Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/December

We currently have English alim as a singular with a plural alims, and then ulema as a plurale tantum. Does that make sense? Kolmiel (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick GBooks search and yeah, both alims and ulama are used as plurals to alim. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So would you agree with me that ulema (and all the variant spellings thereof) should be non-lemma forms? (Because that's the point of my question. To be sure, I didn't mean to question the word "ulema" as such, just its being a plurale tantum rather than a plural.) Kolmiel (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have come across quite a few GBooks texts that use ulama but never alim, so maybe we can keep both as lemmas. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Course we could. But why should we if one is the plural of the other? The only argument would be that "ulema" is actually not used as a plural of "alim", but is a totally independent word in English. But you said it was used that way, and I think so too. Now, the plural is more common, that's true, because it refers to the Islamic "clergy" as a whole. But I don't think that counts as an argument. "Eyes" is more common than "eye", but it's still a non-lemma plural. Kolmiel (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether gulfs like this can be categorised as seas even though they are named gulfs - there's no category for gulfs anyway, and on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula the Red Sea, which is similar, is categorised as a sea. DonnanZ (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Our definition of gulf says in part "a partially landlocked sea", so I don't see (ha-ha) why not. Gulfs are a particular kind of sea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was also looking at large bays like the Bay of Biscay, Bay of Bengal and Hudson Bay, which are all in Category:en:Seas so this is obviously the right treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone who knows a bit about English grammar improve the definition given here? It does not specify how simple present differs from present tense. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Should all the related "tenses" really have to word "tense" included? Don't we use, for instance, "the past historic" rather than "the past historic tense"? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the simple present is "I do", as opposed to "I am doing", which is present continuous.

Why no pronunciation? — This unsigned comment was added by Oldspring (talk • contribs) at 04:45, 2 December 2016.

• It's not a common word, so it's not surprising. I wouldn't have a clue how to pronounce it anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• • @Oldspring: and @Donnanz:, I just stumbled on this TR entry, went over, googled for the pronunciation, found this and this which basically confirmed my instinctive guess (I was just unsure whether to stress pra or pex, that is between /ˌpræmɪˈpɛksəʊl/ and /ˈpræmɪˌpɛksəʊl/; in fact, I'd have gone for the latter, but the audios said otherwise), and added two pronunciations based on them, my own pronunciation (for the velar ) and the little I know about precise phonetic differences from GenAm to RP (for the /oʊ/ vs. /əʊ/). Any confirmation/denial (and any comments on possible mistakes in the enPR, which I am not too familiar with) are obviously welcome. MGorrone (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the adjective senses be nouns? Equinox ◑ 09:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. But where are the citations? They would tell us a lot about the grammar. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

In Georgia USA there is a part of the Cumberland River called the Cumberland Dividings. Why dividings? Are there any other waterways named thus? — This unsigned comment was added by Jcrcrabtree (talk • contribs) at 13:32, 2 December 2016.

It's pretty easy to find dividings in use in the sense involved on Google Books. For example:

• 2005, Mary R. Bullard, Cumberland Island: A History‎, page 5:

  All the Sea Islands have what are called dividings, shoal areas behind the barrier islands where the tides meet and divide.

It looks regional in that use. There are other uses of dividings, including something to do with preventing mine cave-ins. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Where to add a salute to The Guide when there is no noun entry in that Wikt page ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How would you have added it if there were a noun entry? --WikiTiki89 18:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And is it actually used outside of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It has previously failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is once really a homophone of one's as claimed on that page? It isn't the way I pronounce it. SpinningSpark 18:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nor the way I say it, nor the way I can recall hearing anyone else say it. Mihia (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Sae1962 has added second-most-massive, third-most-massive and tenth-most-massive as derived terms to the massive page. These terms don't exist according to Ngrams. SpinningSpark 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

They're also SOP. This user has a tin ear when it comes to CFI- if they've seen it on their screen, they've tried to make an entry out of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did wonder why sources might discuss the tenth most massive something, but entirely ignore the fourth through ninth. SpinningSpark 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You could use these words, although they're not established words as such. The trouble is that if you list these as "words", then there are unlimited such words, eg "the third-most-beautiful woman in the world". Also, the style is overhyphenated here. Third most beautiful would be acceptable. The trend is to use fewer hyphens.

Where is the source for this Germanic root, if it exists, please? If there were more confirmed evidences than that in Old English and the Nordic remnants, the spelling would be correct. However, there are remants in the Celtic dialects of Breton and Welsh for "fireplace", that are closer to Old English, from a fabricated Celtic root *aith-l-ti.. Andrew H. Gray 08:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andrew talk

The definition given does not seem to really define the word critique and when I went to the reference I could not find both words as the link allegedly defined 'transcendent' alone.(could not find either word) I am suggesting that we need the definition for critique and then add the transcendental perspective.Thank you Bobdog54 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

1. (literally, archaic) Mind that you; be careful that you.

What does it mean by "literally archaic"? Mihia (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My best guess is that the two words are supposed to be separated by a comma (i.e. "literally, archaic"), since the pipe usually creates a comma (obviously, there must be an exception made for when it follows "literally"). Whoever added it must just have perceived it to be more literal than the current, more idiomatic sense, but it might not be helpful to label it as such. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for changing it. From a BrE perspective, even though it is not something one hears every day, I wonder whether it should be labelled "dated" in BrE. Am I right in discerning from your talk page that you are Canadian? Mihia (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am indeed. It's not something I've ever heard in Canada, though I'm familiar with the usage from older (18th-19th century) books. (Also, I think it was Equinox who made the change, not me...) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't even think this sense should be there. It's not a stand-alone unit meriting an entry; it's a fragment, like "ensure she". Equinox ◑ 10:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's a fragment. I wonder, though, whether it might be kept simply for contrast with the idiomatic phrase? Mihia (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree. I will post it at Requests for Deletion. Mihia (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not archaic. Mind you wear a scarf is perfectly normal British English.

Hello,

In your opinion, should this sequence of words (created by bot) be considered as an expression in English? — Automatik (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To this native English speaker it does not seem to be an idiom. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you need a literal translation of the French term you could use "nape". DTLHS (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring that it is not an idiom, and therefore does not deserve its own entry. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The trouble with nape is that it is not necessarily understood by, say, the average voter. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nape on its own is meaningless. It has to be "nape of the neck". — This comment was unsigned.

Of course, that isn't true. In addition to the numerous uses in the context of medicine and descriptions of animals, there are instances such as the following:

• 1989, Carlos Fuentes, Christopher Unborn‎, page 114:

  She said nothing; but she did raise her veil over the comb she wore in her hair, thus revealing the rustic novelty of her perfumed nape. The nape was both annunciation and invitation. I had no idea that a nape, the beginning of her hair and the

DCDuring TALK 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Any writer can help himself to any usage he wishes. I don't know who Carlos Fuentes is, but do you think he could show that he had heard "nape" used without "of the neck" in his life before he wrote that sentence? The fact that Carlos Fuentes -- which is not a native English name -- wrote a sentence does not show that is the idiomatic usage in English. You would struggle to find any real usages without a subsequent "of the neck", and maybe Carlos Fuentes just didn't know that.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Carlos Fuentes is a Mexican novelist. Cristóbal Nonato was translated by Alfred MacAdam, a professor at Barnard College. Is that sufficiently "native English" for you? Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You can find some usages but not common: . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The entry has been deleted thanks to your help. — Automatik (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

at antidepression we show this as an adjective. this is also a noun, is it not ? Leasnam (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Everything I come up with has antidepression as a modifier, followed by legislation/act/medication/drug/program/meditation/bath/etc. I can find the existence of an article titled “Ferulic acid-induced anti-depression and prokinetics similar to Chaihu-Shugan-San via polypharmacology,”; that's maybe a noun use (and maybe an English use). It could possibly be cited from newsgroups, but it seemed more like sloppy English or typos (one case had antidepression where antidepressant would be correct).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I came across in this statement <<Serotonin is one of the principal neurotransmitters involved in happiness and anti-depression.>> which got me thinking about it. Honestly, I had never given it any thought before Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems this term has only been used in writing by the person who coined it. Is this a problem? Equinox ◑ 13:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Independent: there must be at least three independent uses, which means other authors besides the coiner have to use the term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This Spanish idiom translates as "The pig doesn't scratch himself on the sandbox tree", the sandbox tree being as spiky as fuck, and means something like "people don't use arguments that can hurt them". Do we have a similar proverb in English? I can't think of any at this moment of time. Just pork scratchings, which wouldn't help me. And maybe don't shit in your own backyard, but that's not quite right either. Thanks in advance, fellow Wiktionarians. --Derrib9 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it anything like "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? Equinox ◑ 19:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably something like that. --Derrib9 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't shoot oneself in the foot? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't go looking for trouble? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If one doesn't remember this proverb, one may be said to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks fellow 'narians. I put a couple of the page. BTW, I quite enjoy using random English proverbs in Spanish, and vice versa. It confuses people and/or makes me look super wise. I tried this particular one out on my friends in Catalonia, but they had no idea what it meant. --Derrib9 (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Define ( Mechanifacationalism ) and if possible use it in a sentence

Not a real English word; no definition exists. Where did you see it? Equinox ◑ 01:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a good friend ask me to give him a description of Mechanifacationalism and use it in a sentence

Any ideas would be great but honestly I have no clue what exactly is the meaning

Well, it looks like it should really be "mechanificationalism", but that would still make no sense. Mechanification would be the process or result of mechanifying, which would presumably be the process of somehow making something mechanical. This is all hypothetical, because only mechanification out of all these forms is used at all, and it's not clear what most of the usage means. That still doesn't explain the "-alism" part, since I have no idea what it would mean for something or someone to be mechanificational, and without that, adding the "-ism" suffix just makes it a longer word with unknown meaning. You can look through our entries on all the possible pieces and try to figure it out for yourself: mechanic (adjective),-ify, -ate, -ation, -ification, -al, -ism. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There are entries like this: # {{initialism of|]|lang=en}} there. What does ] mean? This must be an invalid syntax. Yurivict (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you take out the empty brackets, it breaks. Try it in preview mode. So this is a hack to get around that problem, when including a general Internet link (not a normal internal wiki link) within those templates. Equinox ◑ 23:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the empty brackets and moved the links to the 2nd unnamed parameter. Apparently, this works too. I find this idea an improvement, because the empty brackets were ugly, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I find it an improvement too. Yurivict (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

At pickle we show 2 etymologies. The second is a dialect word used in the North of England and Scotland. I moved the duplicate sense of "bit, small amount" from Etym_1 to sense 2 of Etym_2 (replacing what was originally there). My question is in regards to Etym_1 sense 5 ("mischievous loved one"). Should this also be at Etym_2 ? I cannot see how we get a term of endearment from a brine soaked cucumber. It makes more sense to me that it evolved out of the "small amount" sense. Leasnam (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Foods do sometimes seem to be used this way; I have no idea why. See sausage and French chou. Equinox ◑ 13:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This can also mean "pan" as in "frying pan", right? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Can also mean "Pan" with the same pronunciation.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A frying pan is usually called 후라이팬 (huraipaen). Pan is 판 (pan). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right but I'm pretty sure these senses are attestable as well and they are in dictionaries.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

wise man lists three senses. Isn't the first "man who is wise" the same as the first part of the second sense, "a sage"; while the second part of the second sense "a seer" different from "a sage" and should be a separate sense? And the third sense uses "biblical magi", but those were astrologers, soothsayers, seers or viziers and not wizards, so that should not be glossed there. A separate sense could be provided for the Biblical sense (priest). This would then be rewritten as:

1. A sage (a man who is wise)
2. A seer
3. A magus or wizard

-- 70.52.9.183 13:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this entry for athem or eathem was made under modern English, but if it was only attested up to the 13th century as the entry notes, that would make it squarely Middle English still (and that has its own separate entry under ethem). Does anyone know of attestations into the early modern English period? Word dewd544 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Do these entries, created by bot on fr.wikt, are admissble? Looks like the same case as back of the neck. In advance, thanks for your kind help. — Automatik (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bit suspicious about this since the creator has a bit of a track record of dubious things. I am wondering: 1. How come none of these books are in Google Books? How did the user find the cites? 2. How come, in all four citations, it always modifies the noun "course"? 3. Why is there a typo and a grammatical error in the third citation? I would like us to be clear that these citations aren't fake or anything. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They're not fake, but they're from reviews of the books (or something like reviews)- , . DTLHS (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They read a bit like automatically generated spam text to me. DTLHS (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was doing some personal research about the etymology of fog in various italian regional languages. Then I read that this wiktionary translates this in venetian as nebia f and not as caigo. then I found this wiktionary had calìgo f instead of caigo, unlike de:caigo. That is fine, but has this wiktionary any convention in place for writing Venetian? I'd like to understand if we are to consider caigo and calìgo two different words, or the first an error, or the latter an archaism, or simply the same word just with the convention to have mute l in some variants of venetian.--Nickanc (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Venetian spelling is not as centralised as Italian or other major languages. This word is spelt całìgo in standard orthography; the ł represents the diaphoneme that surfaces as /l/, ∅ or a glide, but some writers just spell it the way it sounds in their dialect. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hence, we move calìgo to całìgo and we leave an {{alternative spelling of}} in caigo. is it correct?--Nickanc (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Both calìgo and caigo are common. The ł (for the soft l) is a recent convention. However, in spite of the theoretical advantage of ł and other recent additions, they have not yet been very successful outside of academic circles. I hesitate to say that one form is an alternative spelling of another. I think they are more like English center versus centre, where each spelling is predominant among those who use that pronunciation and spelling. I think całìgo deserves an entry, though, with an explanation that it comes from a recent proposal to unify and standardize the script, but that it has not yet been widely accepted. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Can this also mean 簡單? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

簡單 is 간단하다. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

간단 (gandan) as in 간단하다 (gandanhada) may also have a noun section (etymology 2) "simplicity; being simple", not sure what the exact definition it should be. The adverb is formed as 간단히 (gandanhi, “simply”)--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don’t think 간단 (gandan) is used to mean “simplicity”. The use of adjective radicals in Korean is very limited compared to Japanese. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji. Thanks, I know it's limited but the usage is attestable in most cases and some kind of (rare/limited) definitions can be given, even for etymological purposes. BTW, re: diff kyūjitai entries are allowed, even if they are pain in the butt to make. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently, it's /ti.beˈtan/. Shouldn't the stress be before the stressed vowel, however?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Feel free to fix it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah @Adûnâi - I just assumed you meant Tibetan. I have no idea how those foreign words are pronounced. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the Rumanian entry is quite correct with final stress, though I don't really know. Kolmiel (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: Yes, it is: . So no need to fix anything :) Kolmiel (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there is an out-of-date sense here, a typed stencil, which could then be used to make printed copies on an office duplicator. I can remember them from the sixties and seventies, and was funnily enough reminded of them by an entry in DDO . DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the mimeograph stencils that produced purple dittos were still around in the 80s. JulieKahan (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The talk page contains a complaint that seems valid, but my incompetence at Albanian grammar and templates prevents me from even attempting a correction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as the template is concerned, you only have to delete the vertical bar and bardha. Kolmiel (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Etimo, can you help? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed to e bardhë!Etimo (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you, done now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I recently created the entry for رُبَاع (rubāʕ, “four at a time”), but I am not sure how it is actually used. Wehr doesn't give examples. Is it a noun, adjective, or numeral? Does it modify nouns or does a noun modify it in idafa? — Eru·tuon 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's properly rubāʿa, diptote accusative. Almaany calls it an "invariable noun", but it should probably be called an adverb in western terms. Almaany gives the following example sentences: اصطف الجنود رباع (Iṣṭaffa l-junūdu rubā‘. –"The soldiers formed up in lines of four.") جاء القوم رباع (Jā’a l-qawmu rubā‘. – "The people came in groups of four.") My translations. Kolmiel (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Can this also mean "which"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It mainly means “what kind of”. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that ew and yuck belong here: not sneeze-specific. Equinox ◑ 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To be more precise: bless you is a sort of social code used in response to a sneeze, whereas yuck is just a reaction to what came out of someone's nose. Equinox ◑ 14:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently lollypaloozer, lallapalootza, and lollapalooza are separate entries. Until recently lollapalooza was said to be derived from the former two; I took the liberty of changing the etymology to "unknown but compare" those two. (Also la-la (“something unusually good”), which is roughly contemporaneous with lollypaloozer) It seems to me that these are variant spellings of the same slang word, no? The OED Online has a single headword spelled lallapaloosa, with lallapalootza, lollapaloosa, and lollapalooza in the quotations. It gives the etymology as simply "fanciful formation".

Etymology online gives no precursor for lollapalooza, but dates it from 1901. That seems wrong, since George Ade used lollypaloozer in 1896 – currently the oldest example I can find. I've collected citations with various spellings at Citations:lollapalooza.

Back-datings, etc. are welcome. Also, does anyone besides me feel like "resembling the Perry Farrell-founded music festivals" is developing as a separate sense? There seem to be an awful lot of references on the web comparing things to the tours or subsequent festivals. Cnilep (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please check the Cantonese and Min Nan readings? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Verb is defined incorrectly, as though it were a noun. How is it used? Equinox ◑ 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, make 2 tables, one with "door passaedje" (fr= embrasure de porte, nl deuropening) and the other with "entrance way" (fr. porcha, corridor, vestibule; wa poice, tchapå)

--Lucyin (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Mispelling" is not the right word here. --WikiTiki89 18:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{nonstandard form of}}, perhaps? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed according to Angr's suggestion Alázhlis (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't the verb also mean "to attack suddenly and swiftly"? Tharthan (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I modified sense 1 to include any such sudden or quick attack Leasnam (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this word have a rough breathing mark? I would tend to think yes, since there's a guttural in both the etymon and the Vulgate Latin descendant Heva (never *Eva). KarikaSlayer (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@KarikaSlayer: It's written with a smooth breathing in the Septuagint at Genesis 4:1 and 4:25 and in the New Testament at 1 Timothy 2:13 and 2 Corinthians 11:3. I can't find it with a rough breathing in the Bible at all, but maybe it is in other works. As for the Latin, it's spelled Hava at Genesis 4:1 (her name isn't mentioned at 4:25 in the Vulgate) and Eva in the NT both times. I don't find Heva in the Vulgate, but again, maybe it's spelled that way in other works. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: There are different Vulgates which have different spellings, e.g. sometimes it's Raphael and sometimes Raphaël, Rafael and rather Middle Latin Rafahel.

Nova Vulgata (www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_genesis_lt.html) has Eva in Genesis 3:20 and 4:1 and in ad Corinthios II 11:3, Wikisource's Vulgata (la.wikisource.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Biblia_Sacra_Vulgata_%28Stuttgartensia%29) has Hava in Genesis and Eva in ad Corinthios II, bibleserver's Vulgata (www.bibleserver.com/text/VUL/1.Mose3) has Heva in both (and also Mathusaël and Sellæ). -84.161.19.62 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you try to check if this is the kanji for conger eel? It appears that this is a kokuji, so it needs more sources. Dingo1234555 (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a reference but it says that dictionaries that list it cite the "Kokuji no Jiten" which itself has unclear sources for 𫙕. —suzukaze (t・c)

As defined, a box-spring is part of a box spring: they are not synonyms. Can anyone confirm this? Equinox ◑ 05:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. It's just an alternative spelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The WP article says that divan is sometimes used synonymously. I'd never heard that. Is it true? Or can a box spring be built into some divans? DCDuring TALK 15:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the usage example for njeri has no translation. What does it mean?

MGorrone (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate says it means "Everyone knew it." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If that is true, then we would need another sense, since from "human" and "someone" I cannot see how to get "everyone". MGorrone (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at Albanian Wiktionary and then added a couple pronoun senses and a translation for the usage example. I asked an Albanian friend of mine to verify. MGorrone (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits, please see Talk:fag#.22a_person_perceived_as....22. I don't want to wade in with edits on my own because gender identity is a touchy subject. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole definition is way over-complicated in my opinion. It should just say "a homosexual man". Mihia (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, effeminacy or some other conspicuous behaviour that comes across as "queer" is central to the idea, as amply demonstrated by the first two citations from the 1920s. The term doesn't refer to just any old straight-acting gay man. Same thing as a dyke is not just any lesbian woman. Both terms can refer to gender-conforming people too, but that's an extension of the original idea. Anyway, I've addressed Equinox's concern now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow managed to miss the fact that my suggestion "a homosexual man" was in fact already the first definition, and the questioned definition was a supplementary. Mihia (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This word was reported as suspicious and unsupported. I found no sources supporting any cognacy with "crown" and put the following message into the talk page, but I see it is not a preferred channel, so I add it here:

I am sceptical of this claim and suspect faulty research unless the creator can refer us to a clearly and openly supportable source. I have done some superficial searching and found the word as a (sur)name in what looks like some Flanders regions, which proves nothing, but I also see several Ghent records in Google books, that suggest that it is cognate with a number of Germanic words for grain, such Afrikaans "koring", Dutch "koren", German "Korn" (Kluge traces it to preteutonic times and Latin).

A clear example of the word in seventeenth century official Flemish is visible here on page 633: There I was confused by a string of titles in 17th century Flemish, but on more careful interpretation and correction of scannos, I am convinced that "Coorne en Graene" means precisely "corn(s) and grain(s)" I include part of the text in question in a hidden comment following this sentence, in case anyone would like to inspect it (apologies for my ignorance of correct practice; anyone wishing to tidy this entry is welcome!)

Alzo, or now then: The fact that in some low-Germanic dialect coorne pretty certainly meant corn, as in wheat, does not prove that it wasn't cognate with "crown", "coronet" or the like in middle English rather than say, "corn", but considering difficulties in finding supporting source material, I reckon that we cannot accept the interpretation as current evidence stands. JonRichfield (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

STOP PRESS found it where I belatedly thought of looking: OED,

Coorne, coornel (l, obs. ff. Corn, Kernel.

And that is the entire entry, including lack of closing parenthesis. I'll have a look at modifying our entry accordingly. JonRichfield (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I checked the attestation of the Flemish usage, (considering "three examples etc") but only included one quote, because there are plenty of similar items in official documents and historical anecdotes of the time in Google books, so I don't think it necessary to elaborate. But if someone want to start an edit war about it, I'll add a few extra items for the sake of peace in the valley. JonRichfield (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I usually hang out at WP, where counter-vandalism mechanisms seem to differ somewhat. Consider — at bibliopole changes emanating from a couple of IP addresses (2601:681:402:5170:315F:671:91B:C702 and 2601:681:402:5170:c839:49ca:2c60:71c2) have successively been corrected, but no action taken. Is there no similar mechanism for reaction in Wiktionary? JonRichfield (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't have a setup in Wiktionary similar to Wikipedia's. Different editors react differently. Usually I revert vandalism but take no further action unless I see that the same IP address has made multiple bad edits. In that case, I block them. If you see vandalism and need to report it, you can do that at Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I block all vandals that I notice. They normally get a one-day block for the first offense. If I didn't block them, how would I know they were repeat offenders - I can't keep a list of IP addresses in my head. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen. JonRichfield (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been my impression by virtue of the contexts in which the adjective "ex officio" has been used, that it means "unofficially but pretty much with the same powers as the real thing". As and example, the guy who ran the hardware store in the little town near where I grew up was its "mayor ex officio" because he often took care of community matters that benefitted everyone, and in general looked after the welfare of the area despite no one electing him (including himself). The offered definition doesn't match this very closely. Any comments?

For what it's worth, how come the tilde doesn't work anymore? All it does is make four squiggly little dashes now without providing my name. — This unsigned comment was added by Linstrum (talk • contribs) at 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

I've never heard of that meaning. The normal sense is "by virtue of holding the office". In the case of your town, the guy running the hardware store would be considered "mayor ex officio" if his being "mayor" was due to his having the job of running the hardware store. Of course, the people in your town could be using it with the meaning you say, and so it would be correct in the context of your town- but anywhere else, no one would understand it that way. If you can find evidence that meets our Criteria for inclusion showing that the term is used with that meaning, feel free to add it as a second sense.

As for the problem with the 4 tildes, I'm not sure why it didn't work for you, because it woks for me just fine Chuck Entz (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

4 tildes works for me unless I insert a space or other non-tilde into the string, or type 5 tildes. Oh, and I agree with Chuck about ex officio JonRichfield (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

What the guy who ran the hardware store in your town should have been called is de facto mayor. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it! De facto is the correct adjective in the case of the hardware store owner. Thanks, guys! As for the tilde not working, suddenly without any warning that it is now required, the space bar must be used after each tilde for the tilde to appear. Linstrum (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a keyboard-specific problem to me. That happens with keyboard layouts that allow you to combine ~ with n to produce ñ. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Definition doesn't seem to make sense. Equinox ◑ 12:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It clearly can be written better, but I think the original logic goes something like: "grease containing material from use, or dirt." We would just say "grease containing contaminants from use, or which contains particles of dirt" something along those lines. The second part would be SOP and could be removed Leasnam (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've clarified it a bit, but I've left in the part about "dirt", as I am not sure if there is a technical use of this definition in existence which actually includes 'dirt' Leasnam (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems SoP to me. Mihia (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Only science fiction? I've been under the impression that the term is used in games, even outside a science fiction context. —CodeCat 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be used in computer games. Obviously an abbreviation of medical kit. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@ topless we have an image of a topless woman. Granted, not a big deal in Europe, but I am thinking of school-aged children here in the states who might fancy looking up the meaning of topless a thousand times per day....to, uh, get a better understanding of the definition :\...is it appropriate to have ? Leasnam (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If it were a model photo, I'd find it less appropriate. The one we have seems all right. (I'm European, of course.) However, I do think it's unnecessary. So I'd be in favour of deleting it, but not passionate about it. Kolmiel (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a photo of a topless man would be less "offensive" or whatever. Equinox ◑ 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There are also images at nipple and (horror of horrors) penis. What's the fuss about? DonnanZ (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The image didn't need to be so large, it's now scaled down. DonnanZ (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not vehemently opposed to the image, but it doesn't seem necessary. The definition is clear enough and I'm generally opposed to having images for anything other than concrete nouns. So I say delete it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to superimpose a black rectangle over the nudy parts perhaps, so that the idea can still be conveyed without the, well, nudiness ? Leasnam (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The usual solution is to create an edited derivative of the original picture and replace the currently present picture in the article with the new one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather than spoil an image, it is possible to find a "less offensive" one. There's plenty of images available. DonnanZ (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This is probably one of the least offensive images of toplessness at Commons, except maybe this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some of women sunbathing topless on their fronts. Keep looking. DonnanZ (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, there's this, this, this, and this. DonnanZ (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Donnanz. The woman in that image already has her head cut off- let's not compound the indignity. IMO the real problem with this image is that it's not really about toplessness, but more about showing naked female breasts. I can understand wanting to oppose a taboo, but fixating on the object of the taboo is still letting the taboo control your thinking. If we're going to have an image here, it should be of a normal human being (whether breasts are showing or not) in a normal setting, not an anonymous half-body with everything but a certain area cut off so someone can, in effect, say "look everybody- BOOBS!!!!!". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm being a bit prude but I always opt for paintings when depicting "risqué" subjects. Might this, this (of a male athlete...oh, the horror!) or this be more, ahem, modest? --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't use an image of a male, because the term topless almost always refers to women. The corresponding term referring to a male is shirtless. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons doesn't make that distiction (see this category), but I see what you mean. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer a painting, though I am somewhat opposed to having any image at all. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• So, I changed the image. Let's move on. Also, I added an entry for toplessly for brownie points. --Quadcont (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll see how long that one survives. Nice derriere though...

The replaced image has already been added elsewhere prior to this, so it still survives. DonnanZ (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The new image is an improvement in every respect. Mihia (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you all for your contribution. Leasnam (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, a very elegant and aesthetic solution (although a painting could have achieved the same – my spontaneous thought was this, though that one features an unnecessary amount of nudity, I suppose –, this one manages it without actually showing the breasts, and still being natural), which avoids the objectification potential inherent in the picture of a topless, headless woman previously present. Excellent! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The current definition of endogamous is suitable to describe a noun, not an adjective. Regards. --95.20.73.173 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition for both says:

1. A food that has been ground or crushed into a thick liquid

Given that the original method of producing a purée seems to have been running foods through a sieve, I'm not sure that the definition should specify the mechanical means used, beyond the fact that some kind of mechanical means is involved (thick liquids produced by partially melting or dissolving solids aren't purées, for instance). Any ideas? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge to start off with. —CodeCat 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You can redirect, but can't merge two spellings. Translations for the noun (but not the verb) are merged under purée. As for the definition, I think the modern way is to do it in a blender, isn't it? DonnanZ (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Or with an immersion blender. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Donnanz Are you saying the two spellings aren't synonymous? DTLHS (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they are synonymous, spelling variants in fact. You're free to choose the one you prefer. DonnanZ (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was just wondering why you said they can't be merged. DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It depends what is meant by merge. CodeCat didn't make that clear. DonnanZ (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say we can merge (in the sense of "put all the lexical information in one entry and leave the other as an {{alternative spelling of}}"), but we can't redirect because purée is also a French word, while puree isn't; puree is also an Italian word, while purée isn't; and puree and purée are apparently two distinct and unrelated words in Finnish. So a redirect is out of the question. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant redirect using {{alternative form of}}. Sorry, my turn to be vague. DonnanZ (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. To me, "redirect" always means using #REDIRECT. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Now merged, unless someone thinks the main form should be at the other spelling. DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)