Hi everyone =) Thanks so much for all your great work, I've learned many new words from you all =)

I'm writing to let you know about the new page, ]. It is a place where people can post definitions for words they don't know, and hope someone will help them find the word. It's meant to be more "bulk" than the Tea Room, less "discussion" and more "quick one-line answers". I hope you will enjoy it!!! =)

Seems unnecessarily complicated to look at the list of request, find one you know, remove and then add it to the answer page. Why not just do it they way we do at tea room and all the other pages and have people just insert answers following the question, instead of requiring tow edits and copying? RJFJR 14:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate is already an established word. The meaning given for ambiguify would really be better represented by its back-formation, ambiguate. Joe Webster 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not have entries for either of them. What are you talking about? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a recent offering in the list of protologisms. I’m just saying that ambiguate would be more consistent with existing derivatives than ambiguify would be. Joe Webster 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

…and for that reason we should encourage the use of the former over the latter — that, I take it, is what you are suggesting. I agree with you, but not many others would. On Wiktionary, it’s usage that counts, however uninformed or illogical it may be, sadly. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My friend told me that TQM is a Venezuelan acronym. What does it stand for?

In English it stands for (and probably other things as well) "Total Quality Management" RJFJR 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in Spanish it seems to mean something else as well, based on a quick Google search. However, I haven't yet been able to figure out its meaning from the limited context of the hits I retrieved. --EncycloPetey 19:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found it! It's an abbreviation of "te quiero mucho" (I love you very much). --EncycloPetey 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This page has been disputed for a little while now (take a look at the history and discussion pages). I was wondering if I could get some outside opinion on this. I still think that there should be no qualifier on definition #3, as I feel that the definition is independent of #2, and to be honest, I think it's independent of definition #1. Anyway, I'm not going to revert it, as it's been done a few times, and this seems to be going nowhere. Thanks. Cerealkiller13 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The part of speech given for this word is adjective, but the first definition is "possessive second person prounoun". That can't be right, but based on the grammatical information provided, the word does seem to function as both an adjective and pronoun. This seems to be the case of all the "possessive pronouns", so the question becomes "What part of speech do we label them as?" --EncycloPetey 02:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The OED uses the category possessive pronoun for this (as do most other dictionaries). That's what it was set at before I started editing the page, but it was linked and out of order, and the whole page just looked terrible; perhaps I got a little over-zealous. I'll switch it back. Sorry. Cerealkiller13 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, this is still a valuable discussion. Possessive pronoun is not one of the standard POS headers, and isn't listed at WT:POS (which is a bit surprising). --EncycloPetey 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pronoun" isn't listed as a valid heading? --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I meant that Possessive pronoun is not listed as a valid heading, and isn't even listed as one in use. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right... the result of simplification. It should be on the page, but the heading doesn't have to say it all. DAVilla 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to help me set up a series of templates along the lines of countable/unsountable and transitive/intransitive to cover the various classes of pronoun? We'd need at least: personal, possessive, interrogative, relative, demonatrative, indefinite, reflexive, and possibly others, all keyed to categorize into the appropriate language by name (e.g. Category:Spanish personal pronouns. --EncycloPetey 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don;t forget that we still have a collaboration of the week. This week has had little involvement, so please take a moment to see if you could add something to help format one of these pages:

judge (talk • subpages • history • edit • watch)

offer (talk • subpages • history • edit • watch)

rest (talk • subpages • history • edit • watch)

The word rest didn't have its musical sense in the definitions until I added it, so there is still much opportunity to help each week! --EncycloPetey 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know the definition as it is used for dating, but what I am interested in is the way it is used in certain contexts such as:

The band name 'Circa Survive'

The lyrics in The Shins song 'Phantom Limb':
"This is that foreign land,
With the sprayed on tans,
And it all feels fine,
Beat it circa slime"

Any help would be greatly appreciated...it's really bugging me! LOL Tea room

circa comes from the Latin, and simply means "near, around, about". In Latin it is either an adjective or an adverb. Trying to determine a specific poetic sense, particularly in song lyrics, can be difficult since there's no guarantee that the word was used correctly. --EncycloPetey 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My parents say that you should have a timelimit in using the computers because some kids usually get addicted to it if they used the computer (especially the ones with internet) every day. My mother told me that we could play games every saturday and sunday for 30 min. that's okay because I know that they are just protecting us.

True, but you might show your mother that you are spending time in places like here at the Wiktionary, which is fun, but also where you can learn a lot. She might want you to use the computer more ;-) Robert Ullmann 12:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I amended the definition of 'scout' earlier today, adding 'A person who assesses and/or recruits others; especially, one who identifies promising talent on behalf of a sports team.' A boy in my wife's teaching class claimed that he 'had been scouted' by a professional football team - i.e. he'd been approached to trial with them as a result of being spotted by a talent scout. Is this an acceptable or even a new use of the verb?

I've definitely heard that usage of scout. However, I don't know how wide its usage is. Does it apply only to sports teams, or is there a wider definition at play here? The wording of the definition could be tricky, because in this sense, scouting would sort of refer to the whole process, including the searching, the assessment, and signing up. Atelaes 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22scouted+him+for%22&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 shows some hits going back a ways, for just the first form I tried. I vaguely recall it being a buzzword in the 70s. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22I+was+scouted%22&btnG=Search+Books I hadn't thought of searching Google that way (new to this game). I tried "I was scouted" and that throws up quite a few instances too. All from US and either baseball or football. Certainly seems to apply to the concept of observing and also to that of approaching an individual, either on behalf of a specific team or on behalf of the sport in general. Doesn't seem to go as far as signing up. Enough entries to warrant amending the verb definition, perhaps? Sgriol 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The other common use of this outside sports is for potential models. I think the new def is a good one though. Widsith 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at li and found that it rhymes with I not me.
Whereas on the other hand I see that fine rice wine does indeed rhyme with thee.
Could this be?

Do we actually pronunce these words this way or are there at least some of us who stick more faithfully to the original pronunciation? Jimp 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know li was an English word ... much less having a modified pronunciation? As to sake, it is sometimes conventional in Japanese restaurants in the U.S. to give sake (wine) the sak-EE pronunciation, and sake (fish) the Japanese pronunciation, keeping them distinct so you don't get salmon when you wanted the drink ;-). In Japan, the beverage may be sake, nihonshu, or a number of specific types. Robert Ullmann 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So the customer who is not aware of the convention could land up with salmon when they'd asked for the drink. Funny things conventions. I have heard the /sɑːki/ pronunciation and it's listed in the Cambridge and American Heritage dictionaries but I was just wondering whether we could dig up any citation for a pronunciation closer to the Japanese one in use in English. As for li, nor did I know it was an English word but it's described as one at Wiktionary. If it is, then it's not common, which makes it all the more strange that it should have a modified pronunciation. Jimp 07:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I've dig one up (@ AHD). Jimp 08:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I figured it out while eating the salmon. Robert Ullmann 09:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I ordered the salmon once but they brought me the rice wine instead. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited li to say it rhymes with "thee"... the "eye" rhyme was added by a bot anyway. Kappa 10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the usage of chav mutating?

Metro (London edition 6 Feb 07) page 2, has the sentence Well-wishers yesterday left flowers and messages at the spot where a schoolboy was murdered after allegedly being called a 'chav' — the slang term for lower-class, fashion-label-obsessed teenagers.

From a tiny, biased poll in N London, a middle-aged woman agreed with Metros definition, but a 12 yr old girl and a middle aged man felt that our present definition with...perceived "common" taste in clothing... was more accurate.

I shan't be adding the "Metro" definition unless someone else has seen cites. --Enginear 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a definition so much as a commentary. The few uses I've encountered (all via the BBC) imply lower class or common, but do not imply anything about being label-obsessed. That latter feature is merely a common characteristic of current youth consumer culture on both sides of the Atlantic. --EncycloPetey 00:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard a definition given as part of the British Police Force's use of the word 'chav'. It is an acronym for Council House And Violent. I hope this helps

Could someone please provide the definition of “second tier”? --70.129.200.128 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean in the context of Clare Graves’s Spiral Dynamics? If so, as a noun it means post-green memes; as an adjective it means functioning from post-green meme perspectives et cetera. Does this help you? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The term is usually used in implicit contrast with top tier. A second-tier X is either an X that's pretty good, but not top-tier, or an X that's not very good. (As far as I can tell, the difference depends on the speaker; some use the phrase the one way, others the other. Sadly, you can't always tell from context which is meant, which is probably how the ambiguity arose to begin with.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles exist for both on message and on-message, although only off-message exists. Should on message be redirected and listed as an alternative spelling? Should off message do the same thing? Thryduulf 12:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a "soft" redirect, and merging all content. And yes to off message. DAVilla 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across the word niany in an article. I wasn't familiar with the word so I looked it up but I can't find it in any standard dictionary. East to find the word in various phrases via a goodle search.

I intuit the meaning to having some reference to the amount. Can someone help me out?

Here's a few typical phrases I've seen...

For the tenth time in as niany years the pulse of all musical New Yorkers beat faster last week.

It is responsible for niany of his troubles because it is always upsetting someone's ...

as niany as 20% of the bums treated in our bum unit were caused by electricity.

In his later life he met and honoured niany eminent personalities in the field of Sanskrit

balanced and often a more provocative introduction to niany of the books. — This unsigned comment was added by GSansbury (talk • contribs).

It is a scanno (OCR scanning error) for many. Robert Ullmann 14:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And bum in the second quote is probably "burn" (unless you're reading a really off-colour article). Atelaes 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I wonder: The word "soha" or "sohá" - what does that mean? I suppose it is an Arabic word. I know there is an actress with the name Soha - where is her name derived from? Thanks. Best regards Jan J

I've kept quite about this for a long time but I feel that a slight adjustment needs to be made to anarchy. I feel that the first and primary definition should be (2) as it is in every dictionary that I have looked anarchy up in the first and primary definition is the one that simply states anarchy's literal meaning as more or less "without rulers" if we look at the literal Latin root meaning for the word anarchy it means without archons or without rulers the first and primary definition should be what is currently the second definition. Any other dictionary has the literal and general meaning as it's first definition, in actuality when most people say anarchy (regardless of wether or not they're anarchists) they simply mean without rulers or without government. For example: I hope that we anarchists can win this society over to anarchy is not much different in meaning to I hope that we anarchists can win this society over to having no rulers or government and also I hope those stupid anarchists don't pull this society down to anarchy is not much different from I hope those stupid anarchists don't pull this society down to having no rulers or government either way the sense without rulers or government can in it's self be used pejoratively. The sense "chaos, confusion etc" is an exaggerated pejorative use and it should not be the first and primary definition. I think that (1) and (2) should be switched, that's all. I was involved in a long discussion to clean it all up back when their was seven definitions and I was relieved when we came to agreement but then later I noticed that I (the one who actually deleted the seven definitions and replaced them) had put the primary and general use as (2) and the pejorative as (1) and now I'd like to right that wrong (which is something I cannot do right now as the editing of that particular page has been disabled to newly registered users). Someone please help me out. Randy6767 22:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the fundamental question here is what defines definition order in our entries. Is it temporal/causal order, or is it frequency? I've been using the former in most of the Ancient Greek entries lately, as I feel it helps the reader follow the inherent logic. As an example, in βίβλος, the first sense explains the second, which allows the reader a bit of insight into why the second occurs, even though most people who would search for the term will find the second definition more useful. In my limited experience, prestigious academic dictionaries and lexicons seem to prefer this usage, probably for similar reasons as outlined above. If we were to follow this fomat, then Randy6767 is justified in his request, as the current second definition is the original and gives rise to the first. Is there a standard format or BP discussion on this issue? If not, perhaps the time has come to define one. Atelaes 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing. The OED gives senses in chronological order by first attested appearance, but that's because the OED has a heavy focus on etymology and on the history of the language; to the best of my knowledge, all other major English dictionaries give senses in order of decreasing frequency. Personally, I think frequency order is probably better in most cases, but I've seen both — went seems to go in order of decreasing frequency, while gay seems to go in order of sense development — and I don't think either is bad. Consistency might be nice, though. —Ruakh_TALK 05:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Atelaes, do you have access to edit the anarchy article? Because I don't. Or are we going to have to do this the hard way and get a Sysop to do it? Assuming of coarse at this point this slight edit is considered justified. Randy6767 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have access to edit protected articles. However, in my opinion, that's just as well, as I think it best to get a little more discussion on this point before we edit such a highly contended article. Have patience, good things come to those who wait.  :-) Atelaes 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well I've become a mediawiki developer to add Wiktionary-specific features. Hopefully I won't be the last. This means we can now start thinking outside the box and come up with new ways to do things. How about a parser extension like <sensenumber hist=1 freq=2 /> that can be added. Then a user preference can let users choose historical order or frequency order. We could even have attributes for various dictionaries or for various epochs since obviously the most frequent sense today will not match the most frequent of Aelfric's or Chaucer's or Shakespeare's or even your dad's time. And of course it could vary from country to country too. But it'd be more worthwhile coming up with a good tag design than splitting up into historical and frequence gangs and having a pissing match (-: — Hippietrail 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

....but I like pissing matches. I think that's an excellent idea. Perhaps I'll start a discussion on the beer parlour about this. *sigh* This is not going to be easy. Atelaes 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The major difficulty I see with attempting this is that it requires knowing the relative frequency of various senses, and then coding that frequency into each definition. That is an enormous task to undertake, because it requires an individual to manually examine a large random sample of quotations in order to categorize each according to which of the various senses is intended. That means we need a large random sample for each word to be so tagged. At this point, we don't even have all the various senses added yet to even the basic English words. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While what you say is quite true, there can still exist a general idea of what we're working towards. Certainly there will be a fair number of words that people will have no idea of what came first, or what is more common, but there will be a lot of words where people will have some general idea. In the particular example of anarchy, I think most people would agree that the first definition is more common, and the second is earlier. Atelaes 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the first definition is more common it's just a more common opinion; if I asked a non-anarchist intellectual what anarchy was he'd probably say "the absence of hierarchical authority" at the same time if I asked one of my fellow anarchists to define anarchy they'd probably say the same thing. Anarchy in sense one is used when non-anarchists describe something that anarchists do not conceder anarchy; for example I do not conceder a war-torn society with no leadership what so ever anarchy, but a non-anarchist might. I'd say that sense two is just as commonly used as sense one non-anarchist might conceder anarchy chaotic but they don't use the word "chaotic" in their definition of it.Randy6767 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So what's it going to be? Are we going to have to open a PB discussion? Even so who here agrees with me, that the second definition should be the first? Randy6767 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I don't think a BP discussion would be terribly helpful, as we've already got a fairly lengthy discussion going on on a high-profile page as it is; that should suffice. Personally, I agree with you, tentatively. But the more general issue of what defines definition order has not been satisfactorily covered yet. Atelaes 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll study definition order.Randy6767 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Take anarchism for example, the first and second definition are accepted by both anarchists and non-anarchists, neither one contradicts the other. But the first is the general use, 'a doctrine that proposes the absence of involuntary government' is considered anarchism, literally the word means teaching of society without archons, but the second definition explains, specifically, the modern use of the actual philosophy. Here, again, the first is literal and the second is a current common usage such as anarchy being used to describe chaos. Randy6767 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is the general issue, which is worthy of discussion to reach consensus on a policy, and also the particular issue of the order of the definitions of anarchy at a time when we do not yet have a policy.

On the particular issue, we have one editor's view, that the present definition 2 should be first and, unless I have missed it, no one has specifically come out against the change. Indeed, there is good reason (its etymology) to state that def 2 was the earliest def, and a suggestion has been made that both are in widespread use, so if ordered by frequency of use, its position is unclear.

If it is a case of nem con then we can make the change now, to be reviewed again if the future policy is at odds with it. But if there are objectors, then perhaps we should await the policy decision. So, if no one objects here in the next two days, I am happy to make the change (please remind me if I forget).

On the general issue, since we order parts of speech alphabetically rather than by date of first use, it seems slightly illogical to order definitions within a single POS in date order. But in practical terms, we could order definitions according to date order of first cite without any additional effort (of course this is not necessarily the same as date of first use, it is our best approximation; we are supposed to look particularly for earliest and latest cites when citing). But it is not easy to see how we could determine frequency of modern use so clearly without analysing thousands of cites for each word. --Enginear 12:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Even going by first cite has its problems, since we treat Old English as a separate language from English. What do we do when, as a purely hypothetical example, the earliest citation of mood in English is dated 1540 and pertains to the grammatical sense, but there is an Old English mūd that is clearly the etymological source of mood in the sense of an emotional state, but we have no (Modern) English citations earlier than Shakespeare? The same problem arises when you deal with Greek, where we have rather arbitrarily broken the language into three historical periods and filed each under a different name. The point becomes even messier if we try to apply such a system to languages such as Latin, Italian, Dalmatian, Friulian, and other closely related Romance languages, where there was not only change in the languages, but a historical split. Is a Friulian word "old" if it derives from a Latin root? Is the same word "recent" if we can document the sense we examine only in Classical Latin and Modern Friulian? To sort meaningfully by earliest citations we have to have a thorough selection of early documents representing the full lexicon of a given language from the historical foundation of that language. We don;t have that and are not likely to any time in the forseeable future. Obviously then, I don't think this line of thinking is productive at this time. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that it's not simple, I still believe it's largely possible. Note that I didn't say temporal, I said temporal/causal. Even if you don't have an earlier cite for a particular usage, it can often be determined as earlier or later based on what gives rise to what. I think this could be done in such a manner as to cross language barriers. If a certain sense of a word gave rise to another, it would come first, even if it gave rise to the other millenia ago, and perhaps under a different guise (different spelling, different alphabet even). However, I will certainly concede that such a policy would likely elicit a whole lot of unproductive bickering, as there are many, many situations when the answer is simply not known; and thus concede that such a policy is not feasible at the time-being. Atelaes 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is some of are words are listed by frequency, and some are in chronological order, the traditional order of dictionary definitions are chronological; the root meaning being the first and primary definition, and the ones after it are recently developed uses of the word. Tradition calls for words being listed in chronological order. it seems only logical to me that the words be listed this way; damn for example is listed in chronological order, but it's most frequent use is something like this "damn it that hurt!" how is the word being used here? Well actually it is being used as it is defined in sense one; when we say damn it at the feel of pain it was originally meant to damn the pain to hell while sense four (the last sense listed) would be considered most frequent it is in actuality just as frequent as sense one.Randy6767 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a third way (implied above) that we could sort definitions: by increasing deviation from etymological meaning. This, in practice, means that definitions are (usually) listed chronologically. The plus-side is that we needn’t consult with archaïc sources in order to discover which sense arose first — we need only look at the definitions and determine which is closer to the etymological meaning — that is the one that would be listed first. This seems the simplest and most efficient option to me. What do others think? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean what I think you mean (putting definitions in an order that indicates how the sense has developed over time, even if it's not exactly the chronological order of first uses), then I think that's a good system. —Ruakh_TALK 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from the sense closest in meaning to its etymology to the sense that has deviated the most. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Randy6767 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This idea seems very interesting, and may be less impracticable than either of the other proposals to date -- I already prefer it to the alternative I proposed earlier. The main issues I see are:

• Most of our words currently have no etymology (but we can of course be guided by etymologies in other dictionaries, which we are chary of importing due to possible copyvios).
• In many cases, etymology is disputed (though probably no more so than date of first use, and probably less than frequency of use, so this is not a valid reason to reject the idea).
• In some cases, closeness of different meanings to the etymological precursor will be disputed (but so will any measure that we use)
• No doubt, some people who support ordering by frequency of use or who strongly support strict ordering by date of first use, will object to this ordering in the many cases that their preferred order differs. However, there have been relatively few objections or edit wars recently due to ordering of definitions, and those there have been were often resolved by agreement to add (archaic), (now rare) or similar glosses.

I suggest that a small sample (say 30) entries, chosen as randomly as practicable from those with more than one definition, are reviewed according to this criteria and reordered where necessary (mentioning this thread in the edit summary, and taking care to add glosses as above where appropriate -- a first definition may have need of such a gloss where a later definition did not).

We will then have an idea of whether the method would be practicable and not too cotentious. If it still seems promising, we could move this discussion to the Beer parlour and see what happens. --Enginear 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken to work this new idea of definition order on alchemy, I added the original etymological meaning as sense one, the proposed pseudo-science as sense two, and the recently developed uses as the last two. How's it look? Randy6767 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! What an entry to start on -- it has the longest OED2 etymology I've yet seen, about 250 words. The upshot of that etymology is that they seem to agree with "Mahn (Etym. Unt. 69)" that the original Greek meaning was pharmaceutical chemistry (as then practised) and that this meaning carried over into the English word alongside the (later but still Ancient) Greek meaning of turning lead into gold, etc.

So I've been bold and swapped the order of your first two defs, though the fact that OED feels the need to write 250 words and cite an earlier etymological work suggests that the etymology is disputed. I've also modified the wording of the (original) def 1, and omitted (original) def 3, since I couldn't see a clear difference. If you disagree strongly, by all means revert, and we can take this fascinating word to the Tea room.

Don't forget, when making alterations for this experiment, to refer to this thread in your edit summary, and to add appropriate glosses to any def that is obsolete, now rare, etc, particularly if they towards the top of the list, where some would expect to find the most common modern meanings. --Enginear 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, people here we go, I'm an anarachist. And a bad speller, so bear with me here. I agree with Randy6767 or whatever the hell your name is, the second defenition is a better one. But this is the case only and I repeate ONLY if you take the whole chaos bit out. I'm going to say straight forward, anarchy does not have to mean chaos, it can be achived peacefully. But on the other hand, I have my own copy of the Anarchy Cook Book. So I'm going to say this. Bloodshed may occur during an anarchy but after long discussion with many friends (also anarchists) this would be as a result of the leaders of the goverment being overthrown not wanting to give up their seats of power. So I think a better primary defenition would be- A absence of any form of authority or goverment where bloodshed may or may not have taken place. I want everyone to remember that not every anarchist lives by "All political power come from the barrel of a gun."-Mao Zedong. Some of us decide to go with “Anarchy stands for the liberation of the human mind from the domination of religion; the liberation of the human body from the domination of property; liberation from the shackles and restraints of government”- Emma Goldman. And it can make even the most peaceful of us very anargy should you speak ignorantly of our belifes. We don't go around damning you for electing old white guys. You can have the same respect for us. Thankyou. ianhrrngtn

Welcome, ianhrrngtn. BTW, you can sign your name by using ~~~~. Please don't think that we are dissing you because we record actual usage. It doesn't necessarily mean we would use the words ourselves. Certainly, as a non-anarchist who knows at least a little about the ideals of anarchy, I would not myself use anarchy to imply chaos. I think your point is covered to some extent by the Usage note "Anarchists do not use the word “anarchy” to mean anything chaotic or confusing. However, the word “anarchy” is, by a wide margin, not used as anarchists use it" but I agree it could be worded better. Let's work on it (though I need to go off line rihgt now, so it will be later. --Enginear 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now tweaked the Usage note to show that anarchists find that the usage as chaos is inappropriate. We'll see if anyone shouts. --Enginear 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ianhrrngtn, I am a prescriptivist, and I came here believing that Wiktionary ought only to have entries for words and senses that people ought to use. However, I was convinced by the argument that a dictionary ought to contain all the words in a language that people are likely to come across. Think of it this way: if someone unfamiliar with the word “anarchy” were to see it used in the sense of “chaos”, and then looked it up here, he would be confused if the only definition he could find was the one pertaining to the political theory. I agree that anarchy should not be used to mean chaos. However, such prescription can and should only be given in tags such as {{nonstandard}}, and in epexegetic usage notes. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the last two of you for your understanding,I was a little upset when finishing my last entry. I have thought about it a little and decided that the best way to get a perfect definition for the word would be to get ourselves a nice list of definitions of anarchy, then we can get some people from every side of the political table to debate on a proper definition. Also in this debate we should include experts on the subject of anarchy, by this I mean those who are familiar with literature and history of anarchy. I would like to start this debate off by providing everyone with one of the most famous (among anarchists at least)speeches on the subject. It can be found in the "Anarchy Cook Book" on page 75. Although the main point of the speech is to speak out to hackers and phreaks (not a typo) the main message of the article itself is to speak out against authority and has been in this case trans-scripted by a famous anarchist known as The Jolly Roger. I hope this can help to open the eyes of the blind (sorry, I'm a writer I have to use analogizes and poetic phrases when I can.) As far as the original speakers fate, I do not know. The article is tilted "Mentor's last words" I greatly encourage all to read it. It will give you an insight into the mind of an anarchist who died (assumed) for the cause. From this point on, until Jolly Roger's signature is written by the Mentor or Jolly Roger.

The following file is being reprinted in honor and sympathy for the many phreaks and hackers that have been busted recently by the Secret Service.

The Conscience of a Hacker.

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"... Damn kids. They're all alike. But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain, ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him? I am a hacker, enter my world... Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me... Damn underachiever. They're all alike. I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..." Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike. I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me or feels threatened by me or thinks I'm a smart ass or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike. And then it happened. A door opened to a world. Rushing through the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found. "This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all... Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike... You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals. Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for. I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual, but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike. +++The Mentor+++

May the members of the phreak community never forget his words -JR

That being posted, lets get this debate started, we'll need a extreme right and left winger for sure. I'd be happy to head the side of the anarchists but if anyone else thinks they can do better, I implore you to take my place. (That's a great example of how the system works. :)). Anyone else who'd like to join is welcome. One more thing that might be a good idea to add to this little debate I'm suggesting is a certain day to debate on. I'm on a laptop from 98 with an internet connection a snail would laugh at, need advanced notice to get the thing running fast enough for me to keep up with you guys.--Ianhrrngtn

Ianhrrngton, this is not a political forum. We are not debating about the merits of anarchy, or its place in human civilization. We are simply listing the different ways in which the word anarchy is used. In addition, conversations on Wiktionary don't take place at set times. If you would like to talk to people in real time, feel free to visit our IRC channel. Otherwise, you should simply put down your thoughts on the matter, and check back later. Again, bear in mind that Wiktionary is in no way concerned with the merits of anarchy. Our only concern is the meaning implied by that particular combination of sounds, nothing more. Atelaes 06:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

what do u mean by adversity? —This unsigned comment was added by Mayank rk (talk • contribs) 10:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

See its entry. By the way, please sign your comments on talk pages and in other discussion fora with four tildes. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tea Room, maybe you can help me with French. When I go to the marché and ask for something, the stallholders always say avec saucisse or something like that, meaning (I assume) anything else? Do they say "avec saucisse"? --Gobbler 08:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You accidently spelled it correctly in the title (bit of a give away!) It means deferred? i.e. Do you want to pay now or later? (or it could mean "do you want that with sausages!) SemperBlotto 08:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? French people aren't that trusting are they? Another question: how would a Frenchman say "I'll pay for it later" in reply, apart from "Je paye plus tard"? Merci. --Gobbler 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it is « avec ceci ? » :) Litterally : « with that ? », meaning « what do you want next ? ». If you don't want anything else, just answer « ce sera tout, merci ». - Dakdada 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just deleted by Connel MacKenzie with his non-specific reason link that provides nothing in terms of specifics.

Truthiness had been a word for nearly a year here. A swift undelete would be appreciated.--Halliburton Shill 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters, it needs to be a full year. And independence may be an issue as well, as all usage clearly stems from Colbert. Atelaes 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've undeleted the talk page since there appears to have been a 19th century translation and various claims of Colbert-free use, such as this one: Threat Level Lavender: the Truthiness of Gay Marriage. Kappa 10:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to routinely delete lots of stuff that gets added (what SemperBlotto calls "tosh"); there is an occasional mistake. This should have been RfD or RfV if desired. Restored. Not a problem. Still needs some work. Robert Ullmann 10:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this was RfV a year ago; can reasonably be reconsidered now. Even as a Colbert-neologism, independent print cites ranging over 2 years may not be hard to find. Robert Ullmann 11:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you. 2nd, Atelaes, when I wrote "nearly a year here" I meant here. On Wiktionary. It was a word in use in the 1800-1900s, disappeared from use, and has been restored with new meaning, which has been in use for a year and a half. Anyway, just look at the entry and the talk page and you'll see for yourself. No shortage of citations to follow.--Halliburton Shill 11:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(network and/or power goes away when I need it ;-) this word has been a bit annoying as (often happens) people keep insisting we add some particular word ... IMNSHO we should have this precisely because if not for Colbert's usage, it would pass CFI easily (as a rare, archaic usage, cited by OED). Robert Ullmann 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that this entry was not deleted out-of-process: deletion of recreations of entries that have failed RfV/RfD is routine. Intentional recreation (as mischief) is considered vandalism. But this does highlight that we really don't have process for reconsidering entries after 1-2 years have elapsed. Robert Ullmann 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this entry was deleted out of process; I screwed up, plain and simple, right before turning in for the night. I did not remember that it had passed RFV previously (though I should have, with the amount of dispute on it,) and when I check the diff output, it stopped at February 1, 2007 (perhaps the page loaded incorrectly?) I think the "reconsideration" tag should be removed, and I thank whomever it was that restored it.

The "vandalism" I saw in this case was simple and straight-forward: any mention of the comedian S. C. on Wikimedia sites is disruptive and in most cases (such as this) should be removed. My knee-jerk reaction skipped the check for valid citations.

I apologize for the aggravation this has caused (to everyone, it seems!) --Connel MacKenzie 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Last week: heart (4 corrections) price (6 corrections) sail (6 corrections). This week:

Thanks to all who regularly help out with the WT:TOW! --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an entry for adjective in cream. The comparative and superlative for this adjective are listed as 'creamier' and 'creamiest'. Aren't these the comparative and superlative of 'creamy'? Can 'cream' really be used as an adjective? I propose that that section be moved into creamy. AggyLlama 06:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When I was a boy 'cream' was a favourite colour for paintwork - so it is an adjective and the correct superlative etc would be creamer and creamest. —Saltmarsh 06:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the entry —Saltmarsh 07:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody help me with the definition of this word? In Dutch it also means the bed where a dead person is laid and people can visit him before the funeral. Is there a specific English word for this? Do you thyink I should split up the definition ‘device to carry something’? henne 11:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if it's related to bier#English, though not bier#Dutch! Interestingly, according to OED2+, bier does also have the general meaning of a barrow or stretcher. It feels they are worthy of separating out from the meaning of the stand on which a body (or coffin) is placed. So be bold. --Enginear 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I split up the defs, but I would be happy if a maternal speaker of English would have a look at it and maybe replace my definitions by single words, as I am confident these should exist in English too, but unfortunately I don’t know them. H. (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any Dutch, but is deathbed the word you're looking for in #3? Cynewulf 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In current English the deathbed is where a dying person lies, not a dead person. —Ruakh_TALK 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So it stops being a deathbed after the person dies? What is it after that? Cynewulf 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "So it stops being a deathbed after the person dies?": Indeed. If you say, "X was at Y's deathbed," you're saying that X was there when Y was dying, likely that X was there when Y died, but certainly not that X got there after Y was already dead. Re: "What is it after that?": Well, that's the question here, isn't it? I'm not sure English has a word for that, because English-speaking Christians generally display remains in the burial casket, no? They don't use beds to display remains. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I partially disagree. Often, (usually, in my experience) close relatives of Christians in England pay their respects when the body is still on a bed. Three of my grandparents died, and were displayed for a few hours, in their beds at home. I would think that those beds remained deathbeds until the corpses were taken away, (on biers). However, if someone dies in a hospital or hospice, the body is usually taken for a few hours to a euphemistically named "relative's room" where it is again displayed on a bed, but often not the bed they died in. To be honest, I don't know whether that bed counts as a deathbed, a bier, or something else. Ask an undertaker? --Enginear 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this word is? —This unsigned comment was added by Ianhrrngtn (talk • contribs) 18 February 2007 (UTC).

That is an encyclopedia. --Joe Webster 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Or a knowledge repository. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That last one could be it, I remember that they said it in The Time Machine. The one from 2002. When the main character enters the library and meets their database. The guy says it (the word) but I can't remember it, and I don't own the movie.--Ianhrrngtn

RfV for this word in article αετός (it lacks a stressed vowel). I cannot find it in my largest modern Greek-Greek dictionary. Is it Ancient Greek? All Google hits (6) seem to come back to Wiktionary except one:

Stocar - Article in the LexerArticle in the identification bookswm. halietus (αλιαιετος), yoke vultures gl. in Mone's No. 3.50. 4.94. see Graff 1,433.

Which may mean something to someone! —Saltmarsh 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ἁλιαίετος has now been created. It's a poetic spelling of ἁλιάετος, and so if modern Greek still has this word, it's probably αλιάετος. Atelaes 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ἁλιαίετος is indeed from ancient Greek: Liddell & Scott trace it to Aristophanes. It means "sea-eagle", an osprey.

I'm intrigued regarding the regional meanings of the word 'crack' used throughout the British Isles, for the meaning of 'fun' etc. I had added,

• (Irish slang) Fun, good times. (Sometimes spelt craic) with an example of "The party was great crack."

This has morphed over time to add a similar meaning in Geordie slang,

• (Geordie) Business/events as in "What's the crack".

Last but not least, the Irish slang version has disappeared altogether, to be replaced with

• (Scots language) word for conviviality (good conversation, chat, gossip, or humourous storytelling also good company) common in lowland Scotland and Ulster. (Several examples not listed here). This entry has a note stating, In the last few decades the word crack has been adopted into Gaelic, as there is no "k" in the Irish language the spelling craic has been devised. The meaning has also been changed with the emphasis on fun and having a good time rather than enjoyable conversation.

I was going to do some editing, but thought it best and polite to invite comment first. My points to ponder are,

• The Irish slang version should be replaced as was. It is very common here. As well as the use of meaning fun, we also use the word to denote current events such as "What's the crack?", meaning "What's happening?", or, on meeting someone, "How's the crack?", means "How are you?". (Informal of course). However the fun meaning is the main usage.
• Re the Scottish entry, Is it used in English by Scots, or is it restricted to the Scottish language.
• Re Geordie, How limited is this. Is it used elsewhere in England.

If not deserving of its own entry, perhaps a complete combination of all entries in to one ( Fun) or two (fun and current events). --Dmol 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In London, I've only ever seen it written as craic, never as crack, though always pronounced crac. I've heard it used in What's the craic?, meaning What's happening?, and heard a pub described as having good craic, meaning good fun/entertainment/conversation. It is sometimes used by those with no obvious Irish or Scottish connection. --Enginear 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Me and a friend of mine are surprised about the pronunciation of Wiktionary which is present in the upper left corner of each Wiktionary page ( wiktionary-en.png, see here) . I'd support changing the pronunciation to . More discussion can be found on Talk:Wiktionary#pronunciation. --Abdull 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but when I brought it up a few months ago, as a side issue of whether we should use something more representative than RP for British pronunciations generally, I appeared to be in a minority of one, with other British contributors either staying silent or stating that they pronounced it ˈwɪkʃənrɪ. Mind you, several new faces have appeared since then. --Enginear 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird. In the U.S., we'd pronounce it . —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• WT:FAQ (Note that this prompted last year's logo-redesign contest, which never was received very well.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What's a another word for

maintain

? A response on 100110100 on Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated, thanks!70.74.35.252 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me something about tiruvempavai — This comment was unsigned.

Can anyone please sent me some links that translates a paragraph from Japanese into English and vice versa ? I found many of them by search engines but none of them produce the correct form. Either the meaning is totally changed or doesn't at all mean anything. — This comment was unsigned.

Reliably? I don't think such a beast exists yet. You can try Wiktionary:Translation requests in the meantime, and ask humans there. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, everyone,
I need some help or advice about the morphology (etymology) of the word 'impersonate'. I was pretty sure that English does not have circumfixes (exept some funny cases, which won't be real circumfixes). The basic idea about circumfix - the prefix and the suffix are added at the same time and both have just one meaning or function. But 'impersonate' seems to be formed this way. Could it be a circumfix there? Does anyone know the story? What I saw on the page for this word - there was a suggestion that it copied the formation process of 'incorporate' (great! - so, it's not just one word, we have a derivational template, don't we?). Help!!! please... --172.131.163.174 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

English does have a few circumfixes, such as en- -en (as in enliven), though none are terribly productive. Nonetheless, I don't think that's what we're seeing here; I think the im- has a sense of "into, towards" and the -ate is a verbifier. —Ruakh_TALK 07:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just added en- -en. It was rather a difficult morpheme to define. Please take a look and tell me whether it sounds right to you. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Does flattery have to be insincere? Can you flatter someone with sincere praise? RJFJR 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't have to be false, but there is an underlying sense that the flatterer is being, if not insincere, at least selective. Otherwise a better word would just be something like praise. I think with flattery there is a feeling that the intention is more to gratify someone than to convey accurate information. Widsith 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree; I think "flatter" implies either that the intention is to gratify, or that the result is having gratified (or both). Consider "I'm flattered", "it's a flattering offer", and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 06:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so – so flattery can be unintentional in other words. Widsith 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if anyone could define "Volume" in terms of business / stocks. Thanks! --74.73.3.71 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See definiiton 5: "quantity". --EncycloPetey 20:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know the definition of the term "wheeler" or "traces" as they are found in the book, The Call of the Wild? Please help!!!

What is a synonym for

solely

and

cutthroat

? Thanks, a response on Wikipedia's 100110100 would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!198.166.241.14 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Solely = only, just, merely, uniquely. Cutthroat = vicious, competitive, back-stabbing. —Ruakh_TALK 06:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a synonym for

create

? Thanks, a response on Wikipedia's 100110100 would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!198.166.241.14 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a synonym for

unreliable

? Thanks, a response on Wikipedia's 100110100 would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!198.166.241.14 10:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think you're going a bit overboard in the using-the-Tea-room-as-your-personal-thesaurus department? It's especially rude to ask that replies be put somewhere where no one else benefits from the discussion — and to top it off, you don't even provide a working link to your Wikipedia user-page!. —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to provide a working link to my page.198.161.51.2 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Create a Wiktionary account.
2. On User:100110100 or User talk:100110100 (or both) indicate that you'd appreciate a notice on w:User talk:100110100 for more timely replies.

--Connel MacKenzie 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a synonym for

had

? Thanks, a response on 100110100 would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!198.161.51.2 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

possessed, contained. Atelaes 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)