Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/May

SC = pronounced “sh” before ae, oe, e, i or y, and elsewhere

Many of the "SC" words mistakingly show "SK" in the pronunciation.

Interestingly, a word such as "scisco" uses both pronunciations because "SC" occurs at the beginning before an and then "SC" occurs before an

So, when you say "scisco" it is pronounced "SHE-SKO" — This unsigned comment was added by 71.11.179.165 (talk) at 08:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC).

This is an Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Classically <sc> was always pronounced /sk/. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Latin pronunciation is that pronunciation changes over time, and Latin has been spoken for at least a couple thousand years. As ObsequiousNewt says, during the Classical period, when Latin was a major living language with lots of native first-language speakers, the c in sc was always a k sound. I'm sure there was variation even then, but that seems to have been the standard. Since then, the pronunciation has changed differently in different regions. Wikipedia has several entire articles on this issue, but see w:Latin regional pronunciation for a nice table showing many of the differences. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who's good at Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform and who can add the missing Akkadian terms to Γελλώ#Etymology? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"the nationalist movements of the 19th and 20th centuries recruited cadres of hacks to write potted histories of their nations' timeless values and glorious pasts". p. 641 "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker — This unsigned comment was added by Paulcbry (talk • contribs) at 10:58, 2 May 2015.

@Paulcbry: The Oxford English Dictionary entry “potted, adj.¹” (third edition, December 2006), under sense 3.a., has “Of a piece of information, work of literature, historical or descriptive account, etc.: put into a short and easily assimilable form; condensed, summarized, abridged.”, which seems to fit Pinker’s use here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Some dictionaries have a similar, but pejorative sense: "superficial"

AHD has seven senses vs our one:

1. a. Placed in a pot: potted candles.

   b. Grown in a pot: potted plants.

2. Preserved in a pot, can, or jar: potted meat.
3. (informal) Presenting information in a simplified or abridged form: a potted history of Britain.
4. Recorded or taped for repeated use: potted music.
5. Unoriginal or hackneyed: potted prose.
6. {slang) Drunk or intoxicated.

I suppose senses 1a, 1b, and 2 are really in out verb PoS, defined at pot#Verb. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Yes, I suppose the AHD's sense 5 is the most likely, on re-examination, especially given the "cadres of hacks" bit. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked for the word "tjod" on major Norweigan websites but I did not find anything, the Norwegian Wikipedia has no article on it (could redirect to folkeslag or something).

I might be wrong but does the word belong to any of the qualifiers above (dated, archaic or obsolete)? — This unsigned comment was added by Dreysman (talk • contribs) at 14:13, 2 May 2015.

I don't speak Norwegian, but I notice that this dictionary seems to mark it as Nynorsk. If so, it could be current in Nynorsk but obsolete (or something else) in Bokmål. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we find an example of שַׁבָּת meaning "week" in the Talmud? — This unsigned comment was added by 129.93.5.131 (talk) at 14:21, 2 May 2015.

The pronunciation given is the one provided by Duden and hence official for Germany. But for the reality of the language, my gut feeling is that every German would consider it wrong. I just wanted to ask if anyone has ever heard it said like that at all (by native speakers). _Korn (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's wrong because there is no unique German pronounciation, although the second z is commonly pronounced like a voiced s in colloquial speech. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know. I don't often say this word. But yeah is more common. (I might even have written it out as lizensieren, maybe.) We should add that as an alternative pronunciation. Kolmiel (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go as far as inserting it as the sole pronunciation and putting the official one into a usage note. I was absolutely baffled to find out that it's not spelled 'lizensieren'. _Korn (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is described as a British alternative spelling. Can I say (as a British (ex-) computer programmer) that I think it is a misspelling. Is there any evidence one way or another? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's got about the frequency ratio of 10 in Google Ngram Viewer, British corpus, (computer programme*10),computer program. That does not suggest misspelling but rather rare alternative spelling to me. I think {{rare form of}} could be used. The current markup is positively misleading since it suggests that the form is the British mainstream form. I encourage you to place {{rare form of}} to the entry; I would do it myself, but I actually hate revert wars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My instincts are in accord with SemperBlotto's here. I think I read somewhere that, in British English, standard usage is "computer program", but "television programme", "academic programme", etc. (basically, the computing sense is spelt program and every other sense is spelt programme). The most recent ratio of computer program:computer programme is 0.0000823434%:0.0000042311% or about 19½:1; however, Dan Polansky's Ngram shows use of computer programme peaking in 1971 and then declining sharply after 1978, whereas use of computer program peaked in 1986 and thereafter similarly declined. My thinking is that use of program in the computing sense continued to predominate over such use of programme thereafter, too, but that it became less and less necessary over time to include the computer qualifier, owing to increasing public familiarity with computers in general. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget my search multipled "programme" by factor 10. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: No confusion on my part. You had the overall ratio at 10:1; I just had the most recent ratio a ~19½:1. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the context label "dated" here. I certainly agree with the above statements that we Brits use programme in non-computing contexts, and that the two-word form is dying out. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a search in which I removed the 10 multiplier and narrowed it down to 1950-2000, still in British corpus. In this report, we can see the only period through which "computer programme" outperformed "computer program": shortly around 1960. To me, "rare" seems to be the best qualifier, better than "dated". I might have confused you by using the 10 multiplier in the previous GNV report. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Computer Programme was actually the punning title of a 1980s British TV show about home computing. AFAIK, it is a perfectly acceptable, though less common and dated, form. Chambers Dictionary agrees. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

But as you said, it was a pun; spelling "programme" was probably used to ambiguously mean the show itself, hence TV programme, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Then why does Chambers say it's valid? Anyway, puns can use the same spelling: "Mary Rose sat on a pin; Mary rose". Equinox ◑ 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The spelling is valid, for sure, and plentifully attested, but rather rare per the above corpus evidence. It's not a misspelling by my lights. The current markup is "(British) Alternative form of computer program", and that looks like it is the British variant of a U.S. spelling, which is positively misleading, IMHO, since the overwhelmingly used British variant is identical to the U.S. variant. I have now placed "rare form of" to the entry; how does that look? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The OED (3rd ed., June 2007) entry “programme | program, n.” has, directly underneath the etymology section, “The more common earlier (and predominantly Scottish) form program was retained by Scott, Carlyle, Hamilton, and others, even after the borrowing of senses directly from French in the late 18th cent. and early 19th cent.; it conforms to the usual English representation of Greek -γραμμα, in e.g. etc. The influence of French programme led to the predominance of this spelling in the 19th cent. The forms programme and program have since become established as the standard British and U.S. spellings respectively, with the exception that program is usual everywhere in senses relating to computing.” — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

{{form of|rare form or misspelling|computer program|lang=en}}. There's simply no line you can draw in this case (any many other cases) between a common misspelling and a less common alternative form. I quite like misspelling for this one though. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: I agree with your solution. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, a couple of weeks ago I saw an article in the UK's Daily Telegraph that talked about a computer "programme", in relation to Java. Equinox ◑ 02:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How are Thai words for "museum" -พิพิธภัณฑ์ (pí-pít-tá-pan) and พิพิธภัณฑสถาน (pí-pít-tá-pan-tá-sà-tǎan) pronounced? Various dictionaries either transliterate the "ภั" portion or skip it. Using Thai2English transliteration scheme, is it "pí-pít-pan" or "pí-pít-tá-pan" or both readings are possible? Will the rule be also applicable to พิพิธภัณฑสถาน as well "pí-pít-(tá-)pan-tót-sà-tăan"? Calling @Stephen G. Brown for assistance, please. There seems to be no consistency in dictionaries and textbooks about this word (and others) and textbooks don't mention this irregularity - possibly silent ภั (tá). (I am getting much more comfortable with the Thai script but there are some cases that baffle me and I have no fluency as for the tones but it's available in dictionaries and textbooks, so I rely on them). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

พิพิธภัณฑ์ (pí-pít-tá-pan) is pronounced pí’píttápan. ภั is not the problem...it is pronounced pa. The problem is whether ธ (tɔɔ) has a vowel. In fact, it does. Apparently some dictionaries use a transliteration program such as Lua to guess at transliterations, and the guesses are often incorrect. If you write the word in phonetic Thai, it is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน (pí’-pít-tá-pan).

พิพิธภัณฑสถาน (pí-pít-tá-pan-tá-sà-tǎan) is พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน-ทะ-สะ-ถาน (pí’-pít-tá-pan-tá-sà-tăan, or pípíttápantásàtăan). Note: the vowel ◌ั is an a. If the ◌ั were not written over the ภ (pɔɔ), it would be pronounced po. You don’t need the hyphens. The hyphens only show the end/beginning of individual letters. The hyphens do not mean anything in regard to pronunciation or meaning. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Stephen! Oops, sorry for the confusion, I have incorrectly broken up the syllables and consonants. So, this is a case when an unwritten vowel is in the middle of a word - I've seen cases when two such syllables occur in a row but it's kind of predictable because there is a limited set of syllable onsets. There is also a word พิพิธ (pí-pít) "various" where ธ (tɔɔ) is the final and is pronounced as clipped "t" and พิพิธภัณฑ์ can be misread as พิพิธ + ภัณฑ์ (pan) (pí-pít pan) - "various products/items". It seems, one just need to know how to read this word, because ธ can be a final, not a syllable with an unwritten vowel. Here it's unpredictable, isn't it?

I prefer hyphens because they help breaking up (usually meaningful) syllables and is quite common - thai2english.com uses hyphens, thai-language.com uses spaces. Thai script being so complicated, any simplification just makes it easier to read and understand. Don't you think? BTW, our Burmese transliteration uses solid forms, Lao - uses spaces between syllables. I find the latter easier, besides, Lao is close to Thai.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is unpredictable. It’s probable that some transliteration programs use a Thai spellchecker to determine the words, and since พิพิธ (pípít) can be a separate word, it makes this mistake.

And yes, it is common to see hyphens used, because of the Thai tradition of using hyphens to mark syllables in phonemic/phonetic Thai. It’s like the English habit of using the period for the same purpose: pro.nun.ci.a.tion. English uses the period instead of the hyphen because there are a lot of words that are spelled with a hyphen (quick-thinking). But the separation of Thai syllables with hyphens is not meaningful, it is merely a Thai habit that indicates phonetic spelling. Breaking Thai up with a lot of hyphens is the same as breaking up Japanese, Arabic, or Russian transliterations with hyphens. Arabic: mu-nā-ẓa-rat al-ḥu-rūf al-ʻa-ra-bī-yah. Japanese: ju-n-i-chi-ro-u. Russian: So-yuz So-vet-skikh So-tsi-a-li-sti-che-skikh Res-pu-blik. It is actually much easier to read transliterated Arabic, Japanese, Russian, and Thai without the hyphens. Arabic: munāẓarat al-ḥurūf al-ʻarabīyah. Japanese: Jun’ichirō. Russian: Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik. Thai: pípíttápan.

The problem with using spaces between syllables, as Lao transliteration does, is that you cannot know which syllables go together to make a word. It is not helpful. Spaces should be used in transliteration to delimit words, and hyphens should be used to show a connection between tightly bound words, as in Arabic al-ḥurūf, or English ping-pong. But regular words should not be broken up by hyphens (I’m only talking about Romanizations for English speakers. Using hyphens for phonetic Thai (พิ-พิด-ทะ-พัน) is helpful to Thai speakers because it marks the text as a phonetic spelling...without the hyphens, Thai speakers would be confused by พิพิดทะพัน, which appears to be a regular word). —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity you don't like hyphens in Thai. Now I got used to them. While I see your point I consider Thai a mostly monosyllabic language (while Chinese lects are more so but standard pinyin doesn't use hyphens extensively). Perhaps, it's just because I'm less confident with Thai and there are so many romanisations, I chose the one I feel more comfortable with. My pocket dictionary - Benjawan Poomsan Becker uses hyphens too. Only one book I have uses solid spellings as you suggested - "Colloquial Thai" but it's mostly in romanised Thai - good for learning pronunciation but not enough exposure to the script. I might switch to your recommended method of romanisation (no hyphens), we have a mess with the romanisation of Thai, anyway and I am not sure how much Thai content I'm going to add yet. :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how the use of hyphens might make someone feel that Thai is monosyllabic. To me, Thai is polysyllabic. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant the core native Thai vocabulary with distinct meanings. Of course modern Thai has lots of compound words and layers of borrowings from Sanskrit, English, etc. Even Chinese and Vietnamese are no longer monosyllabic but it still makes sense to break up the majority of native words into meaningful syllables. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown I forgot to mention that there could be problems with the transliteration of words like มะพร้าว (má-práao) without the hyphen. "mápráao" would make it unclear if "p" (also is the final or a part of the consonant cluster - two different pronunciations. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course. In words such as that, a hyphen is useful. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown Another question, please. Is it just a traditional spelling letter in อยู่ (yòo) or a rule I have missed? Letter อ is always silent at the beginning of a syllable but there should be a vowel after it but here, it makes no difference. Just "ยู่" would have the same pronunciation and would be a correct spelling(?). The phonetic respelling, however, uses "หฺยู่" (on www.thai2english.com). So, low class letter ย is turned into a high class letter by adding ห in front of it and with a live syllable we get a low tone as a result. Is อ used in the same way as ห in some cases - to turn low class consonants into a high class? Also, what's the purpose of the small diacritic phinthu (like a small cross under ห (หฺ)? It seems rare. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it’s considered a rule, but it only affects four words. The four words where silent mid-class อ leads low-class ย into mid-class tone rules are: อย่า (yàa, “don’t”), อยาก (yàak, “desire”), อย่าง (yàang, “sort, type”), and อยู่ (yòo, “stay”).

Since อ is mid-class, it cannot be used to make high-class, as far as I know. You can force the high-class consonant function with a silent leading ห, as in the following words: หมา (măa, “dog”), หนู (nŏo, “rat, mouse”).

พินทุ (phinthu, ◌ฺ) is used like virama in Pali words. It can also be used to mark syllables. Phinthu means dot, from Sanskrit बिन्दु (bindu). —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Stephen. So, ย in อยู่ is turned into a mid-class, not high class consonant? Both mid- and high consonants have a low tone with the low tone marker ◌่ in the live syllable, so it's not obvious to me, which class it belongs to. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mid-class. The rules for tones and the way they are written makes them seem complicated. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

the current page רביצין claims that it's a normal feminized (-in) form of reb, but the explanation for the affrication is dubious. I don't know the policy on wiktionary wrt giving citations for etymologies but one should be found here, I will contact the original editor of this page toward that end. — This unsigned comment was added by Telmac (talk • contribs) at 16:23, 3 May 2015.

I really wanted to RFV this, but as it currently only exists as a derived term in karma I thought it best to raise it here first. If there is a way to RFV this could someone please move it there for me? All the citations I looked at either had it in italics, or are otherwise mentiony so I would challenge whether this exists in English. Also, the proper spelling seems to have a diacritic on the s. SpinningSpark 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding a small amount of use of the alternative spelling dushkarma. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Two questions here;

1. The c-cedilla is said by Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia to derive from Z itself. Everyone else says that it came from C itself being subscripted with Z and then evolving from there. Which origin is correct?

2. Wikipedia and one published source says that Phi probably came from obsolete Greek letter Qoppa, and thus related to our letter Q. This can be explained by observing PIE -> Greek sound changes (i.e. /kw/ -> /p/). Every other source I've seen ignores such a claim and says that the Greeks pulled it out of their own minds. Is Wikipedia's statement an overextrapolation of the Proto-Indo-European sound shifts or is it valid?

Hillcrest98 (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ç derives from a ligature between C and Z (Ꝣ). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I had guessed so. What may have caused the error on WP? Hillcrest98 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP is edited by human beings. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was looking in Category:English articles* and found 𐑞. Do we have a rule on Shavian in mainspace? Should this be changed from article to just letter--there's more of an argument for keeping Shavian letters in mainspace then words spelled in Shavian, given as there's about two publications in Shavian.

• Certainly shows the limitations of a category, given that it lumps standard English articles in with Anglicized foreign words, foreignized English words and dialectal variants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We define the noun marine as "a member of a marine corps"; we define marine corps as "a military organization of marines who are trained and equipped to fight on or from ships". A user who didn't already know what a marine was still wouldn't know after reading these definitions, and would probably get the impression that there are some marines who are not "trained and equipped to fight on or from ships", but that those marines do not form a marine corps. I know virtually nothing about the military, but I suspect that isn't the case. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have expanded the definition of marine to the best of my understanding. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

'seems to me that many of the defs should be moved to the uncap'd corinthian. 'was about to do it meself, but then i get confused about the capitalisation of an adjective and such, English not being my native language. Is anyone up to it ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to add a sarcastic usage for dürfen (“may”), but I don't want it tagged RFD instantly. The word is used with a meaning 'to have to do something because of things oneself is not responsible for' (in all the possible ways this phrase can be read). This usage is highly idiomatic and not subject to the usual rules of sarcasm. It is acceptable in higher levels of formality than normal sarcasm and does not simply imply that the opposite of the word is meant but the opposite because of a specific reason. It is also used with a plainer tone of voice than average sarcasm, which can be applied to dürfen as well, giving a meaning of 'being ordered to', expressing anger. Furthermore it contrasts with müssen (“must”), which does not specify why one must do something, but is more often used for responsibilities one chose or is given justly. Any proposals how to implement that? Korn (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Jetzt darf ich das hier alles wieder einsortieren!" Of course, that's a normal sense and you should just add it. There's no reason to question a thing like this that is so normal. Why not simply:

(said with a sarcastic undertone) to have to, must, implying that the obligation is due to a fault by someone else

Or if you think the tone is not really sarcastic (of which I'm not so sure) then just (said with a certain tone). We won't be able to sufficiently define that tone anyway. Kolmiel (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I now see why you're asking this question. You need to make sure that this "idiomatic" sarcasm, because not every word can be added with a sarcastic sense that it may have. But I agree that this is a thing worth adding: first, because it's so common; and second, because as you say it conveys a very special meaning that is not just sarcastic but defined... So definitely add it, whether you find a really good tag or not. Kolmiel (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This entry is defined as an SI unit of 100g. Strictly speaking that is incorrect. A 'metric unit of 100g' would be correct. The SI system did away with all the decimal subdivisions other than factors of 1000. So kg, g and mg are SI, but hg, dg are not. The definition uses an SI template and I do not know how to change that other than avoiding using the template

Gunmhoine (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did the SI system include hectograms before it did away with the subdivisions? If so, it might be considered historical or obsolete, but still be valid- we're not limited to the present meanings. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

SI is a species of metric dating from no earlier than 1947. It's a metric unit. SI still preserves hecto- (hectare, hectopascal), but not myria- (10,000). Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I just expanded the etymology of capital#English using information from the Macquarie Dictionary. According to the dictionary it entered Middle English directly from Latin. Is this enough to remove the stub category? Danielklein (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Found a 10-year-old copyvio here which i undid here. Random House 1987 has it such: "The ropes, chains, etc., employed to support and work the masts, yards, sails, etc., on a ship." --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching Roman Polanski's Carnage and I just heard Jodie Foster's character say "the odour of Cronus is killing me", what does this mean, and how can we include this sense on Wiktionary (if it is attestable)? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but, according to a screenplay online, it's "That smell of Kronos is killing me!" Equinox ◑ 11:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, the Greek god/titan w:Cronus is sometimes associated with time, and then there's the whole thing about devouring his children. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a brand of cologne. This blog post discusses it: . Equinox ◑ 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How is the (II) to be pronounced in this English term? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Like two. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't II merit a link in such entries and a definition at II? DCDuring TALK 14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (p.s. It is vanishingly rare to hear such terms pronounced.)

I suppose I, III, IV, V, and VI at least need similar definitions. I don't know how high this pattern goes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

VIII is the highest generally accepted, but higher states are theoretically possible, and there are scientific papers suggesting the discovery of IX states. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do we use the pronunciation beɪˈdʒɪŋ in the IP and audio file? Shouldn't it be pronounced piːˈkɪŋ? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I fixed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it was due to an editor assuming that Peking is exactly a different spelling of what we now say Beijing instead of a spelling based on some other basis (that is, in this case, a different "dialect" of Chinese), and thus inserted the "Beijing" pronunciation. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, how do you translate "be" into Georgian? Translate.ge and Wikipedia say that this word is the answer. So does ka-WT.

This page has been troublesome to comprehend. There was a conjugation table at the beginning, but Mglovesfun removed it to use a template instead. But then Dixtosa removed every reference to this word ever being a verb and changed it into a plain noun.

And look at ka-WT's version.

I am very confused. Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think you can just translate be into Georgian? It's a small function word; those frequently don't have a trivial translation. You need to pick up a grammar of Georgian instead of a dictionary if you need to know something like that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hillcrest98 If you haven't checked, User:Dixtosa is a native Georgian speaker, so he must know what is right with this term, in any case, he knows better than us and there is very little info available on the Georgian grammar on the web. The lemma for Georgian verbs seems a verbal noun, anyway. You might also want to look at არის (aris, “to be”) and "is" (third person singular) - ეს რა არის? (es ra aris?, “what is that?”), usually replaced with final particle (copula?) "ა (a)". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if this is never intransitive. Does anybody have a resource to confirm its pure transitivity? --Romanophile (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is only intransitive. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The entry was originally created with an "intransitive" label. It was changed with this edit, which may have been a simple mistake. @Lo Ximiendo, did you accidentally change the label from intransitive to transitive, or do you know something about Friulian that we don't? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed it back to intransitive. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since 2004 this has been displayed as English, but italicized.

If it is English, why is it italicized? Why isn't it, for example, non-standard French? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It’s French, although somewhat mangled. Compare qué será, será. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

chacun à son goût may be used in a French sentence (ils ont décoré leur chambre, chacun à son goût), but is not a set phrase. The set phrase is chacun son goût (à chacun son goût is less common). Lmaltier (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just today, I loaded the page for 呢, and its usage notes section had a couple mistakes. I fixed that 著 was said to be the same in simplified and traditional when in the usage of the sentence the simplified character is 着, then I tried to fix the pinyin for it, which is zhe and not zhù. The bold parts in the pinyin are no loger bold, and the simplified characters I gave in the code were simply ignored. How do I get that bold in place and how do I put that 着 in place of that 著 in the simplified characters? For now, the code is:

{ {zh-usex|我們 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '著' ' ' 漢語 課 ' ' '呢' ' '。|simpl=我们 ' ' '正在' ' ' 上 ' ' '着' ' ' 汉语 课 ' ' '呢' ' '。|tr=Wǒmen ' ' 'zhèngzài' ' ' shàng' ' 'zhe' ' ' Hànyǔ kè ' ' 'ne' ' '.|We ' ' 'are' ' ' attend' ' 'ing' ' ' a Chinese lesson}}

and renders as follows:

我們正在上著漢語課呢。
我们正在上著汉语课呢。

Wǒmen zhèngzài shàngzhe Hànyǔ kè ne.

We are attending a Chinese lesson

As you can see, lots of quote marks (') are being ignored, and the "simpl=" part too. Now, I only guessed "simpl", so that part being ignored is probably my error, because I am a complete newbie in Wiki templates, but why are the 's ignored? And how do I fix these problems and get the parts in triple 's to be bold and the simplified characters to be correct? MGorrone (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@MGorrone The problem is fixed. To address this, you need to see the documentation for {{zh-usex}}. In a complex case like this one, when both the simplified form and the pinyin need to be supplied (hard-coded) {zhe} notation is used, which fixes the conversion of 著 to have 着 as its simplified form and "zhe" as its pinyin reading in this particular case. |simpl= is ignored because this parameter simply doesn't exist. :)

This kind of errors happen but are not frequent, thanks for spotting! :)--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

At 借 we are missing data for character 燭 - pinyin "zhú" and its simplified form 烛. I have fixed it temporarily with this - {zhú}:

她借著閃爍的燭光讀書。
她借着闪烁的烛光读书。

Tā jiè zhe shǎnshuò de zhúguāng dúshū.

She was reading by the flickering light of the candle.

I will fix the module later (for character 燭), when I have time (I'm not very skilled with Lua but I know this far, I think). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspected the simpl= parameter didn't exist in fact: chances of guessing a parameter right are epsilon :). Is there a parameter for giving simplified characters explicitly in that module, besides the {…} notation? MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Just use the documentation. That notation is for fixing two things in one -trad./simp conversion and hanzi/pinyin conversion. If you need just one, use CHAR{PINYIN} for pinyin and TCHAR for trad. to simp. It has to follow immediately the character in question. Template {{zh-l}} converts trad. to simp. automatically but you need to use / + simp. character to hard code simplified characters. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. As I was on the Wiktionary to see the above messages and see the code edits, I stumbled upon the page for 藉, which was lacking definitions. I went on to the MDBG dictionary () and added definitions to the page taking from there. Could someone verify those definitions and maybe add usage examples? Thanks. MGorrone (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this term US-specific? Here in New Zealand, the legal definition of murder is slightly different - premeditation does not play as big a role. — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs) at 20:45, 9 May 2015.

• Yes. I'm pretty sure this is a US term. In the UK we have murder and manslaughter. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the pronunciation given correct? Is the j of this word really pronounced /l/? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Danish J is uniformly . I was checking whether it's a copy error from lag, but it doesn't seem so. It's not Sampa either, it's unlikely a slip on the keyboard. Very odd. _Korn (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It was added (February 28, 2009) by Leolarsen, a native speaker, and his next edit was a tweak to the pronunciation of jage- no l there. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium#Is the Persian قاپیدن (qapidan) a cognate of the Latin capiō?.

A user has added the pronunciation /mɒlt/ to these, tagging it "UK". Quite apart from the fact that "UK" is meaningless in a pronunciation section (there being dozens of different accents spoken across the UK), I can't find /mɒlt/ listed in any British dictionary. The closest I can find is in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, where it indicates a realization of /əʊ/ as before in a syllable coda. But I can't find any evidence for /mɒlt/ with the short monophthong of doll anywhere. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's how I pronounce it (Melbourne, Australia), if that helps. (At least, doll and molt have a vowel in common for me.) --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 11:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is that what the Macquarie Dictionary says for Australian English? Over the years I've grown to be very skeptical of people's own intuitions about how they say things (including my own). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yay for university subscriptions. Macquarie says:

• doll /dɒl/
• molt /moʊlt/.

And yet the proscribed spelling doesn't match mine. My pronunciation is a monophthong as near as I can make it. I haven't run my own pronunciation past a phonological analysis, though, to be fair. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 12:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think in Northern England ] invalid IPA characters (]) is the usual pronunciation. It rhymes with fault. The UK audio file on fault is fine but Southern. From the accent I'd say Bristol. But it's not how we pronounce it in the North. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If it rhymes with fault, then it's , not , right? Homophonous with malt? Same vowel as thought, different vowel from lot? Is it a complete merger, or just for this word? In other words, do bolt, colt, dolt, jolt also rhyme with fault? And is it verifiable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

For me, bolt, colt, dolt, jolt and fault are all rhymes. Thought has a different vowel. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 21:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't pronounce it , no. Moult and lot for me have different vowel sounds, but I don't know what to call them. Catsidhe where are you from? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, Melbourne, Australia. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is how I pronounce it, correctly or otherwise. Chambers does not have this pronounciation, but only the diphthong. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How does it differ from malt for you, if at all? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They're about the same: /mɒlt/. "Malt" might be slightly closer to "mɔlt"... hard to say. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you're not even sure whether or not they're homophones illustrates beautifully why I prefer to rely on published dictionaries for pronunciation information rather than users' introspection. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For me they are exact homophones. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Angr by your own admission there are lots of accents in the UK. Dictionaries generally cover upperclass southern accents. definitely exists if that helps. And I do pronounce it with the same vowel as lot, it just took me ages to work out what the vowel of moult is because it sort of runs into the l. So I tried just saying mo (the bit before the l) and found that it has the same vowel as lot. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There are other sources than dictionaries, though. Linguistic descriptions of middle- and working-class accents and of Northern England accents that explain what phonemic mergers have taken place compared to the upper-class Southern accents would be fine too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think that + unvoiced stop is very rare in English – the long vowel makes you expect a voiced consonant. Compare bowled / bolt, cold / colt, fold / fault, hold / holt, old / alt-, sold / salt. I can't think of any other examples of . Although I'd say if I was speaking slowly and carefully, it feels much more natural to shorten it to . Ƿidsiþ 09:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a context label for terms (such as this) that are used by librarians and the like? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Aviva multicar insurance TV ad: "Apparently, there are better things to spend your money on than chest waders. Not when you are up to your nicky-nacky-noos trout fishing there ain't." Where exactly are one's nicky-nacky-noos, anatomically speaking? The word appears repeatedly in the well known school playground Nicky-nacky-noo song of course, along with many other body parts. But the meaning, if any, is never explained in the song. SpinningSpark 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the song it seems to be deliberately vague, so it probably was in the ad as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've created it at nicky nacky noo (both hyphenated and unhyphenated seem to occur) with the best citations I can find on the citations page. SpinningSpark 18:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I recall a similar usage in a song by Ken Dodd, most of 50 years old. JzG (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be Dodd's Nikky Nokky Noo song]. A rich source of new words if someone would care to list them :-) SpinningSpark 21:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Surely in the ad it is a humorous euphemism for "testicles", isn't it?? 81.132.192.88 21:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We are inconsistent on vulgar/impolite verbs meaning go away. Some have interjection sections, some don't.

1. go away
2. piss off
3. bugger off

All have interjection sections

1. sod off
2. clear off
3. naff off

All just have verb sections. There are of course a lot I haven't checked yet. For me fuck off and get lost definitely have interjection senses, expressing disbelief ("he won an Oscar? Get lost!") Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How come we don't have that? --Fsojic (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We use deverbal and denominal more than deverbative and denominative. I think the best thing would be to create {{deverbal of}} and {{denominal of}} for etymologies. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it really all that significant what part of speech a term is derived from? —CodeCat 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, overcategorization is a thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I want these categories, and I want them now. Proceed. --Fsojic (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In most languages, the work is done by addition of morphemes, for which we do have categories. In many others, it's done by particles or even by context, so such a category would just confuse things. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Please let me make a little proposition.

In the article about Korean and Japanese postpositional particles, I think it'd be a good idea to change a few things. It is stated, in the article about the postposition e (へ), that "Japanese and Korean e may be cognates". In my humble opinion, that part should be removed. First, because there is no conclusive evidence. And second, because coincidences like that offen occur:

- Russian and Turkish dative cases are also e. Despite this, this fact doesn't mean that the four languages share cognates.

- Another variant of the Turkish dative case is a, which is exactly the dative in languages as Spanish and French. Again, nothing more than simple coincidences.

I think it is necessary to be as objective as possible, and not hypothesize too much. That is the scientific point of view, and therefore, the only to be trusted. I hope you understand. Thank you for reading up to the end.

--Hatobureika (talk)

I suspect the reason it was mentioned is because there are quite a few similar particles between Japanese and Korean and there's quite a bit of debate about Japanese etymology and possible links to Korean. To people looking it up, that information can be quite useful, even though it is speculative (as long as it's clear that it's only speculative). With the other languages you mentioned, it's fairly certain that the similarities are coincidences, and including that information would not be useful to anyone. Eishiya (talk)

• Yes, ditto what Eishiya said. In some cases for KO and JA particles, there is even historical evidence to suggest particle borrowing, such as JA nominative / subject particle が (ga) possibly being adopted as KO nominative / subject particle 가 (ga).

Aside from borrowing, there is a lot of potential overlap between the two languages, much more so than in the other pairs that Hatobureika mentions. Take, for instance, the now-obsolete Old Japanese nominative emphatic particle い (i) and the modern Korean nominative / subject particle 이 (i), counterpart to 가 (ga). I see no harm in mentioning the similarities and possible cognates between KO and JA, so long as such mentions are clear about what is linguistic consensus and what is speculation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a phrase that is used in the UK, meaning "to throw a tantrum for a minor reason". It's usually used to refer to children, and when used for adults, it implies they're being childish. I don't know how regional it is, or whether it's related to paddy or Paddy, though I suspect it's the latter. There are quite a few results on Google for both versions, but nothing on the ngram viewer, as it's so colloquial. Is this something we could add? What kind of reference would be appropriate? Eishiya (talk)

Yes, we should add it. You can "have", "throw", or "get into" a paddy (any other verbs?), so it almost seems worth including as an extra sense at paddy. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Etymology 2 of paddy says from English paddy. That's good to know. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I've added a noun section for the temper sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Rfv of the pronunciation. Tagged but not listed. (RP)

The tagger's spot on, it's even in RP. doesn't exist in any dialect I can think of. Not for the suffix -ance, but for words ending in -ance like chance it's totally fine. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this tomorrow if there are no reasonable objections. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we currently include the relevant sense of "casual" as in "casual sex"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think senses 2 (without regularity, occasional) and 6 (informal, relaxed) cover it. If anything, perhaps sense 6 could be expanded/clarified to "informal, relaxed, without obligations or commitments" since casual is used in this sense for many things other than sex (a casual lunch with one's boss, for example). Eishiya (talk)

Really? You can have casual sex regularly; you can also have casual sex in a non-relaxed manner. I think it deserves a whole new sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eishiya's "without obligations or commitments" seems to capture the meaning (whether that's a new sense or not). Equinox ◑ 07:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• “casual sex”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that a few other dictionaries find this worth including. DCDuring TALK 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• After some deliberation, I've created an entry at casual sex as I believe it is idiomatic. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The etymology of patata in Spanish states "Blend of papa and batata." I take a look at batata and see "From patata." What?? It simply can't be that they evolved from each other. Scimonster (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

So I looked them up in DRAE and... it says exactly the same thing! I've found an alternative source saying that Spanish patata is from Taíno batata and the same site says that Spanish batata is also from Taíno batata. Which also sounds right. Why batata would come from patata rather than Taíno batata is beyond me. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I forgot the link, it's http://etimologias.dechile.net/?patata. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the DRAE is wrong in both instances. The TLFi says that French patate is from Spanish patata, itself from Taíno batata via Spanish batata. Batata is attested in Spanish before patata so the older form can't be derived from a more recent form. Also no mention of a blend between papa and batata. I'm gonna check the SOED entry for potato now. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

SOED says from Spanish patata, variant of batata. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sth is bound up with sth else (=sth is relevant to sth else). Do we currently have this sense, e.g. at bind? Or should it go at bound up with? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think including the preposition at the lemma is a mistake, i.e. if anything it should be at bind up or bound up. After all, we don't have entries for annoyed with or aspire to. Equinox ◑ 07:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've included the sense (plus another one) at bound up because I don't think bind up can be used that way. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• “bound up with”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “bound up in”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. show that a few dictionaries have these. Also, I don't think the wording at bound up captures this yet. DCDuring TALK 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

He starting hanging out with the wrong crowd. / He's fallen in with the wrong crowd. How would we include this common idiom on Wiktionary? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We have hang out and fall in in the right senses. Wrong crowd seems to me to be a common collocation, albeit an SoP one. Why not just add usage examples at the phrasal verbs at least? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Wrong crowdreally SoP? A naive reading would imply a crowd that is the wrong one, not necessarily a socially undesirable subculture. Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In this usage I've always thought of it as "unsuitable", or "not in accordance with a behavioral standard" of the speaker or possibly speaker and audience, possibly as "leading a person in a direction (on life's journey) unsuitable etc.". Frankly I think there are several sense of wrong that could be used in interpreting the collocation. "Socially undesirable" seems like a restrictive meaning that, because it selects one definition, wrongly narrows the meaning. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say create wrong crowd, but not create anything longer. Purplebackpack89 04:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And bad company could be added as a synonym. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added entries at wrong crowd and bad company. It's a start, I guess. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a genuine Ancient Greek idiom? It literally translates as "may it not happen", so it seems SoP. I did a Perseus collections search and came up with 120 references (eleven from Demosthenes, and then sixteen in the New Testament and thirty-two in Epictetus, who really liked the phrase.) ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The collective noun for bankers is, colloquially, wunch (a Spoonerism). This word has been nuked a few times but there's some evidence of mainstream coinage now. mentions it, so does , it appears in a Mike Harding song from 1979 . I think this is actually not a transient neologism. Obviously it hasn't made the OED yet but neither is it restricted to Urban Dictionary. JzG (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is probably citeable!

Apparently, I also removed my shirt as if performing a malcoordinated strip routine and then introduced bemused spectators to a dance move that was out of place when first revealed at university and was certainly not appropriate at a reasonably formal party surrounded by a wunch of bankers.

That particular wunch of bankers may be mortified to know that Hamm had no connection with

Today, we learn that Douglas Hurd, in a couple of months' time, is set to join those providers of financial services, collectively known as a "wunch of bankers", NatWest, from a bunch of MPs.

I'd have no objection to a page being created. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Does it ever appear on its own, without the "of bankers"? Keith the Koala (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that "wunch" is not a word in its own right, but just an element of wordplay in one specfic phrase. I can't find any evidence of its use outside that phrase. 86.183.129.20 00:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A couple of hits/

Meanwhile in the more conventional 'Men Seeking Women' column , the guys go to great lengths to make themselves sound utterly loathsome. They're tall and muscular, exceptionally handsome and attractive, loyal, sincere, genuine, sensitive, educated, rich and modest. What a wunch!

Well fuck me sideways with a wooden stake, I realize dismally, I've fallen in a wunch of vampires.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev I think someone used the wrong language code here. It sounds extremely peculiar that the title of a Mongolian emperor derives from an Austroasiatic language. ばかFumiko￥^talk 12:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. User:Chuck Entz fixed it. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've currently run into a problem while creating the term residential treatment center: it keeps getting deleted. I believe this being deleted was incorrect because this is a specific type of treatment center, just like race car is a specific type of car, but no one has deleted race car, so why can residential treatment center not be created? Residential treatment center is a common licensing term: http://dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section4/ch18/sec4ch18sub6.htm Regargia (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it not true that a residential treatment center is a treatment center that is residential? DCDuring TALK 16:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it not true that a race car is a car that races? Cheryl.kristine.johnson (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Perhaps you should challenge the entry for race car. See WT:RFD. But we include race car because it is the more common form of racecar. Can you find attestation for residentialtreatmentcenter?

But we are now talking about the subject User:Regargia proposed: residential treatment center, not race car. So how is a residential treatment center different from a center ("A place where some function or activity occurs.") for treatment ("Medical care for an illness or injury") that is residential ("Used as a residence or by residents.")? DCDuring TALK 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And please don't use sockpuppets to support your case. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Devil's advocate (since I don't feel this entry is necessary): without a hyphen, I suppose one can't technically be sure whether it's a centre for residential treatment, or a treatment centre that is residential. Seems pretty obvious though. Equinox ◑ 21:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a race car not any car that races? Well, no. Cheryl.kristine.johnson will you answer the question asked to you or simply continue to mock other users. Perhaps mocking us is not the best way to convince us you're right, as opposed to say provide evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Equinox: If either residential treatment or treatment center were idiomatic (not SoP), there might be something to talk about. There is a lemming case for “residential treatment”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. as a medical/psychiatric term. But I don't think it us our obligation to disambiguate every collocation with more than two members because there might be ambiguity. Users can be expected to do something to construct meaning. In this case I suppose that we would need to have residential treatment as a derived term at both residential and treatment. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The definition pretty much contradicts the related picture because of its incompleteness. GeneralFailer (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Brits and Americans wrap their pigs a bit differently. I've added the American definition which the picture illustrates, and an illustration of the British definition. - -sche (discuss) 13:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think leaving "right top" instead of just "top" will be less confusing.GeneralFailer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a word in English to describe the tracing of original sources of historical data and materials? For example, a Qing dynasty historian writes an account, but later on we discover that he was merely copying what an historian from a different dynasty wrote. We would then try to find out when the original account was written. This is known as 史源学 in Chinese. I came across the translation historigenesis but it doesn't appear to be a real word. Any help is appreciated. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think that anybody would recommend this form over etc. I think that this should be classified as a misspelling, or at least an informalism, not an ‘alternative spelling.’ @Chuck Entz do you have any opinion on this? --Romanophile (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Would be nice to see what other dictionaries say on the matter, Oxford, Chambers, MW, Collins (etc.). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, Chambers has etc as headword with no sign of a dot. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: Oxford Dictionaries has etc., but the OED’s entry (headword: “et cetera | etcetera, n.”) hasn't been fully updated since the publication of the 1891 NED entry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

moved from Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/April#' and -' etc.

1. Why is it English ' (as in e.g. "Jesus'"), but German -' (as in e.g. "Jesus'")?
2. Why is it English -'s (as in e.g. "Andrea's"), but German 's (as in e.g. "Andrea's")?

There's no difference between "Jesus'" and "Jesus'" and between "Andrea's" and "Andrea's", so it should either be just ' and 's or just -' and -'s. As this possessive/genitive marker can't stand alone, the better choice should be -' and -'s (with "-" as it's also used for suffixes which can't stand alone). -Iftjbda (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, the spelling of the word endings -' and -'s should be just that, and not ' or 's. As for 's, that is the separate and independent word 's (as in 's Gravenhage). When the apostrophe or apostrophe-ess is suffixed to a word, its entry should be spelled with the hyphen, -' and -'s (regardless of language; compare -ed, -ly, -er). —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've moved -', -s, -'s and -s' to those places (from the variants without the hyphens). - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone put together a better definition for noun one?

I cannot tell if this word is supposed to mean "a high seat that smacks of distinction and authority" or if it is supposed to mean "a tribunal or court". Tharthan (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"A failure or unfortunate event. The concert was stink." This looks like an adjective. Should it be, or should the sentence be changed to say "the concert was a stink"? Equinox ◑ 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The definition for the term 'social media networking' was deleted and I wanted to know how why and what other information needs to be added?

Definition social media networking: the act of building, creating and leveraging personal or business relationships through social media applications with a goal of providing or receiving support, feedback, insight, resources and information in the future.

Please provide feedback.

SemperBlotto has replied on his talk page, where you also posted this query. Equinox ◑ 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

All words in all languages, not all strings of words in all languages. We have social media and networking. No other information needs adding, that's the whole point. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a set phrase "of this parish", usually meaning "working for this institution". See, for instance:

Tiff Needell, formerly of this parish, went everywhere with both the rev counter and the fuel gauge in the red zone. (Tiff Needell, like Jeremy Clarkson, used to present Top Gear)

Other commentators (eg Allister Heath of this parish) have taken the view that the first round of QE was necessary but later rounds a bad idea. Yet others (eg Liam Halligan, again of this parish) have been suspicious of QE from the start. (These are all Daily Telegraph writers)

How long will it be before formidable talents like Nicola Jeal (once of this parish, now of the Times) are allowed to run all of a newspaper, not just its juicy mags and Saturday specials?

Is this a separate definition for parish, or does it deserve an entirely new entry? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not something I hear in the US. I hypothesize it to be an extension of the sense of "neighborhood" (which we also do not have) to include figurative neighborhoods, specifically "figurative place of employment". Is that hypothesis supportable (or easily disproved)? DCDuring TALK 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a set phrase that, in the UK, we only hear in the Banns of marriage so, as an example, for three weeks before I got married the vicar at my church would tell people that "Jeffery Albert" of this parish was to marry Maureen Ann of the parish of St Mary in Stevenage. The above usages seem to be an informal extension to mean "of this locality or institution". SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a very literal usage of the component terms to me. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The original meaning of the phrase is literal. The examples at the top of this thread are not literal. 81.132.192.88 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Electric goat, TAKASUGI Shinji, Whym, Aaronsama~enwiktionary, Bendono Can anyone provide the pronunciation of マッハ (mahha)? I wonder if /h/ and are truly geminated in Japanese. I apologize for calling on all of you, since I'm not sure to whom I can refer this topic to. ばかFumiko￥^talk 14:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take Yes, Fumiko-san. It's geminated. I've listened to it on my NHK pronunciation dictionary. I've added the IPA pronunciation with a reference to マッハ. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Atitarev I've listened to the NHK pronunciation too, but I'm not so convinced. It sounds like a glottal stop plus the /h/ sound, rather than a true geminated /hh/. A geminated /hh/ would be extremely difficult to articulate. ばかFumiko￥^talk 11:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take To me it sounds like geminated "h" but I won't insist any more. You can also try User:Eirikr. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this word exist? Is it attestable? ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

google books:professionality says yes. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

When it's not possible to type a German umlaut ö, the correct thing is to decompose it into oe. I'm looking at an old record where someone whose name should be spelt Möller or Moeller has instead been spelt Möeller. I'm trying to think of the best word for this. I don't think it's just "redundant" — it's redundant to describe a woman who acts in films as both "female" and "an actress", but although the phrase "female actress" is redundant, it's not wrong/inaccurate the way "Möeller" is. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

superfluous? excessive? duplicative? inordinate? Leasnam (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hypercorrection? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Typo? (a) It might be a trema over e, i.e. "Mo-eller" and not "Möller"). (b) Maybe the printer was used to use "oe" (e.g. cause he didn't have on "ö"), and then when he got umlauts, he made the typo "öe" (fusing ö and oe). -93.196.237.158 07:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I like "excessive". "Hypercorrect" is probably also the case, given the context — the record was typed up by someone who didn't speak German and probably thought he was doing the right thing by putting the dots back in, though he didn't know enough to remove the "e" at that point. Side note, it seems there's at least one person whose name is supposed to be spelt this way: Charles Möeller. (I wonder if his name is pronounced with the "Mo-ell-" part as one syllable or two.) - -sche (discuss) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles Möeller, being Brazilian, presumably pronounced his name in some Portuguized way anyway, but I assume his German ancestors were named either Möller or Moeller but not Möeller. German doesn't use tremas very often, but when it does (e.g. Bernhard Hoëcker) the trema goes over the second vowel. On the other hand, there are cases like Müesli where the üe is correct because the pronunciation is /yːɛ/. I suppose it's remotely possible (though not terribly likely) that in the old record you have, Möeller represents a dialectal pronunciation with /øːɛ/ or the like. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The article portmanteau word gives an incorrect definition, namely the definition for blend (compare w:Blend word). The colloquial meaning of "portmanteau word" should be noted, of course, but not under the description "linguistics". The linguistic definition encompasses morphemes such as English won't (from will "(future)" + not "(negation)") or French au /o/ (from à "to" + le "(masculine definite article)"), but not blends, see w:Portmanteau#Word/morph (linguistics). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about English, but in German these terms are synonyms: German "Wortkreuzung, Wortmischung, verschmelzung, Wortverschränkung = Kofferwort, Schachtelwort" and Foreign-German "Kontamination = Portmanteau-Wort". Both terms are said to mean "blend" in English, e.g.: "Ein Port(e)manteau-Wort, auch Kofferwort, Wortkreuzung , mot-valise, blend ,Mischung' genannt, ist ein Kunstwort, das aus zwei Wörtern gebildet ist, die inhaltlich zu einem neuen Begriff verschmelzen, wobei einzelne Wortsegmente getilgt sein können. Der Vorgang heißt Amalgamierung, Kontamination oder Blending." (e.g. Blog, jein) and from a google snippet-preview of something called "Beiträge zur slawischen Philologie" "Portmanteau-Wort, Kofferwort, Amalgam, Wortverschmelzung , engl. blending 'Mischung', telescoped word.".

This could imply that English portmonteau word and blend mean the same. Of course, others might somehow differ between blend and portmanteau word, but I doubt that all do and I even doubt that all linguists do.

"Linguistics for Everyone", "Glossary": "blend (portmanteau) word made from putting parts of two words together"

"A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics": "blend /blend/ n. 1. (also portmanteau word) A word formed by blending. 2. See syntactic blend." & "blending /'blend/ n. The process of word formation by the combination of arbitrary parts of existing words: smog (smoge plus fog) ."

-93.196.237.158 06:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear fellow Besserwisser, the German translation for "blend" may be Kontamination/Wortkreuzung/Kofferwort, but a "portmanteau" in the technical linguistic sense is simply a w:de:Portmanteau or w:de:Portemanteaumorphem respectively w:de:Schachtelmorphem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The example sind given in de-WP is very helpful. One could compare similarly irregular English word forms such as are, went, less, mice or pence, which cannot be segmented, either. (Strong past tense forms are effectively portmanteau morphemes/words too now, given that they cannot be predicted anymore after regular patterns the way they could in Old English, where noncatenative morphological analysis might still have been a feasible approach.) As for did, has or could, these forms are highly irregular and unpredictable, but not quite as divergent as the others; but I think they are still prototypical examples of this kind of fusional morpheme. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Besserwisser: "pejorative" - is it a personal attack, or even a personal attack in lack of arguments?

WP: "Mit Portmanteau (auch: Portemanteau) werden in der Linguistik zwei zu unterscheidende Sachverhalte bezeichnet: 1. Als Portmanteau-Wort (Kofferwort) 2. Als Portmanteau-Morphem (Schachtelmorphem)" (i.e. there are 2 things called Portmanteau). So even at WP it's (partly) something different than you said. At w:de:Portmanteauwort "Portmanteauwort" and "Kontamination" are also mentioned together.

If the English terms mean the same as the German ones (and they should mean the same), then the entry portmanteau word does not give an "incorrect definition", but it - or maybe just the entry portmanteau - lacks the second meaning.

-80.133.114.159 09:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it's only a facetious remark since you seem to be German-speaking just like me, and similarly nitpicky. ;-)

Exactly, my point: There are two definitions, 1) blend (the lay definition) and 2) portmanteau (fusional) morpheme/word (the technical linguistic definition).

Wiktionary gives definition 1) under "linguistics", therefore it is incorrect. It should be given as "colloquial" and 2) as "linguistics". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which gender does paragraphus have?

• παράγραφος (parágraphos) is feminine and has it as feminine. AFAIR there was also a Latin or German grammar book which mentioned that paragraphus is feminine (even thoug it's ending in -us and even though Paragraph is masculine).
  E.g. from a book from 1828 ("1828"): "PARAGRAPHUS SECUNDA."
• Many translations of paragraph are masculine and -graphus usually is masculine (at least when refering to persons, who wrote something).
  E.g. from a book from 1589 ("M. D. LXXXIX."): "Paragraphus Secundus."

There are even enough results for "paragraphus secundus/secunda" to attest both genders. But:

• Shouldn't there be a note like "Dictionaries only mention the feminine" gender, which does imply that masculine gender is most liekely New Latin, rare or considered wrong.
• Can it be specified, when each gender was used? It might be like: "The masculine gender is New Latin", but maybe it already occurred in Late Latin or Antique Latin, at least in text of not-so-famous athours or in text of foreigners.

-80.133.114.159 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Are infer and imply (and their related nouns: inference and implication, I believe) considered opposites? If so, should they be included in each other's entries under an Antonym header or some such section name? I always found these two sets of paired words easier to envision as opposites.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of working on these sets of paired words myself. Thanks in advance if you can finish this up for me! — Geekdiva (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

One person infers what another implies, in the same way that one person reads (or hears) what another writes (or speaks). They have a sort of mutual-ness but are not antonyms. Equinox ◑ 10:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and a lot of our antonyms either aren't antonyms or need clarification using {{qualifier}}. Postwoman is not an antonym of postman, for example. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to edit a declension table for the Polish word "pani." The accusative case should be panią, not "panię." Unfortunately, when I click "edit," I don't see the table- just ====Declension==== pl-decl-noun-ni|pa

Can some help me?

Thanks! — This unsigned comment was added by Bjoleniacz (talk • contribs).

@Bjoleniacz I have restored the manual declension in pani until someone fixes the template or the template usage. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly that: What are the forms of a lexeme that aren’t the lemma called? For example, for the English lexeme go, the lemma is go, and then there are its conjugated forms, viz. goes, going, went, gone, etc. What is the name for such a "non-lemma"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question to be honest. —CodeCat 23:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think all actual forms of a lexeme are inflected forms or word forms (“word form”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.). The lemma is just the word form used in the lexicon to represent the lexeme. AFAICT there is not a commonly accepted single-word term for the inflected/word forms that are not the lemma form. DCDuring TALK 02:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A lemma is simply the one form out of many chosen to represent all of them- usually for more or less arbitrary (or at most, practical) reasons. Since there's no real systematic difference between the lemma and the other forms, there isn't really a natural concept to base a term on, except for the fact that they're not lemmas. As far as I know, "non-lemma" is the only term for it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@CodeCat, DCDuring, Chuck Entz: You’d think so, wouldn’t you? However, that sense appears not to be attestable. Thanks, anyway, for your responses in assistance. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim on the RfV that the hyphen makes the citations inapplicable. The hyphen in this case is not linking words, but is part of non-. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to you in the RFV discussion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please fix this template by changing "|plural|mīlia}}" to "|plural|mīlia|plural 2|mīllia}}", as there is the entry millia and as millia can be found (e.g. in grammar books from the 19th century). -93.196.241.177 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)