where does the song zipidee do-da zipidee-eay come from

See Song of the South on Wikipedia. DAVilla 08:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am getting a tattoo in the next week...
I love the English quote: "To Thine Own Self Be True" which is Latin is "tibi ipi estos fedilis"...However, I love the polynesian style of tattoos...so, wondering what the polynesian translation of this phrase would be? I have spent countless hours on tattoos sites and can't find the exact translation and/or symbol that I am wanting....truth is not the same as being true to self....I would appreciate anyone's expertise in this area...thanks.
— This unsigned comment was added by 2-23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs) at 69.149.41.74.

Can't help you on the language, but I would advise you to make very certain that it's correct, as in third and fourth opinions. DAVilla 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with DAVilla above, but note that the Samoan version may be "Tu'usa'olotoina e le faamaoni." Recommend locating a Samoan native speaker for verification. -- Visviva 14:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, your Latin version is wrong. I think what you're going for is "Tibi ipsi esto fidelis". Mike Dillon 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Malay has a huge number of native speakers, especially if you count Indonesians so you have a good chance of contacting one. I know several Maoris but their mother tongue is English. I've lost touch with several Hawai'ians, Samoans, & Tongans but I still keep up with a few Malays and could ask one easily. Would you accept Malay though? Most people want South Seas Islander when they refer to Polynesian. Bali is part of Indonesia, in case that helps. Thecurran 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This Italian word means "the transformation or adaptation of the environment to meet the needs of humans". Can anyone think of an English translation? (See w:it:antropizzazione) SemperBlotto 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an ecological term anthropization, which appears to have the same meaning. This has also been discussed by our good friends at proz.com. -- Visviva 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: and a more robust discussion here. -- Visviva 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: interestingly, "anthropize" is scarcely used at all. -- Visviva 13:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. SemperBlotto 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the context is of another planet, then terraforming is the word used in science fiction (and iirc scientific discussion, although I've not looked for cites to back this up yet). Thryduulf 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is sense 2 really distinct from sense 1? If I have an avarice for X (where X may be power, books, kingdoms, edit count, etc.), does this not simply mean that I desire to gain X? Or am I missing something? And in any case, do we have any semi-standard test for what constitutes a distinct sense? -- Visviva 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED has two definitions, one literal and one figurative. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Another question: is this countable or not? I mean, obviously it's not the sort of thing that one normally has occasion to count, but "avarices" does get a respectable number of b.g.c. hits. -- Visviva 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More accurately!? Are these the same definition? DAVilla 16:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be something like:

1. (archaic) Divination based on the appearance and behaviour of animals.
2. (by extension) An omen, prediction; a foreboding.

That is, the "divination" sense is primary, at least originally. The sense used for the result of divination is an extension, but it is now effectively the primary meaning since few if any people actually do divination based on seeing birds or their innards anymore. Mike Dillon 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, {{archaic}} may not fit, since the word itself is not archaic, just the activity it describes. I think that {{by extension}} is probably right though. Mike Dillon 16:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction. DAVilla 17:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second sense should have {{by extension}}. The distinction is between a meal that is the first meal of the day ("breaking" the "fast" of sleeping) and the food that is commonly served at that meal (which can be served at a different time). An example would be ordering pancakes and scrambled eggs in the middle of the night at a 24-hour diner. It probably isn't the eater's first meal of the day, but pancakes and scrambled eggs are normally considered "breakfast food" and the food is still called "breakfast" in this context, even if the meal isn't. Mike Dillon 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. How did I miss that example sentence? DAVilla 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this definition (which I totally agree with) a UK / Ireland thing. Should it be marked as such.--Dmol 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so -- I (American) have said things like "I don't want to have breakfast at midnight (let's not have pancakes)" Cynewulf 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! No, I'm not furiously angry. :) I do find our 'livid' to be confusing, though. I've heard of 'livid' being used for a colour of injured flesh, but the idea of it meaning dark blue contrasts starks with the idea listed of it meaning pallid or pale. My concise Aussie w:OED lists 'furiously angry' as a colloquiallism and the colour meaning as being that of lead, bluish-grey. I find this to be commensurate with pallid but dark just doesn't seem to fit. Is there a confusion with 'black and blue' or are there really one light colour and one dark colour meaning? Thecurran 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever encountered this used to mean "pallid." That might just be the fault of my North American education, though; can you provide some citations? FTR, I do not associate leaden with paleness either. But then I am partially colorblind. ;-) -- Visviva 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No livid means kind of bluish. The only time it means pale is when you're talking about people being pale with anger, where livid is used, and I always imagine it as being because if you have a reddish complexion then losing colour can look like you're relatively blue. Maybe that doesn't make much sense, but that's English for you.. Widsith 09:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This has really surprised me! I have always used livid in the sense given in these random quotes:-

• In spring the first livid red nubs of rhubarb stalks appear.
• He has livid red burn marks on his arm after his father poured boiling water....
• ...a livid red lake of blood.

  bright, and usually associated with the colour red! -- Algrif 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is also used in this way, as a sort of intensifier for other colour-names. But on its own, it means bluish-grey. Weird. Widsith 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I found links to 'colourize' in 'colorize', which links to and from 'colourise'. Now, I believe there are 2 common spelling variants of this word; the chiefly GB 'colourise' and the chiefly US 'colorize'. I don't recognize colourize as being the common term in any large, specific dialect, but when writing to an audience that is likely to have proponents of both variants, I do use 'colourize'. The '-ize' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the GB pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the '-ise' of 'practise' & 'promise'. The '-our' spelling reflects both pronunciations, + the US pronunciation where it isn't used differs markedly from the "or" of 'or', 'torpid', etc. as well as the "our" of 'flour' & 'sour' or 'court', 'pour' & 'source'. Even though it does match the '-or' in 'terror', it has a slightly different root in w:Anglo-Norman Language/w:French Language.

Here's the dilemma, I prefer '-our' to '-or' and '-ize' to '-ise', because I like to compromize between dialects to achieve a sort of neutrality, + 'colourize' has a count of 25.0k in w:Google, similar to the 29.3k for 'colourise', but it is much less than the 1.07M for 'colorize' and I don't even know if any dictionary would list 'colourize'. My personal view on this biases me enough to feel precluded from creating 'colourize'. I want to know what others think. Thecurran 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From the data you give, it sounds like colourize and colourise are at the same order of magnitude; thus, I can't see any reason not to include colourize as an alternative spelling, though it should probably be labeled as {{proscribed}}. Cheers, -- Visviva 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proscribed by whom? colourize is lemmatized by the Canadian Oxford, which goes "colourize, also colorize, especially British colourise." Not to mention that -ize endings are perfectly acceptable in Britain (see w:American and British English spelling differences#-ise / -ize). Truth be told, the Oxford English Dictionary lemmatizes colorize (no u, no s). JackLumber 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When people use the phrase "the Archbishop of Canterbury", do they mean "the head of the Church of England", or do they mean "the Archbishop of Canterbury, who as we know is the Church of England"? I suspect it's the latter, and that this term is sum-of-parts aside from its encyclopedic entailment, but as it's a phrase I hardly ever use, I thought I'd gather opinions first before RFD-ing it. —Ruakh_TALK 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, and as a Brit by birth, I always understood that this was SOP. Not the Archbishop of York for example. And that it just so happens that he is considered the leading Archbishop (given that HRH Liz is, legally, the head of the CoE. -- Algrif 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it is SOP, referring to the person or the office, in the same way that "Bishop of Bath and Wells" and "Mayor of London", etc are used. The posts and holders are encyclopaedic but not dictionaric. Thryduulf 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I started this mess but I had good intentions. If you want the nitty-gritty, check this. I'll support RFD or speedy on this one. :) Thecurran 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:How do I create a Page

Can you please tell me how Thank you cameron king

Go to the page you want to create by typing the URL in your 'Address Bar' near the top your browser window or following a link to it. Then, click on the "Edit" tab, which is the third from the left, just above the workspace, inside your the client space of your browser or you can follow the "Create this entry" link within that same workspace. Please, do check the "deletion log" and strongly consider proposing your addition in this "Tea Room" before proceeding; have fun. :) Thecurran 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Help:Starting a new page? --Connel MacKenzie 17:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this include a definition of the condition in late pregnancy? Or is it "break waters"? Or should it just be included in break? SemperBlotto 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one would normally say "her water just broke" rather than "she just broke (her) water." So the lemma form might be something like one's water breaking? -- Visviva 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use either form her water(s) just broke or she just broke water But the second is idiomatic. There is no elipsis of her. -- Algrif 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it ever "her waters just broke"? The set-phrase/idiom is "her water just broke" or "her water broke fifteen minutes ago." Or is that different over the pond? --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's also the white-water rapids sense, missing. And a boat's wake. E.g. Turning the bend of the river, they entered the break water and started paddling furiously. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's different over the pond. I'll look for some quotes to support waters broke. -- Algrif 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My usual favourite source -- Algrif 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...for "her water broke": one from France, one from Japan, all the rest from the US. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And for "her waters broke": UK or Commonwealth: 100% --Connel MacKenzie 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (edit) 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, over in AU-WA, I just came from a naming ceremony/ 1st birthday/ mother's birthday/ Father's Day this weekend. We had preggoes and bubses everywhere and the only way I heard it was '...water break...'; never 'waters'. It seems like Connel MacKenzie was using a noun distantly like 'breakwater'. Maybe the new entry should merely be 'one's water'/ 'one's waters as in 'Is your water still intact?'. Thecurran 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please provide a full example sentence of how it is said in Australia-Western Australia? I was talking about the English Wiktionary's entry for break water...which should have other senses listed. Which are you talking about? --Connel MacKenzie 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard phrases like, "We were worried about her water breaking.", "Did her water break?", "Her water was intact right through until the C-section.", &c. My first point was that, in the Commonwealth of Australia, we use 'water'. My second was that unless anyone can support phrases like "she just broke water", it would seem all phrases involved revolved around 'one's water(s)'. This would mean that if we made 'one's water'/ 'one's waters include the meaning 'one's amniotic sac', all would be solved without adding an idiom. Similarly, we could just add the meaning to 'water' or 'waters. Either way, this would also allow phrases like "Is her water still OK?". I hope this helps clarify things. Thecurran 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this word normal outside the US? To me (American) it comes off as additionalificationifying a redundant morpheme -- we just say "orient". What kind of tag should it get? (See also disorientate) Cynewulf 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly recent back-formation, used chiefly in the UK and sometimes attacked even there. In the British National Corpus, oriented prevails by 1.56 : 1. In technical use, oriented is the norm in the UK as in the US. Object-orientated programming? Come on! JackLumber 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, one Brit in a C++ community I belong to once commented that it took him a very long time to get used to saying "object-oriented programming" and not feel that he was skipping a syllable. —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I always get confused over whether to say disoriented or disorientated... Widsith 09:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

'orientation' and 'disorientation' are fine. Please, try not to use 'disorientate(ed)' at all. It's just another unnecessary word that conveys no more information than 'disorient(ed)'. BTW, en-us uses 'orienteer' in the 'BSA' 'orienteering' badge, so there's no reason to point fingers at GB for frivolous terms here. :) Thecurran 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please do a little cleanup of the template or talk pages in this category? The following ones are unclear because they neither show a specific link to explain their meaning nor show up in w:List of ISO 15924 codes: Template:enPRchar**, Template:IPA Rhymes, Template:IPA2, Template:IPAchar**, Template:KSchar*, Template:KUchar*, Template:polytonic, Template:SAMPAchar**, Template:SDchar*, Template:lang, & Template:unicode. *=RFD'd & **=perhaps should be RFD'd. Thecurran 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, next time I'll use RFC. Thecurran 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this word exist? Is there a better noun that means the same? I need a link for Spanish estanquidad. Help please. -- Algrif 16:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. It's not very elegant though - if I were translating estanquidad I would probably rephrase to avoid using it as a noun. Widsith 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

impermeability might be better. SemperBlotto 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The problem with impermeability is that it would not be translated as estanquidad. This word is used mainly (but not exclusively) to talk about boats being watertight. Which leaves us with watertightness by the looks of it. -- Algrif 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the full sentence you are translating? Could it be rephrased using the adjective “watertight” instead? Rod (A. Smith) 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. It is from a scientific R&D project progress report:-

El primer prototipo fue desechado debido a problemas de estanqueidad en su sistema de cierre (roscado) y en el tabique interno que separa el condensador en dos compartimentos. -- Algrif 17:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In that example I'd be tempted just to say "leakage problems" in English - or maybe, "problems over how watertight the latch was". Widsith 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that I used leakage in the translation, in fact. But it made me think about adding the term to Wikt, and I couldn't think of anything other than watertightness. -- Algrif 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish is hilariously euphemistic. "The boat had some issues with watertightness" = "The f***er sank like a stone". Widsith 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

¡Bueno! ¡Muy bien! Jejejejejeje. -- Algrif 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there exist hermeticity and hermiticity, but they're much vaguer — usually they'd imply impermeability to gas. And even given their greater range of senses, neither outnumbers watertightness on b.g.c. (though together they do). —Ruakh_TALK 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We have the following at will:

Huh?? If it's an auxiliary verb (which it is) then it doesn't have an infinitive or a conjugation (not that I'm a grammarian or anything, but that's how I understand it at least). And if its past tense is merely historically would then why is that listed in the conjugation line? (Note that this sense I'm asking about it not the perfectly valid verb to will, meaning to wish or to try to effect something using one's will, listed under a separate etymology.)—msh210℠ 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As with other auxilliary verbs, the auxilliary sense of will is defective in that it lacks an infinitive, but it has other conjugated forms that can vary depending on tense, mood, and, according to traditional English grammar, depending on person. In the first person singular and plural, shall has traditionally been the normal future auxiliary verb, while will indicates intent. In the second and third person, the opposite is true. Similar distinction is traditionally made between would and should for for conditionals. The relatively minimal conjugation system in English makes it strange to think of shall, will, should, and would as separate entries in a conjugation table, but since English grammar is traditionally analyzed in terms of Latin grammar, traditional English grammarians consider them different conjugations of a single defective verb:

• Indicative mood present tense (i.e. plain future auxilliary):
  • 1st person (singular and plural): shall (e.g. I shall go tomorrow.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: will (e.g. He will go tomorrow.)
• Intentional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): will (e.g. I will succeed, no matter what.)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: shall (e.g. He shall make me an offering.)
• Conditional mood:
  • 1st person (singular and plural): should (e.g., if I were a millionaire, I should go...)
  • 2nd and 3rd person: would (e.g., if I were a millionaire, you would go...)

We should remove the infinitive, i.e. with {{en-verb|inf=-|...}}, but leave the inflections. Rod (A. Smith) 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again I see I really must get my finger out and write a definitive version of Appendix:English Modal verbs that I still have only in draft form. -- Algrif 10:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This entry bothered me because it, 1., buried the most common sense of simple futurity and, 2., ignored the sense of futurity cum certainty. Instead it seems locked in the animism of the time of formation of the word. I found the entry instructive precisely because it served to remind me of the force of animism in the structure of our thinking. (I've been readng Lakoff.) I'm more of a fatalist myself so I was almost offended by the treatment of the senses I refer to above. DCDuring 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Last month, in WT:ID User:Ruakh told Maria that 'to take a company public' was not idiomatic. I can see sense in that but I just don't think that term would be grammatically correct unless we included an adverb form for public. Consider how odd "take the building green/ large" sounds. On the other hand, "make the building green/ large" is fine and "green up the building"/ "enlarge the building" would also find great support. This is 'cuz 'make' can have an adjective as a direct object when the indirect object is a noun/ noun phrase. 'take' however can't have an indirect object at all but can have an adverb/ prepositional phrase after its nounal direct object; adverbial forms are used for 'away#Adverb', 'back#Adverb', 'down#Adverb', 'forward#Adverb', 'here#Adverb', 'home#Adverb', 'in#Adverb', 'left#Adverb', 'out#Adverb', 'over#Adverb', 'right#Adverb', 'there#Adverb', 'toward#Adverb', 'under#Adverb', 'up#Adverb', & 'yonder#Adverb' when these follow the direct object of 'take'. I know some people may disagree with including 'here', 'home', 'there', & 'yonder' but I didn't put those sections in and there are so many phrasal verbs using them this way that they've fully transcended the adverb barrier. Alternatively, we could construct the idiom that Maria implied but I'd consider it rather silly just as Ruakh did. We wouldn't have this problem if the phrase used was 'make something public' but the phrase 'take something public' has established itself so we should treat it accordingly. Thecurran 08:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Take does take some adjective complements: you can take an idea public, or statewide, or national/​nationwide, or international/​global/​worldwide, or the like. In all cases the sense seems to be of making the idea known or available to a wider portion of the universe. (And similarly with other nouns besides "idea".) I guess we should document this at take. —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise that take a company public or take something public isn't idiomatic. That set-phrase/idiom means something like 'to convert ownership from a private entity, to publicly traded stocks.' --Connel MacKenzie 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find Thecurran's initial comment here to be easily readable, but when you have to define such complicate exceptions to usual rules for just one word, it seems like a good indicator of idiomaticy (idiomaticness?). In any case I agree with Connel that the meaning of this set phrase (which would merit it an entry imho) is idiomatic (which definitely merits an entry). Thryduulf 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clear up my initial comment without changing the meaning. I hope it helps. I'm sorry I didn't consider 'take something country/ nation/ province/ state/ world-wide'. I obviously 'dropped the ball'. I do consider these adverbs though because they can follow 'go', 'is known', and their ilk. I just wanted to note that if we just added an adverb form to 'public', the problem would be solved without any extra work. The problem with not allowing 'public' to be an adverb as I saw it was that it forces us to let 'take' have an indirect object, which would be altering an incredibly common word. Thecurran 21:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

These are marked as Spanish slang. As far as I know they are normal terms meaning a very young child or baby. Not slang at all, except for the term of endearment nena. Opinions please? -- Algrif 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not slang, just colloquial. Also used ironically to mean scoundrel. —Stephen 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know we have 'AP' meaning 'Associated Press' in Wiktionary but we use it so much that I think it deserves a spot in Wiktionary:Glossary. Thecurran 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm being presumptuous but 'Wiktionary:Votes/header' seems to have a grammatical error that I would normally consider an obvious typo. But as it is locked, there seems to be nothing I can do.

I think the bulleted sentence "A failed votes does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." was meant to read as "The failure of a vote does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or "A vote's failure does NOT mean that it cannot become a new vote in the future." or even the passive "A failed vote is NOT restricted from being created again in the future.". Any bites? Thecurran 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It also seems that according to 'predate', we should really use the term 'antedate' instead. Plus, it'll ensure nobody becomes afraid of their vote being preyed upon by a little account or thylacine. :) Thecurran 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Thecurran. I was not aware that “predate” was so proscribed, but I did implement your grammar correction above. By the way, are you aware of a reference we can add to our “predate” entry to validate the usage notes? Rod (A. Smith) 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW. --Connel MacKenzie 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw a headline in one of the UK tabloids last week that used the term "poo poo" to mean that someone is rejecting a comment or being dismissive of it. Can't remember the exact wording but it was something like "(name) poo poos talk of engagement to actor". I'm sure I have seen it before, but wanted to check before adding it, as it would be a prime candidate for RFV or RFD. Is it used enough to pass CFI, and has it been used long enough (3 years isn't it?) to qualify. Is it UK only. It is difficult to look up without getting pages on toddler toilet training.--Dmol 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's an exchange from an old episode of The Simpsons, something like:

Editor: We're looking for a new food critic... someone who doesn't immediately poo-poo everything he eats

Homer: No, it usually takes me a couple of hours.

So yes, I think it's fair to say it's been around long enough to include. There are some spelling/hyphenation issues (poo poo, poo-poo, pooh pooh, etc.), which may further hinder the citation search.-- Visviva 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Added: Lots of cites here: Looks like poo-poo is the canonical form. -- Visviva 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's usually used in a different sense than pooh-pooh, which is the standard form I've always seen in dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, "pooh pooh" does indeed seem to be a good deal more common . But while "poo poo" is used primarily in reference to fecal matter, search results "poo pooed" and "poo pooing" (with or without hyphen) seem largely to reflect the same sense as pooh-pooh, viz. "to dismiss out of hand." -- Visviva 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect this is a recent phenomenon, resulting from the existence of the two homophones having their spellings confused in combination with the general decline in spelling skills. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent or not, "poo poo" is the form I'm most familiar with seeing in the UK, and especially given the prevalence of the spellings without an "h" in the present and past tenses, I'd say it merits an alternative spelling entry. Thryduulf 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help and comments. Just want to note that poo poo (no letter H) was definitely the spelling used where I saw it.--Dmol 19:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created poo poo as an alternative spelling of pooh-pooh which exists already--Dmol 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Moved here from my talk page (where it was getting annoying) SemperBlotto 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

antennae and antennas are plural for antenna ... is there any problem about adding a "See also" section to link the two plural forms together? Mwtoews 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. SemperBlotto 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Better yet would be to list them as synonyms (as per latices / latexes). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not sure they are synonyms: some senses of antenna require one plural, and some require the other. —Ruakh_TALK 15:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not purely synonyms, since one is for living organisms, and the other is for electronic devices. Mwtoews 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms needn’t be identical in meaning — merely close in meaning. If we only allowed words of identical meaning as synonyms, we’d have far fewer “Synonyms” sections. I believe that these two plurals — in being different only due to their glosses — are by far similar enough to be considered synonyms. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But they're completely different in sense. It would make more sense for them to list each other as related terms. —Ruakh_TALK 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the COED says that for the aerial sense, antennas is an “also” plural form; that is, it says that antennae can also be used to mean aerials. On top of that, I’m sure that antennas is used by some as the plural of the biology sense or instinct sense. This is the case despite what our (probably valid) prescription states. I dunno; I’d say that these plurals’ meanings are close enough for them to be considered synonyms, though I probably wouldn’t say the same for cherubim / cherubs. If you three feel strongly about it, feel free to revert the section titles to “See also”. (“Related terms” sections are for terms related by etymological form, not meaning — right? –Since these two are related in both ways, I guess it doesn’t matter very much though…) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Based almost solely on this discussion, I'd say that "Synonyms" is the correct heading. Thryduulf 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The noun sense no.2, as in good looks. Is this a pluralia tantum ? -- Algrif 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably. The only related term I can think of at the moment is "good looking". Thryduulf 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, yes. (And another related term is looker.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so as well. Consider: "Her looks earned her a cover photo." versus "Her look earned her a cover photo." In the first sentence, it is her physical beauty, especially the face, that is being discussed. In the second sentence, it is her style, including clothing, makeup, and hair. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could one of you change the entry please? I'm not sure of the correct way to tidy it up as a pluralia tantum. Thanks. -- Algrif 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ruakh. That looks good. :-) -- Algrif 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was reading the article spider and I noticed there was a very graphic picture of a tarantula. Do we really need this? I happen to have arachnophobia and this picture really bugged me. Does anyone agree with me that we should replace that picture with a more tame one? Cheers, JetLover 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have arachnophobia, perhaps it would be better if you let others patrol that (and similar) entries. --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is, is it neccesary to have a tarantula? Why not something like this? Cheers, JetLover 02:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, seriously? I find that picture much scarier. —Ruakh_TALK 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me about Wikipedia's simmering war about putting a spider picture at w:Arachnophobia. I can agree that having a spider picture at arachnophobia would be inappropriate and unhelpful, but it seems reasonable to have a spider picture at spider. I'm actually curious why someone with arachnophobia would want to look at the entry for spider; don't you know that there's a good chance of you finding something you're not going to like? As to whether it is a tarantula or another spider, it seems like the image you're suggesting would be scarier since the spider is facing the camera; it's not like the tarantula picture has a hand in it or something.Mike Dillon 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right on that. But how about like a common house spider pic? Cheers, JetLover 02:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I poked around Commons and didn't see any good ones. I'd say that any high quality picture that clearly depicts a crawly thing with eight legs would be fine. I can't imagine anyone's wedded to the idea of having a tarantula in particular. Mike Dillon 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other pictures are at hobo spider and brown recluse. And no snarky comments about how blurry my picture was...that sucker was huge! --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

one#Numeral has its first two senses:

1. (cardinal) The first number in the set of natural numbers (especially in number theory).
2. The cardinality of the smallest nonempty set. The number of heads a typical human has.

Am I missing something, or are these identical?—msh210℠ 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, you are the mathematician. Anyway, I guess they should probably be merged. Except for the number of heads part, of course, which doesn't make much sense. Yes, a typical human has one head, one nose, one mouth, one neck, one belly button... JackLumber 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is however by far the easiest of the definitions for a non-mathematician like myself to understand. Thryduulf 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

O.K., but hopefully even a non-mathematician knows what "one" means without having to look it up. :-)   Someone looking at that entry probably either is looking for something besides the definition (etymology, translations, derived terms, etc.), or wants a formal math-y definition. (I don't object to having the non-math-y definition as well; but it doesn't seem completely necessary.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the second definition specifically defines it as "the cardinality", the two definitions are synonymous. The difference is only in the underlying mathemtical approach to definition, not in any lexical sense. That is, the underlying theory of what constitutes "one-ness" is different, but the practical application should be identical. It is also possible that someone mistakenly believed that the first definition was for the symbol and the second was for the concept, but that is incorrect. All the symbols are simply different written forms of that concept, not separate definitions. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To me (as a Swedish speaker), it's not an issue of maths/non-maths but of the abstract number, versus the count of something. The abstract number, used if you're counting "abstractly", referring to the time "one o'clock" or similar, is in Swedish always translated as ett, while if you're counting some specific objects the word is en if the objects are of common gender, but ett if of neuter (yes, these are the same words as used for the indefinite articles). Should information like that go into the translation section, the pages ett / en with merely links from the translation section, or should it be taken into account in the English definitions, that there are languages which makes such an distinction and thence that the definition needs to reflect that? \Mike 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The convention seems to be that if only a couple of languages have more senses than English then very brief (one or two word) glosses are added in the translation table entry for the languages that do. In this case that'd likely be something like "(abstract counting) ett (counting objects) en c, ett n". Full usage notes would be at en and ett

Where there are quite a few languages that make more distinction than English, then separate translation tables are used, each with an appropriate header gloss. Again usage notes would be in full at en and ett. Thryduulf 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of supposed that would be better, but someone removed the reference to en ... so I wanted some confirmation before I started fighting for it :) \Mike 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would have been me. I think en does not deserve its place there, since it is a matter of grammar whether one chooses ett or en. Basically, they are two forms of one word. Or am I mistaken here? Anyway, for e.g. adjectives, we do not want translators to enter all forms of the adjective, but only the base form, which is generally the masculine. That’s why I deleted the mention of en. Of course, a usage note and crosslink to ett would be appropriate at that page (and vice versa). H. (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of grammar, just as the choice of den/det/de for the definite article (not to mention the suffixes). Or whether "her" should be translated as "hennes" or a form of "sin". But then: what would be the definition of a "form variant"? Would "denna" and "den här" be variants? Both can (best) be translated as "this" - but they differ grammatically in a way which is not visible in English. (No, I'm not out for you: I'm asking other Swedish speakers, if there are any around... :)). Well, I think we have some interesting line to draw, here somewhere... \Mike 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In a discussion I had elsewhere (i.e. not on a wiki), someone mention that cold (disease) could stand for "chronic obstructive lung disease". While I expect that this is a back-formation by some acronym-obessed doctor, we don't seem to ahve an entry for it. Since this isn't a term I've heard used before, I'm not sure what possible alternative spellings and forms to go hunting for. So... I thought I'd get input here, and maybe even citations. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be a confusing backronym, as one would expect "chronic obstructive lung disease" to be synonymous with "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", which is not the same thing at all. Also, as colds aren't usually chronic, hopefully. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, they are the same thing; according to Barbara Janson Cohen’s Medical Terminology: An Illustrated Guide anyhow (“Emphysema is the main disorder included under the heading of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (also called COLD, chronic obstructive lung disease)” — the underline, but not the emboldenment, is mine). I reckon this folk etymology is tosh. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was saying that a cold and COPD are not the same thing at all, and that one would expect COLD to be the same thing as COPD — which apparently it is indeed. Thanks for the ref. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been said that those things for which we lack words, will slip past our conscious awareness. Thus I'm always struggling to force myself to consciously acknowledge the things of the world for which I know no name. Help me name these things. Dictionary words are best, but protologisms are fine too, especially if they're made highly memorable. Also please discuss how often you're aware of these things yourself. Feel free to add your own unnamed phenomena too.

• When you're reading/watching/listening/etc. to something, and start to imagine yourself seeing/hearing/etc. it through someone else's eyes/ears/etc. (esp. when you thereby rediscover the "magic" of something with which you're familiar, as if experiencing it for the first time)

ecstasy? vicarious-ness? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Or just sympathy/empathy...? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When waking up (often from a short, much needed nap), a "pulsing" sensation throughout the body but especially the head/behind the eyes

caffeine deprivation? grogginess? sleepy wakefulness or even lethargy. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when two things seem "out of synch" and yet at the same time "sound good". For example, a voice completely defies the overall tempo, but thereby greatly enhances the song. Common in rap.

syncopation? Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

harmony? counter-melody? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps counterpoint, though it seems a bit of a stretch. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In music, when a voice is very fast, to the point of being unintelligible (but natural, not artificially speeded up a la "chipmunk voice")

Do you mean like rap or like an auction caller, or more like a legal disclaimer at the end of a commercial? --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

any of the above.. though auctioneers and legalese aren't very common in music.. but it brings up an interesting point, what IS auctioneer-speak called and what IS fast-legalese-speak called? — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

I’d go with patter. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown "showering" sideways out of their eyes, almost like a mist.

sobbing, boo-hooing. --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In cartoons, when a character cries, and the tears are shown as contiguous "streams" flowing down their face.

bawling, sobbing. (Bit of overlap there - distinction is only relevant to artists drawing it.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• In a movie, when the protagonist is doing something important, and we are shown someone else (parents, girlfriend...) watching the protagonist (often without the protagonist's knowledge). For example, the protagonist has a revelation and shouts for joy in a parking lot, and then the director shows us that their love interest is secretly watching him do this through an apartment window.

dramatic irony? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In television this is sometimes just called a reveal. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

scene cut or just a cut? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is momentarily delayed, then suddenly done all at once. For example, in a video game, the hero is struck a mortal blow: for a second, she doesn't even react; then in a single frame she is lying dead.

pause for effect? pregnant pause? —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

lag / netlag (even jocularly, when game is not on the net, but local.) dropped frame (more technical sense, usually in plural.) Also, just about any creative phrasing, as it pertains to an individual game, or a special magical item of that game. --Connel MacKenzie 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When an expected reaction is long delayed, then gradually done. Often seen in cartoons, when a sword slashes someone, seems to have missed completely, then some time later the victim suddenly falls in half.

The example doesn't seem to match the description . . . :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't have said "the victim suddenly falls in half". It would be better to say, "the victim slowly falls in half". Often, when this specific example occurs, the victim will actually boast, "hah, looks like you missed me", before they fall in half. The phenomenon can have exceedingly long delays: a detective arrives at a crime scene, sees a person standing with their back to the detective, the detective walks up and taps them on the shoulder, the person drops dead (or falls in half or whatever). — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

delayed reaction seems to do the job. Widsith 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• When you're reading a book, and start daydreaming or thinking about something else, then suddenly realize you don't anything about an entire chunk of text you just read.

— This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

• The sheen seen on a single gossamer strand; the silvery part of a cobweb you can see only momentarily, when the light hits it just right. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  A scintilla? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pronunciations wildly different across the pond. (Confer this...it really does need a lexical sounding name.)
• --Connel MacKenzie 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What is “# a good model quality”? Is it a nuance sense of “# an exemplary quality” or does it mean something else entirely? Rod (A. Smith) 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the plural block and tackles? RJFJR 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should actually be blocks and tackle (block being count, tackle being non-count, so "two blocks and tackle" = "{two blocks} and {tackle }"). That said, Google seems to have a slight preference for block and tackles. The intermediate blocks and tackles does not seem to be popular at all (it fairs O.K., hit-count-wise, but few of the hits are in this sense). Other phrasings, like block and tackle systems and block and tackle balances, also seem to be in currency (as do their normal singulars). None of these seems anywhere near as popular as the singular block and tackle, suggesting either that this is usually used in the singular, or that the usual plural is something I haven't thought of. —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure Ruakh is right. I don't even think "tackle" is properly countable in this sense -- tackle already consists of multiple ropes or chains. -- WikiPedant 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the compound block and tackle itself uncountable? Are you sure the uses of "blocks and tackle" that come up on Google aren't simply erroneous? --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it can be uncountable — "a {block and tackle}" seems quite well-formed — but it might only exist in the singular. (Another such, for some speakers, is "mouse", in the computer sense: clearly "mouse" is countable and singular, but many speakers simply do not pluralize it, instead going with something like "mouse devices".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with the references I provided below? Interesting, but not particularly useful. It is important to indicate that it is uncountable first; many (obviously not just me) consider the "pluralizing" of it, to be incorrect. Indicating an incorrect plural form as an alternate (with its own warning) seems warranted, given how many errors turn on up your Google search. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "So you disagree with the references I provided below?": Not at all. I think you must have misunderstood my comment? —Ruakh_TALK 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Perhaps you could rephrase "I really don't think it can be uncountable"? --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think maybe we're defining "uncountable" differently? You seem to be using it to mean "lacking a plural"; for me, while an uncountable noun certainly lacks a plural, that's not enough to make a noun uncountable. For me, a noun like salt is uncountable, because you can't say *"a salt". You can, however, say "a block and tackle", even if it doesn't have a plural like "block and tackles" or "blocks and tackle" or something. (I'm not sure if the word "uncountable" is ambiguous between these two senses, or if one of us is using it mistakenly.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ruakh, you are using uncountable correctly. Connel, you mean singulare tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the plural is most commonly formed indirectly... "sets of block and tackle," "block and tackle mechanisms," etc. Google Patents turns up as many of these forms as you could desire... Which doesn't help us terribly, though it does suggest that (as Connel points out above) this phrase may actually be uncountable. What concerns me about "blocks and tackle" is that it (and for that matter "blocks and tackles") arguably could refer to a single set (since by definition a block and tackle consists of at least two pulleys) -- so it may, at least in some cases, just be an alternate form of the singular.

I mean, at least according to the current definition, you couldn't say "two blocks and tackle" to refer to two separate b&t setups, because each setup already contains at least two blocks. (I'm not sure if that definition is strictly correct; my real-life winching experience has been rather limited and less than successful.) On the other hand, you could theoretically say (as some people clearly do) "two block-and-tackles." -- Visviva 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Digging just a little deeper, , , and all list it as singular, describing plurals. On the other hand, this lists it with the doubly-erroneous plural (so I think they just had a bad day or something, when writing it.) I know I would only write "block and tackle" to describe multiple block and tackle assemblies. --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an article on this slogan at Wikipedia, which happens to contain close to 50 translations for the phrase - something very unusual for a Wikipedia entry. I was thinking of making an entry for it here and moving all those translations over. Would that be appropriate? It's almost like an idiom or a proverb, but I don't want to open the door to slogans in general. Thoughts? bd2412 T 21:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would work as a phrasebook entry. Providing and maintaining translations is more our job than Wikipedia's. 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs).

For sure - we have nothing to lose but our chains! —Saltmarsh 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is done: workers of the world, unite! bd2412 T 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language? (Is the name "Makonde" even borrowed from Makonde?) If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations? -- Visviva 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Is this the only word ever borrowed into English from the Makonde language?": No idea, except next. Re: "Is the name 'Makonde' even borrowed from Makonde?": It looks like it, yes. (It looks like the native name for the language is actually "ChiMakonde", where "chi-" is a prefix that's attached to all language names — that sort of thing is common in the Bantu languages — but in English we don't usually include that prefix, which is why English has "Swahili" rather than "Kiswahili".) Re: "If so, is it sensible to create Category:Makonde derivations?": Yes, because even if English doesn't borrow much from Makonde, other languages might, resulting in categories like Category:pt:Makonde derivations, Category:yao:Makonde derivations, etc., which would all be subcategories of Category:Makonde derivations. (So, even if English has no loanwords from a given language, it might make sense to have a "derivations" category for that language.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

pluralia tantum ? In the sense of land and deeds. -- Algrif 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I’d say. Premise means something completely different, and I don’t think that a singular form of premises can, logically speaking, be back-formed, as it’s not as if a pub’s separate elements can be considered as individual parts which compose the “premises”. Oh, and BTW, pluralia tantum is the plural form — its singular is plurale tantum. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it's tref or treyf? (Possibly something else, maybe more than one). Checking an online dictionary and Wikipedia has just confused me. (I just put it as an antonym at wikisaurus:pure.) RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's neither in Yiddish, which is not written using the Latin alphabet. What the transliteration is into English depends on your preferred system of transliteration. As to whether either of these spellings has made it into English, I'm not sure. A cursory glance at Google Books shows both, but I haven't actually looked beyond the results page to see context and italicization.—msh210℠ 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to spell it in Yiddish though it should be טרײף. I think. My spelling in Yiddish is not perfect. --Neskaya ^talk 21:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a distinction between frugality and frugalness? RJFJR 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really in meaning, although frugalness is so rare that it would hardly seem a good choice. Widsith 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What's Teochew? I found it checking words used in wiktionay that aren't in wiktionary. Is it the name of a lnaguage? RJFJR 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it at wikipedia. Sorry. I'll add it. RJFJR 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recently deleted imbetween. It is not in any paper or online dictionary that I have access to, but there are lots of Google hits for the word. Is this just ignorance or is it an actual change in the language - the im being easier to pronounce than the in? SemperBlotto 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the pronunciation with is quite common, at least in some dialects; but most people spell it "in between" no matter how they pronounce it. If the eye-dialect spelling "imbetween" has at least three genuine uses on b.g.c. — and it seems to — then I think we should include it, and simply define it as an eye-dialect spelling of "in between". (It might warrant a "rare" tag as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling; the legitimate hits I'm finding on Scholar, Books, and Patents are generally from fairly technical material, and almost never in the depiction of spoken discourse. The vast majority of hits are scannos, just as the vast majority of web hits are probably simple illiteracies... but at least two print uses I've found seem clearly self-conscious, such as a patent which juxtaposes "imbetween X and Y" with "between A, B, and C" in the same sentence. Perhaps it is sometimes used to mean something like "sandwiched between"? Anyway, regardless of inclusion, this seems like something we may want to monitor over time, so I've started a collection at Citations:imbetween (although I guess that should probably be Citations:IMBETWEEN). -- Visviva 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "it doesn't seem to primarily an eye-dialect spelling": That is fascinating and shocking. I guess this is what citations are for: challenging our uninformed assumptions. Thanks for adding them! :-)   (What's that about Citations:IMBETWEEN instead of Citations:imbetween? Yours isn't the first mention I've seen of that, but I think I missed the actual discussion about it. I don't suppose anyone has a link handy?) —Ruakh_TALK 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

im- is not just some easy way of saying "in". it is an English prefix derived from the german "im" for "in". the prefix is applicable when in front of several consonants. "B" is one of them. ie: import, imbed. google has over 14,000 hits. i know that is not a citation but combined with legitimate elements it seems that an admittance of the fluidity of language is appropriate in this case.75.57.98.66 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you wish our article to assert that the use of im- to mean in comes from a recondite German etymon that somehow isn't reflected in print citations, rather than from the straightforward and common process of assimilation, you'll need to provide a source for that assertion. On the face of it, it seems to be a fairly clear example of folk etymology. —Ruakh_TALK

i'll admit an ignorance of direct etymology whether it be german or latin. the point is that in this english language there is an evolution. be the "im-" in "imbetween" derived from an inherited usage or a new usage due to the retro assigned meaning of the prefix or simply the nature of english to turn "in b,p,m" into "imb.., imp..., or imm", it is arbitrary. the fact that the prefix has historically existed by these tendencies (and i say "tendencies" not "rules") is reason enough to acknowledge its occurrence as a natural progression of english. for so long, academies refused to acknowledge the word "can't" and for what purpose? Yes "cannot" also exists but because the language had precedents of the "-n't" abbreviation in other words, it eventually happened due to undeniable presence in common speech (as well as a shift from prescription to description). "Imbetween" exists in usage whether an institution seals approval or not. This is the whole purpose of wiktionary. Web 2.0 is run by a variety of common people with a variety of dialects, unlike the Académie Française which dictates prerequisite, prescription, "correctness" and "existence" to words.75.57.98.66 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly best regarded as a variant of "inbetween" (currently a redirect)? That has a couple orders of magnitude more web hits, and its 851 b.g.c. hits seem mostly not to be scannos. -- Visviva 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a lot of Scottish background & a lot of Pakistani mates, so pls noone take offence in this. I found this on Bigpond world news so the link won't last long. It was in the article, "Musharraf set to relinquish army post By South Asia correspondent Peter Lloyd September 18, 2007 - 9:33PM Source: ABC" where ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was in the following one-sentence paragraph->

Prime Minister Aziz has gone out of his way to scotch reports of a deal between the regime and Ms Bhutto, especially in fixing up corruption cases.

I added the emboldenment. It was followed by:

"I think the cases are still there; there's no question of renewing them. They still exist," he said.

Does 'scotch' relate to stirring stuff up somewhat like in the various types of '-scotch' like 'butterscotch' or 'yoghurtscotch/ yogurtscotch'? It all seems too odd to me, but I'm sure the addition of a verb form for scotch is in order, even if it has a derisive derivation, if the ABC can use it. BTW, my Aussie Schoolmate OED lists the transitive verb, 'scotch', as meaning "put an end to (a rumour)." Thecurran 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say your OED has it about right. Although judging from b.g.c., it is sometimes used more broadly as "to discard an idea" or "to nip in the bud," a sense which blurs into the one we have. Notably it is used as "to use a scotch to block a wheel" -- perhaps the other senses are derived metaphorically from this one? Visviva 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED Online has two distinct entries for the verb scotch, one pertaining to cutting or injuring or quashing, and one pertaining to blocking or impeding or hesitating. It assigns the rumor-squelching sense to the former, but says it is "perh influenced by" the latter. Make of that what you will. —Ruakh_TALK 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Skeat says scotch is etymologically related to score, "to cut slightly". Fowler points out that its meaning in Macbeth is similar. Now it is mostly a would-be clever way of saying "kill". It has nothing to do with Scotland. It's the verb for the noun in hopscotch. I'd call it rare in the USA. --68.46.158.140 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

cum, English preposition, is listed with the sense:

1. Used in constructions such as: an X-cum-Y (for one who is X, to become Y)

   • A bus-cum-greenhouse would be a (probably old) bus that has been converted to a greenhouse.

Is this correct? I always understood the word as meaning essentially "and" or "and simultaneously" (not "becoming").—msh210℠ 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This was the original location of my commentary -- if someone has moved it subsequently, that is hardly fair play. Ernie 06:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it to mean "and", with the strong implication that the part before the cum came first, or was the original intent; hence, a "party-cum-funeral" would be quite different from a "funeral-cum-party". —Ruakh_TALK 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually substitute "with" when I'm trying to figure out what a phrase containing cum means. RJFJR 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a Latin preposition, meaning "with" or "together with" and is used in many British placenames that are typically two villages sharing a parish etc. SemperBlotto 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do NOT agree with this usage — unfortunately, "the horse is already out of the barn" with this expression because this very dictionary is being used as an authoritative source. I received a message in August of 2007 with this bewildering construct used to describe a converted "datacenter." At the beginning of 2008, it has resurfaced in an Ann Coulter article on the origins of Kwanzaa. If we are to use the tired old maxim that "usage commands the language" in conjunction with such a malleable medium as the internet, where standards are derived by usage on an hourly basis, I'm afraid we're on the verge of chaos. This is clearly a confusion between legitimate Latin constructs such as "Summa cum laude" and unrelated contractions of compounded English words such as "workshop-come-to-be-laboratory" where "to-be" can be considered awkward and superfluous (resulting in "workshop-come-laboratory") whose use and meaning has been further obfuscated by expressions indicating arrival sequence as in "Johnny-come-lately." As to lexicography, the registering and recording of this "pseudoneologism" depends on the role assigned to a dictionary versus that assigned to a usage manual. Since this expression has already come into common written and published use, it may be difficult to find reason to omit it as a lexicographical entry. — ernie.cordell 2008Jan05Sat02h31m07sPEST-5 Ernie 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, this construction predates Wiktionary, and the Internet itself for that matter; a bit of searching on Google Books suffices to pull up this 1936 example of "museum-cum-library". —Ruakh_TALK 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The citation is rather small, and there is nothing to rule out the interpretation that I favor "museum-with-library" especially with the addition of Shakespeare collectibles such as old quartos, etc. Ernie 06:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this one from George Bernard Shaw:

He is too good an actor to need that sort of tomfoolery: the effect will be far better if he is a credible mining camp elder-cum-publican.

Mike Dillon 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We have:

Determiner

what

1. (Noun modifier which indicates that the precise identity of the noun is unknown, and is requested.) The speaker is asking to learn the identity of the (noun).

   What time is it?

   What kind of car is that?

Interrogative determiner

what?

1. which; which kind of.

   What shirt are you going to wear?

2. how much; how great (used in an exclamation)

   What talent he has!

   What a talent!

Are the first two of these senses identical? If so, which POS header do we use?—msh210℠ 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They seem identical to me. "Interrogative determiner" is not a standard POS header; both senses should be under "Determiner". —Ruakh_TALK 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now combined.—msh210℠ 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with merging the sections for Pronoun, Relative pronoun, and Interrogative pronoun. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cf. kleptomania, megalomania, drapetomania, mythomania, egomania, and possibly others. One of the following would seem to be true:

• There's an English suffix -mania which deserves an entry.
• These words were all borrowed as whole words.

Does anyone know which?—msh210℠ 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly -mania deserves an entry. (I don't know if those were all borrowed as whole words, but -mania is used formatively in producing nonces, like bushmania, from Bush and -mania, and bushomania, the same but with infix -o-.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

also should have -maniac. RJFJR 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are old Google Books cites and new cites for toxology, all seemingly meaning the same as toxicology, so it's attested, I think. The only question I think is whether it's an error form or an alternative form. (Or whether it was an error and is now common enough.) It was deleted thrice, but I've cited it now.—msh210℠ 22:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That post wasn't clear. The reason I've tea-roomed it is to ask the question (which is hidden in the text above): Is it an error or an alternative form?—msh210℠ 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In raw googles I get 31,800 for toxology and 15,800,000 for toxicology; at least one of those googles was corrected since google build the index. I think it's an error caused by eliding the 'ic' when typing in a hurry/scannos. I didn't find it in a print dictionary; does someone want to see if OED has citations? RJFJR 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add confusion - the OED has it as nonce word meaning "The study of the bow, i.e. archery" - they probably mean toxophily. SemperBlotto 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this sense, which I have cited, is the only legitimate meaning of this word, though it is far less common than the erroneous toxicology spelling. (At least I assume it's erroneous; I can't find any evidence that toxon ever had anything to do with poison). This seems to be a frequent issue with -ic- words; e.g. lexigraphy is a valid word in its own right, but appears far more commonly as an error for lexicography. -- Visviva 06:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I add a definition - would this be more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"mortar and pestle" is about five times as common as "pestle and mortar" (I don't know that I've ever heard the latter before) according to google counts. RJFJR 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - yes, that's what I meant. SemperBlotto 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

mortar and pestle might qualify for an entry, since mortar has more than one sense (including a firearm). When I want to be clear what kind of mortar I mean, I usually say mortar and pestle. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it qualifies as a set phrase. Nobody much says "beans and pork" or "stripes and stars", or "forth and back", so "mortar and pestle" probably ought to have an entry just to record that it almost always goes in that order. --Dvortygirl 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In my (UK) experience, one always talks of "pestle and mortar".62.30.217.57 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Where should we put the AAVE phrase “not be trying to hear”? I think it's always to be used in the negative sense, meaning something like “ignore”, with variations only in the conjugation of (deprecated template usage) be, e.g.:

• I’m not trying to hear that.
• She was not trying to hear him.

So, I think it belongs at “not be trying to hear”, but perhaps it belongs as sense of “try” instead. Comments? Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It should be under try. I assume you mean She was not trying not to hear him. etc. There are a number of similar phrases such as She was trying not to notice him. She was trying not to listen to him. She was trying not to see him. and so on. Algrif 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedians were surprised to encounter the sentence, "She was the only German submarine to be taken into Allied service and to fight for both sides in World War II." They're puzzling over the use of "she" in regards to this ship, since English doesn't generally assign genders to things that don't naturally have them (people, animals, etc.) I've already told them that it is common enough to refer to ships (and occasionally other machines and things) as "she".

Is this just some general, agreed-upon personification, or does it have particular roots, as some of them are speculating, in anglo-saxon and/or nautical tradition? --Dvortygirl 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This custom been with us at least since the 16th century, and no one is entirely sure where it came from. A popular theory is that ships have to be "treated like a lady", but this is probably an after-the fact justification. The pronoun "she" is occasionally applied to other inanimate objects, particularly vehicles and machines. Here is some further reading; nothing terribly illuminating: w:Gender-specific_pronoun#Ships_and_countries, Wisegeek.com, Phrases.org. HTH, -- Visviva 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! very interesting reading. Chabacano.

The meaning of rubbernecking. I think wiktionary has it wrong and see discussion of the word to find out why. Tom Dodson — This unsigned comment was added by Dodsontw (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Conversation is at talk:rubbernecking. Please reply there. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should override list overridden as an additional past participle with overrode? (I'm not sure how to get the linking correct in en-verb to do this). RJFJR 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so...the past participle is only overridden, not overrode. The simple past form is only overrode. (Not sure how that one slipped by.) It should be {{en-verb|overrides|overriding|overrode|overridden}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not sure why I didn't spot that right away. RJFJR 04:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just made this page. The quote is a book which has the term in its title. I used the beginning of the review found at the book’s site as illustrative text. Is this allowable? What format should be used here? Probably simply a better quote can be provided. H. (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a legal term which takes (as far as I know) two forms:

• as a noun, the proceedings were conducted at arms' length or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) at arms length; and
• as an adjective, arms'-length negotiations or maybe armslength or maybe (but seemingly proscribably) arms-length.

We have neither of these (unless that's the meaning of what we have at armslength). Can someone who knows this legal term add whichever terms are used?—msh210℠ 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The noun use is usually spelled arm's length (as in "the length of an arm"); we have at arm's length, and perhaps arm's length should redirect to it. (And it's not just a legal term, by the way; maybe it's a regional thing, but I hear it fairly often in normal contexts.) I'm not sure which alternatively-punctuated renditions warrant inclusion, nor which of these are "alternative __s" and which are "mis__s". As for the adjective sense, I really have no idea; it's not a usage I'm used to. I'd guess this is actually just an attributive use of the noun, which would imply that it should be written arm's-length, but I make no promises. —Ruakh_TALK 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct legal/financial sense, referring to the relationship between two independent economic actors. See w:Arm's length and w:Arm's length principle; Googling for "arm's length price" or "arm's length transaction" will also turn up a fair number of hits. I believe this is also part of a GAAP specification of some kind ... It was part of some real estate documentation I translated recently, but I can't recall the details, except that "arm's length principle" is rendered in Korean (and probably many other languages) as "independent company principle." -- Visviva 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of speech would f**k, s**t, c**t, w**k etc. be? --Gapper Rapper 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say multiple, depending on how they can be used. F**k is famous for being used in most parts of speech (or infmaous?). S**t can be verb, noun, adjective. Is exclamation at POS? RJFJR 04:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally exclamation refers to the sentence, and interjection to the word. We do buck tradition about a lot of things, but this isn't one of them. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant interjection (thank you), so that POS too. RJFJR 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the term expletive? Thecurran 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In linguistics, expletive is a technical term that applies to these words in only some of their uses — and not the uses you might expect. It's misleading to use it in the non–term-of-art sense, but it's also misleading to use it in the non-widely-known term-of-art sense, so I'd recommend that we avoid it altogether. —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

what is the word for untechnical?

General, lay, popular. "A popular treatment of the subject", "a lay audience".—msh210℠ 12:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There's still a {'{'rft'}'} tag on Anglosphere. Is it still under contention whether or not it conforms to CFI? Thecurran

I'm fishing for the correct collective term for the English-using/ English-affected communities of the world; both large and small. Similar terms include: Anglosphere, Anglophonia, Anglophonie, English/ British/ English-speaking community/ diaspora/ w:sprachbund/ sprachwelt/ world, the Commonwealth of Nations, &c. Any bytes? ;) Thecurran 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The TR discussion referred to only involved two users with one paragraph each. Granted, they're both paramount editors/ admins but it feels silly to continue the {'{rft}'} when one definition comprises the other.

Personally, I think there should be two meanings listed, with the first one being linguistic only, as Anglo- can refer to 'en#English', 'Anglo-Saxon#English', 'GB-England', or 'GB' (usu. only in naming of international relationships, &c.), but the last 2, while connecting to much of the anglosphere via the Commonwealth of Nations, do not connect so with the US, a large part of the anglosphere. I would make the second definition include the people culturally, demographically, economically, geographically, or politically related to the first linguistically defined anglosphere.

BTW, I think the way anglo- refers to GB in the names of alliances, battles, events, treaties, &c should be included on the page for that entry, but as a bit of a noob, I won't make the change until the RFT on anglosphere ends. Thecurran 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold! Edit, and have no fear. :-) (This is an open wiki, even if *cough* certain respected participants *cough* tend to forget this fact.) In any case, {{rft}} isn't a big deal like {{rfd}} -- it just means someone is looking for information or input of some kind -- so there's no need to be especially cautious.

Re your specific points:

1. Term: "Anglosphere" does carry this meaning, but for the record "English-speaking world" is about 3x more common online.

2. Split: I'm skeptical of a separate meaning; I think "Anglosphere" basically means "English-speaking world" and the political aspect just reflects the "as we know, most of these countries are stable democracies" aspect. But if you can find citations for a second sense, please add it.

3. Anglo-: I agree.

See ya 'round! -- Visviva 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I view an "rft" as a simple question, not necessarily needing cleanup or verification (unless someone else echoes the question themselves.) "Be Bold" is definitely the right frame of mind, for dealing with forgotten rft's. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the name for the symbol ☜, used in publications?—msh210℠ 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

☜ → %E2%98%9C → 1110 0010 1001 1000 1001 1100 → 0010 01 1000 01 1100 → 0010 0110 0001 1100 → U+261C → WHITE LEFT POINTING INDEX; ah, the joys of UTF-8. :-)   At least, that's its name in the Unicode spec — see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf — printers might have a shorter name for it. —Ruakh_TALK 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter is the one I seek. I know it has a name.—msh210℠ 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

An anon wrote the following at Talk:infraspanatus:

iTS A MUSCLE IN THE BACK, FURTHER FUNCTION OF THE MUSCLE NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

There are very few hits at google:infraspanatus, so I'm not sure whether it's a typo. Does anyone know? Rod (A. Smith) 00:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a typo for infraspinatus. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added quite some info to the Dutch part, would be glad if a native speaker could proofread. H. (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done this, and made some adjustments. Feel free to leave me a message if you want me to look at other entries. S Sepp 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

can u give me the sigle word for person having sex with the dead?

Sick. -- Visviva 04:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think he's looking for the noun, no? So, sicko. ;-) Also, necrophiliac. —Ruakh_TALK 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

necrophilia is pretty close, though sense 1:pathological attraction to dead bodies, just refers to attraction not to having sex. RJFJR 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the definition of pound to define it as a unit of "weight" not "mass". Unfortunately (I would say) Wikipedia in (w:Pound (mass)) says a unit of mass (sometimes called 'weight' in everyday parlance). Put simply, all terrestrial systems measure weight (a body's attraction to the Earth) and not mass (the quantity of matter in a body). A brief look at a few dictionaries all use the word weight in their the principal definitions. Are there any comments? —Saltmarsh^Talk 07:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is reasonable on the face of it; mass and weight are equivalent in most terrestrial contexts, and "weight" is certainly the more common term in everyday use. But kilogram is defined as a unit of mass... Would you say that should be changed, or are SI units not terrestrial?  ;-) -- Visviva 07:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Off the cuff (without referral elsewhere) the kilogram is a unit of "mass" and "weight", whereas for all common purposes lbs & ozs are only used for weighing. —Saltmarsh^Talk 08:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense. So kilogram should have an additional sense (or maybe just a usage note). -- Visviva 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add that although science/physics draws a strict distinction between weight and mass, that does not mean they aren't more interchangeable in colloquial use, older forms of English, etc. Widsith 08:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. For (and only for) the precise physics sense of the terms, the pound should be defined as a unit of weight and the kilogram as one of mass. I'm having a hard time finding references to back this up, but in an introductory physics class I took, the instructor was very insistent that a kilogram is a unit of mass but a pound is one of weight. In the SI system, weight is properly measured in newtons. I'm pretty sure there is a proper unit of mass in the Imperial system, but I don't remember its name. Rod (A. Smith) 08:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha! It's slug. Rod (A. Smith) 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

American engineers, when not using SI, don't actually use slug so much; rather, we acknowledge that pound (lb) is properly a unit of force, but nonetheless use it for both mass and force, or when we're feeling particularly precise, use pound-mass (lb-m or lbm) and pound-force (lb-f or lbf), with 1 lb-f = 1 lb-m × g. (Don't get me wrong; I have seen slug used, and I myself have even used it before. But it's not terribly common, and not generally convenient.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen "lb" used as 454g and "lbf" used as 4.45N.. the whole thing gives me a headache. (Incidentally, this is why we don't have a w:Mars Climate Orbiter) Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Our entries should definitely acknowledge the "proper" uses of these terms (assuming we can figure out what "proper" is wrt Imperial/Customary measurements). However, we can't avoid the fact that mass and weight are used almost interchangeably in practice, by lots of people who really ought to know better: "mass in pounds", "weight in kilograms". -- Visviva 08:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Google Scholar does better on pounds, but much worse on kilograms ; this is partly due to a boilerplate definition of the body mass index.

Do we have good context labels for these? I think I've seen a contrast drawn between, say, "zoology" and "colloquial", but "colloquial" is inaccurate or prescriptive when used this way. How about {{non-technical}} or something? —Ruakh_TALK 15:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, "non-technical" might also be inaccurate or prescriptive in this case: people do misuse these terms in technical contexts. Perhaps we'll need to fall back on {{proscribed}}? —Ruakh_TALK 15:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram has a non-SI, everyday meaning equivalent to weight, especially in weightlifting; I have never seen an Olympics telecast describe the weight lifted in the proper SI units of Newtons. Though, technically, something that "weighs" 100 kg actually has a mass of 100kg. I think a thorough Usge note is in order here. --EncycloPetey 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people mix these up because whether you ask for half a kilo of peas or a pound of peas, you get about the same amount of peas. Cynewulf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consider the hapless reader purchasing peas on the moon! Rod (A. Smith) 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the matter will get straightened out until we have a lunar colony, but we can certainly try to explain things for future astronauts. Cynewulf 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made an attempt at kilogram; what do y'all think? If this is how we want to handle it, then similar definitions and tags and usage notes will be need to be crafted for various other entries affected by this issue. —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good from here. Maybe could be templated? -- Visviva 05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the word you are looking for is kilopond. It was the unit of "weight" in the gravitational metric systems, equivalent to 1 Kgr of "mass". I think it has not been in use since 1977. --flyax 11:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

what is the meanning

Look up registered and dietician. --EncycloPetey 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should a frog in one's throat be moved to frog in one's throat? --EncycloPetey 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection; we should probably have a general policy of article-stripping. However, this phrase is overwhelmingly used with the indefinite article; the exact phrase "a frog in my throat" accounts for about 96% of web hits and 75% of book hits for "frog in my throat", with most of the others being something like "a frog in my throat." If it's moved, the usage notes should probably mention this. -- Visviva 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect this could turn up as, "Hope you recovered from that frog in your throat." And I agree that a general policy of article stripping looks like a good idea, with room for exceptions if they can be justified on a case-by-case basis. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)