3120 hits with many beginning with a lower case letter seems like a good starting place. Google does have a few bugs in the way it presents things. Their references are normally to recent editions, and often ignore the fact that the first use of a word will be in a much earlier edition. Eclecticology 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Here's what some big dictionaries do:
  • AHD (answers.com): 1 entry, 1 sense. no pos "Xerox" only. entry discusses that word is a trademark and that it "often occurs in print in lowercase as a verb and noun".
  • Collins word exchange: 1 entry. 2 senses. "Xerox" only. sense 1: pos=noun. trademark. 3 subsenses: process, machine, copy
  • Encarta online: 1 entry. pos=trademark "Xerox" only.
  • M-W online: 2 entries. entry 1: pos=verb "xerox" only. 2 senses. entry 2: pos=trademark "Xerox" only. 1 sense.
  • OED online: 2 entries. entry 1: pos=noun "Xerox" also "xerox". entry 2: pos=verb "xerox" also "Xerox". Plenty of citations given from 1952 to 1985 giving both uppercase and lowercase for both noun and verb including inflected forms. Also specifically states "Hence xeroxed ppl. a., xeroxing vbl. n. (both also with capital initial)."

• Although capitalization was used more liberally in the past, common use recently, esp. very recently in the internet age, does not disagree with what is considered proper. Names are capitalized. Otherwise words are not capitalized by default. Specific exceptions have to be made where this is not true, e.g. for languages, the days of the week, etc. I'm in favor of using lower case for genericized trademarks, even in the noun sense, regardless of what other dictionaries do, to reflect the fact that the use is in a common sense rather than proper. The continued capitalization reflects that, the word having not gained acceptance, editors are careful not to make a faux pas. Think of what you would do if you looked up one of these words in a dictionary and found no entry. A conjugated verb would be more easily distinguished from the trademark, but a noun in the lower case would usually be considered erroneous because, "Look here, there's no such word." The problem is that the genericization of trademarks does not occur in print; it occurs in speech, and print does not immediately recognize the generic term as a new word. By following the norm and listing a generic word as capitalized, dictionaries are only continuing a practice that counters standards everyone already agrees upon: "Institute" is capitalized in MIT, but not in general. Davilla 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is it now our policy to include articles for all names of companies, products, etc if they form a part of an etymology for a regular word but not otherwise? — Hippietrail 17:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't like the idea of splitting the article, but your citations seem to be making a case for it. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "policy" for this approach. "Pragmatism" would be more appropriate. Eclecticology 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I've done my research I am in favour of splitting the article since that is currently the way we handle the same word being used in both uppercase and lowercase. I remain against adding entries for company or product names whether or not they have contributed etymologically to regular words. I can see no pragmatic value in it. If instead we included such words on the same basis as with given names and surnames I would see at least some point. — Hippietrail 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, in this case, a xerox employee (presumably) added to the etymology, which started this round of discussion in the first place. But anyway, I'd like to see a vote on the topic, i.e. "Should Wiktionary include entries for company (or product) names that are part of another word's etymology?" --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (edited 06:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

Correct me if I'm wrong. The standing Wiktionary policy is that company and product names should not be included. If that's so, the proper sense of Xerox should not be listed as an entry at all. I don't think anyone agues that we shouldn't identify the word as a trademark. This can be easily resolved by including the company name in the etymology. Davilla 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is inaccurate: there is no policy. The practice that most strongly supports splitting them is that of using "See also" at the top of pages where terms differ based on capitalization (a result of last June/July's inappropriate/premature de-capitalization of the English Wiktionary.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

AHD uses the following disclaimer:

Words that are known to have current trademark registrations are shown with an initial capital and are also identified as trademarks. The inclusion or exclusion of any word, or its capitalization, in this dictionary is not, however, an expression of the publisher's opinion as to whether or not it is subject to proprietary rights, nor is it to be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark.

Clearly somebody in the legal dept. thinks it's necessary. What does it protect them against? Does our disclaimer cover the same basis? Davilla 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The spanish word for photocopy is xerocopiar from xerox...I wonder if the RAE is worried about trademark issues. Further, the Online Etymology dictionary has this to say about the word Xerox:

1952, trademark taken out by Haloid Co. of Rochester, N.Y., for a copying device, from earlier xerography "photographic reduplication without liquid developers" (1948), from Gk. xeros "dry" + -ography as in photography. The verb is first attested 1965, from the noun, despite strenuous objection from the Xerox copyright department.

so it appears they don't like the idea...including a disclaimer seems like a decent idea. - TheDaveRoss 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, the -shire ending for names of UK counties is pronounced "shuh" (shə, /ʃə/, /S@/). Is the correct US pronunciation of these really "shyr" (shīr, /ʃaɪr/, /SaIr/, to rhyme with "fire"), or is that pronunciation only used by Americans who are unaware of the "shuh" pronunciation? (This is not to denounce Americans as ignorant - I'm just looking for the correct US pronunciation.) See, for example, the pronunciation I've added to Gloucestershire. — Paul G 11:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Swede and, while we learn in school to pronounce words the British way, I thought /ʃaɪr/ was the normal prounciation even in British English. /ʃə/ sounds snobbish to me, but perhaps I have seen too many American movies or that I just wasn't paying attention while in school. --Patrik Stridvall 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's something peculiar about the idea of a "correct" American pronunciation. The state of New Hampshire is not usually pronounced to rhyme with "fire". Even in Britain I would expect that there could be some variation in how the final "r" is handled. This seems to justify my usual avoidance of pronunciation issues. Eclecticology 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Scots always use 'shire' (=fire) almost rolling the r. Local accent/dialect plays a big part in how the ending is used in England and Wales. In the northeast of England 'shah' is shortened to 'sha' (with a hard 'a'). NW.

The RP is definitely "shuh", and so this is the pronunciation given in the entry. This applies to the pronunciation of "New Hampshire" as well. This pronunciation is not considered snobbish in the UK (at least, not in England). The word "shire" by itself rhymes with "fire", even when used to mean "those counties ending in -shire". — Paul G 18:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What is a "hard a"? — Paul G 18:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always said Gloucestershire like "fire" and don't recall hearing the "shuh" for any name besides New Hampshire. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You were mistaken. It is Glosster-shuh, Har-ford-shuh, Oxford-shuh, Came-bridge-shuh, etc. But as stated, many Scots pronounce Scottish counties -shyr. Kittybrewster 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the IPA on that proper? It has a ♪ symbol, and a smiley. Looks like a joke to me.

The IPA, which is included, as IPA should be, between // slashes, is (though I probably incline more to pronouncing it with /ɑ/ rather than /ə/). The music note and the smiley are a comment added to the side, and are probably safely removable. —Muke Tever 17:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation fixed and completed. — Paul G 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic have a billboard advert out at the moment in the UK advertising that they now fly to Dubai. It features Arabic script that has been styled to suggest an aeroplane. The Wikipedia article on Dubai has the Arabic for "Dubai" and it looks vaguely like an aeroplane, but not in the way that the advert has it.

Does anyone here who is familiar with Arabic know what the script actually says, or whether it is just Arabic-looking text in the shape of an aeroplane (and hopefully not suggesting anything insulting)? — Paul G 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(I can't find the ad on Virgin's site - sorry.) — Paul G 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While adding the Spanish translation for the sick used in playing pool sense I noticed most other senses are missing. Also the dictionaries I've checked have 2 or 3 homonyms spelled "cue". — Hippietrail 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only recall seeing this as fishbowl, which the article doesn't even mention. Online Collins and Encarta also both only list the single-word version and not the two-word version. — Hippietrail 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

usage rates:

• fishbowl 2,750,000 googles
• "fish bowl" 1,230,000 googles

JillianE 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the fishbowl as a small simple aquarium.

I do recall the word used in the manner: it's like living in a fishbowl, it seems everyone can see what I'm doing. I don't know if that needs a sense. JillianE 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Print.google.com is giving strange results on this lookup. With quotation marks around the two-word version, I found the reference (about fishbowl, fish bowl, fish-bowl, gold-fish bowl) that seems to indicate that the single-word version is the neologism. "Fifty Years Among the New Words: A Dictionary of Neologisms 1941-1991." There do seem to be plenty of references for the two-word entry. I doubt our CFI matches Collins' or Encarta's perfectly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've written a definition (on the basis of seeing BTDTGTTS (aka BTDTBTTS) in an Internet discussion and having to hunt around to find out what it meant) but it seems a bit imprecise to me. Would anyone like to see if they can improve on it? Thanks. — Paul G 12:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I always knew this as "been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it", probably with half a dozen variations. "Been there, done that" is much more common and stable though. — Hippietrail 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about "resignation"; I've rephrased slightly. What would really help with this entry (like with most idioms) is a really good citation from somewhere. Widsith 13:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hippietrail that the short form is far more common. Perhaps that's where the main article should be, and all the others should be treated as variants, including the abbreviations which would be completely meaningless to me. Eclecticology 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I had forgotten that form. But which came first? Was the short form shortened from the longer one, or is the longer form an extension of the shorter one, intended to add emphasis to the phrase? — Paul G 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whichever it is, we shouldn't really have duplication of the definition, as they are slightly different (BTDT suggests boredom is the reason, while the longer form suggests cynicism and exhaustion. We should define this in one place and cross-refer from the other forms to avoid duplication and contradiction. — Paul G 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Google Book Search gave me over 4000 hits for the short phrase, with perhaps no more than one in ten having the extension. One in particular from The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms here, under "seen one, seen them all", suggests that the phrase originated in Australia in 1963. In one reference on the Google listing (They don't let me see the page) mentions the Wes Noonan book Hardening Network Infrastructure there is the sentence "They are the folks with the 'been there, done that' t-shirts". This leads me to believe that the short phrase came first, then people started putting it on t-shirts, then the longer phrase came into being.

There's another interesting phrase from Mette Norgaard's Ugly Duckling Goes to Work: Wisdom for the Workplace from the Classic Tales of Hans Christian Andersen: "Advertising feed our discontent. We want to wear the new brand, see the blockbuster movie, and taste the microbrewery beer. Like the tree, we are wondering whethere there is something 'out there' that we are missing. We attend concerts and workshops with a “been there, done that, got the sweatshirt” attitude, and then look around thinking, “Now what? We become experience addicts, needing the 'next new thing' to feel engaged." In addition to being an interesting quote it also give yet another variation on the phrase with "sweatshirt" instead of "t-shirt". Eclecticology 20:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

With Google giving me so many results there is another point that can be made here. Some words and phrases deserve a full-ranging essay in addition to the usual sort of entry. The present phrase could be an excellent candidate for that treatment because there is so much nuanced material. Eclecticology 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned "word histories" a few times. This is a perfect example of what a word history is and why it is different to an etymology though they both deal with origins and development of bits of languages. — Hippietrail 22:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say rather that where single-word entries require an Etymology section, phrase entries require the kind of explanatory history you are talking about. Widsith 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a brief entry I just found by accident: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59900.html — Hippietrail 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone more familiar with this than I am take a look at my definition and improve it if necessary? I got this from Wikipedia, but the article there is not very good. — Paul G 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone knows how to format this? Adverbial phrase? — Vildricianus 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it an adverbial phrase? I can't tell but it could be. It is always a bad thing to take a stab at a POS when you don't really know. That happens here too much already. Better leave it out or put a message or comment that you don't know what it is. That way we don't misinform anybody if we're wrong.

But I do agree it needs more standard formatting. — Hippietrail 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it have a POS? aan is a preposition, meaning on, at, and het is the definite article the. Combined with an infinitive they do indeed form something like the present continuous, like the examples say, but I've got no idea how to say this. (This is indeed the Tea Room :-)). — Vildricianus 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably has a POS, much like nada más in Spanish has a POS (in that case it is an adverb). It does go with a verb so that would make my educated guess by adverb but my educated guesses here have been wrong before. Also, is het only an article or can it also be a pronoun under certain conditions - it feels like a pronoun to me, especially since it is not followed by a noun at all. My guess is it's similar in some ways (and different in others) to English it in "it's raining".

My second guess would be that it's a particle, but I'm not sure if particles can be phrases. — Hippietrail 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable indeed. het can indeed be used as a pronoun, but not in this case I guess. It sounds more like "the working". The phrase as a whole reminds me most, in English, unless I'm mistaking, of the archaic "a", as in "a doing", "a working". "He went a crying and a shouting." — Vildricianus 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your analysis also sounds quite reasonable. I think the competing guesswork hypotheses are solid ground for not putting in a POS just yet (: — Hippietrail 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already come up against this issue with French and Italian, which combine some prepositions and articles into single words. For example, French has "au" (= à + le, and Italian has "al" (= a + il), both of which mean "to the", "at the" or "in the". Because these are single words rather than phrases, as in Dutch, there is even more of a need to find a part of speech.

I found prepositional article by hunting on Google. This has 300 Google hits (including various Wiktionary articles where I have used this as the part of speech) - see, for example this page. Might this be the appropriate term for aan het as well? (Let's not have "prepositional articular phrase", or the like, please :) )

I notice that the French and Italian articles for au and al now give the part of speech as preposition - this can't be right, surely, as these words are is never used before a pronoun. "Prepositional article" is more accurate, IMO. — Paul G 12:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen words like al listed simply as contractions. Or so I thought. My Diccionario Oxford Pocket Español-Inglés has "prep + inf" which is unlike its usual "POS" fields. — Hippietrail 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They certainly are contractions, but "contraction" is not a part of speech. What is the part of speech of the English word "won't"? Probably "verb" (or "verb form"). — 193.203.81.129 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding that "contraction" is not a part of speech. But our "POS" heading isn't just for "parts of speech" anyway but we don't have a better name for it. "Part of speech" is not even used by linguists any more and may well not be used by lexicographers either. The pocket dictionary in front of me in its how-to-use pages uses "grammatical category". OED actually does use "part of speech" but it still gives only "contraction" for he'll. M-W uses "function" but for he'll doesn't include that field. AHD gives "contraction" for he'll. Encarta doesn't seem to name their field but for he'll they also simply use "contraction". Collins also doesn't label their field and also uses "contraction" for he'll. — Hippietrail 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone look in the OED and tell me how far back the word brown goes? (My town library doesn't have an OED and I've never gotten around to going to the big town next-town over). Apparently the Chinese word for brown comes from the borrowed word for coffee and is a new creation. For us brown is the color of dirt but in China apparently the dirt has so much clay in it that it is a shade of yellow. Brown is a cognate for the German braun, so it looks to me to go back a ways in English but I'm curious. JillianE 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to a TV series on the BBC the online OED is free for 48 hours each week, but not for much longer. The earliest cites for brown go back to about 1000AD for a couple of adjectival senses. It seems to have a "Common Teutonic" origin, but this etym is quite complex for me so maybe I've missed a bit. — Hippietrail 15:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get exactly what you're asking, but "brown" is about as old a word as you can get. It was used in Old English ("brun") although then it meant either "dark" or, confusingly, "bright, shining". There's lots of talk in Old English poetry of "brown-edged swords", ie with shining or glittering blades. (The comparison with Chinese languages is interesting but obviously there's no relationship.) The word's association with a specific colour didn't come about till Middle English. Widsith 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly 'brown' is one of the later color terms that comes latest to a language, regardless of what color dirt it's spoken on. Berlin and Kay did a study on basic color terms in languages awhile back, and found that languages have a rather strict (but not totally inflexible) hierarchy of color terminology: if the language has two basic color words, their canonical values will be black and white; if it has three, it has those two and red; if four, then those three and either green or yellow; if five, those four and the other of green or yellow; if six, those five and blue; if seven, those six and brown; if eight or more, those seven and some combination of purple, pink, orange, and grey. Germanic is interesting in that it has seemed to have gotten many of these color names early and lent them out (both 'brown' and 'blue' got sent into Romance languages). When B&K analyzed Chinese they only found six, presumably 白色 (white), 黑色 (black), 红色 (red), 绿色 (green), 黄色 (yellow), and 蓝色 (blue) . 咖啡色 (brown, coffee-colored) appears to have become more common than the native (?) term 褐色 (brown), suggesting a lack of 'basic'-ness to 褐色 keeping it from being common. Having 紫色 (purple) appears to be an anomaly in the hierarchy, which may also be duplicated in Japanese. —Muke Tever 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who knows the forms for adding etymologies add this to brown, please? JillianE 18:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This one has one etymology but two different pronunciations for adjective and verb. I've formatted it with ===pron 1=== and ===pron 2===, or should I put the pronunciations after the PoS? — Vildricianus 14:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a single pronunciation section for such words (which are known as heteronyms). See absent for the format, and Category:English_heteronyms for a list of words marked as heteronyms in Wiktionary. — 193.203.81.129 16:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think my format of absent was more accurate, as it listed the pronunciations where they belonged, under the various etymology headers. — Vildricianus 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In the case of multiple etymologies, pronunciation sections are supposed to be subordinate to the etymology sections...as are all headings (except ==Language==, which the multiple etymologies are subordinate to.)

==Language==

===Etym 1===

====all other headers at this level====

===Etym 2===

etc.

I don't like that format myself, but that is what is done here. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that there's only one etymology. — Vildricianus 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I'd prefer a single ===Pronunciation=== section with each pronunciation broken out (similar to the way translations are broken out) as Adjective then Verb. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would do the same with the Pron sections as we do with the Etym sections: make more than one with all subordinate headings 1 level more than usual:

==Language==

===Etym===

===Pron===

====Noun====

=====Synonyms=====

=====Translations=====

===Pron===

====Verb====

=====Translations=====

===See also===

— Hippietrail 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. Each pronunciation belongs near the POS it represents, even more so when there's only one POS with two different pronunciations (no example ready). — Vildricianus 09:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a strange thing. It says it's a letter in the Dutch alphabet, but for me (native Dutch speaker), this is the first time ever I see it. AFAIK, we use the letters I + J to form IJ, but here it seems to be one grapheme. At least, I don't have it on my keyboard. I know of some people who use Y to represent the IJ, but that's certainly incorrect. Now there seems to be a dotted Y. Anyone? — Vildricianus 09:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

w:IJ (letter) seems to explain it pretty well. —Muke Tever 17:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added Muke's Wikipedia link to the entry. Should it be moved to the capitalized version (as per the Wikipedia article) or should the capitalized version redirect to the lower-case version? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done some lookup, and there's a fair deal of bias involved actually. To be concise: some people think it's one letter, others think it's two; this is of little concern to us. Of course, I don't dispute the rule that "ij" needs an entry. The thing is, do we have that entry at ij (two characters) or at ij (one character, unicode U+0133)?

I'd say ij (2), and a brief explanation (not a redirect) at ij (1). Because: no one would find the one-character entry unless they produce the letter by inserting a symbol in their wordprocessor and copy-pasting it. As a matter of fact, no one does write it in one letter at all on their keyboard. As an example, the Dutch wikipedia lets ij (1) redirect to ij (2), and in the entire text (also on the English WP), it is written as a combination of i + j. The one-character ligature does not really have the same status that ß or æ do. The fact that both Van Dale and the Taalunie (two authorative sources) state that the one-character ij is wrong doesn't matter much in this case (bias).

Now it's possible to suspect me of POV, and perhaps we need a Dutchman to comment on this matter. Don't get me wrong, however, ij is a letter in its own merit, being more than just a diphthong, and should indeed be written as IJ when capitalized. But not, I believe, as one character, this especially to enhance functionality here at Wiktionary. — Vildricianus 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One point of response: one doesn't have to produce the ligature to look it up. One might find it 'in the wild' on the internet and come here to look it up by copy & paste (especially, say, if their system doesn't display the character in an expected manner).

æ is a special case btw... In Modern English it's a typographical nicety (even more so than the ij ligature, as a title-cased Ae is just as acceptable as Æ) though in some languages it's counted as a letter in its own right. Not being a Dutch expert I can't vouch for the unity or duality of the ij-graph, but I think we should follow Unicode's deprecation of the ligated glyph, 1) keeping articles (like dijk) under the separated ij form and 2) accommodating abnormal data by allowing redirects from the ij-ligature. I would allow an article at ij though to explain the character, just as any other strange character, though in this case too I think a redirect to ij might be acceptable. —Muke Tever 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Wikipedia article on w:æ, I must say it has very much the same status in English as w:ij has in Dutch. No official location in the alphabeth, commonly written as two seperate letters, but causing problems in names. Compare for example w:Aeon Flux which redirects to w:Æon Flux, while w:archæology redirects to w:archaeology. My opinion is, we can keep the common usage of two letters where it doesn't really matter (as in "dijk"), but should use the correct single letter when it actually makes a difference (as in "IJmuiden"). Especially in the English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, since it is used there by non-Dutch who will not understand why "ij" is capitalized as "IJ", while "ei" is capitalized as "Ei". -- Pbb 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Me again. This could as well end up in the BP, but I ask here since it's about eager. How do we actually list which prepositions it takes? Like: eager to do something / eager for something. Right in the definition? Each with an example sentence? Separate header? Separate entry? — Vildricianus 09:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on what's more correct, but I would strongly suggest using examples. The format may be changed, the wording of comments rejected, but a good example will stay, and a mediocre example more often improved than deleted. In general examples illustrate what was on someone's mind when they wrote a definition, sometimes doing a better job than the definition, poorly worded or approached.

I've been working on pages for a few phrasal verb, where adverbs and prepositions sometimes alter the meaning of the verb, and in some senses don't, and I've listed all senses as separate entries. However, in your case I would place usage notes to the extent they are warranted: eager followed by the infinitive of a verb, or by for in the case of a noun, indicates the object of desire. Davilla 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you call an island you can walk to from main land when it's low tide but have to swim across when the tide is high?

A tidal island. — Vildricianus 13:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

For The Beer Parlour, Requests for cleanup, Requests for verification and Requests for deletion, there are categories and templates that assist in naviagation from the relevant conversation to/from the entry. Does anyone object to me creating template:tearoom that would say something like:

]''This entry is being ] in the Tea room.''

and adding the template link at the bottom of pages herein? Similarly, once archived, the page's talk page could include a template:tearoomarchive link, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, be bold! I was planning on making a TR template myself, but I haven't been putting as much wiki time in lately. —Muke Tever 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Small change to me. Definitely goes on the talk page though. On the topic more generally, has anyone given more thought to how these discussions will be indexed rather than the current process of archiving? Davilla 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not. Do you have any good ideas to offer? --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Muke, I will be bold. But I think I'll use Template:rft (request for tea/request for talk.)  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The word mano in Italian and Spanish (and, with a different spelling, in Portuguese) looks as if it should be a masculine word, but in all three languages it is feminine.

I read in a book several years ago that there is a good reason why mano is feminine, even though it looks masculine. However, the author did not go on to say what the good reason was.

Does anybody know this 'good reason'?

Shraddhan

Well the obvious immediate answer is that they are all descendents of a feminine word in Latin, manus, though what the "reason" for its gender is I don't know. I believe the feminine -us ending is common for 4th declension, though my Latin is pretty basic. Manus comes from the same Indo-European base as Old English mund "protection" - also feminine - so these words may simply represent an Indo-European feminine class. Widsith 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Latin fourth declension is mostly masculines in -us and neuters in -u; manus is an exception even there (the other common exception is domus "house"; others are ănus "old woman", socrus "mother-in-law", nurus "daughter-in-law", porticus "porch, portico", colus "distaff", acus "needle", and tribus "tribe"; Idus "Ides" and Quinquatrus which only appear in the plural; and penus "store of food" and specus "cave" which are also masculine).

In modern languages the gender is usually expected to relate to the word ending in -a or -o, but the original case was that *-ā was the feminine, and *-o- the masculine and neuter stem formant for regular adjectives only. Root nouns would have an inherent gender (having nothing to do with the last letter of the word), and particular derivative suffixes (applied to root nouns or verbs or whatever) would attach a gender, like -dad "-ity" does in Spanish, making anything it attaches to feminine.

As for manus and friends specifically... the Proto-Indo-European root may have been an r/n stem (whence also the Greek word μάρη "hand"—not the usual word—is derived; so *mə-r, *mə-n-és/*mntós in Pokorny, though only *man- in Watkins)... this class is normally neuter—like femur (stem femin-, also regularized as femor-), iecur (stems iociner- et al.), iter (stem itiner-), which also descend from it—but it seems whatever *-u- extension was added (*man-u-) to make the stem decline more sanely also made it feminine. So unless the "good reason" was meant to be "inheritance from the feminine Latin word manus", I couldn't say what it would be. —Muke Tever 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it's related, I might mention that I created a category for Spanish words of this sort, Category:Spanish nouns with irregular gender. It would be a good idea to have such categories for Italian and any other languages which generally have regular gender endings (hence it wouldn't work for German). — Hippietrail 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Hippietrail - Perhaps you could add the following words to your list of Spanish irregular genders: anagrama, axioma, carisma, plasma, pijama, piyama, rapiña Shraddhan

What's the name of the enzyme that breaks up alcohol in our blood? Have been looking for that word for a long time, there are dictionary to know the meaning of a word but I don't any other way to find a particular word for things I want to know except here.

• w:alcohol dehydrogenase - in the liver rather than actually in the blood SemperBlotto 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The quotation from Webster uses "therefor" + "e". If this isn't a typo I would have expected so see "". Davilla 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

therefor without the "e" is ancient legal jargon. See the discussion at for instance.

Well yes, but the citation is giving an example of the wrong spelling. And it is not marked by W. 1913 nor Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie T C 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not presently anyhow. If anyone can verify the validity I will mark it so. Davilla 15:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Done. Davilla 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

The spelling in the quotation is not wrong; it's just from the 14th century. I've revised it to make the rest of the spelling conform to the original. I think these old spellings should be preserved even if they do not conform to modern standards, but they should not be the only quote given. I tracked down another quotation from Wikisource to clarify the situation. With a little more searching, perhaps in law sources, I'm sure we could find an even more recent example. Eclecticology 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a host of translations here, but it's a plural form, so they shouldn't be. — Vildricianus 12:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a regular plural in the tranlations? JillianE 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For irregular plurals, it is very reasonable to have the plural translations. (I am of ths opinion that all forms of all entries should have their translations entered explicitly. No vote has ever been taken on the matter though.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another challenge then. Up to BP in due time. — Vildricianus 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Universal Dictionary of the English Language, editors (British) Robert Hunter, and (American) Charles Morris. Published 1896-1897 in 4 volumes (5359 pp) by Peter F. Collier, New York. See further details at "my talk" (my wiktionary ID = "Wayne R. Roberson, Austin, Texas")

Where can I find info re the origins of this dictionary and its relationship with the Oxford English Dictionary? A primary difference is that the citations to works are usually to author's name and truncated name of the work but without date; exceptions are citations to newspapers, many of which are in the late 1880s.

[email protected]

This dictionary is one of many successors to Webster. A 1909 dictionary, also edited by Morris had the title The universal self-pronouncing dictionary of the English language ... based upon the solid foundation laid by Noah Webster and other lexicographers, thoroughly modernized by Charles Morris. The earliest listing that I can find in this line of dictionaries involved Hunter (1824-1897) alone, and was published in 1879 with 7 volumes. Charles Smith Morris (1833-1922) first appeared on the title page in 1894. He was a prolofic author. There is considerable variation in the title and publisher of this line of dictionaries. Peter Fenelon Collier (1849-1918) appears to be the same person that founded Collier's Weekly in 1888. To a more limited extent the practice that you outline was already present in the 1847 Webster, and was considerably expanded for the 1913 edition, but these references are often cryptic. Eclecticology 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Invalid punctuation in title, so entry will be deleted, but where should article go? Also, the heading ===Tag=== should be ===Interjection===, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Which punctuation mark? I don't remember the result of the stylistic apostrophe debate. The reason the question mark was included is that "does one" can be snipped out of two many constructions that aren't tags, such as "He does one lap" or "Does one know..." 59.112.41.161 05:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the construct; your entry was clear about the usage you were defining. That's why the entry is nominated for discussion at this time. I don't know where this belongs. Also, I may be entirely wrong regarding punctuation, as I just noticed Where's the beef?. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I have just put these on RfV. I think that they should all be deleted. SemperBlotto 08:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the question here is the correct title, as distinguished from whether they are part of the language or should be included in the dictionary. You should argue your case in RfD. Davilla 11:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since these are intimately intertwined, perhaps it would be best to move this to Wiktionary: Requests for deletion#does one?. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RfV will be no help with this. There's no doubt that it's a very common phrase. I would remove the question mark from the title; we need to allow for the fact that this expression can also come at the beginning. I couldn't find anything in my references right away, but I would be inclined to call it an "interogative phrase". It's definitely not an interjection. The useage note is also mostly wrong. Eclecticology 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if even Eclecticology doesn't get the use of "one" as a placeholder, then maybe this was indeed a poor title from the onset. Davilla 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I cant find an etymology for this word. If anyone can help I would be both grateful and humbled. Regards Andrew massyn 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, on a trivial basis it is an unusual compound of Nicholas + -ism. Another, apparently more common spelling, is Nicolaism, which is more straightforwardly from a Latin Nicolaismus, from Nicolaus (stem Nicola-) + -ismus. It appears to be related to the w:Nicolaitans (Latin Nicolaitae, Greek Νικολαιται, 'followers of Nicholas') mentioned in Revelation 2. —Muke Tever 20:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would argue against its acceptance as an etymology, because reference to unspecified deeds (as per the Nicolaitans) do not equate to clerical marriage or to clerical concubinage. On that argument, it could be related to any diatribe against any Nicholas. I think we need to be more definite than that. Regards Andrew massyn 22:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it isn't my speculation, but appears to be the Internet consensus; a few sources I found: Nicolaismo Nel cristianesimo delle origini, corrente che ammetteva il matrimonio dei sacerdoti. Menzionato per la prima volta nella Bibbia (Apocalisse... —off the Italian Encarta, but the rest is premium and I can't get to it. A Spanish source, Historia de la Iglesia says: La lucha contra el Nicolaísmo tiene que ver con una referencia al Ap 2,6, que era interpretado por los gregorianos como una referencia al celibato del clero. <<<removed-spam-link>>>.netfirms.com/newpage153.htm#SEC14 . Notes from a university course: "Nicolaism (after Rev.2.6,14- 15). Clerical marriage, especially in rural areas, a matter of general acceptance by the C11th." . —Muke Tever 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Nicholas II, Pope from 1058 - 1061 was the first Pope to argue for reform against clerical marriages. I have included a quote from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia. (dont know how to do external links) but the reference is "New Advent - The Catholic Encyclopedia" see the articles on Nicholas II, Gregory VII and celebecy. This quote comes from the article on Nicholas II.

• 'Early in his pontificate he had sent St. Peter Damiani and Bishop Anselm of Lucca as his legates to Milan, where a married and simoniacal clergy had recently given rise to a reform-party known as the "Pataria". A synod for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline was held under the presidency of these envoys who, in spite of a tumultuous uprising which endangered their lives, succeeded in obtaining from Archbishop Guido and the Milanese clergy a solemn repudiation of simony and concubinage.'

Gregory VII was the next Pope and it would seem that his proscriptions were a follow on from that of his predecessor. I think that this would be a more accurate derivation of the term, although it is not used in the encyclopedia at all. I am satisfied with this etymology, but will await consensus. Regards Andrew massyn

Yes, I ran across that information about Nicholas II. Given that 1) no source cited so far links this Nicholas to the etymon of Nicolaism, and 2) it seems highly unlikely that -ism—which when applied to names means following that person's doctrines or practices (Marxism, McCarthyism, Hamiltonism)—would be applied to the person who was against the practice, I decided not to offer it as a possible etymology. Compare simony, a term often occurring alongside ‘nicholaism,’ also named after a person who practiced it, not a person who condemned it. —Muke Tever 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I am humbled after all! I went to the local University, who went to the OED and Lo! Nicholaism is derived from Nicolaitanism which comes from Nicolatian. So this is the etymology will be putting in. According to Oxford, the Reverend Cawdrey (1604) held that a Nicolatian 'is an heretike, like Nicholas, who held that wiues should bee commmon to all alike' Where the Rev. Cawdrey got his info from is beyond me. Regards Andrew massyn

I was reading a dictionary, and came across the entry for nay. there was heading, that, if wiktionarified, wld look like this:

nay

1. The word nay

What's the point in including that in a dictionary? Should we include it? --ex-admin part-time sockpuppetting quasi-vandal Wonderfool 17:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's take a vote, then count the yeas and nays and see who wins. —Muke Tever 01:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A better definition would be, ‘1. (archaic) no. 2. an instance of saying nay, especially when opposing a motion put to the vote.’ Or something like that. Widsith 10:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was watching something on television about the pageantry in England and they showed someone and the caption said so-and-so KG. From context KG stands for Knight of the Garter. If I entered it in wiktionary, what heading would I use? JillianE 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely just a simple acronym. A suffix has to be attached to the end of a word to be a suffix surely. Things like KG/PhD/CBE/OBE etc. are acronyms, not suffixes --Dangherous 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Although on grounds of pronunciation, many people would prefer to call this an initialism. Widsith 10:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems so very wrong. Does anyone know the rules guiding when one should use "wet" vs. "wetted"? I thought "wetted" was always considered improper. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Its primary sense is as an adjective e.g. 'the wetted cloth'.

In the verbal sense, my dictionary shows wetted as a rare past participal of wet. Regards Andrew massyn 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is possibly a UK/US English thing. Compare "shrank"/"shrunk", "spat"/"spit", "fitted"/"fit", "dived"/"dove". dictionary.com, the content of which is compiled from American dictionaries, has "wet or wetted". Could someone check UK and US usage here? — Paul G 11:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On these regular vs. irregular past and past participles for the same verb, there may be an error in using only what's considered "correct" on either side of the pond. For everything else we note actual usage, and I don't see why this should be any different. I've learned many of the variations because I've had to teach these as a foreign language, and I've discovered in conversation with English speakers that almost every region is unique. Personally I sometimes use one form for the past and the other for the past participle, but usually just one or the other. Some forms that others use I would only use as adjectives, yet what's used is a much narrower range than what's understood, as with anything else. Davilla 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, isn't this supposed to be woken? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As the past tense, in the KJV: And the angel that talked with me came again, and waked me, as a man that is wakened out of his sleep,... Zechariah 4:1. As the participle, in Shakespeare: Come, Desdemona, 'tis the soldiers' life. / To have their balmy slumbers waked with strife. Othello, Act II scene 3. —Muke Tever 00:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added archaic tags to the defs. Widsith 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have always known it as peg-leg, but on looking it up it seems that peg leg is equally used. Can anyone comment on the distinction? Thanks Andrew massyn

The latter is leg with peg used attributively, while the former is the same being taken a compound word. A semantic distinction is not likely to be being made. (For my part, I prefer peg leg, as peg-leg suggests a pronunciation that I've never heard; though if peg leg were to be used attributively, it would probably be hyphenated following normal rules: “the pirate, Peg-leg Pete”) —Muke Tever 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Pegleg in one word is also used. Eclecticology 05:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a tighter defintion of chav so that WikiSaurus:chav can be a bt more focused. See the discussion pages at those two locations--Richardb 00:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go at rewriting. The Etymology section here is long-winded to the point of being encyclopaedic...surely there's no point including every unfounded folk-etymology? Widsith 11:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new template and category which might be of interest to Tea Room browsers. Template {{ad}} flags a page has having an active discussion page, and puts the entry into the category:Active Discussion. So, just by going to the category, you can see a list of all the entries that are being advertised as having an active Discussion page, advertising for people to add their bit to the discussion.

Is this useful ?? Only time will tell if people adopt the idea. --Richardb 11:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Might be useful. As you say, time will tell. I think a problem with many discussion is that they are forgotten. Perhaps a scheme that indicates the year and month of the discussion (in addition to your new category) could be helpful. See {{subst:nolanguage}} for an example of this technique. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to have been adopted by a few people, so it is worth checking WT:ADcategory:Active Discussion occasionally.--Richardb 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone knows the specific information(date,place,name and title of quote originator,etc)for the quote (this is an approximation)"Kill them all,God will know those that are His." I seem to recall it coming from the Crusades,but which crusade and what the circumstances were I can not remember(I read it in passing about 10 to 20 years ago) . Any help would be greatly appreciated since I can not find it and it is driving me insane.Thank you very much.--Mongrel Mongol

I always thought this came from persecution of the Cathars, ie 13th-century Europe. It was not always easy for Church authorities to distinguish between the heretic Cathars and law-abiding Catholics, and naturally many of the former group tried to pretend to belong to the latter. The official response was Neca eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset or ‘kill them all, God will sort them out’. The sentiment is based on a misreading of 2 Timothy 2:19 (the Lord knoweth them that are his etc.). Afraid I have no idea who the specific person was that actually said it though. Widsith 12:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

w:Béziers attributes Neca eos omnes, Deus suos agnoscet (spelling corrected) to Arnaud-Amaury (d. 1225) at the siege of Béziers in 1209. Elsewhere http://klesinger.com/jbp/neca.html refers it to Amal Ulric, which is likely a different version of the same name. Wikipedia does not yet have an article about him; but see http:/www.languedoc-france.info/120502_arnaud.htm Eclecticology 08:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nice one, thanks for the correction. The French Wikipedia does have an article about Arnaud Amaury, here: . Widsith 10:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rsvk some months ago posted in various articles (castrum, castle, etc.) an etymology that derives Latin castrum from Latin casa. I have not yet verified this in my references, and I want to get other Wiktionarians involved in verifying the etymology that Rsvk has placed. My reference (Calvert Watkins, American Heritage Dictionary, 1969) derives castrum from PIE *kes-, "to cut off, separate" without casa as an intermediary; furthermore, casa is not derived from PIE *kes- in the 1969 AHD, but is listed as being of undetermined origin. Alexander 007 23:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My Latin dictionary (Whites school & Collage Dictionary 1899) shows castrum as akin or like casa from a sanscrit root skad meaning a covering; and castellum as the diminutive of casterlum from castrum meaning a protected place or castle or fortress. Andrew massyn 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd agree that a work from 1899 may well be outdated, especially if it erroneously speaks of "sanskrit roots" rather than Proto-Indo-European roots :-) Alexander 007 13:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree. Latin aint that vital a language. It dont sing and dance. It tends to be static. The meanings are over 2000 years old! A dictionary from 1899 is a babe, a pup, an infant in arms when compared to the language. If the dictionary predates PIE so what? It doesnt change the meaning or the etymology of the words. If you think the derivations are wrong, then provide correct ones.Andrew massyn 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I think that the 1899 etymology is necessarily wrong, rather that it may well be or probably is wrong. I prefer Calvert Watkins' etymology from 1969, though I'd like an even newer reference. Latin is old---but scientific etymology is in its infancy, and a work from 1899---especially if it is contradicted by a later work from 1969---is suspect. Alexander 007 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And realize that regardless whether the etymology from 1899 is right or wrong, your argument is quite idiosyncratic. Ancient Greek is a very old, static language as well, but ancient Greek etymology is a lively field, with continuing updates and revisions and debates. That's how it is in etymology. Many etymologies in any language from 1899 are no longer accepted. Alexander 007 02:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that sense 3 is the same as sense 1. Also there is a sense not yet covered, indicating manner - eg he fumed with anger. As it's such a common word I didn't want to change without running it by some other people.. Widsith 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the other sense. I haven't taken sense 3 out yet though as it seems to have a separate translation in Romanian. If someone who knows more about that than me could check it, I'd be grateful...to me sense 3 is pleonastic. Widsith 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is logically a distinction between

• Two people doing an action together as one
• Two people doing the same action but independently
• One does one type of action and the other does another type of action in support of the first action. That is they are not equal partners.

In the examples for "sense 1" "with" can be replaced with "together with" in "sense 3" it normally can't. There might be some language that actually makes all three distinctions. So perhaps the entry should be split instead... --Patrik Stridvall 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is such a logical distinction, but I do not agree that the word with carries the depth of connotation you have described. When someone says I'm with you all the way!, they are just using the sense of being "together with" someone, albeit symbolically. Perhaps that metaphorical use deserves its own sense, perhaps not. It just jars with me, that's all. I note that in all the translations bar Romanian the two senses are identical - that's why I wanted to check on the Romanian. Widsith 15:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The word with in itself does not in English as far as I know. The Swedish med doesn't either. Like in English the together (Swedish: tillsammans) is often left out. It is about how with is translated in other languages, like possibly as you meantioned Romanian.

Speaking of with, since I notice that you speak French, in French with can sometimes be translated as chez, see http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/with.

• C'est une obsession chez elle. (= It's an obsession with her.)

Though I not sure which sense that should be added to. Possible (5) "expressing manner" though I'm not sure. --Patrik Stridvall 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't really know what the policy is, but the fact that chez is sometimes translated by "with" surely doesn't mean we create a separate sense of the English word, just for the sake of the translation? Although we can use "with" to translate "chez", that is just idiomatic...the sense of the French c'est une obsession chez elle is really something like ‘where she is concerned, it's an obsession’. Although...as I type this, I realise that in fact with does indeed have that sense in English as well...hmm. I guess there is another sense to go in after all! (I still say we should get rid of 3 though.) Widsith 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking more about it I think that that the translatation of "It's an obession with her" would in Swedish not translate as med but as hos which like French chez normally translates to English as at or in and which when I think more about it usually translates to chez when you translate from Swedish to French... So I really think it is a separate sense of with.

Translating prepositions between different language is usually a serious pain not only because of idiomatic uses but also because the same preposition is used for many different senses which usually only partly overlaps. If you involve more than two languages it often becomes mindbogglingly complex.

As for the policy question, I don't know. The way I see it, optimally each sense respresents a distinct concept and as such they will translates differently for languages that does make a distinction. So teoretically if some language makes a distinction then there exists distinct concepts and thus each English word that can represent the concepts will have to have extra senses. In theory that is. As for how is is supposed to work in pratice I'm not sure. Especially for prepositions which usually varies depending on the verb. As I understand it m:WiktionaryZ is supposed to work that way. That is you define a concept, or what the WiktionaryZ people calls a DefinedMeaning, which words can associate with.

So, if some language translates (3) differently then we should keep it. BTW, do you really mean "her" in the example of the new sense (6), "The problem with John is that he's too hasty. It's an obsession with her". Shouldn't it be "him"? Or does the sentence means something differently than I think it does? --Patrik Stridvall 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

John's girlfriend is not satisfied with his sexual technique!

OK, since I'm not a native speaker, I guess I have to take your word for it. I really can't say I understand why though, but then some idomatic expressions doesn't really make that much sense to me either. In any case, should we really have examples that refers to a unmeantioned second party? --Patrik Stridvall 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of those example sentences include "with", so later I even wondered whether they were intended as separate examples. If we change the pronoun it changes the meaning, but not the way that "with" is used. I tend to view examples as placeholders until we can find good quotes. I don't think that introducing a second party makes much difference. Eclecticology 09:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Prepositions are notoriously difficult to translate, and no amount of policy is going to help us. In some circumstances "with" can be translated into French with "à" or "de", which in turn can adjust to their own context to become "au" or "en". The WiktionaryZ concept of using a defined meaning is a great theoretical idea, but it does not translate well into practicality. Eclecticology 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you are right. Even with languages like English and Swedish which are quite similar, how prepositions are translated is a terrible mess. I have been thinking about improving the pages concerning the Swedish prepostions but after examining how Swedish-English dictionaries does it I have postponed it until an underterminted future. It primarily a lot a examples with a few pointers regarding in which context what translates to what. Or rather usually translates to what, there are often many exceptions. Some that are not even meantioned that I know of from the experience I have from reading English over the years. As to how I, or for that matter anybody else, will be able to bring enough order to it get it into a format that WiktionaryZ can use I really can't imagine, and I can imagine quite a lot. It will be hard enough doing good pages here using a free text format when translating only from Swedish to English. --Patrik Stridvall 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have started revising with based on the 1914 Century Dictionary. It gives 11 primary definitions, toe of those have sub-definitions. I am adding most of the quotes there, but I like to expand the references so that they are more meaningful and traceable. To co-ordinate the translations between English and Swedish you would probably need to start with a thorough treatment of med in sv:wiktionary. Then you could develop the English version for med. Only then would you be in a position to fully compare the two. That's only two languages! Introduce a third language, even a fairly compatible one like Danish or Norwegian, and things get even more complicated. Eclecticology 09:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited med#Swedish in attempt to make it better. I turned out to be quite complicated and I was about to give up, but after deciding to only include the important cases I finally manged to make some sense of it. This is just the tip of the iceberg but I have no idea what to with the rest. Still, it handles that important cases. --Patrik Stridvall 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When researching the Swedish word med, which is what with normally translates to, I realized that the sense 3 ("in support of") of with is almost but not quite the same as sense 1 ("in company of"). The "in support of" sense have against as an antonym as in "You are either with us or against us" but the "in company of" sense does not. Sense 1 only implies some sort subselection but sense 3 implies there in addition exists some sort dichotomy. English and Swedish doesn't make any such distinction but perhaps there are other languages that does. --Patrik Stridvall 14:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Against" is a synonym for "with" in the expresseion "fight with somebody". :-) Eclecticology 01:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that more a property of a specific sense of the verb "fight" than that of the specific sense of the prepopostions "with" or "against". The act of "fighting" can in this case be "symmetric" or perhaps reciprocal would be a better term. In the sentence "I sail with/against the wind" there no such relation between me and the wind as might be the case in "I fight with/against you". Note that it depends on the sense of fight what the sentence means. If we are boxing then "with" and "against" are synonyms. If we are in a war "against" usually implies that we are on opposite sides, if "with" is used however it can mean both "together with" (we fight on the same side) and "against". But as I said this a property what senses the verb can take not a property of any senses the prepositions can take. This should propably be meantioned in the usage notes. --Patrik Stridvall 11:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really a property of 'fight', but rather a whole set out of some Whorfian crypto-class, including not only 'fight' and similar terms, but also "talk" and friends, where the meaning of 'with' is rather more "in counterchange with". —Muke Tever 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I supposed we could an additional sense to with. However, the more I look prepositions, the more I get the feeling that the trying to translate prepositions is like trying to fit something in a "box" there it doesn't belong. Swedish and English is very similar on a superfical level but translating prepositions is something I have learned more by example than looking in a dictionary. I'm trying to learn French and prepostions are what I find the most difficult. As for the other parts while it is sometimes difficult to remember all rules at least there are rules at least on some level. OK, I was exaggerating, of course there are rules governing prepostions too, but they are almost entirely unlike Swedish so I'm having a very hard time learning them. Sure someday I will learn French prepositions as well, but not likely through using dictionaries but rather from experience...

I'm a programmer by profession and I have over time more and more have come to see prepostions more like the names of the parameters functions (read: verbs) can take. OK, the analogy is not really that good, but it is not that bad either. It is not really help me much in practise though. So I'm really at a loss in what to do, the only consolation is that it seems to me that everbody else is as well. I haven't seem anybody that has even done a half decent good of describing how prepositions are to be translated between two specific languages, let alone more than two...

So should we split "in support of" in two and add a sense "in counterchange with" where against is a synonym instead of an antonym? BTW, perhaps "with the support of" would be better than "in support of". It make more sense in the sentence "I'm sailing with/against the wind". As for "in counterchange with" wouldn't "in interaction with" be better? --Patrik Stridvall 12:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was considering adding definitions for each of the E numbers. There are over a thousand of them so I thought it best to get agreement before I started. Each one would be quite simple - such as

==Translingual==
==={{abbreviation}}===
E100
#(E number) turmeric or curcumin
]

There is already a list of them on Wikipedia, and that is what I would use as source. SemperBlotto 11:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We already have vitamin C and H₂O. Jonathan Webley 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are encyclopedic, and are adequately treated in Wikipedia. A bad decision about H₂O should not be used as a precedent for more bad decisions. Eclecticology 20:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, you've never heard "ache two oh" in speech? Davilla 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of "aitch two of". Where is your ache felt? Eclecticology 08:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm... deliberate misspelling, just to make you admit it. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. Ha! You admitted it! Uh, yeah. Davilla 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Señores, it's pronounced "hech tú o" Arriba! --EncycloPetey 08:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The first question we should ask is if it should even go on existing pages, e.g. turmeric and curcumin. If it doesn't even belong there then this whole proposal is moot. Davilla 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on it, but would be much less likely to object then if each of these numbers had its own page. Eclecticology 08:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent in the matter. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of this numbering system.

I have several food packages in my kitchen right now, I just checked, and I'm pretty sure they were used in my home economics book from elementary school. It was some time of ago though. So at least here in Sweden you can see them everywhere if you only look for them. Most people don't care much what is in their food though so I wouldn't be suprised if many people only vaguely know about them. ---Patrik Stridvall 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A better comparison than H2O is C19 - a simple definition of an abbreviation. Not at all encyclopedic. Someone looking at the list of ingredients on his chicken tikka massala is just as likely to look here for E100 as on Wikipedia (where it gets redirected to turmeric). Anyway, I'm not going to jump in just yet (lots of other things to do). SemperBlotto 08:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should add them as well since they are abbreviations. Not only on pages of their own but also as synonyms to the relevant words. But shouldn't it be under ==Translingual== as you can find them in Swedish, and presumbly in other languages as well, list of ingredients as well. --Patrik Stridvall 14:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed example. (and I agree about linking to them from the defined substance) SemperBlotto 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has written ingredients panels I'm probably biased. They are official European abbreviations for a number of food ingredients. They can be used on ingredient lists in any of the 25 EU member states. While the numbers go well over 1000 not every number is assigned so there are probably around 700 or so. They are not very popular with consumers (at least in the UK) so more often the ingredients are listed in full. Obviously dictionaries are not just numbers games but a lot more copies of product labels are printed than any books. How do we feel about Brakes Orange Squash as a citation? :-) MGSpiller 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have made a start, also adding definitions for anything red-linked. I'll just do a few at a time. SemperBlotto 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are they really translingual? We've had numbers for food additives in Australia for a while now and I've never heard anybody talk about a name for the concept. The only one I know of off the top of my head is monosodium glutamate - which is flavour enhancer 621 - we don't use an "E" - at least not 7 months ago when I was last in Australia. Is it E621 elsewhere or are there two systems?
• I wouldn't call it a synonym either, I'd prefer a special heading "E number" just as I've made efforts for "Scientific name". I think there are a few others. — Hippietrail 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They can be used in ingredients lists in any of the dozens of official European languages so translingual would seem appropriate. The European E numbers are based directly on the "International Numbering System" defined by the Codex Alimentarius committee which is part of the WHO so yes 621 in Australia is E621 in the UK, France or Poland. As for a special heading I can see the argument that they should be separate from conventional synonyms and I can also see the argument that synonyms would adequately cover them. So do we have any consensus on a separate heading? MGSpiller 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange synonyms, yes, but I don't see this as being so special as to have a separate heading. Davilla 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So what are their parts of speech and can you provide citations of them being used as words in running speech? Don't forget that there'll be at least 2 synonyms: 621 and E621. I don't know about variants using lowercase E, or spaces or hyphens between the E and the numbers. — Hippietrail 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that any bottle listing of ingredients that doesn't define the code would qualify as a citation "in the wild." --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have stopped adding E numbers since the discussion started on RFD - but I intend to start again tomorrow. SemperBlotto 12:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven definitions listed, but none seem right. Anyone know of a good way to approach this cleanup? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

They look like definitions of just plain anti-. Unless someone wants to do it for real right now, probably just delete it and wait for a proper definition in the future. Keffy 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we reflect that "guys's" is a typo of "guys'"? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it actually a typo? How else would the spelling reflect the pronunciation? Davilla 12:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed the spoken form that's unusual. The spelling is the normal and standard form one would expect for the representation of it. —Muke Tever 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This one is just dumb-ass illiterate, and should be deleted. Eclecticology 20:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fie, for shame. I don't remember reading a rule anywhere about forming possessives from multi-word pronouns. But I figure I should add your all's for dialect balance's sake. —Muke Tever 23:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone should note that the grammar on this is as poor as it gets. Me knowings we's liking being descriptvists, limit's should have us though. - TheDaveRoss 23:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Added labils non-standard and as non-literate as patheticly probable. Every one should know the possessed form is you guys's! (or is it your guys')? Also created a page you're guys's: common misspelling of your guys's. ;-P Davilla 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The correct form would be "_you guys'_" (possessive of "you guys", which is plural, so takes an apostrophe without an additional s). (I've put in underscores so that the apostrophe doesn't get obscured by the quotation marks. Of course these aren't part of the correct form.)

I'm sorry, but WTF? That right there is ridiculous. "You guys" is a set phrase for a noun in attribution, the same as "you, guys"—you guys are strange = you, guys, are strange—of which the possessive would be "your, guys" (your, guys, attitude sucks). Possessive -'(s) is a marker attaching to phrases; compare "we the people declare" -> "our the people's declaration"—not "our the people declaration", nor "we the people's declaration", which would make us the declaration, not the people. The additional 's on a plural is merely a (quite common) feature of colloquial—yes, literally unlettered, but not illiterate—speech, which of course isn't expected to follow the same rules as the standards of literary writing. —Muke Tever 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the pronunciation: surely it would be /-ɪz/ (as in "is") or maybe /-əz/, but not /-ɛz/ (as in "fez")

It's illiterate. Unless it's widespread, delete

"Your guys's" outnumbers "you guys's" on Google by a factor of 21 to 1. —Muke Tever 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And "labils" was a deliberate mistake, wasn't it? :) — Paul G 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So was "patheticly", as oddly enough pathetical is a word. Seriously, though, should the label be substandard? Oh, and usually a space is used instead of underscores. Davilla 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Substandard" is POV. And in this case wrong as well. —Muke Tever 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV? I can go with that. I'm not sure when "substandard" would apply, but if it's POV then that doesn't matter here. Leave it at "non-standard". Davilla 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also note the movie citations added: 'tis a movie! Any errors introduced are from the person making the "citation" not in the movie itself (where it is merely pronounced, not spelled!) We should not delete this entry, but explain in painful detail why this is incorrect. If someone is going to go out of their way to make this error and promote that error here, we should respond with a scathing reprimand. Deleting it will just make it sneak back in when no one is looking. Again. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't guess many people see them, but movies do have scripts. Any chance this was the original spelling, assuming it's even in the script? Davilla 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And if it turns out that the script writer was illiterate as well? What does that prove? While, I admit that we need to be able to handle misspellings somehow this should be done in MediaWiki by adapting the search for our needs. Ideally there should be some sort of algoritm for each language that does a qualified guess what was meant. The algoritm for English should be aware of that some people write "your" or "you're" even when they mean "you" and "guys's" or even "guyses" when you mean "guys'". This would probably be useful for Wikipedia as well. --Patrik Stridvall 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Isn't an illiterate writer an oxymoron ? 2) "misspelling" is POV. —Muke Tever 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Not in the sense "Not conforming to prescribed standards of speech or writing". 2) Perhaps --Patrik Stridvall 10:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

1) No, but it might be a contradiction in terms, although everyone seems to misuse "oxymoron" in this way nowadays. — Paul G 11:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oxymoron = "foolishness μωρία with a point ὀξύς". It doesn't matter to me if he has a point, impov it's still foolishness ;p Incidentally oxymoron's assertions in the usage notes are unsourced and not echoed by m-w.com which gives a broader definition without comment. —Muke Tever 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Ncik 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

—Muke Tever 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, instresting reading. Thinking more about it seems that the lack a distinct second person plural pronoun in English have led to a number of creative solutions to the problem. In Swedish, it is a non issue since we don't have that problem. I, as a non-native speaker, am not really in a position to say what is good or bad English but I will say this: While I personally would rewrite a sentence to avoid using it, it is not that awful, is it? --Patrik Stridvall 10:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not really accurate, Patrik. Correct would be to say that in modern standard English, the second person singular is absent (thou). But that's entirely off-topic. — Vildricianus 11:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Amusingly enough, the cognates of thou is the reason Swedish and German doesn't have that particular problem. :-) Still, it is the plural case that seems to have suffered the creative solutions. --Patrik Stridvall 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:Deleted. Being bold, and deleting this tosh. --Dangherous 11:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Restored - sorry, I was too bold. --Dangherous 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, so now even three citations doesn't count for anything? If we really want to clean our feet of dirt and filth, shouldn't we maybe change the front page to read "a free, multilingual dictionary in only the proper languages"? At least that way we'd be up front about it, and people who think they can add so-called-words just because they're used will be put in their proper place. Davilla 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We were having a good time with this, but all joshing aside, please restore. Davilla 18:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Restore The debates is still ongoing and Muke have presented reasonable still unrefuted arguments so deleting it is very rude IMNSHO. Illiterate or not it seems to me that it must be widely used if a linguistics professor would even bother to meantion it. --Patrik Stridvall 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But the English professor mentioned it only as a joke! Apparently a quite successfully delivered joke, as "the class just laughs even harder." --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They're laughing at the formality, most probably. Humor is too complex to disect. Anyways it's not a cite as the word isn't used in running text, so no point debating the phrase's legitimacy on these grounds. Davilla 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• How on Earth did this get deleted? Both sides think the entry should remain. The debate is regarding whether "we" should be illiterate because of a couple 14-yr old idiots, or if we should inform readers that this is an incorrect formation. Muke's assertion that misspelling is POV is invalid, by the way. Even if it were not, this is a more blatant corruption, not an accidental misspelling at all.
• Actually, even that is inaccurate. The issue isn't whether to label it as incorrect or not: the issue is how to label it as incorrect. Restore. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer: I lived in SoCal for slightly less than 10 years. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better off deleted, since Muke removed "non-standard". The correct formation of the plural possessive would be "your guys'." But for any imaginable such cases, that form would still be non-standard. A native speaker will not form a sentence that way, but rather might ask, for example, to borrow "somebody's phone" or "someone's phone." If the movie transcript has that wording, then the inappropriate use of "guys" is presumably meant to convey stupidity. Or else it is an otherwise humorous play on words. But even then, I doubt an offical transcript has this misspelling. The citation given did not indicate that it came from an official transcript...rather it implied that it was someone's (probably incorrect) transcription of movie dialog. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"non-standard" was redundant anyway, that's implied in "colloquial". —Muke Tever 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. "Colloquial" is about formality, not dialect differences. It's possible to be standard and informal at the same time. Keffy 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but no citations have been brought forth saying that this is non-standard for a colloquial form. (Heck, there haven't been any citations brought forth for your guys' or you guys' at all.) I'd gladly concede that it may be non-standard for literary language (though I'd like to see citations for that as well) but it's specifically claimed that it's colloquial. —Muke Tever 22:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be back. Restored the "non-standard" tag. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I don't care whether this is illiterate or not. The real issue must be that it would fail CFI. After all we don't have entries for my brother, my brother's or my brothers'.

But it wouldn't fail CFI. Three cites would be easy to gather (indeed, already exist on the page) and that's even if you don't count the usage in a major motion picture under the "well-known work" rule. —Muke Tever

Unlike my brother, which doesn't deserve and entry, you guys does, and it's one that's not being contested here. The question is the possessive form. Davilla 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can our friendly neighbourhood Brits verify the whole "Asians aren't Asians unless they come from the Indian subcontinent" thing? Or did the original poster in 2003 perhaps confuse a demographic accident of his/her local immigrant community with the meaning of the word Asian everywhere in the English-speaking world except the US? The slighly incredulous Keffy 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that Asian in the UK often refers to those from the Indian sub-continent. See COD Jonathan Webley 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian everywhere often refers to those from the Indian sub-continent. I'm not questioning "often". I'm questioning "exclusively". Keffy 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I can tell you this. I think few, if any, in Sweden that when writing in English would use the word meaning somebody from the Indian subcontinent. The word Asian have cognates in many other languages as well and thus is not a word non-native English speakers is likely to look up. So not marking it as a British perculiarity is not likely to reflect how the word is likely to be used. --Patrik Stridvall 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian in Britain, as everywhere else, means someone from Asia. It is not limited to those from the subcontinent. Widsith 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is often used by us in Britain to refer particularly to those from the Indian subcontinent to the exclusion of those from the Far East, Middle East or Siberia. Yes this is logically inaccurate, yes this is confusing, but it definitely happens. It's possibly due to the significant numbers of post colonial immigrants from the region. MGSpiller 00:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm Australian, where people hearing an unqualified use of the term Asian assume the speaker is talking about East or Southeast asian. I've been surprised when watching British TV and I've seen British people in Australia surprised at how we use the word. I've even had conversations about it and at least one person told me that he would use "Oriental" for the senses I use "Asian". — Hippietrail 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've cleaned this up a bit. Perhaps the third sense should be marked as (Australian). Note that I've tagged the UK sense with "loosely" because, strictly, it is not correct (people from outside the Indian subcontinent are Asian too, by the first definition). — Paul G 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the (football) meaning shouldn't be spelt as two words: up front. Ncik 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the adjective is either upfront or up-front, but the adverb is up front. There is also a card game that -pedia calls w:Up Front. It gets clumsy doesn't it. SemperBlotto 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean football or soccer? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he means football not American football SemperBlotto 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well speak English then!  :-) The only un-ambiguous term for that is soccer. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The current English etymology suggests that the two parts of this term were borrowed individually and joined to make a new English term. This seems wrong to me. It's probably just an etym entered by somebody not aware of this subtlety. — Hippietrail 22:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. — Paul G 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that pretence is British, but pretense is American. Is that not correct? SemperBlotto 11:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that pretense is American; I don't know what is preferred across The Pond. The Random House American Collegiate seems to agree as well. --EncycloPetey 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not looked it up but I would instinctively go for the c version & I've never wandered over the wastern side of the pond. MGSpiller 01:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been snooping around in Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#Most_common_words_.28TV_and_movie_scripts.29, having a bit of fun defining undefined TV words, and there's loads of red links for things like workin, playin, seein, doin, amalgamatin etc. There's no place for these in Wiktionary right? --Expurgator t(c) 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's spelled -in'. AFAIK it's mostly used in quotes to mark that the last part of the word was not pronounced.

Rather, differently pronounced. Namely as /ɪn/ instead of /ɪŋ/ . It seems like a predominantly American alteration to me. Ncik 00:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the last part is not pronounciated, but yes strictly speaking you are right. Yes, especially one used by uneducated people in American, I think. --Patrik Stridvall 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it doesn't really change the meaning of the word, there is not much point to have entries for them. Possibly we should meantion in the pronunciation section for each "-ing" word that is there is an alternative "slang" pronunciation. --Patrik Stridvall 19:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, a lot of writers now do use these forms without the apostrophe. Widsith 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I would consider that a misspelling but there might be people that believe it is spelled that way. So I don't know... --Patrik Stridvall 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you know that the correct spelling is -ing you might still decide to spell it -in. If it is a misspelling, then, in many cases, certainly an intentional misspelling. We should be careful to point this out. But we should be equally careful to inform the reader that this is non-standard. Ncik 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that every English verb borh regular and irregular can take the -ing ending so having both -in' and -in as alternative forms means just a lot of useless information on the page of each verb. Futhermore there is no difference in meaning in any case I know of so every page with the alternative forms will look the same. It's a pronunciation issue and should be handled as such. --Patrik Stridvall 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Treating them like any other alternative spelling should be fine. Ncik 02:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that these words appear with -in in the frequency counts solely because of the way the counting algorithm treated apostrophes -- as described on the explanation page. Most (more than half, but by no means all) of them were originally spelled with an apostrophe. In principle, I don't care strongly either way about having articles for -in'/-in forms. In practice, I'd make it an even lower priority than the already abysmally low priority of making separate articles for every noun plural. In theoretical practice, it's the kind of thing that should eventually be handled by a smart, user-friendly front-end of the sort envisioned by Davilla. Keffy 03:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll b savin' ourselves loads of workin' by never allowin any of them in Wiktionary. So I'm thinkin we should just b disallowin every single word in English endin in -in'/-in, including "innin", innit.

Probably better to ask here than RFV east def.'s 2 and 3, "the right part of anything" and "the wind from the east", which include translations! Davilla 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The "wind" sense is certainly correct. Can't find the "right" sense. — Vildricianus 09:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Surely a wind from the east is an easterly? Widsith 18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• "dated" or "poetic" would be the right tag here I think. — Vildricianus 19:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Then provide evidence. Eclecticology 06:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1847: Alfred Lord Tennyson, The Princess — (...) and I sat down and wrote, In such a hand as when a field of corn Bows all its ears before the roaring East (...)
• 1853: Charles Dickens, Bleak House — "Where did you say the wind was, Rick?" asked Mr. Jarndyce. "In the north as we came down, sir." "You are right. There's no east in it. (...)"
• 1859: Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities — Up the two terrace flights of steps the rain ran wildly, and beat at the great door, like a swift messenger rousing those within; uneasy rushes of wind went through the hall, among the old spears and knives, and passed lamenting up the stairs, and shook the curtains of the bed where the last Marquis had slept. East, West, North, and South, through the woods, four heavy-treading, unkempt figures crushed the high grass and cracked the branches, striding on cautiously to come together in the courtyard.

Or did I misinterpret? (Perhaps #2, if so, it should go in the cap version, right?) During my week off I will look for a way to more efficiently provide quotations for English words. Also, what format do we now favour? These quotations under the defs, or a separate header? — Vildricianus 10:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No. 2 could easily mean "there is no east in" the direction of the wind, so I don't think it adds anything. I'm moving 1 and 3 to East. Davilla 09:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

seems to be the problem for def #3. Def #2 seems to be trying to describe the east side of a building? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The British do not drive on the right side of the road. If you're using an Australian map of the world east would not be right. There's a built in ambiguity "right" there. :-) Eclecticology 18:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is why we should encourage example sentences. Davilla 00:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the definitions should be fixed first. (Note: I made my guess at what they were trying to get at, from the translations that were entered during that same edit.) But that definition seems more and more unlikely. Also, smileys pertaining to Australia are indicated as (-: not :-).  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean that an example sentence would clarify the intent if it had been added by the original contributor. Otherwise we're left guessing if it was part of speech or what that was confused. Davilla 09:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed "right part of anything". Davilla 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And translation. Davilla

Odd breakdown of meanings for cricket here. They should be merged into a single meaning, generic for all (or most) sports, such as chess, football, poker, soccer, etc. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the recent up-casing and ®-branding of realtor. I'm sure the whole trademark argument has been had before, so I'll restrict my rant to the following three points:

• Even the (American) National Association of Realtors never claims "Realtor®" is a trademark. It claims "REALTOR®" in all caps is a trademark. Are we too going to go to put it in all caps? (And if not, what is the point of listing the word under a third, completely imaginary form that's neither the actual trademark nor the spelling that regular people actually use?)
• The word is not a trademark throughout the English-speaking world. We're under no obligation to distort our presentation of how a word is used world-wide because of some legal quirk in a couple of countries.
• Even in countries where "REALTOR®" is a trademark, we're under no obligation to distort our presentation of how the word is actually used. The trademark owners do have a legal obligation to whine every time someone uses their trademark generically. The rest of us are under no legal obligation to pay any attention to their whining. (Our only legal obligation is not to try to pass ourselves off as being the trademark owner, which we obviously aren't.)

I'm all in favour of keeping the usage note (corrected for case). It's an important thing to know about the word. I'm even in favour of keeping the capped version(s) with soft-redirection if necessary. But our main article explaining the meaning of "realtor" should be where it belongs -- under lowercased "r" with no wimpy ®. No disrespect to realtors (some of my closest friends and parents, etc...). But coddling their marketing strategies ain't my job. Keffy 08:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(PS: couldn't resist adding Sinclair Lewis using the word generically in 1922 to the article. Keffy 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I tracked down a few quotes for this, with the earliest uncapitalized one being from a US Senate hearing in 1919. It would be interesting to check with the original 1916 article to see whether Chadbourne capitalized the word when he coined it. (Does anyone have acces to that journal?)

The NAR seems to have consistently won its cases when it went to court over the trademark. This would have some effect when someone would want to call himself a Realtor. Nothing that I saw dealt with the issue of the all caps form that they use in all their notice, and which appears to be the format in the 1947 registration application. These cases should not have any effect on those of us who write descriptive dictionaries. If the term is used generically, we merely observe the fact. Eclecticology 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Saw a commercial about this on TV recently—I don't know if that's what sparked this—but it was along the lines of "make sure your agent is a realtor" (or whatever) with an of emphasis that only people who belong to that organization can call themselves realtors, and the word "realtor" was adorned by the ® symbol. —Muke Tever

I noticed all your additions throughout the day. I'm impressed. The guilt I feel at all the extra work you went through will be a more effective disincentive to future Tea Room rants than if you'd disagreed with me violently. (But probably not effective enough to eliminate them altogether. :-)). Keffy 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This one was a fun challenge. Google Print had many more examples. One was a year earlier (1918), but the way that project is functioning I couldn't be sure of that date. They have added a lot of old US govenment document, but keep them protected despite the fact that these are clearly in the public domain. The other interesting point was the issue of generic names. The point for me is that companies have no control over genericization except except in very limited circumstances. Eclecticology 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

sinh has 3 pronunciations. How odd. Any other words have 3 pronunciations? See Talk:sinh and discuss there on editting formalities for multiple prons, i.e should it go:

Pronunciation

1. Like sinch
2. Like sinech
3. Sine H
4. shine

It maketh me scratch my metapohrical head anyway. --Expurgator t(c) 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently heard a word that is defined as an overly religeous person... and can't remember it. It seems there really isnt a forum for doing a reverse lookup of words by their definitions.

Perhaps you mean a zealot? — Vildricianus 11:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps devotee? Try a thesarus. Jonathan Webley 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Or a fanatic, or ... anyway, we do have a little 'search' button on the left there that searches whole pages, not just titles. You might get more results if you spell it religious though. —Muke Tever 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe bible basher for a devout Christian?

Related to that, bible thumper? 68.39.174.238 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the sources I found when looking for apostil, the word apostille seems to have been reserved by the French. All three forms namely apostle, apostil, and apostille seem to be used equally in English, and I don't know which is 'correct'. Personally, I have always used apostle. Any thoughts? Andrew massyn 10:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There may not be a 'correct'. It's not like English is governed by a standards body, after all. What we have are 1) curmudgeons who censure what they consider to be errors, 2) dictionaries who decide, on whatever grounds, the spelling they will recommend, and possibly 3) use of the language by a large community of speakers. When none of these have a consensus, what is "correct" is a mere matter of opinion. —Muke Tever 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and perhaps my query wasn't clear enough. apostille seems to be French, and appears to have crept into English through the back door. When there are already two alternate spellings in English, do we reflect the third when it is probably a common misspelling? Andrew massyn 22:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is... especially in an NPOV place like this... we can't label anything as a "misspelling" without a source (who in turn needs to be cited). We can say it is or isn't the most common current spelling (preferably with statistics), or that it is or isn't etymologically correct, or that major dictionaries X, Y, and Z give spelling A and B under the headword A, etc. There do exist words with alternate spellings in English (axe/ax, griffin/gryphon...) and I'm not aware of any limit beyond which any others are automatically branded "misspellings", so I'm not sure about what you mean by that part. —Muke Tever 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At present, these entries just redirect to zero to nine. Shouldn't they have their own definitions? SemperBlotto 12:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

More than that. They should be complete pages with etymologies, translations (i.e. in this case transliterations, e.g. into Latin as I-IX (did they have a 0?), etc. Ncik 14:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, 0 was a fundamental innovation several centuries later in India. MGSpiller 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Different pages, absolutely. They sometimes substitue for words, e.g. "4" for "for" in English, and not just since the dawn of IM. "0" is ofen pronounced "oh" rather than "zero". I would even include handwriting samples since the symbols differ slightly internationally, if you can believe it! Davilla 14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi people. Does anyone know more about the Chinese term 班 (pan, which can also mean leader, unless I'm mistaken)? Is it indigenous to Chinese or is it a loan from a non Sino-Tibetan language? Alexander 007 10:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word for a male seraglio; or is this just a fantasy? Andrew massyn

What's the right POS for this word? It's synonymous with "understand?" which implies a verb, but then it has no English inflections. Jonathan Webley 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have it right with verb. - TheDaveRoss

Sure. After I hit him, he capiched. I've been hitting him, now he is capishing. But google only found 47 hits for capisched and I didn't check for capiching. JillianE 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone add a pronunciation, please? (or if you prefer: Add a pronunciation, capiche? <G>) JillianE 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I would have seen this page before writing an English definition for capisce. Davilla 14:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why is the "tlh:" interwiki prefix disabeled?
• See user:Gangleri/bugzilla/interlanguage prefix tlh:
• Can anybody fill a report at MediaZilla:?
• Best regards Gangleri · T · m: Th · T 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Truth or Dare or truth or dare...that is the question. --Expurgator t(c) 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say Truth or Dare for 2 reasons:

1. It is better written.
2. I always took it to be a proper noun.

But either would be perfectly fine. Celestianpower 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag or tag? Kickball or kickball? I say lowercase. - TheDaveRoss 01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to solve this is by finding a consensus of citations. I suspect Truth or Dare is the most commonly used. 202.173.128.90 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Truth... no, dare! Wait, misread the question. :-p Davilla 14:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is EE.UU. the abbreviation for 'Estados Unidos'? Why not just E.U.?

Because Estados Unidos is plural. Why they form initialisms that way is beyond me, I am not even certain if the formation is that way across the board or not... - TheDaveRoss 01:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Forming the plural of one letter abbreviations by doubling that letter is done in many languages, English included (eg. pp. for pages). Ncik 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not limited to one-letter abbreviations, but extends to abbreviations in general. Hence et seqq. for et sequentia ("and things that follow"). But it is rarer in English nowadays, and you probably only expect it for traditional abbrevv., not new ones. —Muke Tever 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

...Muke's "abbrevv." being a "new" one, of course, before anyone rushes to define it. :) — Paul G 09:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's four examples of it in Google Books—three in nineteenth-century German, one in 1908 English. I don't think it was too common, though. —Muke Tever 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I've heard the word chanundrum, although I'm not sure I'm spelling that right as I can't find it anywhere, but I don't remember what the meaning for this word is. A friend used saying that Someone was in a chanundrum, I apologize again if it's mispelled, over me. I'm lost for words and knowledge on this as I've heard it before but never used it myself as I don't exactly know what it means. If someone would correct the spelling to where I can find it or just leave the definition here for me, or perhaps both, I would greatly appreaciate it.

Perhaps you mean conundrum. Alexander 007 13:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do these deserve their own entries? See dirty. Davilla 21:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They do. Jonathan Webley 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't. — Hippietrail 21:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They do. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't. Widsith 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They do. First of all they have English synonyms. Secondly I'm sure that many languages use euphemisms for that sort of things. While the given Swedish translation for that sense is the most exact term and would leave no doubt in anybodies mind what you were after, it would often be preferable to be less exact and more vague. :-) --Patrik Stridvall 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view, one of these does, and the rest don't:

• "Dirty" means "obscene", "pornographic" or the like in all of these, so most are not idiomatic as they can easily be understood once the sense of "dirty" is known.
• "Dirty word" however certainly does merit an entry, as this has a figurative sense, meaning something like "something that someone does not like to hear or talk about"; for example, "Work is a dirty word to him".

Other than that, I don't think they should have separate entries. Yes, they have synonyms, as does "dirty magazine" ("dirty" in the same sense as the above), but merely having synonyms does not feature in our criteria for inclusion. They are all the sum of their parts "obscene film/joke/video".

The main problem as I see it is that it is not obvious to non-native speakers what sense every combination with dirty takes. Of course, this a general problem with almost any combination of words. --Patrik Stridvall 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note also "blue film", "blue joke", "blue video", "blue movie" in the same sense - are these idiomatic, or is "blue" just a synonym for "obscene" again? — Paul G 10:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, just because something is used as an euphemism doesn't by necessity make it idiomatic. We also have off-color and profane that are not listed as synonyms either. In this context they are bordering on idiomatic as well. BTW, is it really meaningful to have different senses for sexual and non-sexual content? When I updated the page I didn't want to change that. --Patrik Stridvall 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The synonym argument is tricky. On the one hand, it doesn't meet CFI. On the other hand, if it's listed as a synonym on another page, it should be possible to fill out the page. There is something fundamentally wrong about having permanently red links. The resolution to the problem is not to think about it. I would guess this theoretical conundrum is resolved in practice, that there's some invisible force resolved to removing as links phrases that don't meet CFI. (Invisible means it's not me, guys.) Regardless, it's a difficult angle to the theoretical question and probably not the best approach. Davilla 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of these, including colors, apply broadly, but there's a strong case to have dirty bomb as a separate entry rather than a separate definition, IMO. Continuing that trend, I would rather list many of these as separate entries, dirty trick and dirty money in addition to those above, and merge and generalize the definitions at dirty. "Violating accepted standards or rules" through "considered morally corrupt" all seem very similar, along the same vein. Davilla 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of degree. They are certainly secondary senses to the same primary sense, but as you can see they have different English synonyms and while I don't think you understand the Swedish translations, they translate differently depending of the exact sense. Dividing words in senses is very hard. I usually try to avoid dividing a primary sense just for translations unless I can find English synonyms that can't reasonable be said to attach to all secondary senses.

Unfortunately the synonym argument is in fact completely moot for senses. Looked at one way, synonyms and definitions serve the same purpose; the former are simply more concise. Another way to think of it is this: out of context, only certain words are universally synonymous with a certain sense. Given a context, the sphere of words that can convey the same meaning expands because the context restricts the meaning that we attach to those words. The same words wouldn't necessarily convey the same meaning in another context, which may lead one to conclude that a word must be defined differently in every context. However, this is not a wise approach. It will pretty much always be possible to divide an idea more and more finely, whether with definitions or with synonyms or with synonyms in certain contexts. So synonyms do not support a more restricted and narrowly defined definition any more that a more restricted and narrowly defined definition supports itself.

The same applies to translations if we think of them as synonyms in other languages. I believe the practice that's developed here is to define the word in English and if necessary annotate the translations. Davilla 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of our entries avoids the question of primary and secondary sense. It is a little unclear in general exactly what is a primary sense and what is a secondary sense but perhaps we should have a format that marks it somehow. But then different dictionaries seems to have different ideas on how to do the division so perhaps it better to avoid the question entirely. I don't know.

As for dirty bomb well, I suppose that it falls under "covered with or containing dirt or other unwanted substances" and it doesn't really appear except with the synonyms of bomb. The same can to some extent be said of the weather sense. Possibly we should have a "See dirty bomb" and "See dirty weather" instead of the translations. --Patrik Stridvall 10:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold on! Just because radioactive material is unwanted doesn't mean the first sense fits at all. A dirty bomb isn't something you bring out the Ajax for. If the current definition of the first sense somehow fits, then that's only because it's imprecise. Davilla 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I find the tangents here a bit distracting. Idiomacy is one criteria for multi-word entries, but not the only. (I haven't checked just now, but would suspect the CFI has perhaps undergone certain POV manipulation.) Muke had posted a list of over 20 criteria for multi-word entries last year - a couple met resistance from two users, but the rest were deemed reasonable by all, at the time. AFAIK, those were supposed to be our criteria for multi-word entries, NOT the so call "sum-of-parts" invalid argument. Seen in that light, we should unquestionably have each of these entries. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in mind of course that Connel wants to make Wiktionary into some kind of thing that print dictionaries have never been before. Look up each term in Oxford, Websters, or any other really big dictionary and decide how traditional and precise or radical and cluttered you want Wiktionary to be. — Hippietrail 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. We are already far beyond what paper dictionaries are. And we are not paper. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving some definitions into their own entries and leaving most terms unfilled for now. Davilla 15:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I came across this use of "Albatross" by Sen. Lugar in a speech that he delivered at the Brookings institution. "Energy is the Albatross of U.S. National Security." What does it mean? Is it in common usage? Dictionary meaning of "Albatross" does not fit into this sentence. Can someone throw some light on it?

• It is the second sense listed at albatross, which appears to be a copyvio from ditcionary.com and is about to change :). - TheDaveRoss 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This use of 'albatross' is a literary reference—to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, where albatross around the protagonist's neck was a literal albatross that he had killed. —Muke Tever 14:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word or phrase that emphasizes the difficulty in choosing between equally good choices? Something along the line of "embarrassment of riches" but more specific.

Sophie's choice? Oh no, that's a very bad choice. Sometimes we say one is spoiled for choice or spoilt for choice though. --Expurgator t(c) 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, becuase I've seen "an" used before "historic" sometimes instead of "a". The historic entry doesn't say anything about why this would be, and the dictionary.com example shows "a historic". Isn't "an" used only before vowel sounds? -- Creidieki 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people pronounce the H, some don't, and a/an would be appropriate depending. Davilla 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people also pronounce the H and still use "an". This has always sounded wrong to me but often this is done by the kind of people who correct others' English. — Hippietrail 19:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Hippietrail. You might make me want to follow you around correcting your grammar, and I'll bring a couple of countries along with me to help. It's one of those British-tends-more, American-tends-less things. For almost everyone who uses an before H, the syllabe with the H must be unstressed. So "an hisTORical" is fine, "an HIStory" would be weird. H is a pretty wimpy consonant at the best of times, and in an unstressed syllable it's often too wimpy to keep the N from popping up. -- Keffy 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it it does feel "British" to me though I'm pretty certain I've heard it discussed that some Americans do it too and I've definitely known many many British people, especially of a younger generation, who do not do it. In Australia there was a "proper" way of talking which has almost died out. It was the people who used this mode of speech in Australia that tended to say "An historical ...". — Hippietrail 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't really sure what to say about this in the historic article. I noted the existence of the issue, which I think is an improvement over no mention. I wasn't sure how to format it. -- Creidieki 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The French consider H to be a vowel and some users of RP will do the same. I have noticed BBC newsreaders do this kind of thing. It always seems pretentious to me. MGSpiller 01:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It does seem pretentious now, but it used to be incorrect to do otherwise than use "an" before H+vowel. Nowadays it only seems to crop up with phrases like "an historic occasion" which politicians and newsreaders like. I would describe it as formal, or maybe even formal passing into archaic. Also, pace MGSpiller, consonantal H does exist in French, eg la hache (not l'hache). Widsith 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, my French is rather sketchy. Indeed I'm not entirely sure what you mean by pace, I would expect en passant from the context. MGSpiller 12:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Erk, it has another definition which isn't on here yet. It's a Latin term which you add before a person's name as a gesture of respect when you're about to correct them, roughly meaning "with all due respect to...". Quite often it's used ironically, though it wasn't by me! Actually, it's probably just as pretentious as "an historic"... Widsith 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The letter h is indeed a consonant in French, just as in English. It is always silent at the beginning of words, but this does not make it a vowel (just as the silent h in English words such as "hour" and "honest" is not a vowel).

There are two varieties of h in French: "h muet" ("silent h") and h aspiré ("aspirate h"). Neither is pronounced in modern French, but words beginning with h muet cause certain preceding words to undergo elision or liaison, while this does not happen with those beginning with h aspiré. Elision means the contraction of certain words (such as "le", "la" and "de"); liaison means the pronunciation of the final, usually silent, consonant of the preceding word.

For example, "homme" ("man") begins with an h muet, so we have:

• l'homme ("the man"): elision of "le" ("the")
• des hommes ("some men"), which is pronounced /dɛzɔm/ rather than /dɛ ɔm/): liaison (the "s" of "des" is pronounced, which, usually, it is not)

In contrast, "hibou" ("owl") begins with an h aspiré, so we have:

• le hibou ("the owl"): no elision
• des hiboux ("some owls"), which is pronounced /dɛ ibu/: no liaison

Some words beginning with h come from French and were once pronounced similarly to how they are pronounced in French. Most of these words have ended up with the h being pronounced but a few haven't (such as "honest"). "Hotel" is one example - you'll still hear some older people pronounce it with a silent h (and I'm not talking about dropping the h - they would never pronounce it). Hence they it is quite correct for them to say "an hotel".

As Keffy says, the stress must be on a syllable other than the first for "an" to be used. Saying "an historic..." is popular with BBC newsreaders (and they seem to be among the few people in the country who use "an" instead of "a" here) but it is not really standard UK English any more (in that pretty much everyone says "a historic...").

I would agree with Widsmith that it sounds pretentious but would prefer to mark it as "old-fashioned" or "dated" rather than "archaic", as many older people (and the BBC) still use it. — Paul G 15:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that sounds better. By the way it's Widsith (Old English "far-traveller") not Widsmith (maker of wids). Widsith 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was concentrating on what I was writing and overlooked the correct spelling of your name. Sorry. — Paul G 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For this old British wrinkly, "an (h)istoric" seems to run together easily, whereas "a Historic" seems to have a little judder of a pause before the H, and seems a little unnatural. SemperBlotto 09:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

From this British whippersnapper, I agree with SemperBlotto: "a historic" sounds jarred and unnatural. It's somewhere inbetween "an hour" (universal) and "an horse" (wrong). Because the "h" is unstressed, it tends to be left out and you end up saying "istoric", in which case you'd say "an" but, if you were to deliberately make yourself say the "h", then you would use "a". Or at least, that's my understanding of it. Celestianpower 09:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another note: although, as mentioned above, words beginning with H generally took ‘an’ only if they were stressed on a syllable other than the first, that rule is relatively recent. Chaucer for example could write ‘an hill’. Widsith 06:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

O. Henry seems to have this obsession with ridiculous words noone's ever heard of before, and WT.s had them up to now. I just ran across "kalsomining" in The Higher Abdication and can't find it in Wiktionary. Anyone know, or can infer from context what it means? Thanx and sorry if it was already here and I missed it... 68.39.174.238 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a variant spelling of calcimining (or calcimine), an American term for distemper (the paint, not the cat disease). -- Keffy 02:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I'd've never gotten that one. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one: "bungstarter" ?! Same place, 3rd paragraph. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As you find these, please add the text {{rfv}} to the page and then nominate the suspect word on Wiktionary:Requests for verification. — Paul G 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is to a century old WikiSource text which the enquirer is asking for help with. The context to Bungstarter doesn't help much, on the other hand it does not add much to the text as a whole. It would definitely not be a good idea to add {{rfv}} to a wikisource text. MGSpiller 19:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, a bung is "a plug used to close a hole in a barrel" so I guess that bungstarter is either "somebody who opens barrels" or possibly "a tool used for opening barrels". This quoute from Google Books seems to confirm it: Pat, let me have that keg," and the schoolteacher proceeded to hammer around the bung, in the way of the orthodox bungstarter.

The big question is whether we should have an entry for bungstarter or not. It certainly is possible to dig up three independent quotes from Google Books. Any definition of the word will be pure speculation though. So we probably should mark it somehow if we add it. --Patrik Stridvall 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I looked it up in a "real" (Read: Print) dictionary and it's evidently the second suggestion (A tool). 68.39.174.238 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added an entry for bungstarter now with a few quotes from Google Books. --Patrik Stridvall 20:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(OMG)Thanx dude. I've started on "The Trimmed Lamp" and found this one "duck-fit" from this context: "If one was to speak to me," laughed Lou, "I know I'd have a duck-fit." (Discussing a lower middle class man meeting a millionaire). 68.39.174.238 03:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also "leal", from "The Social Triangle" ("The leal and the hopeful shook Billy McMahan's hand."). Thanx again 68.39.174.238 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

--80.60.99.101 10:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"syntactic" means having to do with syntax, or how words are arranged to form utterances. "grammatical" means having to do with grammar, which is nearly the same thing but slightly broader (it also includes how words are inflected, and, to some people, spelling as well), but the usual sense is another one, that of 'conforming to accepted usage of grammar' (You could say "I ain't going" is not grammatical, but you wouldn't say it's not syntactic). —Muke Tever 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammar = syntax + semantics + (optional) orthography. Ncik 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has altered the headword of this article without moving the page to match. Does anybody know which is correct, the title "שאתה־יודע־מי", or the new headword "אתה־יודע־מי"? — Hippietrail 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be אתה־יודע־מי. The phrase שאתה־יודע־מי is possible, but the prefix -ש means something like because. I’ve moved it back where it was. —Stephen 03:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lord Voldemort (he:לורד וולדמורט) page on the Hebrew Wikipedia might be of some use. If you can read it. I can't. --Patrik Stridvall 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This word has an entry, but I think we need to be very careful about this sort of content. A much more useful and appropriate approach for this definition would be to state other names for the chemical compound and describe its makeup. Listing a purported medical property is misleading, not particularly neutral, and even potentially harmful. Can we make this article more scientific? --Dvortygirl 08:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. SemperBlotto 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This adjective is defined as if it were a noun. I suppose it IS a real word (I certainly use it). SemperBlotto 07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

An adjective in the examples given, and so changed. Don't know if the noun sense also exists. Davilla 18:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The French have a nice idiom, fr:donner de la confiture à des cochons (literally, To give pigs jam), meaning "To give something to someone who won't know how to appreciate it". I've been racking my brain and racking the Internet for a nice idiomatic English translation to that, but no luck. Any suggestions? --Expurgator t(c) 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to cast pearls before swine? Kipmaster 13:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Connel wants to keep a "Noun" section in this entry for the US highway. What do others think? Ncik 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Connel wants to keep everything. He doesn't want a dictionary as we know it. He wants "everything". — Hippietrail 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep provided I can add entries for 71, 183 ("one eighty-three"), 290 ("two ninety"), and 2222 ("twenty-two twenty-two"). But why stop there? I'd also like to add I35 = IH35 and First through Eleventh. But why stop there? I'd also like to add Loop 1, South First, and Mopac. And I promise you I can find more than enough citations for each. I'd also like to point out that 101 is a year, a building in Taipei, the binary for 5, the gray number for 6, and a hundred and one other things.Davilla 10:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Make sure all those are marked as regional and with what region. —Muke Tever 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The years and ordinal numbered streets could probably be handled with a general note in the appendix that I would expect to grow. The remaining streets are in Central Texas, though I'm less confident now about my claim of attestation for the numbered ones. They are usually marked differently in print than in speech, and they're too local to be used in a national production, so I'd probably have to find radio transcripts or something. The building is probably only called 101 in Taiwan, otherwise "Taipei 101". The full name would probably be considered encyclopedic, and I don't think I could attest the moniker, though it's worth a try. Davilla 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know if it is true in other dialects, but in the US, highways take on a life of their own. You typically don't say "Take the highway 101 to exit ..." but instead "Take 101 to exit...". Obviously the first is grammatically correct, but colloquially unacceptable. That is, if you said (or wrote) the first, you would be laughed at. If this is a dialectal difference, it would perhaps explain the difference of opinion regarding the term's acceptability as an ordinary noun?

• That said, the same does not seem to apply to all routes and highways in the US. That is, I think the second-most famous highway (after highway 101) in the US would be Route 66. But famous highways like I-5, I-15, 495 (/I-495 /the L.I.E.) or the B.Q.E. are more than just "notable." Their affect on people's daily lives force them to be distinct elements of the language. I'm not sure what the proper way to denote these are, on Wiktionary.

• There seem to be a gazillion formatting rules for these as well. For example, LIE is not acceptable IIRC, but only L.I.E.. On the other hand, BQE is is more common than B.Q.E., but both are used. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably irrelevant to your point, but note that California (especially the southern end) exhibits a regional variation to use the definite article with highway names, both named and numbered ones, "take I-5 to Seattle" is common in Washington and Oregon, but "take the I-5" to Sacramento" is common in L.A. Rodasmith 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

pro-life, sense 3 seems inaccurate to me, but I am not exactly sure how to fix it. It reads favoring Christian fundamentalist views of medical issues. My first problem is that I know for a fact that, while this is more precise than the previous "religious views", even fundamentalist Christians hold a variety of views on medical issues, and certainly it shouldn't try to encompass the entire field of medicine, there are only a few issues that this terms would probably apply to. Second, I don't think it is a prerequisite to belong to the Christian religion in order to hold "pro-life" views of anything, I could be wrong here. Thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 02:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved that to the talk page. Such a sweeping generalization needs to be supported by evidence. There are many non-Christians with a pro-life view, just as there are many Christians who would balk at being associated with the pro-life movement. Eclecticology 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have a page for malfeasance, which is fairly common, but according to the Nebraska State Legislature there also exists misfeasance and nonfeasance, neither of which I've heard before or know the meaning of. Anyone else know if they're real? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at the definitions? I think 2. and 3. should be merged. If not, they need clearer explanation. — Vildricianus 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is about the same as the difference between a letter and a word with one letter. It say clearly say numeral in one of the definition and digit in the other so any misunderstanding must come from ignorance of the difference between a numeral and a digit. Explaining that belongs on their respectives pages not on the page for zero. Quote A numeral that can be combined with others to write larger numbers, and that cannot itself be split into other numerals. Futhermore there might be some language that use different words and for that matter even different symbols for the standalone variant and the combining variant. --Patrik Stridvall 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitions one and two might be mergeable, but definition three is a different use. Saying I have zero dollars. Makes a statement using the quantity with value equal to zero. Saying Her PIN is three, zero, zero. refers to a digit or button. This is the distinction between the first two definitions, and it is a subtle one. However, saying that One million includes six zeros. Has nothing whatever to do with the quantity zero. Mathematically, each zero in the number one million has a different meaning as a placeholder. --EncycloPetey 09:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition 1 is abstract quantity, independent of representation, for example, on an abacus, sign language, or written in definition 2. Mathematically 2 & 3 have to be identical since a digit represents zero tens, zero millionths for example; but the common usage is far enough from this to merit an entry. The PIN example may well better than the current one.

1 is the abstract quantity of 0, yes, but 2 & 3 are different mathematically. 2 is the symbol for the cardinal number 0. 3 is the symbol that multiplies a numeral with a factor 10 if added to the right. Yes, they look exactly the same in Western script. Not sure if that is the case in all scripts, though. --Patrik Stridvall 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right -- allow me to rephrase: in defn 3, it's still zero of something, but part of the meaning of a digit is its place as in tens place etc. The 0 in 101 is different from the 0 in 1011. This needs to be in digit definition.Rmo13 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I said earlier, explaining the difference between a digit and numeral shouldn't be done on the page for zero. --Patrik Stridvall 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition 2 could be extended (or a definition added) to include any physical representation of zero, including sign language, bit state, etc. She signed a zero. The definitions in 0 does this to some degree. I have a problem distinguishing definition 5 and 1. In any event the current example for 5 seems more compatible with defn. 4 since lose indicates a negative outcome is possible. I propose The lack of customers meant the income was zero. Rmo13 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

5 and 1 is almost the same yes. However 5 is more vague meaning more for all practial purposes zero. Not sure if that is enough for a seperate sense. --Patrik Stridvall 18:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally get it:defn. 1 is for countable objects; defn. 5 is for uncountable type concepts: He knew zero about basketball. or She showed zero interest. This is non-quantitative nothing. (2nd example is adjectival) Rmo13 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The examples are good, but it has nothing directly to do with countabillity more that counting it would be pointless. I changed definition 5 to "(informal) Something that is for all practical purposes irrelevant.". I think its clearer now. --Patrik Stridvall 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunate wording on my part. Concrete/discrete(eg. dog) as opposed to abstract/substance(eg. love or carbon) please see for discussion grammatical uncountability. Thus zero dogs pl, but zero carbon sg. Rmo13 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the way I see it "The profit was zero." also belongs this sense. Obviously the actual profit is very unlikely to be exactly zero, it more that it would serve no purpose to count it since it is so low that it is not really useable for anything. But it is still something concrete/discrete. --Patrik Stridvall 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to amplify 'fox' with the definition and etymology for the discolouration on paper. Wikipedia gives the definition as from (F)errous (Ox)ide, but I havent found any other source for this etymology, and must therefore regard it as suspect? Does anyone know if it is correct? Andrew massyn

I'm reasonable sure that is means fox-coloured. SemperBlotto 15:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The OED, 2nd edition, has only one etymology for the verb "fox" (deriving it from the noun "fox", which also has just one etymology). One of the meanings of the verb is given as: "trans. To discolour (the leaves of a book)." Similarly on www.etymonline.com, which states: "Foxed in booksellers' catalogues means "stained with fox-colored marks." Ncik 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all Andrew massyn 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The etymology based on Ferric Oxide is indeed suspect. Although iron is a factor in foxing it does not act alone, but has been acted upon by several possible external forces. See http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt1434.html Eclecticology 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this entry mention that "Dick" is also very commonly used as a shortened version of "Richard"?

It already does. You want the entry for Dick, not dick. Wiktionary is case-sensitive. --EncycloPetey 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What does CW mean in this article? — Hippietrail 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's supposed to indicate CommonWealth English MGSpiller 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. — Vildricianus 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I can't seem to find enough sources to include CW right now. — Vildricianus 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

One of these days (when I've finished the E numbers) I'm going to start on the vitamins. But how should I name ones with subscripted names e.g. vitamin K₃ Should they just be listed under vitamin K? or as vitamin K3 (which is incorrect). I know that it is possible to get subscripted characters into an article name, but I don't want to do that as nobody will ever search that way. SemperBlotto 10:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

vitamin K₃, with a redirect at vitamin K3 (which is what the user is most likely to type). —Muke Tever 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can titles contain subscripts? JillianE 15:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not using HTML syntax: ₃. I use HTML syntax in preview mode, then cut-n-paste, but there is probably an easier way. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this example entry at K₃, without the "vitamin " prefix. Or at least a redirect from one to the other. Not a strong preference, but worth discussing. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same as bat an eyelid? Is one wrong? --Expurgator t(c) 19:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. No. —Muke Tever 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor correct indicated the current deficiency with the third definition. It certainly doesn't match the Wikipedia definition very well. I'm not sure that the Wikipedia definition covers how the term is used adequately anyway; semaphore usually refers to a small block of code, not the single protected variable (that the compiler uses to accomplish the blocking.)

So, do we rewrite the definition to match Wikipedia, or add another meaning for the colloquial programming meaning, do both, or something else entirely?

Definitions one and two also need some work. Do we have a list of the semaphore signals? Should they be included on the page or linked to somewhere in the Wiktionary namespace?

--Connel MacKenzie T C 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded the computing definition. SemperBlotto 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed the rft tag for now. But I'm still a little unclear as to whether the technical vs. colloquial computing usages merit separate definitions. (I guess that would be moderately technical vs. extremely technical?) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I came across this due to the ampersand in the title, but of more concern: Do we want this at A&E or A & E? Including the spaces seems just wrong, to me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick search on Google shows that A&E is more common but A & E is in use (though it does not distinguish A. & E. from A & E). MGSpiller 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As a point of minor amusement, I didn't notice that we had A&E until I had posted the above message and saw that it was blue. I did not even think of checking A. & E.. Whew! At least that one is a red-link! --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to state that the terms is another spelling for pixelated. This is not correct. The latter term derives from pixel, a mid-20th century term. The former term is at least a century older and comes from pixie. It could well be that pixelated was influenced by pixilated, but that's hardly the same thing. — Hippietrail 18:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

...and UK English has the spelling "pixellated", I believe. — Paul G 09:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not sure about the single/double "l" though... someone will need to check UK/US usage here. — Paul G 09:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I started to reply that User:Paul G did some research on the doubling rules a while back, but it probably wouldn't make much sense for you to ask yourself.  :-) A quick google books comparison shows that for both terms, (e and i) the single "l" is more common - implying that the single "l" flavor is the US spelling. (To my eye, the double "l" looks correct though. So apparently I'm just confused.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's right... I'll give the rule here. When a verb ends in single vowel + single consonant and is stressed on the final (or only) syllable, then the consonant at the end is doubled when adding suffixes such as -ed, -er and -ing; otherwise, it is not doubled. Hence:

• set -> setter, setting (monosyllable ending in single vowel + consonant)
• forget -> forgetting (ends in single vowel + consonant; final syllable is stressed)
• target -> targeted, targeting (ends in a single vowel + consonant; stress is not on the final syllable, so the consonant is not doubled — note that this is a spelling that many people get wrong)
• repeat -> repeated, repeater, repeating (stress is on the final syllable, but it ends in two vowels + consonant, so the consonant is not doubled)

However, in UK English, verbs ending in single vowel + l ("el") double the final l in all cases but one (see below), irrespective of where the stress falls. Hence:

• travel -> travelled, traveller, travelling (but "traveled", "traveler" and "traveling" in US English, because the stress is not on the final syllable)
• propel -> propelled, propellor, propelling in all varieties of English (because the stress is on the final syllable)

The only exception is "unparalleled", which is the spelling in all varieties of English (an exception to the UK rule as UK English would require "unparallelled"*).

There are some other exceptions in UK English, such as "worshipping", "kidnapping", which are stressed on the antepenultimate syllable, which would give "worshiping" and "kidnaping" according to the rule. US English allows "worship" and "kidnap" to be inflected with either single or double p, but "formatting" is the only spelling (maybe so it doesn't look like it should be pronounced "for-mait-ing").

So the rule would suggest "pixellated" in UK English and "pixelated" in US English. I was non-committal about the spelling as I'm not sure whether these are the spellings used in the two countries. — Paul G 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of questions on this entry I have just created...

• Is it pejorative or affectionate?
• Does it actually mean a Welshman, or is a nickname for someone who is Welsh (like "Paddy" is used as a nickname for someone who is Irish)?

Thanks. — Paul G 13:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pejorative: The only sense I know it in is "Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief. Taffy came to my house and stole a side of beef." Regards Andrew massyn 19:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics, Origins and History

The children's nursery rhyme 'Taffy was a Welshman' has its origins in Celtic Mythology. Amaethon (from which the name Taffy is derived) was the God of Welsh Agriculture. This Celtic God Amaethon was renown for stealing a variety of wild life from the god Arawn, the Lord of the Otherworld. The association between Taffy and the thief is thus explained...Andrew massyn 19:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC) http://www.rhymes.org.uk/a79-taffy-was-a-welshman.htm

Us Welshmen consider this mildly pejorative. --Dangherous 09:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dangherous. I've added the label "somewhat pejorative" to the entry. Outstanding questions:

• What is the plural? Taffys (as it would be for a name) or Taffies?
• Is it a Welshman, or a nickname for someone who is Welsh (reiteration of my earlier question)
• Can it be applied to a Welshwoman? — Paul G 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about the plurals or the Welshwoman things, sorry. --Dangherous 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Woah, I think the etymology of this is wrong. I was always told (and Wikipedia kinda backs me up) that it was due to the River Taff, a river running through South Wales, kind of like the River Thames of Wales as it runs through Cardiff (Welsh capital). The Dafydd reference seems rather dubious to me, but I'm no expert, just your average half-Welsh student. --Dangherous 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The OED says it is from "Dafydd". It also says it is a nickname. — Paul G 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the idiomatic sense of this phrase, but I'm not happy with the definition I've written. It's more than just an expression of gratitude: it's also to show that the recipient of the gift feels that the person giving it needn't have done so, but I'm not sure how to phrase this. — Paul G 09:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

tweaked slightly... Widsith 09:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. Thank you. — Paul G 09:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It says etymology is from backslang, but there's nothing backslang-ish about it. (Backslang of tourist? Eh?). Or maybe the contributor meant just "slang". --Dangherous 09:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is an older English word for some unit of measurement but I can't find it in any dictionaries. Perhaps my spelling is wrong. Does anyone recognize this word?

The only references I can find show it as an obsolete spelling of meadow. Andrew massyn 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[email protected]

I am trying to define various heresies, but am having difficulty getting my mind around some of the fine distinctions. (Talk about Angels dancing on a pin!). Please look at monophysite & monophysism and see if I got it right. Also nestorianism. Thanks. Andrew massyn 18:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to nestorianism. Monophysite looks bang on. Widsith 10:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See also the terms homoousian, homoiousian, heteroousian. Widsith 10:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kappa added ===Homophone=== * ] "son" to fis. I don't think this is correct, as I've always thought fis was pronounced "FEE", with fils being "FEESE". Dictionaries never have pronunciation for these inflected verb forms. Which is correct? --Expurgator t(c) 12:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think listing fils#English as a borrowed word is correct. The French pronunciation looks correct ("FEE") to me. --Connel MacKenzie T C 12:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Okay I won't comment as I really don't know enough French, but it seems we do need a comment from someone who knows for certain. My question is how French pronunciations of single words such as these handle possible liaisons with subsequent words, and when we should consider them to be homophones. Davilla 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wonderfool. They aren't homophones. Widsith 08:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Even with a liaison, they are not homophones (the liaison is a /z/ not a /s/). I changed it and I added other homophones. - Dakdada 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody added AU and NZ to the more harmless definition of fanny. As far as I've been told, fanny is vulgar in New Zealand, and probably Australia as well. I would recommend not adding regional labels if one doesn't know better, but I would be breaking my own advice by changing them without asking first. Davilla 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• This source says the Australian usage is the vulgar form. And this other source says the same for New Zealand. 85.210.7.123 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is vulgar in Australia. It's just that in the recent generation and a half a lot of words once considered vulgar are a lot less so. That doesn't mean you'd say it in fron of your aged aunt who is a nun. — Hippietrail 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• It is also considered vulgar in Ireland (I am not sure about Great Britain). A word to be used with caution, I think, regardless of region. Rredwell 00:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I can confirm that the word is considered vulgar in New Zealand, although somewhat obsolescent Mostlyharmless 01:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• I can confirm that it is vulgar (although not swearing) in England (but you don't have to listen to me, I'm don't even have an acount). meta:User:Dbmag9

Moved in from Beer parlour:

Can someone check the entry lard? The 3rd and 4th senses look suspect to me. Also, I ran into a sentence I now can't find that used larded as larded with legal terms describing an agreement. JillianE 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly revised. I agreed with you, took out 3 + 4, added the verb and some other stuff. This should prob'ly be on the Tea Room. Widsith 07:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Collaboration of the week for rock, gem, stone, gemstone, and jewel, plus inflections and derivations. Davilla 22:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Settled on rock, rocker, rocky, rockily, rockiness for first batch. Davilla 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What would "homefront", as in "the war on the homefront", be in French? Sil vous plait. (I'm cross-posting this to fr.wiktionary.) -- Zanimum 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Réponse sur le Wiktionnaire français : . Kipmaster 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"homeland" was determined by Google's translate engine http://www.google.com/language_tools to be "patrie" but its results for "homefront" unfortunately is "homefront" It does, however, translate "home front" as "à la maison avant" Ummm... wonder if that's how the French got all those English sounding words like "télévision" Lets see... maybe something like "hômëfrônt" might work. At least anyone speaking English would have a pretty good idea of what you were talking about... Why isn't there a translate page in the Wiktionary?

[email protected] 02:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They just say à l'intérieur. ‘Home front’ is two words by the way. Widsith 08:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Home front" is a phrase. [email protected] 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...consisting of two....words. Widsith 11:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

...a phrase (grammar) is "A group of two or more words,..." [email protected] 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

so you both are correct. Isn't the world wonderful? Kipmaster 14:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all! -- Zanimum 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I include citations for abiding place on abiding-place/Citations or do I need a seperate page at abiding place/Citations? In other words, do I commingle both spelling variants? — Vildricianus 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyphenated versions often are commingled, yes. I got that wrong myself, not too long ago. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So I'll leave a link at abiding place referring to abiding-place/Citations for cites. — Vildricianus 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a long time but haven't had to handle such a case yet. The purpose of the citation subpage is to show use and development over history, which would include the various types of compounds possible in English. But their other purpose is to show that a particular variant is actually used.

At this early stage I'd say it's OK to redirect from one citation page to another, too link them with "See also" or "Alternative spellings", or to link both to a special combined page via either redirects or readable links. We can keep thinking about it and discussing it and finally choose which way works best. Citations pages do not necesarily need to work exactly the same way as article pages of course. — Hippietrail 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a key question. It will become very important when we start to include a lot of obsolete or historical spellings. Personally I think all forms should link to the same citation page so that it shows a word's development over time. However, where quotes are included on the page itself (and it would be a shame to lose that altogether), I think they should reflect the specific spelling of the namespace. That seems to be the best of both worlds. Widsith 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That, indeed, seems to be the most reasonable approach. Perhaps we can elaborate on the differences between quotes on the basic page and quotes on the /Citations subpage. Perhaps the former can serve as a means to attest the word, especially its spelling, and the latter to illustrate usage and give an overall through-time overview of the word, especially its meaning. (Um, this seems to be exactly what you said, right?) — Vildricianus 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right! That will really make Wiktionary a very useful resource. We should get an idea of how well it works as the number of quotes on here starts to increase. Widsith 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are two uses of the verb "to escape" used in computing. One is to exit a process (e.g. by pressing the escape key). The other is something to do with using special characters in the middle of text - but I don't know how to define it. I'm sure that someone here does though. SemperBlotto 21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In certain cases in Computer science to escape a character is to take away it's special meaning. In a regular expression a '(' parenthesis is a grouping symbol, if you want the literal symbol you need to 'escape' it by putting a special character, an escape code (which need not be chr27, backslash is common) in front of it. RJFJR 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, that seems to be covered by a verb sense. I added a quote to the talk page. It might belong under escape sequence. RJFJR 03:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said I fixed it, in response to SemperBlotto above. But your quote from the "bible" is very good - it shows I forgot the adjective sense. Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not directed at any of you, but... God, I hate adjectives with no comparative or superlative form! Davilla 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Help! I need lots of it.

1. Latin scholars. What is the exact meaning of "cabillicare" Is it "to ride"?
2. Websters defines cavallero as a cavalier or a gallant, as well as a libertine. I don't know if they are using "cavalier" and "gallant" in the positive or negative sense. In consequence, I am very perplexed (although that seems to be my normal state, these days). Andrew massyn 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no "cabillicare". The late "caballicare", like the classical "equitare", means to ride a horse (they are derived verbs from caballus and equus, both meaning "horse".)
2. I don't know of any negative sense of the noun cavalier. The word, like caballero, means literally 'horseman' and by extension 'gentleman'. —Muke Tever 21:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muke. Andrew massyn

This seems to be missing the prostitution meaning. Anyone have a good way to word it? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added my understanding of that meaning (without first-hand experience, you understand). SemperBlotto 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant as a noun, actually, from "one who trawls the avenues." I think I need more research on this one. (Textbook style research, that is!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like somebody has snuck in a bunch of vanity protlogisms. Can somebody give a second opinion before RFD'ing? — Hippietrail 15:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It does look like nonsense, but then it also exists on Wikipedia, where it has already survived a RfD process. However, since it doesn't seem to have made its way into print yet, our criteria might be stronger. Widsith 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of hits on print.google.com - but for the Middle English word of the same spelling - we should just replace it with that IMHO. — Hippietrail 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In situations like this, I prefer the RFV process, not RFD. If we assert that it is not a word in the English language, then WT:RFVA provides a quick justification for deleting it immediately if/when it resurfaces, without adequate print citations. That is, if we honor a term with our RFV process once, the onus of finding print citations shifts to the person re-vandalizing Wiktionary with their bogus terms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, "yiff" is almost 15 years old. And I'm certain it has made it into print—at least in the furry presses. And of course it's been on TV several times (the talk page mentions at least one instance.) —Muke Tever 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, isn't it remarkably bad form to RFV an entry that already has quotations? If you'd like to contest further senses, use {{rfv-sense}}. —Muke Tever 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad form when all the quotations are from Usenet or websites. — Hippietrail 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because WT:CFI (as already discussed on WT:RFV#meef) explicitly allows Usenet as valid evidence. —Muke Tever 11:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This should at least be marked as a trademark. Furthermore I have read that Rolls-Royce vigorously enforces this trademark to the point of insisting that it be used only as an adjective. Company literature and employees will never say anything other than "Rolls-Royce motor car" etc. We don't even have a adjective sense here. How to deal with trademarks has come up before. Last time I checked a few dictionaries and many acutally label such entries simply "trademark" rather than any part-of-speech. — Hippietrail 17:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What company literature and employees say is beside the point, as "Rolls-Royce" is almost exclusively a noun in everyday use. It should certainly be marked as a trademark, but the part of speech must be "Noun", whatever the company might say. Incidentally, in "Rolls-Royce motor car", "Rolls-Royce" is still a noun (it is a modifier), not an adjective. Compare "car showroom" - here "car" is still a noun, not an adjective.

I know that companies enforce this by law (for example, according to the Lego company's page about their trademarks on websites, "...LEGO should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun Never say 'MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs'" and should be all in capital letters) but this is not how these terms are commonly used. Wiktionary must reflect actual usage, not company policy. Of course, we can alway refer to company policy in the "Usage notes" section and refer the user to the relevant page. — Paul G 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention, the reason companies do this is because only adjectives can be trademarked, nouns cannot. This would at least suggest that at the time of trademarking these words were in fact only adjectives and only later did regular people turn them into other parts of speech. This may be why so many dictionaries never mark trademarks as any part of speech. — Hippietrail 16:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're almost correct, maybe not with the POS exactly, but the example you gave is how they request the TM be used. Davilla 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They enforce this BY LAW!?! I would hope not! In fact I've read the courts only care that they make some effort to ensure the preservation of the trademark. As with xerox and genericised citations in the OED dating back 50 years, there doesn't have to be any provable success. It's a stupid criterion to judge trademarks on, IMO, but that's the one they use. Davilla 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless, of course, one is going for only the British pronunciation of "Wiktionary," one should be sure to include the SAE transcription of the word, with the IPA epsilon between the "n" and the "r." In addition, for IPA purposes, the final I in the word should be lower case, as it is the tense form. If this has already been addressed, or I am completely off base, I do sincerely apologize. Cheers. Sunny.

If you are referring to the image at the top lefthand corner of the page, then yes, this has come up many times before. This is just one UK pronunciation. When you say "epsilon", do you mean /ɛ/ or schwa (/ə/), the vowel in the first and second syllables of "second", respectively? One UK pronunciation has a schwa between the n and r, while US pronunciation has /ɛ/ there.

I think we are stuck with the image as no one has ever come forward to say they will change it. If Sunny's question isn't already in the FAQ, it's probably time we added it. — Paul G 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually you yourself added it to WT:FAQ back in January. :x) —Muke Tever 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, Muke. I'll update it with anything else I've said here, and then we can refer users to it the next time the question comes up. — Paul G 08:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the final vowel, RP has /ɪ/ (as in "bit") in that position, while most English speakers tend to use /i/ these days, in common with US speakers. Some dictionaries (eg, dictionary.com) use ē (equivalent to IPA /iː/) here as they lack a symbol for the shorter /i/. — Paul G 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue of discussion is purely stupid since Rolls-Royce is obviously not a trademark, it is a car, and the manufacturer of the Engines of Boeings.

This says it is Greek, but is a transliteration (I forget what we do with those). Anyway, I was wondering if the etymology is similar to that of theology and related words. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been moved. Do we leave redirects in place? —Vildricianus 08:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes I provided with the initial entry indicate that it has been used in English, spelled out in Roman letters. Ergo, the redirect ought to stay as they direct from an actual alternate usage. bd2412 T 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be reformatted as a spelling mistake entry? — Hippietrail 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone accidentally writes "Mejico" for "Mexico" in English, so I would say it isn't a spelling mistake. Perhaps it should be noted as a facetious spelling imitating the Mexican pronunciation of "Mexico", if we have this as an English word at all. — Paul G 09:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting! Collins Word Exchange actually has an entry for this. It works oddly too. If you search for Mejico you get a page with two entries, if you search for Méjico you get just the first entry. Of the other online dictionaries, Encarta has nothing, M-W (which doesn't allow accents in searches but shows them in headwords) has an entry for Méjico that says "see Mexico", answers.com does its own redirect to "Mexico" that prevents me from knowing whether the AHD has an entry for the Méjico or Mejico spellings. What should we do? — Hippietrail 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If it deserves an entry, let's not follow the answers.com or Collins Word Exchange examples on this one. Plenty of see alsos should do the trick. Davilla 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know if French really uses different capitalization for these different senses? I think it's wrong. — Hippietrail 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's OK. I've put Arabe on to a page of its own. Lucky it. Widsith 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, French has an initial capital for the names of nationals but uses lower case for the names of languages and for related adjectives. Hence "Anglais" means "Englishman", but "anglais" means "English" (the language and the adjective). — Paul G 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the word that describes the use of a mother's maiden name(family name) for the first name of her child?

• Although this is common in northern England (and elsewhere), I'm not sure if it has a specific name. I have only heard the resulting given name described as derived or transferred from the surname. I shall ask my genealogy friends. SemperBlotto 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The word matronymic comes close, but this describes the use of the mother's name for the child's surname. Is that what you are thinking of? (By the way, shouldn't that be "maiden name" in the defintion rather than "given name"?)

(To the original poster: please sign your name using ~~~~ (four tildes) so we know who you are, even if you don't have a username here. Thanks.) — Paul G 09:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this an initialism or an acronym? — Vildricianus 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation, I'd say.  :-) Although I wouldn't expect to ever hear it pronounced. In the limited situations where short pronunciation might be userful, I think using it as an acronym would be disrespectful. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been working to rename categories to fit current accepted standards, but I've come across a problem. Although Filipino is one of the two national languages of the Philippines, it does not seem to have a language code, or if it does then I can't find it here or in Wikipedia's Babel. Can someone help? --EncycloPetey 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its the same as Tagalog, isn't it? --Dangherous 10:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then why isn't Tagalog listed as a synonym? --EncycloPetey

They shouldn't be the same. w:Tagalog language is one of many natural languages of the Philippines whereas w:Filipino language (formerly known as Pilipino) is an artificial standard/official language, supposedly created from all the languages of the Philippines, but largely based on Tagalog more than any other. Tagalog has the ISO 639-1 tag tg and the ISO 639-2 tag tgl. Filipino/Pilipino no ISO 639-1 tag but does have the ISO 639-2 tag fil. Many people are sadly ignorant of the distinction between the two languages and make the mistake of thinking they are synonyms. This may even be the reason ISO had no two-letter tag... — Hippietrail 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a whole bunch of derived terms to petrel. Does anybody know whether their capitalization is correct, and if not, whether there is a consistent standard in that? Wikipedia uses names like White-faced Storm-petrel but I've also seen white-faced storm petrel in use. — Vildricianus 21:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Google shows every combination except "white-Faced storm-petrel", with and without hyphens. My gut reaction is that all lowercase should be correct - unless Storm turns out to be the surname (common around Robin Hood's Bay in North Yorkshire). SemperBlotto 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's what I thought as well but I got distracted by WP again. Thanks. — Vildricianus 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The use of capitalization, by the way, is an orthographical convention used (in WP and some other places) to indicate that a specific species is being referred to, and that the word is not using whatever common meaning it may have. (e.g. a red fox may be any fox that is red, but a Red Fox is Vulpes vulpes, even one that doesn't happen to be red; notice too that the Latin uses a similar convention, capitalizing the genus). Wouldn't expect the capitalization in a dictionary entry, but then... the whole argument the lower-case activists had for making Wiktionary titles case-sensitive was that a word when capitalized is somehow semantically different enough from its uncapitalized version to require a separate page, and it would be a horrible insult to their silly efforts to ignore this principle :p —Muke Tever 23:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

      Should we assume the same is true for other animal names? I ask because this edit changed the case of "giant panda", which my dictionaries have as lower case, to "Giant Panda". Rod (A. Smith) 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

      • Absolutely, just like cat and dog. I've changed panda back, and also removed the spurious plural pandae. Jonathan Webley 07:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is widely reported that the term was coined by Jan Smuts in 1917 in his speech at the Savoy. I have my doubts. I think the policy was set out there, but the word is much later in origin. I have a feeling that Dr Verwoed coined the word, but cannot find the original citation. Does anybody know? Andrew massyn 15:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I have read the speech and the word Apartheid is not there. Andrew massyn

I've no idea whether Jam Smuts coined the word. The earliest English-language quotation in the OED is from 1947 from the Cape Times. There is also one from 1929 but this is in what looks to me to be Dutch (but could possibly be Afrikaans).

Would you be able to put in the quote? I don't think OED will have a problem with that. Andrew massyn 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the word is not in the quotation, I have removed it from the page. It might be of interest, but as it doesn't quote the word, it is not a quotation! — Paul G 10:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the Wiktionary article says that Smuts' is the earliest usage, but doesn't give a quote. Andrew, have you seen the whole speech? If so, and the word does not appear, then the Wikipedia should be informed and asked to edit their content. I've asked Wikipedia to substantiate their claim. — Paul G 10:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have read the speech. It does not contain the word. Some time ago, I wrote to our archives to ask when their earliest recorded use of the word was, but didn't get a reply. Andrew massyn 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a quote from 1798 USA - from google book search. SemperBlotto 10:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! That then buggers the etymology Andrew massyn 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrectly dated in the article the actual date is 1963.

Wikipedia have replied:

" This quote occurs in a Smuts speech on 27 May 1917 at the Savoy Hotel in London: "Instead of mixing up black and white all over the country, we are now trying to keep them as far apart as possible in government". It's possible Smuts coined the word "apartheid" elsewhere in the speech, but we'd need an actual quote to back up the claim."

Can an 18th-century quote be applicable to the 20th-century policy in South Africa? If not, what does "apartheid" mean in that quote? I'm sure the OED would be very pleased to hear of it too, as they are always looking to antedate examples of usage. — Paul G 09:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's discussion.

According to Hermann Giliomee's book, "The Afrikaners: Biography of a People" (University of Virginia Press/Tafelberg Publishers, 2003.) the first printed use of the term in its modern sense dates back to 1929. He writes (p 454):

The first printed record of the term 'apartheid', used in its modem sense, dates back to 1929. In addressing a conference of the Free State Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) on missionary work, held in the town of Kroonstad, the Rev.Jan Christoffel du Plessis said: 'In the fundamental idea of our missionary work and not in racial prejudice one must seek an explanation for the spirit of apartheid that has always characterized our conduct.' He rejected a missions policy that offered blacks no 'independent national future.'

By 'apartheid' Du Plessis meant that the Gospel had to be taught in a way that strength­ened the African 'character, nature and nationality' - in other words, the volkseie (the people's own). Africans had to be uplifted 'on their own terrain, separate and apart.' Blacks and whites had to worship separately to 'ensure the survival of a handful of people cut off from their national ties in Europe.' For Du Plessis it was not so much a matter of protecting privilege or exclusivity than finding a policy that concen­trated on the eie, or that which was one's own, and which promoted what he called the selfsyn, or being oneself. Implicit in this was the view that only identification with one's own ethnic community was authentic. Du Plessis envisaged the development of au­tonomous, self-governing black churches as a counter to English missionaries, who tried to produce converts by copying 'Western civilization and religion.' — HeervanMalpertuis 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall be putting this as the source for the etymology, and will move this to the discussion page. Andrew massyn 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the word 'Pneumoultramicroscopicsiliconevolcanconiosis' is an English word which is a kind of disease you could get while mining. Can someone please prove this?

The page exists - pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis - but this name for the condition was coined as a contender for the longest word in the English language, not as a real, medical term. Jivlain 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Collaboration of the week are the words wire and its inflections derivatives wiring, wired, wirer, wirily, and wiriness. Davilla 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And wiry. Davilla 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was helping my daughter with her homework, and we were considerably confused over the UK/US spelling variants of fulfil/fulfill, and the various derived terms. I did a bit to clean up these two entries, but would be pleased if others would pass an eye over the entries as it was so confusing.--Richardb 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is plenty of scope for improvement - pron, ety, more definitions (which may or may not be common across the two spellings)

I've expanded them both a fair bit. I never realised there was a spelling difference before... Widsith 14:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be surprised... UK English has a single l in several words where US English has double l: "fulfil", "instal" (despite the influence of "install" in computing senses), "instil" come to mind, and there are probably one or two others as well that I don't recall at the moment. — Paul G 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

. — Vildricianus 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to have a stab at adding to this one. There a lot of subtly different meanings that need Thesaurus lists. It's a bit of a test of if WikiSaurus really is going to work for us, ow we might need to refine it.--Richardb 15:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The verb section lists six separate meanings, but it seems to me there should really be only three, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see how 2 (To construct in words.) and 5 (To establish a context for understanding or interpretation.) might be combined, but I'm at a loss to see what other definitions you think might be the same. What I see are (1) to construct a physical support structure, (3) to crop an image visually, (4) to make seem guilty, (6) to place within a picture frame. Could you elaborate on which of these you think belong together? --EncycloPetey 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They could be merged to some degree, but not that completely IMO. Yes, "to add a decorative border to a painting or photograph" is a special case of "to position visually within a fixed boundary", so it's an open question how to handle these. The problem is it might also be considered a special case of "to put together the structural elements", but the examples of making houses and movies would be too broadly brushed under one definition.

The example of framing the question is a poor one under the definition "to construct in words", that is, to phrase. To frame the question means "to establish the context for understanding or interpretation". However, I'm not so sure that frame and phrase are synonymous except figuratively. In other words, "to construct in words" may not be the ideal definition to use.

That comes out to as few as four and as many as the existing six definitions, depending. Davilla 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Framing a scene in a movie is a cinematography issue, involving the placement of a camera, actors, and props, as well as the choice of lens and lighting. Framing a painting is a carpentry issue, involving a choice of texture, color, and whether or not to place protective glass within the picture frame. Given the vast difference between tools and procedures, as well as the result, I would keep the two senses separate. They are likely to be different in other languages. --EncycloPetey 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sense 5 (establish a context for) is a misunderstanding as far as I'm concerned. You can frame an argument, a question, an apology etc....the sense is of putting it together, coming up with, shaping. OED gives this sense as ‘devise, compose, conceive’. Widsith 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But constructing an argument in words, or devising, composing, conceiving an argument, isn't the same as framing essentially the discussion of the arguments. The first just means phrasing a simple question etc., as participation in a discussion or what have you. The latter means establishing the way in which something is viewed in the first place, e.g. the merits by which the arguments of a discussion are weighed. There would be a difference, for instance, in asking, "Can these definitions be safely combined?", and "Would it be beneficial to combine these definitions?" The focus is either on the language or the users. The first also implies that the definitions should be combined if they can be. If that aspect were overlooked, then Connel, had he originally written the question that way, would have successfully framed not just his own question, but the entire debate. Now Connel may have a lot of weight here, but I doubt it's that supreme. The media, on the other hand, does have the power, collectively, to frame public discourse, just in its selection of which stories are newsworthy, or in the way it analyzes a problem, even if the opinions themselves are balanced. Hence the less liberal the media, the more it can be employed as an instrument of control. That's a bit of a stretch from "choice of words". Davilla 18:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue the point about me having a lot of weight here.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw Connel moved -ize/Derived terms to Appendix:-ize (derived terms). I don't completely agree here, as most suffixes have their derivations listed on the page itself. For -ize, that would be overkill, which is why I moved it to a subpage. However, it's not a bad idea to have them in an Appendix – arguably it's even a better idea – but then we should do the same for all such derivations. Open to interpretation is a) whether they belong in any Derived/Related terms section, and b) how useful they are for the average user looking up an entry. Therefore, concentrating such lists in an Appendix section is perhaps worth considering. —Vildricianus | t | 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's arguable whether such terms are really ‘derived’ from -ize at all. Rather, -ize is a suffix which forms derivations of other words. Widsith 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the bigger picture is, these really can't be all that useful. Davilla 16:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? There's really no argument against them. —Vildricianus | t | 15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to do a list of derived terms from the plural suffix -s?  :) Widsith 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley noted, but of course -s isn't a derivative suffix, it's an inflection. The distinction might be important to this issue. —Muke Tever 00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, -er then? Davilla 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Actually I put all Webster 1913's derivatives of -ess in la:-ess. —Muke Tever 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Relevance? This clearly illustrates a lacking concept of scale. I've never heard of a "pencil sharpeness" or a "temperature controlless" or a thousand other words where -er is appropriate. Plus you'd have to consider all the shorter comparative adjectives, unless that's an infection too.

But who am I to say? There must be at least a couple of applications where it would be useful to have an Appendix:List of probably a third to a quarter of the verbs in the English language.

On the other hand, I would find a list of words ending in "ize" that didn't derive from the suffix to be somewhat more intersting. And probably not nearly as big. Davilla 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, comparison is an inflection. And while you may not have heard of a 'pencil sharpeness', a non-native speaker who's heard -ess is the feminine of -er may easily produce 'pencil sharpeness' if the item is feminine in their language. At any rate, if the -er list is truly that huge (keeping in mind WT:CFI#Attestation vs. the slippery slope) it could always be moved to a subpage or appendix, as Wikipedia does with long subsections of standardly–laid-out pages ("History of Peru"). —Muke Tever 23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't accept this distinction. Many words in English are inflected by means of suffixes. Widsith 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry if I jumped the gun there. "Lists of..." I thought belong in the Appendix, not the main namespace. Did I do something wrong? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact, I like the idea of having these as an Appendix: instead of having them listed under "Derived" or "Related terms", which is, as Widsith pointed out, not entirely accurate.

Whether such lists are relevant (certainly the bigger ones like -ize, -er, -ness, -less, -able, -ible etc), is disputable of course, but then, Wiki is not paper. I'm fond of morphology and I think Wiktionary is the one place to have such lists. —Vildricianus 16:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you spell "van coolo!", the popular Italian vulgarity? There's gotta be someone here wth knowledge of Italian w*@*@s. --Dangherous 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• See vaffanculo SemperBlotto 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's this week's batch. Come one everyone – by this time next week I want to be able to order a hand-made gold bed anywhere from here to Timbuktoo. Widsith 18:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I saw your spelling of Timbuktu, and got worried that I'd spelled it wrong for years. Widith, I don't think I've ever seen you make a minor error before now! (Thank goodness, I'm not the only one that makes human errors.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Well it certainly wouldn't be my first, but in fact it's a common enough spelling: see Timbuktoo. I've also seen Timbuctoo quite a lot as well. Widsith 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much an error as an older standard, I believe, from the same age that brought us Hindoo. —Muke Tever 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Widsith is into old and archaic stuff, so he was pretty consistent there :-P —Vildricianus | t | 15:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Verily, thou hast a point. Widsith 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)