Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/July 2006

The entire entry shows a meaning I have never heard of. I think the person was a non-native speaker who gave a meaning that sort of makes sense, but is wrong. Or am I wrong? Andrew massyn 14:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to RFC or RFT. I agree that the disease meanings seem unfounded...or perhaps just obsolete. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have re-worked the definition. Andrew massyn 13:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations of "regular" non-trademark use. A quick glance at books.google.com shows that after the first handful, the majority do seem to use the term in lowercase. But for trademarks, we need to have the citations in the entry, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Added one citation. Others can cite lower case examples. Rfv removed. Andrew massyn 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Google hits - decology 4,420 - decalogy 1,750 SemperBlotto 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed Andrew massyn 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Indication of surprise or amazement? SemperBlotto 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Catch phrase from 'Scooby-Doo' but I sometimes use it if addressing elementary (K-6) school students (or any pre-adolescent kids.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think it should stand. The phrase was used a lot by my parents era as I was growing up, and I for one, have ended up here after a search for the meaning, and hopefully origins of the phrase. It was recently used by my father-in-law in response to watching me withdraw money from an ATM. He said "By Jinkies! I've never seen anything like that in my life!". I want to use the quote now in an article I am writing related to technology aversion, and thought I should know the origin of the exclamation first. Suzi Adams, Canberra, Australia

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Archaic texts should be easier to find than current texts, but it seems this plural form has simply never in history, been used in running text. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited. It was never very common, but it's definitely been used plenty. Widsith 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The one citation may not be enough though. Are you certain it is "archaic" and not "obsolete?" --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the duplicate listing. This is being discussed at length in WT:RFC. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the classicizing plural 'rhinocerotes' belongs with the naturalized singular 'rhinocerot'. Highly unlikely given the vowel change involved. The ordinary singular 'rhinocerots' seems well-enough attested, but not the use of rhinocerot sg. with rhinocerotes pl. —Muke Tever 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's right as per the OED. The Shorter OED has a usage note which explains that it is a convention to regard rhinocerotes as a plural of rhinocerot rather than of rhinoceros. We seem to be talking about this in every forum at the moment... Widsith 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because the longer OED has a usage note saying that they have rhinocerotes as a plural for both rhinoceros and rhinocerotes, with an additional note saying that it only has it as a plural of rhinocerot from c. 1550 to 1700 (which, incidentally, is nearly the same range that they assert the spelling rhinocerote is attested...). —Muke Tever 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, change it if you like Widsith 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this dictionary material? (should be a proper noun) SemperBlotto 06:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Masses of hits for the animation studio, but not dictionary material
2. No hits outside descriptions of the commic for the other definition. Again not dictionary material. Therefore deleted. Andrew massyn 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

‘a stupid person’...? Widsith 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted - one of several iffy or obscure words loaded by the same person. SemperBlotto 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regular inflections have been given, and yet the author has created swonk and swinken. Which are correct? — Paul G 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have verified swonk on google book search (numerous citations), but have not added to page. As swinken has not yet been entered, there is no need to verify yet. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 21:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. Sounds neologistic. And it would cover the Holy Roman and Austrian Empires if it really were a word. --Allamakee Democrat 20:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) P PS Google hits are either in German or refer to German things, and not the def in the article. --Allamakee Democrat 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Several german cathedrals were once called the Kaiserdom (but not in English) - it translates as "imperial cathedral" SemperBlotto 21:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The name for the Second German Empire (1871~1918) was the Kaiserreich. The definition given is surely false. I advise replacing it with SemperBlotto’s “Imperial Cathedral” definition, with a pronunciation section to indicate that the ‘o’ is pronounced as in ‘Ohm’, rather than as in ‘Kingdom’. Doremítzwr 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems only to be German. Am removing English Definiton. Andrew massyn 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

a violent surf that occurs on the coast of the Guinea region, West Africa - any takers? SemperBlotto 21:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be copied directly from here or some other online glossary. Kappa 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited. rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 07:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited. This used to be very common. Widsith 07:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you. Any ideas about the other two meanings listed under etymology 2 & 3? --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Over 40% of the top 100 entries (out of 174,000) on books.google (many from Dickens) are for the Etymology 3 use (though for all the parts of speech for which what is used, not just as an interjection), but no time to add cites now. --Enginear 01:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Dickens cite for E3. E2 is just an inflected form, so cites probably belong at wit. Widsith 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 07:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Although no definition at all is given, books.google shows "mythical creatures" encyclopedia entry. Does it exist in running text? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I put in two citations at redcap and the one Harry Potter citation here. All these instances, however, captitalize "Redcap" or "Red Cap"; I didn't look into any of the encylopedic texts, though. There is a wikipedia entry on w:Redcap with a redirect from Red Cap. Don't know where that source material comes from though. Jeffqyzt 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it only an alternative name of Little Red Riding Hood? In Slavic languages the little girl is called "Red (Little) Cap".

mimmon

Red Cap A rare member of the English class, these are characterized by having a large rose comb. They are one of the few breeds with red earlobes that lay white-shelled eggs. Content: Chicken Breeds and Varieties (A2880), John L. Skinner, University of Wisconsin-Madison www.ansi.okstate.edu/poultry/chickens/redcap/ Redcap - A malevolent goblin easily distinguishable by their namesake red cap, fiery red eyes, claws and iron boots. They often appear as little old men, but can run very fast despite the boots. They reside in castles and watchtowers along the English-Scottish border, but will move their residence to avoid detection. They have sharp eagle’s talons which they use for weapons, but can easily be repelled simply by reading holy verse. www.vf11.com/legendsofvalhal/legendsofvalhal-post-814.html

"Lord Foulis sat within his tower, And beside him old Red Cap sly; 'Now tell me thou sprite who art mickle of might, The death that I shall die.'" Minstrelsy of the Border

"Here is an ancient description of the dress of the fairies: 'They wear a red conical cap; a mantle of green cloth inlaid with wild flowers; green pantaloons, buttoned with bobs of silk, and silver shoon. They carry quivers of arrow-slough, and bows made of the ribs of a man buried where "three lairds" lands meet; their arrows are made of bog-reed tipped with white flints and dipped in the dew of hemlock; they ride on steeds whose hoofs would not "dash the dew from the cup of a harebell."'"-Anonymous. Preller assumes, quite as a matter of course, that the red-caps and other minor deities, or house-goblins of a frolicsome brownie character, belong rather to Teutonic and Celtic mythologies than to the Italian. www.sacred-texts.com/pag/err/err12.htm - 66k

I personally think that the article should be moved to redcap. What is the consensus? moving discussion to August for decision in September. I have put in various cites on this page (above) for consolodation later, once a decision is made. Andrew massyn 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. :Red Cap is also breed of poultry.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I only know it as a verb. Am putting in the verbal sense, and deleting the noun sense, pending verification. Andrew massyn 09:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have cited it as far as I can. I only knew it as a noun, but have found a few cites as a verb too. The glue sense was new to me, and I couldn't find cites, but I seem to remember a discussion that that sense was used in Aus, so maybe someone from there can help (or Ht, who I think added it). I've never heard it in the faecal sense, and couldn't find cites, so that can stay deleted until someone finds some. Strangely, all the low cloud, fog or smog cites were from recent flying publications (from US & UK), but I'm sure I heard it used by people in the N England uplands with no obvious flying connections, about 20 yrs ago, so I think it was more widespread, rather than RAF slang as suggested in one of the quotes. --Enginear 11:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I normally ignore all the thousands of chemsitry entries added by SemperBlotto, but thought I'd have a look at a few just out of curiosity. I stumbled on Montalbano's phosphorus, and did a quick websearch, nothing found. So the right thing to do would be an RFVing. Sorry SB. --Dangherous 12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any independent citations either. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 10:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Slang for anus in northern England, apparently. Widsith 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A random search for "take it up the chaffinch" produced no results. Rfvsense failed. Andrew massyn 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

German for LOL? SemperBlotto 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Resubmitted (with a new def) without citations? Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

{{nosecondary}} and also, my library subscription to the OED online does not list this word. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Websters 1902 doesnt' have it. No google hits apart from ourselves. rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition:

1. an often ornamented raised border of a plate or flat dish that forms a plane nearly parallel to the bottom.

Rod (A. Smith) 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

well, you get a bain marie A large pan containing hot water in which smaller pans may be set to cook food slowly or to keep food warm. (A double boiler) Leaving till the end of August, for a decision. Andrew massyn 20:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to marie as a plate border, and it's not in OED (which mentions only marie biscuits. However, from what little I know of pottery, an ornamented border might well be made separately, and later married to the centrepiece, so the anon editor (22:15 4 Jul 06 edit to Marie) may have misheard. --Enginear 12:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that it may be possible, cf marie biscuits and bain maries etc. but as no verification rfv failed for now.

It's given as an English word but it appears to be Italian only. Rod (A. Smith) 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in Italian it is a synonym for putto meaning a cupid. It is conceivable that it is used that way in English in the art world. (It is also an Italian surname when capitalized). SemperBlotto 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

unable to find usage. English def failed.Andrew massyn 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

English:

1. a cunningly vicious horse or steer.

Rod (A. Smith) 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a type of clover. I have changed the definition. Andrew massyn 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this once, but it's back:

1. banc, marketing slang (chiefly in USA) for the non-banking arms of a financial conglomerate that has "Bank" in its common name. For instance, if the original company was known as Bank of Manhattan, then its insurance business might be known as "Banc of Manhattan Insurance". It is a term of art, a meaningless word, that is meant to suggest the safety and soundness of a bank, without any actual representation of safety or soundness so that they are free to offer risky products without running afoul of false advertising laws.

I think "Banc" is only used as a component of several proper nouns, so I don't think it fits our CFI. Rod (A. Smith) 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-added 'banc' and added references from Banc of America and a footnote by a USC professor who delineates the distinction between the two. While "Banc" may only be seen as part of many proper nouns, it deserves a distinction as it is not a synonym of its homophone. While it is believed by many--if not most--in the US that 'bank' and 'banc' are synonymous, it is worth noting that one implies certain legal distinctions whereas the other does not. It is true that 'banc' is rarely, if ever, seen divorced from a proper name; however, it is a commonly used component of many proper names and not a proper name itself, therefore it is worthy of an entry. Anonymous 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems to me that a "component of a proper noun" is more equivalent to a "term" or a "word" than it is to the "proper name" that is prohibited by the CFI. Furthermore the general rule of the CFI is "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means" and when I read "banc" in "Banc of America" I specifically want to know what it means independently of what "Banc of America" means.

Here's another instance of the word's use in a reference to the Texas Finance Code ].--Struthious Bandersnatch 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, at best, a neologism promoted by a team of lawyers arguing a specific case regarding the use of a misspelling by a marketing department. The Texas reference is specifically about the phonetic similiarity of the intentional marketing misspelling(s). The professor described the same gimic in slightly different terms. This should be moved to our list of made up terms. --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a word used in one instance by a single team of lawyers, I would agree with you, Connel. However its use is so widespread that there are hundreds of companies using it in their name, all for the same purpose described in the article, and the word has actually been codified into Texas law. This is a misspelling for certain but a very established misspelling that is intentionally used, not accidentally. Its use has joint legal and marketing purposes, which is what the Texas law is recognizing. That goes far beyond the definition of protologism, "A newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become accepted into the language", and I hope that you can concede that this circumstance doesn't at all fit with those of the other words on the List of Protologisms. As I said before, someone coming across this word is going to wonder "Why does it say 'banc' instead of 'bank'?" and the answer is more complex than "because they misspelled it" or "it's just a name", hence this article is needed.

By the way, I am not the individual who created this entry, though I agree with him. He invited me to take a look and render my opinion.--Struthious Bandersnatch 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 21:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides a single nonce usage, the books.google hits seem to be typos (obsolete spelling?) of the verb form nibbling. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We've done this one already. I argued against it at the time (it was invented by schoolkids), but I think I was on my own. Widsith 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought we had previously deleted this. My vote then and now is to delete. SemperBlotto 09:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know though...there seem to be plenty of cites for it...maybe it's started to enter the language now. I guess we should probably keep it. Widsith 08:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Gets Google Books results http://books.google.com/books?q=niblings&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 with the exact meaning, which makes it suitable for inclusion. Shoof 00:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the verb form, but I can't rfv-sense a sense that isn't listed. Added more cites and removed RFV tag. DAVilla 22:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

English 2nd etymology. Move to RFC, or just remove entirely via RFV? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's legit, but I'm having trouble finding good citations. The past tense of "eat" was often pronounced "et" until the beginning of the 20th century (ish, it may have survived later or died earlier in some places That's still the pronunciation in London (and I don't just mean Cockney) --Enginear 15:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)), and you do occasionally see the spelling "et" in places. It's common enough to be its own entry in m-w collegiate, for example. kurl 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Added citations for use; someone else can fix the etymology :-) Jeffqyzt 23:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it is pronounced "et" it is spelled "ate". In my view it is sub-standard. I have a feeling that it is a Cornish pronunciation, but I may be wrong. I am marking it as sub-standard and deleting the etymology. Andrew massyn 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sense: "Something annoying." --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a real cow to find citations for this usage. Kappa 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No bull, it's a real beast! --Enginear 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I have no idea what I was thinking. RFV removed. --Connel MacKenzie 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable definition:

Serene is also an ancient Egyptian ornament, often made out of solid gold.

Rod (A. Smith) 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• No. I found many references to /serene egyptian ornaments/ but in every case (until I got bored) the word serene was just used as an adjective. Definition removed. SemperBlotto 07:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the classicizing plural 'rhinocerotes' belongs with the naturalized singular 'rhinocerot'. Highly unlikely given the vowel change involved. The ordinary singular 'rhinocerots' seems well-enough attested, but not the use of rhinocerot sg. with rhinocerotes pl. —Muke Tever 15:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's right as per the OED. The Shorter OED has a usage note which explains that it is a convention to regard rhinocerotes as a plural of rhinocerot rather than of rhinoceros. We seem to be talking about this in every forum at the moment... Widsith 08:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because the longer OED has a usage note saying that they have rhinocerotes as a plural for both rhinoceros and rhinocerotes, with an additional note saying that it only has it as a plural of rhinocerot from c. 1550 to 1700 (which, incidentally, is nearly the same range that they assert the spelling rhinocerote is attested...). —Muke Tever 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, change it if you like Widsith 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Entry is "break the bank" means "too expensive", (needs wikifying also). --Dmol 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Made into a proper entry with citations. SemperBlotto 07:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a single hit on Google for this term! I believe wiktionary policy is two or more sources for attestation. A-cai 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I've heard the "tadpole chews wax" story, I've never actually heard the term. bd2412 T 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you will find this on the Internet since it was only used on a hand-painted sign by a single Chinese coke vendor. I researched it with representatives of Coca-Cola several years ago, and this term was used in the early 1900s by a single vendor at a time when Coke had no official Chinese name and every vendor had to decide for himself how to write it in Chinese. This particular version seems to be the origin of the famous "bite the wax tadpole" story of Coca-Cola in Chinese. —Stephen 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I tried googling for the Pinyin of this phrase, "kē kē kěn là" and "ke ke ken la", and got a few hits. —Stephen 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I think I've found the problem. The references that I have found on the internet use the following characters: 蝌蝌啃蠟, 蝌蝌啃蜡.

Here are some google hits from Chinese language sites:

• Google (PRC)
• Google (Taiwan)
  

This site is in English (half-way down the page, note the characters in the logo on the left).

• As a side note, the English translation should more accurately be rendered as "the tadpole chews wax," despite the translation given in the above article. 蝌蝌: tadpole + 啃: chews (not "bites")¹ + 蠟: wax.

Right. The problem with this has always been complicated by the fact that Chinese store-keepers a hundred years ago were not translators and didn’t follow the practices that modern translators use for writing foreign words in Chinese, and then whoever it was that translated it back into English was probably a company representative in China who didn’t speak or read Chinese very well. "Bite the wax tadpole" seems like what an American who knew the meaning of each character, but who did not know Chinese, would probably say. —Stephen 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 啃 is a more widely used synonym for 齦. The one remaining question is: Do we have any books or periodicals that we can site which verify that the 齦 character was used, and not 啃?

There are two or three books about it, written I think around the mid 1900s, but I don’t have access to them anymore and I don’t remember the titles. I think I read them around 1990. —Stephen 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm also not comfortable with the Cantonese reading. I agree that "fo1 fo1 han2 laap6" is an accurate rendition of the Cantonese romanizations of the individual characters in this term. What is unclear is if Cantonese speakers ever actually used the term, since 蝌蝌齦蠟 is clearly a transliteration of Coca-Cola which is based on the Mandarin romanization of "kēkēkěnlà." Actually, I take that back, here is the Min Nan rendering: kho-kho-khè-la̍h (蝌蝌啃蠟) vs. kho-kho-khín-la̍h (蝌蝌齦蠟). Given the time period, it is not unreasonable that the transliteration of Coca-Cola would be based on Min Nan. This would especially be true if the Coca-Cola branch in question was based in Amoy, Singapore or Malaysia.

1. _{I know this may sound like quibbling, but as long as we're talking about obscurities, why only stop half-way;)}

I agree, I really don’t believe the Cantonese ever used that pronunciation. Since each vendor made his own rendition, I imaging that store-owners in Hong Kong would have used different characters that better represented the sound in Cantonese. But an origin in Min Nan makes much more sense. One of the long time theories that I have heard was that it probably originated with some weird dialect, and Min Nan fits the bill. Until very recently, the only dialects that were well known in the U.S. were Mandarin and Cantonese. —Stephen 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese version of the wikipedia Coca-Cola article mentions that Coca-Cola was manufactured in Shanghai. If true, it is also possible that the transliteration is based on Shanghainese (a variant of the Wu dialect). Unfortunately, I don't speak Shanghainese, and have been unable to locate a usable on-line Shanghainese dictionary. If we could locate one, we would be able to determine whether or not this is a possibility.

A-cai 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 啃 is defined in HSK汉语水平考试词典 (Hanyu Shuiping Kaosi Cidian, →ISBNas: 用牙齿一点儿一点儿地使劲把紧紧依附在某物上面的东西咬下来 (gnaw; nibble).

   My English translation: Use teeth to little by little exert energy to bite off things that are tightly attached to something (gnaw; nibble).

   咬 is defined in HSK as: 上下牙齿对着用力或是夹紧物体,或使一部分从整体上分离下来 (bite; snap at).

   My English translation: upper and lower teeth apply force against each other or clamp onto an object, or cause one part to be separated from the whole.

• While bite is not technically incorrect, it is slightly misleading in that it does not convey the sense of continuous action. This is why chew, gnaw or nibble are better choices.

A-cai 06:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It’s why I think the original backtranslation was done by someone who really didn¥t know Chinese. —Stephen 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't speak any of the above languages, and my computer is showing me a bunch of squares and no Chinese characters, I am putting this on the talk page and hoping someone else will make the decision. Andrew massyn 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

— Vildricianus 08:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please see Wikipedia under pussing and urolagnia; also entries on google and other major search engines —This unsigned comment was added by 86.129.234.176 (talk • contribs) .

Well, it's likely, if not certain, that the creator of the Wikipedia article, which is now up for deletion there as well, is the same as its proponent here. — Vildricianus 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although the article is up for CONSIDERATION for deletion on Wikipedia (and this may yet not happen), the CONSENSUS reached there is that it is best included under another already existing page. This has now been done but does not dilute or change the definition of the word in any way. Further, when new words come along, somebody, somewhere has to be the initial proponent otherwise nothing would ever evolve!

The inital proponent of a new word is free to add them to the list of protologisms. It would be too confusing to users to have entries for established words mixed with newly created ones, and frankly none of us really want to spend much time looking after them. Kappa 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Already entered at WT:LOP, so this one should be deleted. — Vildricianus 06:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment But that entry does not show the derivation or the pronunciation, or clarify that it is a verb, as this entry does. Also, if entries appear in the main Wikipedia it would be curious if they were not listed in the dictionary here!

As there are no citations on the page, it is an admited protologism, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-deleted. Please keep on your watchlist. --Connel MacKenzie 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

> Codown, > > Your one day block was for reentering a term that had failed the RFV > process, without three citations from published books, showing the term in > common use in the English language. > > We get a lot of ridiculous stuff submitted, some of it funny, some not. But > the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion has been hashed out pretty thoroughly. > Mocking it by reentering unverifiable nonsense terms, is not appreciated. > > Connel MacKenzie

Thank you for your e-mail but how dare you to take such a high handed attitude?

This is NOT "ridiculous stuff" and I strongly object to your assertion that it is a "nonsense term". If you had bothered to look at the references I carefully included, one of which was to the sister site Wikipedia, you would have seen that this is a properly recognised activity.

Wiktionary is described as an open content DICTIONARY so words which appear elsewhere in proper usage should rightly be included in Wiktionary, regardless of your own personal views on the underlying activities involved.

You do yourself and Wiktionary no credit whatsoever by taking this holier than thou attitude and dismissing anything you don't like with such alacrity. I expect you to reconsider.

Thank you.

CoDown

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User_talk:Codown"

Yes, it is the right word, but the def is not quite right. See w:Kashrut. There seems to be a division in usage between the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi rabbis. And the very English treif or treyf also need to be documented.--Allamakee Democrat 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is an adjective - meaning not kosher. SemperBlotto 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To rfc. Andrew massyn 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed that this means yesterday. I know that i går means that, but if any (native) Danish speaker can confirm wheather this is correct too or not, I would be delighted. The other option I can think of is if there is such a noun for the day "yesterday", but somehow I doubt it? \Mike 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked our collegues at the Danish Dictionary to lend a hand. Andrew massyn 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC) I hope I am on the right page. The English Wiktionary is looking for the Danish definition of gar with a little circle on the 'a'. Please see "requests for verification". Your help would be appreciated. Sincerely Andrew Massyn.

As native Danish speaking I can assure you, that "går" is in everyday use, but only - as noted - in the adverbial expression "i går". So all information is correct. Btw, I noticed, that in Swedish the same expression exists; however, it is written in one word "igår". This is never done in correct Danish. I hereby remove the request (and add an alternative use as verb). Amjaabc 22:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was no discussion here? Entry restored. Non-namespace zero items need to go through "other" deletions, not RFV. The entry is heavily linked internally and likely heavily linked externally. The most that can happen to it, is turning it into a redirect, if and when a suitable replacement is devised. How did this get nominated here, and how did it fail? By not being listed? --Connel MacKenzie 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was moved to here Wiktionary:General American English with maximal distinctions and only then deleted. Andrew massyn 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The confusion I had was that clicking the RFV link, I did not find the discussion (as it now has the strikethrough preventing normal deep linking from the entry.) This section should be combined with the one above. --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, under original name, as Connel and I argued above. --Enginear 15:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK they are at both pages then. Andrew massyn 20:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This was tagged with {{rfv}} but not listed here. It's hard to find durably archived citations but these things might be useful@

• Farm Fatale: A Comedy of Country Manors - Page 107
• The Sky Was Full of Screaming Birds - Page 99
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&q=%22touched+my+front+bottom%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&q=%22touched+my+front+bottom%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0
• telegraph.co.uk
• bbc.co.uk

Kappa 04:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very common in the UK (when you're about twelve, that is). Widsith 07:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be kept. bd2412 T 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I question the etymology, and have not left a template. Isn't it a contraction of "By my Lady"?--Allamakee Democrat 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was a contraction of "God blind me". —Stephen 07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - well, just ‘blind me’ (or ‘blame me’). The fuller ‘God blind me’ became cor blimey or gorblimey. Widsith 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have checked three etymologies. They all show (God) blind me. Andrew massyn 13:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this neologism valid as an entry? — Vildricianus 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The event which led to the usage is not yet a year old, so presumably it should be at WT:LOP. --Enginear 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So moved. Andrew massyn 16:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims to be leet, but I doubt it is in general use. --Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that this advances an RFV challenge, but I'm pretty sure "shiznit" is common in speech and is constructed the same way and by the same speakers as "shit"->"shizzle", "house"->"hizzouse", "for sure"->"fosheezy", "etc.. Rod (A. Smith) 07:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What?!! Do people actually speak like that? Where? Andrew massyn 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is more associated with ebonics than leet. I've added some quotations, but it still needs a better definition, as it's not quite synonymous with shit. --Ptcamn 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• People "speak" like that in chatrooms I have visited. Kappa 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So, move to RFC? Or nominate as WOTD?  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does he mean homeostatic ? Needs formatting, severe clipping and moving to uncapitalized. SemperBlotto 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he does. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Verb sense. — Vildricianus 11:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I could only find one reference to "bocking" in that sense. It should be under powerbock. RFVfailed for now. I have no doubt it will enter English in due course. Andrew massyn 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Goes with the above. — Vildricianus 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Masses of google hits. rfvpassed.Andrew massyn 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Never seen it never heard it pronounced that way. cites please. Andrew massyn 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was filling in te blanks on the wine-o article, and in retrospect it would seem I've been a bit over zealous?

Lets bin it! - I'll edit the wino article so that the alternate spelling is not wikified.--Williamsayers79 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 19:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

0 Google hits! The English is a semi-literal rendering of the Chinese (黃: yellow, 皮膚: skin, 領導 can mean head in the sense of head of state, a leader). A-cai 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. This is the person who uses www.freetranslation.com to translate his entries into Chinese, Russian, etc. If you enter "Yellow Head" there, you get 黃皮膚的領導. —Stephen 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of Google books hits, but that currently brings little certainty. — Vildricianus 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I've heard George Bush use this... Widsith 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This page discusses what may or may not be the real etymology of it. But it says 'obscurification', built on paradigm of 'clarification', from the wonderful world of hacker newspeak., which would mean ... obscurify? I like the next line : quirerevitality: 'get a life'. Beobach972 19:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited page & rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 07:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

519 google hits for "pissing war". 319000 for pissing contest. In these trying times, do we need to escalate conflict? Andrew massyn 20:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Well, it is interesting. My own opinion be known, if sources can be found for it per the "three-source-rule", we ought to keep it. I tell you what, I'll see what respectable citations I can find! Beobach972 21:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Two so far : a CNN article where the phrase is used by one of the creators of South Park, Matt Stone :  ; and one 'Google Books' result, though the content is restricted : . (Anyone have a copy?) I'm looking for more. Beobach972 21:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a WorkingForChange article by Geov Parrish . All of the uses, by the way, suggest a metaphorical sense (which I just added to the article). (Here is the same Parrish article, from the Seattle Weekly - (I do not claim this as a separate attestation - simply as a separate link, for posterity, in case one site or the other goes offline).) Beobach972 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Two more citations, though these are from blogs and may or may not be acceptable : and .

Lastly, Steve Duplessie, a senior analyst to the Enterprise Storage Group, uses it in an interview with 'Byte and Switch' . Okay, well if this ain't enough to save it, go ahead and delete it. Beobach972 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have marked it as substandard usage for pissing contest. If anyone is unhappy with that, please say why on the talk page and edit as needed. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 07:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"* whigga: a white person who acts like a black person"

Is this really a protologism? I doubt it. Shoof 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally spelled wigger I believe. Kappa 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, then this isn't really a protologism, but a slang spelling of the word. Shoof 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A slang spelling of a slang term? I guess. Neither spelling has a single citation entered, right now. All three (wigger/wigga/whigga) get books.google.com hits. But wigga seems more prevalent than whigga, while wigger seems (by far) to be the most common form.

The etymology is interesting though. White/wannabe are listed separately by "or". For such a pejorative term, I'm pretty sure that both connotations are implied from a single use of the term. But changing "or" to "and" seems more than a little awkward. Is there a better way to explain it? --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All the comments are obiter. No ratio yet. Andrew massyn 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wigger">this</a> at wikipedia. Would that not be enough basis to consider it legit? <a href="http://www.webster.com/dictionary/wigger">Merriam-Webster Online</a> also has it listed, albeit only in the unabridged version which I do not have a membership for. I also changed the title for this section since "Appendix:List of protologisms" didn't really seem correct. -Avatar2809:00, 21 August 2006

The OED has cites of wigger from 1988, intriguingly noting "often offensive, even as a self-designation", and refers to wigga as being used once in 2000, but does not mention whigger (for which the etymology is equally valid) or whigga. I don't recall hearing them myself, but one of the cites is from London (the others being US). --Enginear 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

— Vildricianus 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. Jeffqyzt 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a machine translation job to me: 到 ("to" in the sense of "go to" or "to arrive," not the "to" that goes with verbs) + 口袋 ("pocket" the noun, not the verb). A-cai 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can’t make any sense of it either. Hippietrail entered it, so perhaps he can shed some light on what it is. —Stephen 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean anything so far as I can tell. bd2412 T 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As no comments from HT or citations on page, rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 11:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Has 52 google hits, incl. duplicates. A lot are in news articles, with "pandaphilia" in scare quotes. Clearly a neologism/protologism (not sure I've figured out the difference yet...) move to appropriate list? Robert Ullmann 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And zero books.google.com hits. After a month, this should be moved to WT:LOP or WT:-). ("Neologism" is a real word, protologism is a made up word; Wiktionary jargon - a "protologism" itself.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do keep up Connel -- protologism ceased being a protologism in Wictionary jargon on 15 Feb 06 (unless either the CFI has changed since I last checked or the cites are wrong) ;-) --Enginear 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

excellent, i love a good protologism! a recent personal favourite is 'cliterature', which desribes a certain type of chick lit, eg. 'the clan of the cave bear' series by jean m. auel. fascinating... --craybee 12:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC+1200)

This entry has three Google hits: one for Wiktionary, and two other websites that blindly copied Wiktionary's entry. A-cai 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not gibberish like some so-called Chinese entries - I believe it does refer to a sauce based from some kind of herb, but I don't know if it's wasabi (I don't recognize the specific kind of herb). bd2412 T 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a definition, rather than a translation. Kappa 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it’s a definition rather than a phrase. I will delete it and add the Chinese 山葵 (wasabi). —Stephen 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A description of one's internet connection speed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be valid, but am unsure of the spelling. see "Tell me, would you spell it "eCock", "Ecock" or "e-cock"? I'm slightly confused with all this talk about capitalization mattering" (from a blog site- I have also seen it spelled e-cock" Intend to leave it for the nonce but note that spelling needs to be verified. Moved to July's rfv list. If nothing comes up then, will make a decision as to what to do with it. Andrew massyn 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I am satisfied that it is a term, I am not satisfied with the spelling. To rfd. Andrew massyn 12:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for sense two, for which one was requested. Maybe, maybe not.--Allamakee Democrat 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No decision made. This is still being discussed as Wiktionary policy. Moved tentative definitions to talk page of article Andrew massyn 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Entry predates the RFV process. Has this entered the English language? --Connel MacKenzie 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sum of Parts. OMG and hax. Hax doesn't have an entry yet, but in gaming community (especially Counter-Strike), "hax" refers specifically to methods of subverting the game mechanics to gain a competitive advantage. It does not necessarily relate to hacks, as lower level exploits (sploits) also qualify. The motivation behind the creation of this entry is this is how you often see the term used. However, while this is very frequently used, "omghax" is not idiomatic as far as I know.–Gunslinger47 05:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 37000 google hits for this entry. I checked the first 5 pages of listings and five random pages. All either relate to definitions posted or copied from our definiton or from a user / website called omghax. I have been unable to find any entries supporting the definition. RFVfailed. Andrew massyn 06:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) .

Rod (A. Smith) 05:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks OK, at first blush; we should have this idiomatic entry at this base form, with the alternates redirecting to it, right? --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 06:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a common phrase, but since it doesn't actually convey meaning beyond the strict literal sense, it doesn't seem to belong here. Rod (A. Smith) 05:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to RfD. Then D. Widsith 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So how are we supposed to understand "Hey Adam, pull my finger"? or these ? Kappa 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the meaning cannot be guessed from the words. It implies that the finger is a fart lever. Keep. —Stephen 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Stephen. bd2412 T 17:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep, strongly idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(I don't think voting applies here.) Although the joke with its physical comedy may attribute an unexpected effect to the act of pulling a finger, the phrase as it is used within the joke is a literal use of the non-idiomatic components of the phrase. That is, the person playing the joke uses the words in their plain and non-idiomatic way when he or she says them to the mark. The mark is not supposed to interpret the words idiomatically, so no idiomatic meaning is intended by the phrase itself. Valid citations would have to demonstrate some idiomatic use of the phrase itself, not an idiomatic implication of a joke that contains the literal use of the phrase. Rod (A. Smith) 22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The set phrase is not used outside of the context of that joke, though, except as allusions to the joke. That is, in a serious board room meeting, someone asks for a particular opinion, and the boss responds "well...pull my finger" it is not a direct request that the person act out the actual finger-pulling. Rather, it would be equivalent to that same boss saying "your idea smells like shit." How are real citations supposed to be found when there are millions of examples (of the direct joke) to wade through? It is ridiculous to suggest that this entry doesn't belong in Wiktionary. How would someone learning English possibly be able to figure it out? --Connel MacKenzie 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By practical application? :) Andrew massyn 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Harmless, interesting in its own way, although I am not sure of the second definition. RFVpassed. Andrew massyn 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Verb: to ginge: Action of posting an already posted link/article/joke etc, to the newsgroup uk.rec.motorcycles

4.5 million hits for ginge. I checked the first five pages on google hit list and a further five random pages. Lots of hits for people with ginger hair. Ginge is a town in Ethiopia. Ginge is the name of a cat in Antarctica. No verification for the sense set out above. Rfv failed. Andrew massyn 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Dvortygirl, but I only know this as indefatigable. Can you come up with a reasonably unrecent citation? I think the etymology is in+de+ yet unattested English fatigable (to fatigue), and pro'ly has nothing to do with Latin or French. My 2 cents.--Allamakee Democrat 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It (indefatigable) was borrowed in one piece from the French indefatigable back in the 1500s, from Latin indefatigabilis, "that cannot be wearied" (in-de-fati-agos, "not utterly driven to crack"). Defatigable is a back formation that I am unfamiliar with. —Stephen 10:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

here are 347 links, for anyone that cares to start adding them. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Backformation indeed. Enough quotes in the OED, even in the SOED. — Vildricianus 18:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I started going through the google books link User:Connel MacKenzie gave, and the first three pages of full + restricted, and the first four pages of just unrestricted views, have exactly one good match, the rest being scannos primarily due to hyphenation. (caveat - some of the restricted pages I couldn't access, but after seeing some context, most of those seemed likely hyphenations as well.) All the matches at UVA's Etext resource are also scannos. I put the good match on the def page, but I'm giving up on this for now...anyone else have a couple to add? Jeffqyzt 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the etym taken from Websters 1902. Rfv passed even though I dont like it. I have also moved it to Appendix:Orphaned words. Andrew massyn 09:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A contributor is insisting that platypodes is a correct English plural of platypus. I think it isn’t correct English. Is there evidence to show that it is an English plural? —Stephen 17:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked on this myself. The plural platypodes is not recognized by U.S. dictionaries such as the Random House and American Heritage, nor by Fowler. On the Wikipedia page w:English plural, it states:

The Greek plural for words ending in -pus (gr. poûs) meaning "foot", such as octopus and platypus, is -podes, but this plural is rare for octopus and has never been accepted for platypus. —Stephen 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this website, the Australian OED lists platypodes as a plural form; I do not have access to this resource, does anyone care to check? Doremítzwr 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest draft ot the new edition of the international OED lists platypodes, and marks it as rare. It has no quotations for it yet though. --Ptcamn 08:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that sufficient for its inclusion in Wiktionary? Doremítzwr 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not, if {{nosecondary}} is still valid.

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

--Connel MacKenzie 07:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've created an entry for platypodes and given three cites (from USENET.) All the book quotes I found were to the effect of "this is how platypus should be pluralized." I also left a usage note there indicating that it was less common than the plurals listed back on platypus, even though it's classically based. (Interestingly enough, there seems to also be a group of birds that was (formerly?) known as Platypodes, but as most of the usage was in French or Latin, I didn't add at this time.) I have *not* added a reference on the platypus page. Thoughts on whether one should be added? Jeffqyzt 00:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do your three citations not qualify as verification of usage? Should platypodes not, therefore, be included as a legitimate plural form of platypus? Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, but with some kind of comment indicating that the usage is much less common. I'm just not sure of precedent. If someone can point me to an article with a similar situation? Jeffqyzt 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why has Stephen G. Brown removed any reference to the plural form platypodes from the entry for platypus again? The usage has clearly been verified by now. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the talk page of platypodes. Andrew massyn 10:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"A home for the homeless."? --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

homeless person = person who lives in a dump ??? DAVilla 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an offensive association.Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 10:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

7 google hits, all pointing back to Wiktionary except for one Japanese language website. 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 appears to be the preferred transliteration. A-cai 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to find a more common name here: Chinese wikipedia. —Stephen 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at that site also. It uses 科特 (short for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特).

A-cai 01:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特. —Stephen 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's still not really a word tho - it's basically a phonetic spelling of the place name, like if someone didn't know how to spell Seattle and spelled it see-at-ul... bd2412 T 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s how Chinese works. All Western names can be written (after a fashion) in Chinese, just as they can in Russian and Arabic. And just like Russian and Arabic, there is method in the madness. Certain sounds tend to be transliterated only with certain characters ... for example, names that end in -ia usually represent that sound with the character 亚 (yà). I think this is a very good rendering of the name in Chinese. —Stephen 04:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

BD2412 makes a valid point. When does a word stop being a transliteration or neologism and when does it start being a valid word? I like Wiktionary's attestation policy of at least two documented uses of the word. I'm not sure whether or not we can pull two valid uses out of the 12 Google hits for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特. However, we for sure cannot pull out two for 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Personally, I would much rather be focusing on words that are more commonly used. On the other hand, people don't generally use dictionaries for words they already know.

A-cai 08:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

True. This is an unusual name that is completely unknown to most Americans, and there isn’t much information about it in languages other than English and the Indic languages. I think we now have made a very reasonable page and we can afford to wait for an educated Chinese/Tamil/Sinhalese-speaking businessman to make any improvements that he thinks are needed at some future date. —Stephen 09:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, you note above that all Western names can be transliterated into Chinese - but should we include all such transliterations? bd2412 T 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We should include the ones that have become standardized. I have a friend who translates and needs exactly this kind of information. She had said sometimes she's forced to just make it up, including the English name parenthetically, but she'd much rather have it in a reference book. Right now she uses travel websites. One day she'll have Wiktionary.

Where do we draw the line? I don't want to provide her with the wrong information, but please do include what's legit. DAVilla 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I worked as a translator for four decades, and names were a constant thorn. Just as there are numerous transliteration standards for Russian to English, many English names can be transliterated in several ways into Russian, and some are definitely better than others. For example, Fort Worth can validly be transliterated as Форт Ворт, Форт Ворс, Форт Верт, or Форт Верс (after years of feedback, I finally decided that the best choice is Форт Верс). We don’t need a campaign to enter transliterations of every single name into every non-Roman language, but whenever somebody goes to the trouble of doing one, I think it’s valuable and feel strongly that we should keep it. —Stephen 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Noting the sparse number of references we have for this term, how do we know this is the "best" transliteration? Granted, certain characters are most commonly used for Chinese phonetic translations, but even then, arbitrary decisions are made about what equivalents to use for words that have no phonetic equivalent in Chinese (like "Sri" here). The above rationale convinces me that we should provide such transliterations - if we know they are the "right" or the "best" ones available. bd2412 T 03:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The same way we know that г. Нью-Йорк is the translation of NYC ... the experience and knowledge of the person or persons who entered it and edited it. If a term is incorrect, changes, or falls out of favor over the course of time, somebody will adjust it. As for showing that translations or transliterations are the "right" ones or the "best" ones, that is simply not possible. I can give you the benefit of my many years of professional experience, but you just have to take my word for it. When I’ve made a mistake, or if a different version becomes standard later on, someone will change it. I remember when a certain major city in Vietnam was most properly called (and spelt) Saigon in English. That has changed, and a new name is now considered the best and most correct in English. Other English names that have recently undergone such sea changes are the USSR, Bombay, Siam, Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian, Nootka, and senility. Things change, it’s no big deal. —Stephen 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my position. My original purpose was to call into question the validity of 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Replacing the term with 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 is another issue entirely. However, there is some evidence (albeit a bit shaky) that 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科特 is ever so slightly more common than 斯里贾亚瓦德纳普拉科提. Only time will tell which one proves to be the correct transliteration. Usually, several translations will co-exist for Western terms until one (or more) is loosely agreed upon by a major block of Chinese speakers. For example, President Bush was originally called 布希總統 (Bùxī zǒngtǒng) in Taiwan, but 布什总统 (Bùshí zǒngtǒng) in the PRC. At present, both terms are understood to be valid transliterations, one prefered in Taiwan, and one prefered in the PRC.

A-cai 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am putting this discussion on the talk page of both articles. Andrew massyn 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Second sense: A woman's vagina? --Connel MacKenzie 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretty common in Britain, and lots of Urbandictionary hits. The girls I've talked to hate this word, finding in least. Wikipedia mentions it. --Expurgator t(c) 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Label as UK slang then? (Only if cites are found, of course.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Added cites. I didn't label as UK, as in the search it also seemed to be current elsewhere. Jeffqyzt 02:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 13:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Three independent instances spanning at least a year? — Vildricianus 08:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Added more citations -- Opteamist 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What a spectacular example of the weakness of WT:CFI. Excellently formatted, too. --Connel MacKenzie 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 14:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A female love-toy? If so, is this dictionary material? I had a quick look on some adult websites (all in the name of research of course), but am not finding much. --Expurgator t(c) 21:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt find any either. RFVfailed. Andrew massyn 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. Fark 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

pea? --Ptcamn 12:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens is already singular (meaning “wise human”). If one was really in need of a plural (say, to refer to a hypothetical sub-branch of humanity), then one could use “Homines Sapientes”. However, “Homo sapien” is pointless — why not just use “human”? Doremítzwr 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 80s song surely popularized the so-called "incorrect" usage. But many of the book citations here seem to predate the song? --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The entry is correct - it is a back-formation from the mistaken belief that "Homo sapiens" is a plural (rather than a singular and a plural). Compare bicep and tricep. Removing rfv from page. — Paul G 14:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Doremítzwr, you miss the point. "Homo sapien" is used to refer to a member of the species in a way that "human" does not. I could infer from your question that you think that words should not be added to the language if they are synonymous with existing words. That isn't the way language works - Occam's razor does not apply.

Special:Contributions/Eric Utgerd. A hoax, or is Tatar really English with umlauts? — Vildricianus 08:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tartar is not written in the Latin alphabet. (Well, let me me fair : it can be, but the only official script is Cyrillic. Russian law says it must be written in Cyrillic -Tartarstan being in Russia, it is subject to Russian laws.) Amazon link to a Tartar-English dictionary here, by the way, if that helps. Beobach972 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don’t believe for a moment that Tatar borrowed any words from Anglo-Saxon or Middle English. You are right, Tatar is mostly spoken in Russia, and there it is written in Cyrillic. Outside of Russia, they write it in a modified Arabic script or in Roman. Tatar is Turkic and has been strongly influenced by Russian, the Caucasian languages, and the Fennic languages that are found in the Volga River basin, and it contains a lot of Arabic (via Turkish). For example, лакин (Arabic, "but") and Template:RUchar (Arabic, "possible"). The only words related to English that are found in Tatar are words such as диалект that it got from Russian and that Russian got from Latin or French, and words borrowed very recently that are related to science and technology, especially computers and software.

One of the words mentioned below as coming from English is yoghurt ... that word is purely Turkic. I’m not certain of the exact derivation, but it’s either related to the Turkish word yoğun (thick) or to the verb yoğurmak (to knead), may itself have originally meant "to make thick". In any case, Tatar did not borrow it from English. All recent borrowings from English, such as computer terminology, have to be written in proper Tatar Cyrillic before they can be accepted here. —Stephen 16:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Using word akin to english will be better than borrowed from english. Please look at some words written in Cyrillic, Latin and translation: баля(balea)-bale,calamity; бебей(beibei)-baby; бельки (bel'ke)-belike; бель,белли(bell', belly)-belly; бут(but)-butt,thigh; билан(belang)-belong, be along with; бяд(bad)-bad; буун(boon)-bone; боза(boza)-booze.Eric Utgerd 08:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Tatar is not English language. Crimean Tatar and Volga Tatar dialects from so called "Volga Bulgar - Kipchak" group Crimean Goths and Tatars mixed. Gothic language was spoken in Crimea up to 19 century. Loan words preserved in Middle Tatar and modern dialects and still in use. There are no synonyms for loan words. Yoghurt spelled also ei curd, ye gurt, yogurt attested in Tatar in 12 century ( Codex Comanicus). Tatars borrowed(?) from Old English curd, crud, which not from Gaelic. Word from Germanic Gort Milch - fermented milk; die Milch gärt. Other related words curdlamak - to cudle,ayearan - a yearn make (Yearn, v. i. & t. To curdle, as milk. . Tatar Wuey; wuey hwich; uuey mak- whey; whey which; whey make.Acid thekiis - acide the cheese, sour cheese.Saurka - sour. Sid - side, top - top; öuer - over; yakin-akin; borrowch-borrows. Because of this, please don't remove sensetive loan(?) words from list. Eric Utgerd 13:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt this is a word; it's on the requested list, where I left a note as to my doubts. --Allamakee Democrat 17:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is in the 1913 Webster's. Whether anyone uses it any more is doubtful ... but is legitimate if archaic. (meaning 4th-to-last; I think the definition we have (4th before last) is wrong, if a book had 10 chapters, the preantenultimate should be the 7th. Someone might check...) Robert Ullmann 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sooo going to start using this word... bd2412 T 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

preanteNumtimate? The word looks like an abortion. I still doubt it.--Allamakee Democrat 09:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the N looks fishy; but the word is less pronounceable without it. It really is spelled preantenultimate! Robert Ullmann 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn’t the preäntenultimate chapter in such a book be its seventh chapter? Ultimate: tenth; penultimate: ninth; preäntenultimate: eighth; except if the above is a typo, and the intended word is preäntepenultimate, in which case your ten-chapter book’s preäntepenultimate chapter would indeed be its seventh. Doremítzwr 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It means the same as preantepenultimate. The etymology of preantepenultimate is pre+ante+pene-ult (where paene = almost, nearly, next to); the composition of preantenultimate is difficult to figure, perhaps it’s pre+ante+un-ult (unus = one). —Stephen 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is defined differently from preantepenultimate, being apparently at a further remove. I would like to see some cites for it personally. Widsith 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has defined them differently, but they both mean the fourth syllable from the end. The final syllable = ultima; second from last is the penult (last but one); third from last is the antepenult (in front of the last-but-one); fourth from the last is the preantepenultimate (before in-front-of the last-but-one). Some people say that the fourth syllable from the end if the third from the end if they use European count: last syllable, 1st from end, 2nd from end, 3rd from end. In American count, the last syllable is the 1st, next to last is 2nd, and so on. —Stephen 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this is simply a Webster's typo (or scanno) for preantepenultimate – particularly since it doesn't actually have an entry for that. preantenultimate gets no Google books hits, and all the regular Google hits seem to be lifted from Webster's. I don't think we can verify this word.... Widsith 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost certainly a typo. Since antepenultimate (3rd last) already existed, preantepenultimate is clearly the 4th last, cf hemidemisemiquaver. I don't believe nultimate ever existed, so antenultimate and preantenultimate are very unlikely. --Enginear 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Illicit labour . . . . Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, but I've frequently heard the phrase "good enough for government work", in which the term refers to substandard quality. bd2412 T 02:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be pretty much the opposite of the meaning "illicit labor" though. The idiom good enough for government work seems to be a very different form entirely. Perhaps this is meant to be limited to something obscure like Russian machine/metalworking shops? --Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being in use in proper nouns and parts of proper nouns, and occasional references to a type of tree, the only English reference I can find for this term is in a Middle English work Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (where it seems to function as a noun as often as an adjective, and the meaning isn't especially clear from context). I can't find any modern reference to the English adjective sense. --Dajagr 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all right. Yes, it's been obsolete for a long time, but it crops up quite a lot in Gawain as you say, and also some otehr early modern stuff. You're right, it can also be a noun. I've expanded the entry a bit. Widsith 07:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the noun sense also be tagged archaic (or obsolete), too? --Dajagr 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, yes. Done. Widsith 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody verify these two senses of pallet?

1. a vessel of a definite measure (probably four ounces) used to receive the blood in bloodletting.
2. the quantity contained in such a vessel.

A query on google.books for "pallet leech" only returns cases where pallet refers to a sleeping platform. The first several pages of "pallet blood" don't seem to support this either. Jeffqyzt 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some further searching on Google shows evidence of a term pallet count to do with blood samples, as well as a patent for a blood centrifuge listing a party named "Pallet" in the related patents section (so perhaps it comes from a brand-name?) However, I still don't see any evidence to support this usage. Perhaps it restricted to specific medical contexts? Anyone with a medical background that can weigh in? Jeffqyzt 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The "pallet count" above seems to be a misspelling of platelet count. Andrew massyn 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been unable to find any independent verification for this sense, although I did find another definition in hereldary which I have entered. Rfvsense failed. Andrew massyn 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a definition for harping, as opposed to a definition for the fish. --Connel MacKenzie 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your issue with this is. None of these mention the fish. - dcljr 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Right - my suspicion is that it is either obsolete or a British-centric term. So citations may greatly clarify (nosencondary) where/when this is used. --Connel MacKenzie 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Greatly revised entry, I think to everyone's satisfaction. Removed template. --Allamakee Democrat 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 05:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed Andrew massyn 19:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

— Vildricianus 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero valid google hits. Toss. Robert Ullmann 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling, or obsolete spelling? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It’s an alternative spelling for riposte. —Stephen 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In what region/dialects? Bartelby, Cambridge, m-w.com all seem to disagree. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My Random House says, "riposte, n., v., -post-ed, -post-ing. —n. 1. etc. 2. etc. —v.i. 3. to make a riposte. 4. to reply or retaliate. Also ripost’." It doesn’t say anything about region or dialect for this word, but the Random House is American English and it simply indicates that this is an alternative form. —Stephen 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Websters 1902 & Websters 1913 both have it as defined. I can't find any current usage of that spelling. Am moving this to July's list. If no verification, will delete in August. Andrew massyn 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

News release by the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom - . Plus Webster's, as Andrew massyn mentioned. 172.149.220.113 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a US variant – can't find it in any UK dictionaries (though the sOED does list repost as an alternative spelling). Widsith 07:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cited and rfv removed. Andrew massyn 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To organize. Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked for "sidebagged" and only one hit. Thats us! Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a Chinese romanization, not English? --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Something of a crossover word - very important in doing business in China, so it has become a buzzword in the boardrooms of U.S. businesses that deal in China (much as feng shui has crossed over into pop culture). bd2412 T 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, googling "need guanxi" gives reasonable candidates for citations. Kappa 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK, then perhaps a more descriptive usage note/etymology would suffice. (Citations certainly welcome.) --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the existing cites and added a couple. Jeffqyzt 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've enhanced the etymology to reflect its use in the West. bd2412 T 01:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right then, I will remove the RfV tag if no one objects. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The def covers syndactly. The article is also capped. This should be an rfd, as I think about it. Forgot to sign. and would someone please ARCHIVE THIS PAGE.--Allamakee Democrat 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikified it, and moved it to non-capped. It is a synonym for syndactyly. SemperBlotto 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any explination for it on google, but rfvpased never-the-less. Andrew massyn 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

zh:Wikipedia voted 8 to 2, after a rather heated edit war, to delete 理想语 as a term because the consensus was that it is an invented term used solely for advertising purposes A-cai 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should trust the zh: sysops. Move to RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me.

A-cai 10:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To rfd then. Andrew massyn 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hippietrail rfv'd this a few days ago but forgot to add it to this page.

This may be a French term, rather than an English one. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Morcel shows: Origin: Fr. Morceler, to subdivide - Versageek 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is an English word. Perhaps the contributor was thinking of morcellate, which means the same thing. Widsith 07:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to be correct. I found it in a medical dictionary. (added etymology) SemperBlotto 07:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

the only entries I could find were for morcellate. Morcel is an, admittedly obscure variation of morsel. I have re-defined it and added the definition for morcellate. Andrew massyn 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• narc, narced

As a verb, "narced" looks wrong, if only because the main verb would seem to be "narce". Narked or narcked perhaps. --Allamakee Democrat 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is already labeled as slang; it is very common in the US. Narked (3) is less than narced (80), so I don't understand why you think the British spelling rule should outweight the US spelling conventions for this US slang term. --Connel MacKenzie 05:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First he was carping, now he's narked! :-) --Enginear 17:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that it looks wrong, but there you go. I have added quotations sections at narced. Seems a little overkill for this word, but now it's attested. BTW, off topic, I put in a link to a usage instance via Google books. The citation is surely fair use; do we have policy on linking to books.google in the quote though? Jeffqyzt 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No policy exists that I know of. I also use books.google for many citations, but make a point of trying to rely on other sources whenever convenient. In entry layout explained, (WT:ELE) the quotation format was described slightly different, but what you added is exactly the type of content desired here in RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated the quotes section to look like the examples in entry layout explained and Wiktionary:Quotations (sorry, I had forgotten the bold years :-( ) I also broke out the "narced on", "narced out" to a seperate usage notes block. Are those what you were referring to about the formatting differences? Or did you mean the addition of the usenet group after the "work title"? I didn't see an example of a usenet citation in those areas you mention, although they're specifically mentioned as desiriable sources due to their online archival. As a newcomer to wikis in general and wiktionary in particular, I'm finding it a bit hard to navigate to the appropriate place to refer to for formatting style; there seem to be a number of pages dealing with that, but I tend to think "I saw that in one of those pages" and have to go track them all down again, or else keep half a dozen pages open, since it's not immediately evident what's where. The "welcome" message you left in my talk page seems about the best list, actually, but it's not inclusive. Ah well, if it wasn't at least a little bit arcane, it would lose some mystique :-)

BTW, who's responsible for removing the rfv tags? Is it Allamakee Democrat as the initiator, or does it need to be an admin? Jeffqyzt 12:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I just re-read the page header *blush*.

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 20:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 05:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Google shows several hundred apparently independent uses as defined, in things like movie reviews and others. If it isn't a word, lots of people think it is. Why is it suspicious? Robert Ullmann 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I said "nonce or spelling/grammar error" but not "suspicious." But anyway, m-w.com doesn't list it, Cambridge online doesn't list it. Doesn't mean it isn't a word, but it certainly strikes me as an improper construction. Perhaps other regions are prone to using borrowed words with unusual inflections? --Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The online version of American Heritage Dictionary lists it under "macabre" SemperBlotto 10:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It does look odd. I think its one of those words like diarise which I loathe, but which has entered common usage. (I don't loathe this word, but do find it odd). Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As a transitive verb, it is always blacken, never to black, right? --Connel MacKenzie 04:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, "to blacken" means to make black, but so does "to black" to my ears. I have added two more meanings. SemperBlotto 07:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it used as "to black" when it's done with candle black, "black your swords, men; you don't want the enemy to see them." Of course, that was all in the context of RPGs, so it might be intentionally/artificially archaic. Jeffqyzt 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. All these senses are used in UK. --Enginear 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Added cites for "to make black" and "to apply blacking to" senses. Leaving it to someone else to add the UK-specific "blackball" sense. Jeffqyzt 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird spelling may be {{obsolete}}? Other dictionaries don't seem to list these meanings as adjective. Pronoun or adverb, perhaps, but adjective? --Connel MacKenzie 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Which spelling do you mean?

• Nought is the normal UK usage for zero.
• Naught is archaic for nothing
• I haven't noticed the Scottish one.
• Nowt is common North English dialect for nothing

But I agree they're not adjectives. --Enginear 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ARTFL lists this as an n. and adv., not adj. nor verb. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ARTFL is American, right? See OED. — Vildricianus 18:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yuck! Why would I want to spend money for a dictionary that tells me how to spell words wrong?  :-)   (I.e. British.) All humo(u)r aside, that research will have to wait until I can get to the library next week. So far, Collins, AHD, m-w, bartleby, and ARTFL all agree that the verb sense doesn't exist. And the one that listed the adj. looks like a typo. Hence the request for verification. --Connel MacKenzie T C 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I haven't found any web sources either that list the verb - so we're the first ;-). My Shorter OED (no money to the long one either) lists it as transitive verb:

1. Disregard, despise, hold in contempt. Long obsolete exc. Scottish.
2. Efface (esp. oneself). Archaic exc. Scottish.

Seems to appear primarily in the past participle form (couple of Google print results for noughted). — Vildricianus 11:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You can find it on Google used (primarily in religious texts) where they speak of "self-noughting", though it is not common. Julian of Norrich, 14th c, (Revelations of Divine Love, Hinduism Today, and Hindu.org. Google also shows that a lot of people can't spell "nothing".  :\ Cruinne 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just tag that usage as "archaic", and let it rest. Why beat ourselves up over whether this word/meaning is well enough verified. --Richardb 04:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? How did the word suddenly become archaic? This requests page is for verification of questionable terms. Checking other references, I didn't find the verb meaning listed - and verification of it is proving it to be very obscure. But 1998 is hardly archaic, in dictionary years. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Has this been sufficently checked by British English speakers? Could one remove the RFV tags when done please? --Connel MacKenzie 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be a word in some other language, but not in English. --Connel MacKenzie 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My SOED even says it's American! — Vildricianus 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's even in your favourite dictionary! — Vildricianus 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also the in-house spelling of the New Yorker (they being one of the few publications to insist on proper use of the diaeresis). Beobach972 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the way I learned to spell it back in the ’50s. During the mid-1900s, there was an effort in U.S. schools to adopt the use of the diaeresis to indicate different vowels, as in coop (chicken coop), but coöp (coöperative). (The British may prefer co-op, co-operative.) The use of the diaeresis soon fell out of favor, and now we just write cooperative. Nevertheless, the war babies like me and the early baby-boomers like my brothers originally learned coöperate, and it looks quite normal to us. —Stephen 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this discussion with reënter? --Dajagr 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t, but someone may well have. The same thing applies. I didn’t realize that the diaeresis spellings had been dropped until the mid 1990s ... I just thought there were a lot of sloppy young writers cropping up. —Stephen 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Aah; coördinate! I had forgotten all about the kerfuffle that sprang up just after I edited this word. Just to clear my name...

I did not create the entry for coördinate; I only improved it. Unfortunately, as the entry was deleted (and then resurrected by me, from a personal copy of the script which I kept), the entry’s history cannot prove this. However, this is irrelevant, as the word’s existence has now been proven. It is regretable that the present entry for coordinate contains so much less information than the one I had written for coördinate; however, as I still have my personal copy of what I wrote, reëntering the lost information would take next to no time.

I was blocked by Connel MacKenzie under the presumption that I had invented the word. However, please understand that I bear absolutely no grudges; all is forgiven (not to mention forgotten!), as I realise how easily confused with a Germanic umlaut a diaeresis could appear to one unfamiliar with its use in English. Nevertheless, I still ask that he writes a comment under the relevant section of my talk page to absolve me of the possible perception of guilt by other users.

Now to the issue of the use of diaereses in English in general. As the definition of diaeresis and the category of English words spelled with diacritics or ligatures explain, the diaeresis can be used to show that two adjacent vowels are pronounced as seperate syllables. Thus, the diaeresis is invaluable as a pronunciation aid, can be used to differentiate between homographs (as shown by Stephen G. Brown’s coop / coöp example), and may prevent the further complication of English grammar (in this case, by limiting the possible pronunciations of the digraph ‘oo’ to ‘uː’ or ‘ʊ’ (or also ‘ʊə’ if followed by a terminal ‘r’), by representing the fourth pronunciation ‘oʊ.o’ differently). For these reasons, the spelling ‘coördinate’ is functionally superior to the spelling ‘coordinate’. Furthermore (even though I am a British national), I also believe the spelling ‘coördinate’ to be functionally superior to the hyphenated spelling ‘co-ordinate’, for the reasons given by Dajagr on Stephen G. Brown’s Talk Page, with which I agree, and also because I think that this use of hyphens is best restricted to phrases like Anglo-French and long, very new neologisms, which, if written without hyphens, may unnecessarily distract the reader.

As I have learnt from the Tea Room discussion concerning ‘hoi polloi’, to which I will soon reply, Wiktionary is seemingly not in the habit of judging the merits and demerits of particular spellings, definitions, et cetera. Nevertheless, I still think it best that we explain, in usage notes, the rational reasons for people’s preferences for one spelling or the other, and, furthermore, that we create full definition pages for spellings which are functionally superior, whilst creating variant spelling pages for those spellings that are functionally inferior. What do you all think?

If it’s OK with everyone here, I shall reënter the script I wrote for coördinate, updating it with any new information entered at coordinate and co-ordinate. I’ll wait a couple of days in case anyone has any objections. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not read that article, but it must be remembered that the English diaeresis was merely an American spelling reform undertaken in the mid-1900s, and in the end it was abandoned. There is still quite a number of Americans who were schooled during that period and who may, on formal occasions, still use it (consider The New Yorker), but it is no longer being taught anywhere and is not recommended. Any article must take care to reference the failed reform and not promote its use. —Stephen 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Having been born and raised in New York, I scoff at the silly New Yorker magazine thing. The magazine apparently, is written for non-New Yorkers. No school I have attended ever used umlauts or diaresis in any English words. I don't think the SOED labelling a non-standard abberation as "American" can in any way imply that such a spelling was ever considered valid in The United States of America...it wouldn't be the first time the SOED made a mistake about a foreign country. --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Connel's edit summary for this post was "at least label it British, or Common Wealth, then". — Vildricianus 08:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it’s American spelling, but it’s before your time. U.S. schools (including NY schools) taught the diaeresis spelling during the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s. It is strictly an American spelling reform, but it was abandoned. —Stephen 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was it abandoned? It was such a good idea... Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 06:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was abandoned in the early ’60s, IIRC, and because in those days it was difficult and expensive to have diacritics typed correctly. Only a few specialized typesetters had the capability, and we charged dearly for such graphic services. American typewriters didn’t usually have the right symbols, and the IBM Selectric was still a twinkle in some inventor’s eye. Today it would be simple, but now people just don’t like it, considering it pretentious and Frenchified. The idea really never had a chance. —Stephen 11:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the New Yorker. Last time I picked up a copy of Technology Review, they were using diaereses every chance they got, and boy, did they look silly.

There's no real mystery or debate here, I think. Educated English speakers, typographers, and computer character set nurds all know that the diaeresis can indicate a non-dipthong in words like coöperate, coördinate, naïve, and Noël. Educated ditto know that there are diacritics in foreign loanwords like cliché, née, touché, résumé, and Encyclopædia Britannica. Finally, some of those educated ditto -- and in particular the computer character set nurds -- love to cavort in the wide-open fields of ISO 8859-1 and Unicode, love to be forever freed of the strictures of 7-bit US-ASCII, łove to show øff by ūsing “făncy charaçterš” ȩṽẹŕÿ ċĥặňçė ẗḥḛȳ ĝẽţ.

But.

Not every English speaker is one of those ditto. There are plenty of English speakers who (a) believe that there are precisely 26 letters in the alphabet, (b) believe that diacritics are "foreign" and "funny", and (c) have no wish to use them, to remember when to use them, or to learn how to use them. No matter how superior spellings like coöperate or résumé might seem to some of us, they must remain alternative spellings, because cooperate and resume are and will remain in widespread use, despite their crashing mediocrity, pronunciation difficulties, and ambiguities with chicken coops etc.

—scs 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those who hates clutter on our precise 26 letters, and who feels that looking ahead to work out which pronunciation (or even homograph) is required is one of the joyful challenges of reading English aloud. So the few cases where diacritics, accents and ligatures can be used are not generally worth the clutter for me personally.

After all, if an Englishman can correctly pronounce the towns of Reading, Slough, Mousehole, Teignmouth, etc and an American can pronounce Kansas, Arkansas, Yosemite and Los Angeles without a pause for thought, and both can distinguish the correct homograph for read, differentiating between the homographs of resume is not too taxing.

However, I accept my position is not very logical -- after all, why not 24 letters -- use I for J and UU for W, like they used to. Also, while I can't normally be bothered to use them , I do have a soft spot for accents on words only recently adopted, eg résumé, and I do think that Noël looks pretty when surrounded by bells and other flummery on Christmas cards.

So my view is live and let live. And also, as I noted in the reënter discussion, some words are spelled with diacritics by some people, and those of us who weren't taught them may well have to look up the first one or two we come across to understand what is going on.

But I'll leave the cites to someone who likes them! --Enginear 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the di(a)eresis is archaic, and we need do nothing more than mark these words as such. The forms without the diacritics are the present-day standard spellings. — Paul G 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If, as Steven G. Brown asserts, spellings with diacritics were only abandoned in teaching in the early 60s, and are in continued use by The New Yorker and a few other publications, then I doubt that they qualify as archaic usage. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "obsolete" would be a better term? I've been looking into current style guides on use of the diaeresis, and so far the three that I've consulted (Strunk & White, Gregg, and The Chicago Manual of Style) have been strikingly mum on the topic. It's hard to say based on that what the current style or favor is. --Dajagr 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, "obsolete" is worse than "archaic" as it means it has completely fallen out of use, which, from the discussion here, is plainly not true. "Dated" or "old-fashioned" would be more appropriate. — Paul G 14:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When we had {{dated}}, it was deemed as more recent than {{archaic}}. "Archaic" distinguished itself from "obsolete" only as a matter of time, "obsolete" being older. The caveat was that {{archaic}} was also supposed to include "old-fashioned" terms. I too think that the "obsolete" tag is the most appropriate, here...but I don't feel like being corrected by Stephen and Vild again, just yet. --Connel MacKenzie 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A furry mammal. Any takers? SemperBlotto 06:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is spurious. It comes from a joke:

Q: How do you catch a unique animal?

A: You neak up on them.

Jeffqyzt 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly - Delete. Παρατηρητής

Proclaimed to be a protologism in comment. References include Urbandictionary and other secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 06:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Guardian newspaper has used it but it seems most of the usage is on Blogs, newsgroups etc.--Williamsayers79 07:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many of the usuages on Google hits were due to our listing of the word on Wiktionary!--Williamsayers79 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To WT:LOP & deleted. Andrew massyn 04:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not used in English. (Otherwise there probably would be more than zero books.google.com hits.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly - Delete. Παρατηρητής

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Original rfv was from user:SemperBlotto. Added citations at doper (all of which are actually "dopers" anyway); do I need to similarly document this, as it's just a plural? Jeffqyzt 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the link to doper is sufficient? Incidentally, I think there is also an archaic (pre-1960) meaning of someone who applies dope to the canvas or paper wings of aeroplanes and models and (possibly non-archaic) furnishing fabrics. I have always suspected that these people tended to become intoxicated by the fumes, as with glue sniffers, and that that is the origin of the drug-related usage. But I've never checked. --Enginear 18:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is capitalization correct? SemperBlotto 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1101.html. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vis, whether or not it should be in Wiktionary: the abbreviation DNS is used attributively all the time. DNS name, DNS resource record, DNS server, DNS admininistrator, etc. It's not spelled out very often because it's so long, but it seems to me that if the abbreviation is used attributively then the spelled out version should be ok for inclusion too. --kop 08:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is domain name server and domain name in lower case then? "Have moved discussion to July to be dealt with in August. Andrew massyn 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Because domain name is a general concept, that is, a name in the domain of a function. The Wiktionary Main Namespace is an example of a domain. The Wiktionary itself is a domain name system: it provides a function that translates words (the domain of the function) to definitions (the range of the function). The Internet's domain name system translates names to (primarily) IP addresses. We call it the Domain Name System, a proper noun, hence capitalized. (see for example, rfc:1183, Introduction (very sneaky grin here)) Robert Ullmann 12:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Just as well you didn't write the entry then ;-) --Enginear 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (hey, how many times in your life do you get to use something you wrote yourself as a legitimate primary source ...) Robert Ullmann 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The referenced manual on w:BIND is about as authoritative as one can get... When UNIX administrators are talking about DNS, they are talking about BIND. — Epastore 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. RFVPASSED. :) Andrew massyn 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Any takers for follow like a tantony pig, from the 1811 Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue? Maybe for tantony pig too?

Added cites and etymology to tantony pig: hard to find actual usage; people seem to prefer defining it and describing associated customs to using it.

Only found one definition, and no usage, of follow like a tantony pig, though it seems a logical extention. --Enginear 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be pukka. SemperBlotto 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• I've used "epicaricacy" in a sentence several times in the past few years... though come to think of it, people usually ask what it means, to which I reply, "You know... schadenfreude." Does that verify the word? :) --Epastore (no account here yet... just stopping by for the first time... to look upepicaricacy, no less. What were the chances the day I look it up is the day it shows up on this page?) 19 June 2006

Well, I've never come across this. The word makes sense, but has it really ever been used? Zero hits on Google Books, and at first glance all the regular Google hits seem to be from ‘interesting words’ websites. Widsith 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis knew the word, at least in its Latinized form: he uses ‘Epichaerecacia’ as a person's name in The Pilgrim’s Regress. I certainly hope the form 'epicaricacy' is not in use—though there is one Google Books hit in an ‘interesting words’ dictionary, there is really nothing to support its horrible ugly spelling... according to Wikipedia, the source this entry cites spells it epicharikaky (shudder) not epicaricacy, but if anything it should be epichaerecacy, or epicherecacy in Americanized form, though I'm not finding that. A strict transliteration epikhairekakia gets a couple of GB hits in philosophical books (but as a Greek word) . —Muke Tever 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put a link to a discussion on the word at the cite. I intend to leave it for the nonce, but perhaps it should go to WT:LOP? Moving to July for decision in August. Andrew massyn 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To WT:LOP & deleted. Andrew massyn 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this gained common understanding in the English language? Or still limited to 'leet'? --Connel MacKenzie 04:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 10700 google hits out there! I checked several of the postings, which are mostly blog sites and found it put on pictures and talked about all over the place. It seems to have the meaning stated. I have put an alternative etymology on the page derived from one of the sites I visited. Rfvpassed much to my surprise. I am not qualified to say if it is out of leetspeak and am moving this page to rfd for further discussion. Andrew massyn 08:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

--82.46.102.93 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)its a part of the internet culture and should be recorded

You probably meant to put this at WT:RFD#roflcopter. --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Massyn removed the def concerning the lesion on a horse's back. Why? The human medical sense is obsolete. The veterinary sense vis-a-vis horses is quite alive. He also applied the quote I provided to the sense "An action demonstrating impudence or brazenness; temerity, chutzpah", which is patently unsupportable. --Allamakee Democrat 01:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I intended to move your quote to sense 8, and will fix it shortly(it was late then and is late now). A gall on a horse is no different to a gall on a person or on any other animal. and that is why I removed the specific sense relating to horses. Regards Andrew massyn 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Verb sense: "To break the wind of; to cause to lose breath; to exhaust. "

Kappa 06:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure that it is only a noun - and also that it it not hyphenated. Rewritten as windbreak and linked to Wikipedia article. (To break wind is, of course, something totally different.) SemperBlotto 07:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Old farts break wind, but old windbreaks don't fart. --Enginear 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another one? --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it gets Google hits as a definition, but no actual use. Deleted and added to list of protologisms. SemperBlotto 07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly - Delete. Παρατηρητής

Not verifiable, although many google hits. rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 09:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute. --Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Made up word - Delete. Παρατηρητής

Plural of what? Is this a real word? Fark 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has been deleted. I'm still wondering whether or not it's a real word. I've never heard of it.

Here was the content:

"==English==

1. Plural of what.

   I have those

   You have whats?"

Fark 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a word in about the same sense as "whys" is; I see it used in phrases like "the whats and whys of..." A search on "the whats" on Google Books gets in the neighborhood of a thousand hits. --Dajagr 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be restored then. Fark 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could have the plural of ANY word - meaning more than one instance of it. So if there was more than one whats in a book we would then need whatses and then whatseses to describe them. Or am I being silly? (Delete) Παρατηρητής

Yes, that would be silly. However, in *this* case, "what" is being used as a stand-in for other terms. Not instances of "what" but "the whats" that are actually instances of something else. Quite a different case. Jeffqyzt 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added cites and expanded the definition as to the "stand-in" usage. I suppose we should do whys, hows, whens, etc. But I'm rather meh about them. Jeffqyzt 01:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A vessel with a high centre of gravity? Any takers? (Capitalization looks wrong) SemperBlotto 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several types of ship that are called tenders, but none related to a high center of gravity. Tender ships have the basic general function of servicing another type of air or sea vessel; e.g., destroyer tenders, yacht tenders. —Stephen 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The term tendership has to do with the fact that the ship is unstable because of its high center of gravity. This causes the ship - for example - to have a wet bow, meaning that it burrows into the waves as they strike the bow, even more so than normally experienced. Thus the term means that the ship is "tender", not that it IS a tender. The first generation of Aircraft Carriers tended to be "tender", because they were designed to be Cruisers, NOT Aircraft Carriers. This was corrected in later generations by widening the beam of the ship, and carrying that width through much of the after portion of the ship, thus lowering the center of gravity. CORNELIUSSEON 02:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in OED or Websters; not in Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, or in any other nautical reference book in my local library. SemperBlotto 10:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In British English, it would be written tender ship, while in American English words are combined more often. --Connel MacKenzie 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

maybe not, but it IS in the copy of FM 55-501 (Marine Crewman's Handbook) that was issued to me when it was published in March of 1983.

CORNELIUSSEON 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this but I didn't find "tendership" in the glossary. What page is it on, in your copy? --Connel MacKenzie 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I electronically searched each chapter. It's not mentioned anywhere. --Enginear 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch word added by untrustworthy contributor. SemperBlotto 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. — Vildricianus 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)