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply