Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/June

Should we somehow work this meaning in? Like how English "What's your name/number?" would be German "Wie ist dein(e) Name/Nummer?" Wyverald (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, especially if you can figure how to specify when it's appropriate to use wie this way, since normally "What is X?" in German uses was. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Normally, German uses the very common (most Romance and Slavic languages, several Germanic languages) European formulation: "how are you called/named?". Maybe this is transferred from that in similar semantic environments. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. It also occurs to me that you can say "Wie ist X" whenever it's synonymous with "Wie lautet X": "Wie lautet dein Name?"/"Wie ist dein Name?" (alongside the more usual "Wie heißt du") and "Wie lautet deine Nummer?"/"Wie ist deine Nummer?". There are probably counterexamples, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"wie" is also used to indicate measurements as in "Wie spät ist es?"/"Wie viel Uhr ist es?" = "What time is it?", "Wie viel ist sechs mal zwei?" = "What's six multplied by two?" — Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz If I'm not mistaken one can say both in English "How are you called?" and "What are you called?". Or are there nuances here? — Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"How are you called?" sounds like foreigners' English to me, but I may be mistaken. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "What are you called?" is equally strange. But you can ask both "How do they call you?" and "What do they call you?", especially when "they" refers to a specific person or group of people. --WikiTiki89 16:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"How are you called?" seems to merit an answer like "by telephone"! I consider "what are you called?" to be okay, though. Equinox ◑ 16:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both "how are you called?" and "how do they call you?" sound awkward to me, unless you're being interrogated about how people get in touch with you. ("They call me." - "How do they call you? I don't see a telephone in here.") FWIW, "What are you called?" gets 10 relevant hits at COCA (i.e. excluding "What are you called to do that's an unmet need"); "how are you called" gets 3 (and one duplicate), "what/how are you named" gets none, and none get any hits in the BNC. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wie spät ist es?" means "How late is it?" And "wie viel" is "how much". So these two examples have no peculiarities compared to English. --- Otherwise I think that "wie ist..." instead of "was ist..." most often implies a more precise answer. For example, you'll hear "Wie ist Ihr Name?" chiefly in official or business contexts, where it's about a precise name (given name, family name, exact spelling). The same is obviously true for "Wie ist deine Nummer?" Or when you ask me "Wie ist deine Meinung zu XY" ("What's your opinion about...") I'd probably think that you want a few details, while "Was ist deine Meinung..." might require less detail, just "good" or "bad". This is a tendency at least. --- ANGR's idea with "wie lautet..." also seems to be a tendency, but there may indeed be counterexamples. Like "Wie lautet dein Lieblingslied?" ("What's your favourite song?"), which sounds formal but still idiomatic, whereas "Wie ist dein Lieblingslied?" sounds doubtful (though not quite impossible). Kolmiel (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, "Wie spät ist es?" can mean both depending on what you're refering to: To me "How late is it?" merits an answer like "It's already very late.", "It's almost midnight." (But maybe I'm mistaken here since I'm not an English native speaker.) in contrast to "What's the time?".

I was obviously speaking about the syntactic construction. Kolmiel (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, "wie viel" literary means "how much" or "how many", depending on the context, and in myriads of phrases such as "Wie viel Personen sind wir?" ("How many persons are we?"), "Wie viel jünger bist du?" ("How much younger are you?") etc. it can be translated this way. But in the above-mentioned example I don't think you could say "How much is six times two?" in English, do you? That even sounds strange to me. What do the native speakers think hereof? Is "How much is six times two?" a correct wording?

As to your assumption "wie ist..." implying a more precise answer: To be honest I don't think you have a point here. First of all, IMHO there is no "instead" because in the context of asking for the name or number "Was ist Ihr Name?" or "Was ist deine Nummer?" is wrong in Standard German, and I think in most German dialects as well. (Would it be possible to say "Wat ess dinge Name?" in Kölsch, though?) I could only imagine these wordings correct in contexts like for instance when you want to know the characterization of the name or number given: "Was ist Ihr Name?" "Mein Name ist falsch geschrieben." ("Your name is what?" "My name is misspelled."), "Was ist deine Nummer?" "Meine Nummer ist nicht gültig." ("Your number is what?" "My number isn't valid.") I think the precision of the answer has rather more to do with the conversational situation you're in than with using "wie".

As to "Wie ist deine Meinung..." and "Was ist deine Meinung...": I simply think the latter is colloquial whereas the former is standard. It might even be an Anglicism. Who knows... — Caligari ^Ɔɐ^ƀïиϠ_Ⴕ 23:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's your obvious right to reject my point. But you should refrain from calling nonstandard everything that you don't like, or that is contrary to your personal "Sprachgefühl". In my opinion, "Was ist dein(e) Name/Nummer/Meinung" are all perfectly correct and perfectly common. You might want to look them up on google as well as google books to find a multitude of examples. Kolmiel (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And just to clarify: I didn't say (or at least didn't mean) that there's always a noticeable difference between "was ist..." and "wie ist...", just that "wie" has a tendency to be used when the answer requires precision. Kolmiel (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"How much is six times two" is natural English AFAICT; e.g. google books:"how much is six times" turns up plenty of uses stretching from the 1800s through the present day. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr What are names of languages (nihongo, eigo) linguistically grammatically classified as in traditional Japanese grammar/vocabulary? Common nouns or proper nouns? Are there any consensus among scholars? Should we capitalized those names on Wiktionary? ばかFumiko￥^talk 15:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In traditional grammar the boundary between common nouns and proper nouns is not very clear. I’ll check. As for romanization, they must be capitalized because a suffix doesn’t change the original capitalization. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev What do you think of TAKASUGI Shinji's suggestion? ばかFumiko￥^talk 14:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji, Eirikr, Haplology, Fumiko Take "The boundary between common nouns and proper nouns is not very clear". Very true and it's very common for languages, which don't distinguish between capital and small letters but capitalisation of country names is not disputed in Japanese.

1. There is no clear rule for capitalisation in romaji of language names or ethnicities. Dictionaries may use both nihongo/nihonjin and Nihongo/Nihonjin. ("Nihongo" in English would apparently be capitalised). Dictionary publishers sometimes use English conventions for capitalisations but the don't have to. Names of the weekdays, months, etc. don't follow this, e.g. "nichiyōbi", "ichigatsu".
2. I don't agree that "a suffix doesn’t change the original capitalization". Suffixes turn proper nouns into nouns, just like they do in other languages: (French) Japon->japonais (adj., language name (n.)).
3. If there is a rule for capitalisation of language names or ethnicities in Japanese romanisation, let's use it. I don't really oppose the capitalisation, if it's standard.
4. In my opinion if capitalisation of certain groups of words is not clearly defined, it's better to stick to default (lower case). I have been consistent with this.
5. If the majority of editors decides to use capitalisation, I'll oblige. It's the personal choice of dictionary editors. I see both types of capitalisations in published dictionaries. There is no right or wrong answer. Let's vote?
6. Do you agree that the same question can be asked about Chinese (Mandarin) pinyin? Chinese editors have shown little interest in discussing pinyin capitalisation in the past. It's because romanisation of non-Latin based languages is not a proper language script. @Wyang, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Kc kennylau. What do you think of pinyin capitalisations for language names/ethnicities? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I know we have a problem on Wiktionary with capitalisation of pinyin, in the sense that we are not consistent - sometimes we capitalise, other times we don't. But I don't see it as a major problem. Essentially, we have bigger fish to fry. But if someone could be bothered to come up with some guidelines to be voted on, that would be a step in the right direction I suppose. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In many other languages, yes, they change capitalization (Japon → japonais), but in English, no (Japan → Japanese). Most Japanese people know only English spelling rules. For example, all the words in a proper noun are capitalized, such as Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai. Compare it with its English name Japan Broadcasting Corporation and its French name Compagnie de diffusion du Japon. When it is not clear, we should follow English rules. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji Thanks, Shinji, but this is an opinion, you don't explain why "we should". E.g. "When it is not clear, we should follow English rules." Why? The majority of published dictionaries don't even capitalise proper nouns, despite some known rules, mainly from Wikipedia. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of proper nouns is clearly indicated in the Romanization Rules by the Ministry of Education. I don’t know why dictionaries don’t capitalize proper nouns. If so, we shouldn’t follow those dictionaries. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji I think you misunderstand my question or the topic. I am not arguing that country names, city names or people names should be capitalised (yes for capitalised Nihon, Tōkyō, Shinji, etc.). There's no controversy here and the consensus is that they ARE proper nouns. Your examples above show only attributive usage of proper nouns, not language or ethnicity names (like nihongo or nihonjin).

The questions remain - are nihongo/nihonjin proper nouns and therefore they should be capitalised? Is there a rule for that?

From your link I can see something useful: "なお、固有名詞以外の名詞の語頭を大文字で書いてもよい。" The key here is "it's also okey" to capitalise words with suffixes. So it can go both ways, even according to your link? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no official rule, but I think capitalizing language names and ethnicity names is natural. I have found a set of detailed capitalization rules by a small company of cataloguing, and it explicitly states that ethnicity names and language names are capitalized:

民族名・言語名の語頭は大文字にする.

日本人	Nihonjin
アメリカ人	Amerikajin
日本語	Nihongo
英語	Eigo

Those are their rules, not necessarily ours, but I think you can see my point. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji It's a good document, thank you. If everyone thinks the same way and for you this capitalisation seems the most natural, then we can adopt that as well. User:Haplology probably thinks the same way, not sure about User:Eirikr. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, these guidelines are pretty cool. We should definitely base ours on these. ばかFumiko￥^talk 01:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For Chinese, I've always advocated for following the guidelines set out by the PRC MOE in the Basic Rules of the Chinese Phonetic Alphabet Orthography (漢語拼音正詞法基本規則). In section 6.3.3 (which says that proper nouns composed of a proper noun and a common noun are capitalized), 漢語, 粵語 and 廣東話 are listed with capitalization. Should we follow 漢語拼音正詞法基本規則 and consider languages as proper nouns, thus legitimizing capitalization? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev I'm sorry but I don't understand the base of your arguments. At one point, you said something like "Japanese is an independent language and should not follow rules of English", and here you point out how capitalization works in French. So we don't have to follow English examples, but we should follow French then?

Yes, I think we're all aware of those facts. In Russian, French, Portuguese, etc. words like "francais" or "ingles" aren't capitalized. But there are counter-examples too: while "francais" (adjective; French language) is not capitalized in French, "Français" (French person) is, despite the fact that "French person" is just a "common noun". Also, beware that Japanese doesn't work like French or Russian: it's an agglunative language, and suffixes like -go or -jin should not modify the stems in any ways; therefore there's no point in decapitalizing the stems. On the other hand, I'd like to know what dictionaries you're referring to. I wouldn't even take well-known dictionaries like Kenkyusha seriously, if they don't capitalized anything, including "proper nouns" like "amerika". — This unsigned comment was added by Fumiko Take (talk • contribs).

@Fumiko Take No, I am not saying that Japanese (or Chinese) romanisation should follow English or French or whatever rules. I still don't see any rule describing that language names, ethnicity names should be capitalised in Japanese Hepburn romanisation. What does agglutinative language has to do with this if -go and -jin are considered suffixes, not inflection endings or separate words? Don't get me wrong, if we agree on something I'll follow but nobody explained yet the rules. If there ARE no rules, then it's a decision of dictionary editors, then we can vote. Even Wiktionary editors haven't been consistent on capitalisation. I have. Is there anything else, which confused you? I only use Kenkyusha dictionaries based on kana, no idea how they capitalise romaji. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev You said "Suffixes turn proper nouns into nouns, just like they do in other languages: (French) Japon->japonais (adj., language name (n.))." That gave me an impression that you thought Japanese suffixes worked in the same way as other languages where suffixes can modify the stems, so it might be reasonable to apply a different rule of capitalization. Compare Spanish España > español.

"What does agglutinative language has to do with this if -go and -jin are considered suffixes, not inflection endings or separate words?" Due to its agglunative nature, by which stems are relatively independent in compounds (not modified by affixes as in fusional languages such as French or Spanish), it's not that easy to determine whether items like -go and -jin should be considered suffixes or not. It might be even possible to analyze Nihongo, Nihonjin not as "proper nouns turned into common nouns by suffixes" like you said, but simply as noun phrases, to which artificial English phrases like "Japan language", "Japan human" might be equivalent. In fact, I just looked up -go and -jin, and most dictionaries give entries to them just like they do with katarai, katari, nin, hito, ri, without notations as to what part of speech they're identified as. ばかFumiko￥^talk 10:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, we can analyse these suffixes as separate nouns but this logic is still flawed because 1) these kango are not considered as independent nouns, so they are just suffixes, called so by grammarians 2) if we do decide to call them nouns, then the spellings should be "Nihon go" and "Nihon jin" respectively (cf. "Nihon keizai"), not "nihongo" and "nihonjin". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know what grammarians you're referring to, who specifically call go and jin suffixes. Well you may argue with something like, "well, it's obvious, because go and jin can't survive on their own". But then what about zame, guma and buro as in aozame, Hyokkokuguma and rotenburo? They can't survive on their own either, so are they suffixes too?

And why should the romanization be "Nihon go" and "Nihon jin" if go and jin were to be free morphemes? Should we write "suzume dai" and "kin tama" too, then? I'm inclined to believe the reason why "Nihon Keizai" is used is because Nihon and keizai both contain up to three kanji, so it's more intuitive and harmonic (at least for a speaker of a language that employs Sinitic vocabulary items like me; except cases where rendaku comes into effect like rotenburo because rendaku makes the second part (buro) inseparable from the compound) to break 日本経済 into Nihon Keizai rather than Nihonkeizai, not because they're "independent words" (well maybe "independent words" is one of the many factors, but not the decisive one). Well, maybe it's just me. ばかFumiko￥^talk 01:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion: if reputable publications use capitalization, we should follow them and use capitalization. If 日本語 is commonly found as Nihongo, and 粵語 is commonly found in pinyin as Yueyu and in Peh-oe-ji as Oat-gi, those are the romanized forms we should use.

Also, a question: grammatically, is there a distinction between normal and proper nouns in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc? —suzukaze (t・c) 08:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Min Nan POJ seems to follow English rules for capitalisations, yes we could adopt that convention for Mandarin pinyin as well if it's a group decision. No clarity on proper noun/common noun distinct in East Asian languages, they are perhaps identical. Cantonese romanisation is never capitalised, "Yue" is also an English word and Korean dictionaries use even less capitalisations than Japanese or Chinese. Apparently proper nouns (e.g. country names) are capitalised but that rule may have been borrowed from Wikipedia, which uses capitalisations for all romanisations. Yes, we could use a list of reputable dictionaries.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

God, this case is gonna be difficult to settle. I just found out that even Hepburn himself was not consistent about the whole capitalization thing. "English" is "E-go", "Japanese" is "Wa-go", but "French" is "futsu-go". Then again, he did transcribe ポルトガル as *Horutogaru, so maybe his dictionary isn't that reliable. ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Relax, Fumiko-san :) We can vote and decide as dictionary editors. Do you simply hate to see spelling "nihongo" or you think it's incorrect because ... ? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No I don't "hate" anything, just like I don't hate "francais" or "espanol". I'm not saying it's incorrect. If there's an official source that says "nihongo" is the only correct romanization, I won't oppose it. It just doesn't feel right to me to use such a form, so I'd like us to discuss in further depth and establish some sort of guideline or standard. ばかFumiko￥^talk 10:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a cuckoldress actually a woman who cuckolded her husband (in other words, the wife is an adulteress, and the husband a cuckold)? The meaning on the page right now states the opposite (the husband is an adulterer and the wife a female cuckold, a cuckquean). 70.36.254.242 03:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the OED but it's not there. Equinox ◑ 13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at citations, you seem to be right. I'll change the def. Ƿidsiþ 17:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The final adjective definition is currently worded as if it were defining a noun. I'm not sure if it was placed under the wrong POS header, or if it just isn't worded right. Could someone with a subscription to the OED check the reference and make the necessary changes? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox. I see from the above section that you have access to the OED. Would you mind checking the reference for me? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OED has an adjective: "slang (orig. and chiefly U.S.). With reference to sexual activity: consisting of or involving fellatio or (sometimes) cunnilingus. Of a person (esp. a prostitute): that performs oral sex." Examples of "French broad", "French girl", "French love". Also a verb sense we are missing: "perform fellatio or cunnilingus on". Equinox ◑ 18:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that, according to the existing Wiktionary articles, e-mail is the standard spelling of the word and email is an alternative spelling! This seems wrong, as the hyphenated spelling is very rarely used nowadays. For example, this Google Trends graph shows that "email" was three times as common as "e-mail" in 2005; but as of 2016, "email" is about 30 times as common as "e-mail".
Therefore, I would recommend changing the entry for e-mail to "Archaic spelling of email.", and moving the definition, example usage, and etymology information over to the email article. Would there be any objections to this? Chessrat (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not archaic (which would mean a few centuries ago). I wouldn't even put "dated", since the whole technology of e-mail (yes, I always write it that way) is still relatively modern. I don't personally care which entry is the main form, however. Equinox ◑ 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would at least make a usage note explaining that e-mail is rarely used by younger people (probably about 25 and under). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I spell it as email, if that's any help (and I'm no spring chicken). DonnanZ (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently says /mɛːn/, but English doesn't have a long /ɛː/ phoneme. So is it /mɛn/ or /meɪn/? --WikiTiki89 19:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary gives /mɛn/ for the French river and province. I wouldn't be surprised if /meɪn/ is also attestable, though, not only because of the influence of the U.S. state but also because of the way English speakers tend to handle French /ɛː/ (compare Seine, which fluctuates between /sɛn/ and /seɪn/). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Etymology 1 is listed as a phrase, while etymology 2 is listed as an abbreviation. In addition to us no longer using "Abbreviation" as a POS header, I wouldn't call et al. a phrase, and I would think that both uses of it belong to the same POS. Are they pronouns then? Or would others disagree with my opinion that they aren't phrases? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Within Latin, I would call it a phrase because the combination of et and alii doesn't itself have a well-defined part of speech. In English, however, since you can't break it apart, I don't know if we can call it a phrase. --WikiTiki89 20:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

From its syntax and semantics in English I'd either call it a phrase or a postposition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't be a pronoun, as that doesn't apply to the et part, but it doesn't seem accurate to call it a phrase (in English). However, if it's the consensus to use "phrases" to label those borrowed from Latin (I see that this is the case for etc.), then I'll just change the "Abbrevitions" header to match that, and leave the other one as is. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fixed as well: the jumble of different POS headers for different languages at etc. and et al. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but is it really necessary to have quotes beneath each and every definition for the word? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/sanctify It makes it difficult to parse which line is the definition. I think it would be better if they were in a separate collapsible javascript link, if at all. And also, why must it link offsite to a bible website? Am I being proselytized here, haha? It makes me trust the definition a little less. Sorry if this is in the wrong place!!

The quotations are in fact collapsed by default. I'm not sure why they aren't showing up for you that way (under the section "Visibility" in the sidebar, you should be able to click "Hide quotations" to fix this). As for the quotations from the Bible: most books using the word sanctify are going to be religious in nature, so it's hardly surprising that quotations have been drawn from the King James, which is the most famous and historically significant translation of the Bible. It has great linguistic value as well, as it is a large corpus written in archaic English, exemplifying many words that might be harder to find elsewhere. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If bonafide is merely an alternative form of bona fide, I think the content of the page bonafide should be replaced with a corresponding mention. Before doing so, relevant information present on the page bonafide should be moved to the page bona fide.--Anareth (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 16:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Which verb and/or noun would you use to describe the sound of a mechanical typewriter ? In Finnish we would say raksuttaa (“to tick”) or nakuttaa (“to knock”) but I find scarce usage of these English words in the context of typewriting. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say clack. "Typewriter clacking" gets a bunch of hits on b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

How about tapping? DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In some cases, you could use clicketyclack, but usually I would use something like "sound of typing". "I knew Kate was here because I could hear the sound of typing coming from her office." —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this purely encyclopaedic information? And look at the awe-inspiring list of see alsos! Equinox ◑ 18:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it may be of dictionary interest. As for New Zealand spellings, they're almost always the same as British, the only exception I can think of is fiord. DonnanZ (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It might make a lovely appendix, which might be useful if the WP article is not up to snuff. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Somebody (not me!) has since put this up for deletion; see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#British_spelling. Equinox ◑ 00:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

RFD also for American spelling. I added See also * For a list of examples, see Category:British English forms, as it is lexico info. Sobreira (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the distinction between the two definitions? I don't know enough about electronics to judge. Is the second a subsense of the first? DTLHS (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are right, second definition is subsense of the first, describing the currently most common technique for making a diode. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone to make sense of the following sense of the verb founder, as used by by Robert Louis Stevenson in his Underwoods of 1887, chapter 28 ?

…and update the definitions accordingly ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'd never alter a definition based solely on poetic usage. In this case, for example, I think the idea is that the reef is or is like the foundered hull of a ship, which would suggest why the lighthouse was located there. Even if we found three figurative uses like this in literary works, I think we should concede to the creative writers the right to use words metaphorically without fear that lexicographers would convert their poetry to definition. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility is that some completely different reading could be made, ie, the passage is ambiguous.

Finally, “founder”, in The Century Dictionary , New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. has a transitive sense of founder#Verb ("To cause to fill and sink, as a ship"), which also fits. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added Century's transitive definition with cites, none from poetry, though one is from a review of a poem by a poet. I still think the RLS usage is not a good one for a dictonary to rely on. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional examples and the advice on being suspicious of poetry as a reference: i should've thought of that myself.

Concerning your added sense, wouldn't it be simpler to merge two senses when the only difference is that one is transitive, and the other not?, as in:

(intransitive) Of a ship, to fill with water and sink.

(transitive, archaic, nautical) To cause to fill and sink, as a ship.

which i would combine into

(archaic, nautical) To fill with water and sink, as a ship.

and keep the in/transitive tags for when there is a restriction such as "transitive only".

Thoughts ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I intensely dislike combining sharply distinct categories, such as grammatical ones. They make it harder to connect definition-writing with citations. There is a great amount of subjectivity or, at least, arbitrariness in producing definitions for polysemous terms. Distinguishing usage based on the type of complements is very helpful in sorting usage into coherent groupings. Sorting by collocations is arguably more useful, but we don't have unlimited access to the databases that support such sorting.

I think that what is good for definition writers is also good for definition readers, definition revisers, etc. These are all efforts to understand meanings abstracted from real-life context. As we can't sort by real-life context very adequately, we need to use other categories. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If this phrase means "fashionable" and 時 means "time" and 髦 means "bangs of a child", can't an alternate etymology be provided for the phrase's meaning? Thanks in advance, Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The current etymology says "Phono-semantic matching of English smart", which I understand to mean that 時髦 is pronounced (roughly) like "smart", while 髦 has connotations of the meaning of "smart". What alternative etymology did you have in mind? 86.171.174.114 02:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Hair of the time". Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

what does eminant boot agreement mean

I understand it to mean "agreement on boots, Eminent style". Perhaps a shoe store is making an agreement to buy some "Eminent" style boots. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to know the context. Also to be confident in the spelling of what was heard as "eminant". I can find no usage on Google's search for eminant/eminent boot agreement. BOOT agreement can refer to contracts covering Buy/Build Operate Own Transfer arrangements for facilities such as mines, waste-management operations, and power plants. If that is the context then perhaps imminent ("about to be finalized/signed") is the correct spelling of the first word. Thanks for providing the puzzle. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Or eminent domain. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Defined as an adverb. Is that right? Equinox ◑ 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a preposition. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Equinox ◑ 01:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In the UK, I see people with dogs using a long plastic thing to throw a ball for the dog to retrieve. The thing is then used to pick up the returned ball and throw it again. What is the thing called? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

thrower or launcher. Equinox ◑ 06:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Googling Semper's description of the thing turns up various products for sale as "dog tennis ball launchers" or "ball throwers". A xistera is a similar device used in jai alai. I suppose a woomera might be (mis)used for that purpose in a pinch. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some call it a Chuck-it after the brand of the market leader in the US. It may be on the path to genericizaton, but I doubt it's there yet. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this word means? I'm desperate. ---> Tooironic (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Across an isthmus, especially in anatomical contexts. DTLHS (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Added. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, a lifesaver! ---> Tooironic (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Congujation states: Note that pluperfect active indicative pepulerat has the alternative form pulserat and that the perfect active indicative pepulī has the alternative form polsī.

• Is this only for 3rd and 1st person respectively? Or for the whole person-number paradigm and then pulseram, polsisti? Sobreira (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think these alternative forms should be simply included in the table rather than presented as a usage note. —CodeCat 01:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Taboos have been on my mind. Islamic terrorism is a term that has been removed from at least one official US video and is pointedly not used in US White House statements. Whatever the validity of the rationale (avoiding inflaming public opinion, etc), does such a taboo imply that the term in idiomatic? There is an obvious inclusion problem for Wiktionary in that a truly taboo term would not have much durably archived evidence of use, however abundant the mentions might be. A partisan-taboo term would have evidence.

Is a taboo lexical information that justifies or contributes to justifying an entry for an SoP term?DCDuring TALK 12:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Islamic terrorism is still just Islamic + terrorism, even if some politicians avoid using it so as not to antagonize people they think may still be useful to them in the future. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Is "forname" an alternate spelling or a misspelling of "forename?" It is linked at "wikipedia:forname," but I can't find any other usages. Presumably the spelling (correct or not) is a backformation by comparison from the spelling of "surname," its antonym. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's just a misspelling. Wikipedia has a lot of silly redirects. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, what about this one? To me it seems like a multilingual SoP, so can't properly be entered as either English or French. Equinox ◑ 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The hi part could just be a loanword, and then the whole expression is French. Reminds me of German-speaking Switzerland, where you hear people say merci schön. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this, but I suspect it's a conscious attempt to say hi in French and English at the same time. This is unlike merci schön, because merci is the default word for "thank you" in German-speaking Switzerland (it reminds me of the equivalent ميرسي كتير (mērsī ktīr) in Lebanese Arabic). The equivalent would be if they said something like "danke/merci". Anyway, "bonjour/hi" is either SOP code-switching or it is idiomatic Montrealese, in which case we would probably need an entry for both French and English. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: Isn't really relevant here, but another nice example from Lebanese is bonjourēn as an answer to bonjour (like you say ahlēn as an answer to ahlan, giving back a better, i.e. doubled, greeting). Don't know if you've heard that. Kolmiel (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard of it, but yeah, once bonjour is borrowed into Lebanese Arabic, it can be modified with any Lebanese Arabic words or morphemes. --WikiTiki89 15:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that it's used e.g. in shops to greet customers before their preferred language is apparent. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I read about it a little and it seems that it specifically expresses that the (for example) shopkeeper is capable of serving the customer in either French or English. This makes it idiomatic in my book. --WikiTiki89 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed how I've heard it used, though I've usually heard it as "hello/bonjour." I've also encountered it in Manitoba and every province east of it. It's used throughout Canada. For instance, at national historic sites, anyone working there will typically greet guests with a "hello, bonjour" (or "bonjour, hello," but that seems to be less common) so that both Anglophones and Francophones feel comfortable using their native language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: This blog post claims that it's different in the rest of Canada from the way it is used in Montreal:

This etiquette is apparently not followed by service providers throughout Canada. I was amused to find, for example, an incensed letter-to-the-editor to Montreal's Le Devoir by a disgruntled francophone writing to complain about his travels to Nova Scotia. It appears that, upon registering at a Parks Canada campground, he was greeted with a sincere "bonjour/hi". Naturally, the letter-writer took this to be an invitation to use either official language and launched into "la langue de Molière" only to be told "Sorry. I don't speak French."

--WikiTiki89 15:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That may well be the case, though I think most Parks Canada employees are required to speak both languages. TBH, I'm not too sure how likely one is to run into a bilingual greeting outside of Montreal. It is standard at all Parks Canada locations I have been to (of which there are a fair number), and can be heard at other federal sites, like Parliament Hill. Ottawa is a fairly bilingual city too, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's in use there. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:tiny lists minute as a synonym, but minute describes the wrong word. Also, minute links back to Wikisaurus:tiny, which is wrong because it's the wrong "minute". It just happens to be spelled the same. The "minute" which is a synonym for "tiny" is pronounced very differently to the "minute" which is a division of the hour or the details of a meeting. Emphasis is on the second sylable and it sounds rather like saying "my newt!" Minute is also a big confusing page already, without adding another meaning with different pronunciations.

I don't know how this is normally handled on Wiktionary. Perhaps half of what I wrote above is unnecessary, but it's a short note overall. I haven't time to look into how things are done in the Wiktionary world right now, and as may be obvious already, I'm considerably better at using words than talking about them, but I wanted to mention the problem. Eekee (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you just need to scroll down. We split words by etymology. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Elements 113, 115, 117, 118 have been officially named nihonium, moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson. They could be entered as hot words for now, but it seems pointless. DTLHS (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well semi-officially I guess, they will officially be named in November. DTLHS (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

These are the names that have been submitted, but not yet approved for use. They are not going to widespread scientific use until IUPAC approves them. There is no reasonable defence for them being hot words until that point. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So create 'em in a user sandbox and flip them across when they get the kiss of science. Heh. Some of the best useless dictionary-words are element names that didn't stick, like kurchatovium and emanation. Or minerals that turned out to be not a mineral, but a mixture of two minerals. This really makes you realise that "having a name" isn't the same as "being a thing". semiotics. shut up Equinox. Equinox ◑ 00:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also oganesson sounds like a monster. I thought we had agreed that all new elements will end with -ium. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If there are news articles discussing them I don't see why they couldn't be entered with "proposed name for element X" as hot words. DTLHS (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't enter hot words that have a good chance of disappearing. IUPAC initially said that all new chemical elements had to end in -ium, so they might cite that as a reason to choose oganessium in the end, and then nobody will ever use oganesson after 2016. We just can't know until they become official. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Too bad we can't create the entries yet. I have been itching to add the etymology of oganesson, the first element with Armenian roots. --Vahag (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"oganesson, n. obsolete name for the chemical element georgium, when it was believed that Armenians and not Georgians found it." Equinox ◑ 08:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Georgians are not good at exact sciences. They have humanitarian brains. --Vahag (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge oganesson follows the naming convention of other noble gasses, group 18 elements (-on). DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why should we wait until most of the interest in these words has waned to include them? NOW is a good time. We have "hot words" and a review tickler for them a year or so after the first durably archived use. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Go for it! If they get RfVed, they will be easy to verify - there are articles in most of today's newspapers for instance. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• You've got a point. This is exactly what the hot-word template is meant for. Do it! Equinox ◑ 11:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oganesson will be with -on because it's a noble gas, group 18, like Argon, Xenon, Radon (and Boron). I agree inclusion, like hydrargyrum & synonyms, tungsten/wolfram, glucinum (and u>y??), columbium (See if interested). They were used but not anymore. Are we descriptive or prescriptive? And interestingly, EN:azoth is Hg but GL:azote is N (Hg is azougue). Sobreira (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this an idiom in English? If so, what does it mean? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

an eye for an eye, quid pro quo, tit for tat, let the punishment fit the crime? In any event it seems to be obsolete or perhaps archaic. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing it. And there's a sort of semi-plaintive semi-plausible thing at Talk:aracial. Can we attest whatever John Doe is going for? Equinox ◑ 11:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about attesting it, but the definition he's going for but is too ignorant of English vocabulary to write is something like "Not identifying with any particular race". It's parallel to the equally new term agender (“not identifying with any particular gender”); both of them are probably formed by analogy with asexual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not an adverb, and is clearly defined grammatically wrong. --J19idf (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

So sorry! Only the English Majors can control the words? You seem "uppity". Is that a verb? No I think it is an adjective? Why do you feel the need to be above the populace?

up·pi·ty ˈəpətē/ adjectiveinformal adjective: uppity self-important; arrogant.

On to my quest: Wasn't sure if this was the place to start a discussion, or the beer parlor, but ended up deciding on this discussion (seemed to make sense). Even though the term Skrump is sexual in nature, and a synonym of sex, it was designed to be less offensive than many other vulgar terms describing a passionate and pleasurable experience between two human beings, thus, the Tea Room. (I don't want to disenfranchise the Beer Parlor though).

Can anyone here help me induct this term (originally coined by my deceased friend and I, after a serious nights discussion) regarding "tasteful" terms for an enjoyable act.

After 30 years, multiple friends, multiple States, Countries, etc. it went viral, and became an "Urban" term. We (I speak for Donnie as well) don't want "RIMJOB" or any other ugly terms attached to it's definition.

We know "Scrump" (diff. spelling) has been used as a synonym as well, but it's real origin is "Stealing Apples", or shriveling up. Our word is unique, and innocuous.

Thank you for your patience with me. — This unsigned comment was added by 00aughtbuck (talk • contribs).

At Wiktionary, we create entries for words that have real-world usage by multiple authors, independently of each other, over the space of more than a year, in durably archived sources (which usually means published books and periodicals, though there are some exceptions). We don't have entries for words that our editors and their friends made up one night and that no one else uses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no entry (of course), but what would be the best definition - the happy mood prevailing at Christmas? I imagine it's uncountable but I haven't checked. DonnanZ (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Christian generosity as well? (Think of Scrooge's change of heart.) Equinox ◑ 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it's a long time since I read Dickens' books. Maybe "the right mood, or frame of mind, for celebrating Christmas" would be better. DonnanZ (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gift-giving seems to be essential. People say (or used to say) Merry Christmas to complete strangers. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say cheerfulness, as well as benevolence and generosity toward all are the main ingredients.Chuck Entz (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My Christmas spirit of choice is brandy. But other spirits are available. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, yes, but not quite what I had in mind! DonnanZ (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's described as Christmas cheer. DonnanZ (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest a def beginning with something like, "the frame of mind and associated behaviour traditionally associated with the celebration of Christmas, such as ...." and tack on some of the attributes mentioned above. And yes, traditionally uncountable. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "expected" might even be better than "associated with". One is 'supposed' to show Christmas spirit at Christmas. Bah humbug. Equinox ◑ 18:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Walrus" is definitely a mistranslation, even though it's in Unihan Database. The WP Kui 夔 article (full disclosure: which I started) explains the mistake. Hǎixiàng 海象 (lit. "sea elephant") is the Chinese word for "walrus". Keahapana (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to nuke the Unihan definition from the page. —suzukaze (t・c) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pleco dictionary mentions several figures from Chinese mythology that are associated with this character, but nothing about walruses. So it does seem to be a mistranslation. Though oddly zdic.net, for it's Chinese translations mentions nothing about 海象, but again gives "walrus" for it's English translations. 2WR1 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a baseball term in Spanish. Wikipedia's definition is "a la pelota bateada cuya trayectoria es rastrera y no se eleva en ningún momento del terreno de juego. Un toque de bola no es considerado como rolling." I tried briefly to find the English equivalent of it. Perhaps a roller or a rolling, but no success. --J19idf (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sort of like a ground ball. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would think that we would do an enormous service if we had Translation sections for all English baseball words and specifically had Spanish translations. There must be websites that have such translations.

Indeed there are some. Downloadable is Insigna's Baseball Dictionary. They show roleta to mean ground ball. The "Notes on Usage" however say that Caribbean Spanishes are not explicitly included. Japanese translations would have an audience too. DCDuring TALK 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Turnedlessef (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the correct way of writing Polish ia sounds? (ia, ie, io, iu follow the same scheme generally - 'i' indicates the softening and is not read) English entry for miasto gives /ˈmjastɔ/, which is wrong, imho, as there is no /j/ sound before /a/. Polish entry adds palatalization of the first consonant - , but still preserves that /j/. My understanding is that is should be /ˈmʲastɔ/ (that is what I hear - soft m, followed by a, like in this entry for место). Still, I see this in almost all Polish entries. Do I misunderstand something fundamental about IPA or were those pronunciations added by some erroneous bot? --One half 3544 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@One half 3544. You're right. Fixed miasto. The pronunciation is (automatic). I would just use . --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on what I've read about Polish phonology, after labials (/p/, /b/, /m/, and /v/), palatalization manifests itself as an actual sound. Thus, you could phonemically say it's /ˈmʲastɔ/, but phonetically it's actually . This is also what Polish Wiktionary had as its pronunciation at pl:miasto until User:One half 3544 just changed it. I would think we should trust the native Polish speakers over a couple confused Russian speakers. See also pl:wiatr, pl:biały, pl:Piotr. --WikiTiki89 14:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried listening to pronunciations of all those words? I trust their pronunciation, and that is why I doubt what is written in IPA section. My understanding is that corresponds to this. --One half 3544 (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:pl-miasto.ogg sounds like to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you hear the difference between File:pl-miasto.ogg and File:Mjjasto.ogg? --One half 3544 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're audio has a much more distinct , which is how a Russian would pronounce **мья́сто (**mʹjásto), but that doesn't mean that the real Polish audio doesn't have . IPA cannot necessarily be directly compared between languages. --WikiTiki89 21:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that utterly defeat the purpose of IPA? It won't be *International* any more... --One half 3544 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's international because it's the alphabet of the the International Phonetic Association. This blog post by John C. Wells provides important insight into the obligatory vagueness of IPA symbols. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Something else to consider is w:Categorical perception. Sounds aren't discrete, isolated entities, but points on a continuum (or, really, multiple continua). Our brains learn to divide up this continuum by perceiving everything within certain limits on the continuum as the same sound, and anything past the limits as other sounds. This is the same kind of thing that lets us see things around us as stationary when we move our heads- it's so basic, we don't even realize we're doing it. Different languages often divide up the continuum differently, especially if they recognize a different number of phonemes, and speakers learn to match their perception to the phonological structure of the language. It takes considerable training to overcome this unconscious neurological process enough to transcribe sounds objectively, and I doubt anyone is completely free of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is confused here but that's the way I learned Polish and I could pass for a Polish person when I was in Poland many years ago (not with my vocabulary but pronunciation). I have just talked with a Polish colleague - he says that "miasto" is DEFINITELY pronounced just like Russian would pronounce "мя́сто" /ˈmʲastɔ/ (not "мья́сто"). If this is incorrect, then the automatic IPA module should also be corrected. Are Polish editors still here? @Kephir? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89, Angr I wonder if you guys are having difficulties distinguishing palatalised sounds "-ʲ" from consonant + "j". I know many Westerners have this problem when learning Russian, other Slavic languages, Japanese, etc. Just asking. I listened to File:pl-miasto.ogg several times and it's pronounced /ˈmʲastɔ/ to my ear. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I do have that difficulty. I'm most accustomed to palatalized consonants in Irish, where (depending on dialect) phonemic /bʲoː/ can surface as phonetic . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish has many dialects/accents as well. I just searched for miasto and biały in Forvo and listened to various pronunciations by different people (you have to listen to the various compound words, because miasto itself only has one audio sample). Some of the speakers say something that sounds almost exactly (other than quality of the final -o) like Russian **място (**mjasto) and even like место (mesto). However, most of the speakers did say something close to **мьясто (**mʹjasto), some with a more distinct than others. I still maintain that File:pl-miasto.ogg does have a very slight in it, and same with File:pl-biały.ogg. --WikiTiki89 14:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

But also note that the transcription system that the Polish Wiktionary uses is much more phonetic than ours, for example, they transcribe państwo as , while we transcribe it as /ˈpaɲstfɔ/. Thus, I think /mʲastɔ/ is fine and is more broadly applicable across dialects, but we should mark it with slashes rather than brackets. --WikiTiki89 14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Current dialect differences in Poland proper are insignificant and don't affect palatalisation of these consonants. Standard Polish is spoken by the overwhelming majority. In eastern dialects, Lithuania they pronounce ś, ź, ć, dź and ł quite differently from standard. There's also "język sceniczny". In these variants the letters are pronounced like Russian/Ukrainian сь, зь, ць, дзь and л. My Polish colleague said "the guy is talking bollocks" ... "or suffers from speech impairment". Do you also hear "a very slight j" in File:Ru-мясо.ogg? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, like Wikitiki I've heard the claim that Polish mia (and similar with other labials) is /mja/ rather than /mʲa/, but I wonder if that isn't simply a phonemic analysis. I suspect that most languages with /CjV/ where there aren't phonemic palatalized consonants actually pronounce them as /CʲV/; this is to be expected as it's normal for adjacent sounds to overlap temporally. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Quoting the Polish colleague (reworded) who told me earlier this week - "there are no words in Polish, which are pronounced with /mja/ rather than /mʲa/". Even loanwords, like armia, which I mistakenly suspected would have /mja/. So, the first syllable in Polish "miasto", Bulgarian "място" and Russian "мясо" are pronounced identically. I will check it again with Audacity - a tool, which allows to listen to sounds in various speeds (BTW, it was very useful in learning some tonal languages). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In File:Ru-мясо.ogg don't hear any at all. But like I said, don't get hung up on the one recording File:pl-miasto.ogg; try listening to all the recordings in my Forvo links above. --WikiTiki89 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There are currently two definitions for “exalt”; the first one mentions that it is transitive, but the second does not. Is it because in the second sense, “exalt” must be used in the passive voice? Actually, can it be used in the active voice? I think that examples, a mention or usage notes should be added to clarify these points. --Anareth (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Both are transitive. The passive voice is more common for the second sense, but I've seen it used in the active voice. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

maybe confused with similar sounding exult, which I believe is intransitive ( ? ) Leasnam (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

rezident, rezidentura - I can see these words are used in English to refer to the Soviet/Russian KGB/FSB activities in the USA. I have started watching "The Americans", which use these terms quite often without a translation into English in this spelling, usually capitalised. Russian spellings: резиде́нт m (rezidént) (fem: резиде́нтка m (rezidéntka)); резиденту́ра f (rezidentúra) - see .--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why an abbreviation (as tr, intr., and intr) is instead a Noun, Adjective and Verb? Because of the noun plural? Of the biblio? Doesn't make it weird then having them subclassified as Not comparable and mixed Countable and not countable? I changed the other three, but I don't know, I feel guilty changing all these. Sobreira (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the terms function grammatically in sentences more or less as the spelled out version of those terms do. It would be good to have each noun abbreviation definition marked individually as countable or uncountable (or as both), presumably inheriting these attributes from the spelled-out version. DCDuring TALK 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I found in a description of a business project the phrase "Onboarding OEs". Looking at the OE entry did not yield any plausible results. My suspicion was that OE stands for Organizational Entity, and this was confirmed by finding Google results like this: "Align and agree integration solution blueprint with Organizational Entities (OEs)". I suggest that this meaning be added. — This comment was unsigned.

This is a wiki. You could add it yourself. Your sample justification or an even better one should appear as a usage example, or better yet, you could find durably archived examples of usage. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, these are exactly the same product, just named differently in the UK and US. We even share some brands (e.g. Lays owns Walkers). Our entries suggest, though, that they are only "similar". If that is true, what is the difference? — This unsigned comment was added by Equinox (talk • contribs) at 01:29, 15 June 2016.

Due to climate differences between the US and the UK, the exact composition of the air in the room US chips and UK crisps are made in is slightly different. This naturally means there are slightly different levels of oxygen and nitrogen and whatnot trapped in the US chips and UK crisps. However, these differences are indistinguishable to the average chemist equipped with top-of-the-line laboratory equipment. Thus, many people mistakenly think that US chips and UK crisps are exactly the same. --WikiTiki89 19:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That of course applies to any food. I've changed the entries to suggest the two things are identical. Equinox ◑ 15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Worth an entry? --Fsojic (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think so. And also just saying. I prefer the latter as the main entry, but others may disagree. There are more raw Google Books hits for the latter (198K vs. 21.3K). I don't take those numbers literally or even as giving the true ratio, but as an indicator of which is more common. DCDuring TALK 12:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any way of separating it from ordinary usage with explicit subjects and/or objects, as in "I'm just saying what everyone else is saying"? If not, that test is meaningless. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. Seems similar to e.g. "just thinking", "just wondering" and perhaps even "just looking". Equinox ◑ 17:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. But it has become a rather common collocation, appearing in many current book titles and Urban Dictionary. One of UD's definitions reads like one of our non-gloss definitions: "This term is used after you inject your statement/opinion into a conversation. Generally, this statement/opinion is non-factual, so by saying "just sayin'", you are clarifying that this statement/opinion is unprovable and it is just a thought off the top of your head."

Further, that UD definition had:

"During an IM conversation, this term can be abbreviated with "JS"."

The existence of an abbreviation is evidence (not conclusive) of idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My own experience of this expression is that it is used pragmatically to point out to someone that they have made a blunder or have missed something obvious, in a polite way. E.g. P1: "I can't get any work done because of all these junk emails!" P2: "You could set your inbox to only allow emails from people in your address book. Just sayin'." - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

But also as a way to soften a criticism, i.e. show that one is merely making an observation and not trying to be "judgy". Equinox ◑ 18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

These are claimed to be different. I don't believe it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, one is an alternative form of the other. Google NGRAM viewer suggests that "prewar" took over from the other shortly after WWII.SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So it isn't really open to editing, is it? You decide what something means. — This unsigned comment was added by Praxeolog (talk • contribs) at 13:18, 2016 June 16 (UTC).

• Oxford has pre-war on the British side and prewar on the American side - “pre-war”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford University Press, 2019–2022., “prewar”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford University Press, 2019–2022.. DonnanZ (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I made "prewar" an alternative form of pre-war as the latter had a more fleshed-out entry. Feel free to reverse it. @Donnanz You may be right about American vs. British usage but it would only be a vague tendency; I'm American and neither one looks obviously better or more preferred to me. I think in general the Brits use more hyphens but that's only a tendency as well. Benwing2 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think these two forms may be interchangeable between Am. and Br. English; I don't think there is any hard and fast rule in British English despite the Oxford treatment. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage notes: "This is often used figuratively, to mean many, many times." 1. How is that a figurative use? 2. I've never come across such use; does it truly exist? Equinox ◑ 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"figuratively" makes no sense to me. I wonder whether it should say "ironically" instead. I can envisage a usage such as "Have you complained about it?" / "Yes, just once or twice", meaning "I have complained over and over again". Whether "often" is justified, or whether it is necessary to mention this given that almost every word or phrase of a suitable nature can be used ironically, I'm not sure. 86.169.36.226 02:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably what was intended was the ironic use: "Oh, you could say Equinox has helped improve Wiktionary entries once or twice." As you say, many terms can be used ironically, I guess we'd only want to add a usage note about it if it was commonly used so. My feeling is that in this case it is worthwhile to note. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "once or twice" is used sarcastically in British English to mean "on quite a few occasions". The usage is not figurative, of course.

There are many terms that can be used "ironically". Such use is an ironclad rationale for inclusion, so we need to get on with adding all the missing entries and Usage notes. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone find a confirmation of the pronunciation of proditor, I've looked everywhere. I'm guessing either /ˈpɹɘʊ.dɪ.tə/ or /ˈpɹɒ.dɪ.tə/, I found the pronunciation of prodition to be /pɹəʊˈdɪ.ʃən/. 2WR1 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The link to webster1913.com provided on the page shows Prod"i*tor, which I take to indicate stress on the first syllable and the /d/ belonging to the previous syllable. Most dictionaries only show a consonant between two vowels as belonging to the syllable of the preceding vowel if that vowel is short (lax), so I would interpret Prod"i*tor as representing RP /ˈpɹɒdɪtə/ and GA /ˈpɹɑdɪtɚ/. If RP /ˈpɹəʊdɪtə/ ~ GA /ˈpɹoʊdɪtɚ/ had been intended, they probably would have written Pro"di*tor instead. Since it's an obsolete word, though, it will be very different to find anyone who intuitively knows how to pronounce it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense, thank you so much! 2WR1 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Chambers has it as /ˈpɹɒ.dɪ.tə/ (though they use their own notation). Equinox ◑ 18:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally pronounce it /ˈtreɪ.tɚ/. And I even spell it differently: traitor. But in all seriousness, does it even make sense to have pronunciations for obsolete terms? Our pronunciations are modern, and if the term has never been used in modern times, it doesn't have a modern pronunciation. --WikiTiki89 18:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it does, just because we no longer use it today doesn't mean that it's not a word we could come across, and when we do it's good to know how it's meant to be pronounced. All English words have a pronunciation and I think it's important to document that, even for the ones we don't use anymore. Though the pronunciation in it's time period may have varied slightly with their accent, a modern equivalent pronunciation is still a good thing to have, and maybe this term wasn't even used all that long ago anyway. 2WR1 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be useful, but that it simply doesn't have one. We don't know how it would have been pronounced if it had survived until today, and it's not our job to make random guesses about it, even if other dictionaries have done so. If it fell out of use relatively recently, then I'm not sure we should even label it "obsolete". When did it fall out of use? --WikiTiki89 20:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that's a point. But you could say that some obsolete terms do have modern pronunciations (think obsolete conjugations like 'hath', 'hast', 'doth', 'dost') when we read Shakespeare or whatever, we have pronunciations for these anyway (/hæθ/, /hæst/, /dʌθ/, /dʌst/). But maybe it make sense that if there's no real documented pronunciation at all, it's hard to tell. But also, because it's a Latin derived word, you could say that Latin words have a pretty predictable anglicized pronunciation. I guess it's just tricky. 2WR1 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

But hath, hast, doth, dost, etc. are still sometimes used today in limited circumstances, such as poetry, which is why we call them "archaic" rather than "obsolete". And clearly there is a question of whether the first o in proditor is long or short, so it's not predictable (my instinct would be that it's short, but that isn't proof of anything). --WikiTiki89 21:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If the pronunciation of an obsolete word can be reasonably deduced I see no reason not to add it. There's any number of reasons why a text including obsolete words would be read aloud. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ya, that's a good point too. 2WR1 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If it can be reasonably deduced, then the person reading it can reasonably deduce it. But in this case, there is an uncertainty anyway, and there is no reason to assume that Webster's 1913 dictionary knew any more than we do. --WikiTiki89 21:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure there is. The editors of Webster's 1913 may very well have known how actors and poets pronounced the word when they were reading old texts aloud. And being reasonably deducible is no grounds for omitting a pronunciation section, or we wouldn't have a pronunciation section for pit. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume that actors and poets in 1913 knew how to pronounce it any better than actors and poets today. But no one has answered my question of when this word fell out of use anyway, which is a crucial piece of information. And I didn't say being reasonably deducible is a reason to omit the pronunciation, I said it is not a reason to include the pronunciation (i.e. it shouldn't be a factor at all). --WikiTiki89 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A small number of authors seem to be making use of the common noun even now, presumably aware that it is archaic / very literary, e.g. T. M. Nielsen, Proditor : Book 5 of the Heku Series (2010). Other than that, I can find it in John Mackinnon Robertson's 1913 The Baconian Heresy: A Confutation: "Lord Cobham suggests that semi-punning phrases about proditors had long been current." It's moderately common in works from the mid-to-late 1800s, which however all seem to be writing about (summarizing or in many cases reproducing) works from the 1600s, which is when it last seems to have been used commonly.

"Proditor" is also the name of a character in a play who continues to be mentioned in works right up to the present day, which strongly suggests that it continues to be pronounced. E.g.: Anthony Covatta, Thomas Middleton's city comedies (1973), page 69: "Proditor, the lecherous, bloody courtier, is more responsible for this than any other character." Essays in Literature, volume 7 (1980), page 188: "Phoenix then exposes the crimes hidden behind Proditor's mask."

Use of the Latin term in italics within English texts also continues even in the present, as in Alan Watson, Legal Origins and Legal Change (1991), page 213: "The fidelis can also leave in good conscience when he fears for his life, whether from his spouse or from others, for the infidelis is then not only a desertor but a proditor." It also appears to be used in taxonomic names. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think one could adduce a rule for why prone and bonus are Anglicised with different vowels than promontory and proverb; to me this should be like promontory. In any case, it is in Henry VI part 1, I.iii.31, and per the metre, the accent is on the first syllable. One should be able to find any number of recordings, but one is here with the pronunciation I think one should expect, given the thespian American accent adopted by the actor, near 20 minutes and 50 seconds : Isomorphyc (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Century has prodition as prō-dish´o̤n, proditor as prod´i-to̤r, proditorious as prod-i-tō´ri-us, and proditory as prod´i-tọ̄-ri. For comparison, they have prodigal (which is /ˈpɹɑd.ɪ.ɡəl/) as prod'i-ga̤l, prodigious (/pɹəˈdɪdʒ.əs/) as prọ̄-dij´us, prodigy (/ˈpɹɒd.ɪ.dʒi/) as prod´i-ji, produce as prọ̄-dūs, prodrome (/ˈpɹoʊ.dɹoʊm/) as prō´drōm, and procuration ending in /-sho̤n/. From this, I conclude that proditor /ˈpɹɑd.ɪ.təɹ/, which is also equivalent what Equinox says Chambers says. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The second definition is:

To make a skittering noise.

But nothing is said about the meaning of the word as applied to sounds; the definition should thus perhaps be clarified.--Anareth (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This very small category is rather odd. How is it supposed to differ from normal prefixes and suffixes that don't stand alone (e.g. psycho-, tele-)? It contains only a handful of these (e.g. Judeo-, noso-) along with an odd one out, the archetypical cranberry morpheme cran-. What's to be done? Equinox ◑ 23:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

{{look}}

I've never understood why we should look synchronically at cran- rather than at Middle Low German or Low German kraanbere (kraan ("crane")). DCDuring TALK 21:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd put it up for deletion. At least there would be more attention paid. DCDuring TALK 21:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Just created this entry. Would appreciate help tweaking the definitions. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently we only list the pronunciation that rhymes with Ms. We are missing the pronunciations that rhyme with bus and voice. Could someone help? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Where do people pronounce "tortoise" to rhyme with "voice"? DTLHS (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Longman's Pronunciation Dictionary lists /ˈtɔːtɔɪs/ and /ˈtɔːtɔɪz/ as British non-RP pronunciations. The pronunciation we currently list, however, does not rhyme with Ms., even if we're only talking about the second syllable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Some people in Britain do indeed pronounce it to rhyme with "voice", but I would call this an idiosyncratic pronunciation. I have never heard it pronounced to rhyme with "bus". 86.171.174.221 11:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently looking for an etymological source for the Asturian noun corazu.

Do you know of any? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Romanophile: Looks from Latin (like Spanish) or from Spanish. Sobreira (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Are these standard spellings in US English, or are they a figment of the contributor's imagination? (contributor currently blocked) I always render them as two words. DonnanZ (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I can only find them capitalized as the names of specific neighborhoods in specific cities. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me. So what shall we do? DonnanZ (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

rfv them- including the one that wasn't created by Verbo. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They are all easily citeable, although more commonly capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, moved to RFV . DonnanZ (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a word for this in English - like fumigation but in liquid. ? "La abatización se hace mediante un insecticida sólido, en polvo, que se echa en depósitos de agua, como los tanques de los domicilios, y mata las larvas." --Turnedlessef (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

To me it means "application of Abate (temephos)". I think the word was coined from the trade name "Abate", which is temephos. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

We would probably use disinfection when treating standing water. Not sure if there is a more specific term. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm by no means an IPA expert, but wondering if someone who is can verify the IPA on this page. All entries appear to contain a diacritic that I have never seen used in IPA, the "acute accent", over the /i/--for example, /oɾízon/. Does this seem accurate, and does it represent a sound other than /i/?

It represents /i/ with a high pitch accent. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

For more about IPA diacritics, see https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Diacritics_and_prosodic_notation. Acute accent (í) indicates high pitch. Grave (ì) is low pitch. Macron (ī) is mid pitch. Double acute (ı̋) is extra high pitch. Double grave (ı̏) is extra low. Caron (ǐ) is low rising. Circumflex (î) is high falling. There is an alternate notation with symbols: extra high ˥, high ˦, mid ˧, low ˨, extra low ˩, rising ˩˥ or /| (the two tone symbols should combine to a slash attached to a vertical bar, but they don't combine here) and falling ˥˩ or \| (similar non-combination). MGorrone (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether the two tone symbols combine or not depends on what font you use, I think. At any rate, on my computer they're combined in your comment above. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is on-topic here in the TR, but why is the cmn-3 template in English? Currently, my user page has cmn-3 This user has advanced knowledge of Mandarin Chinese. Shouldn't it be translated to Mandarin? Something like the template from the French Wiktionary, «zh-3 这位用户的中文达到高级水平。»? Oh btw, why is it cmn over here and zh on French Wiktionary? And is this question in the appropriate place or is there a better place to ask questions about the Wiktionary as opposed to questions about words which are what this TR is for?

MGorrone (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

That’s because you have used the centralized WikiMedia {{#babel:}} template. That’s not a local template, and we have nothing to do with it. Our local template is {{Babel|}}, and if you used this, your Babel notation would be cmn-3 該用戶能以熟練的普通話/國語進行交流。 该用户能以熟练的普通话/国语进行交流。 There is a bit of confusion over zh and cmn. Zh could be Mandarin, Hakka, Min Nan, etc., while cmn means Chinese Mandarin specifically. —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "cam" in "bridge cam gauge" ("cam type gauge") and is this sense of the word covered in Wiktionary? --CopperKettle (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

you can find that here ] Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I was answered on Engineering StackExchange and finally understood. That was so unintuitive for me. The flat rotating plate with a beak turned out to be the "cam". ---05:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have recently come across a narrower definition of a tense recently, stating that the future is not a tense because it does not inflect, but uses the modal will instead. (googling "is the future a tense" returns stuff). Should the grammatical definition be split into a common definition and the narrow one? Hillcrest98 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the language. In the Romance languages, Slavic languages, Hellenic languages, and most Germanic languages, the future is considered a tense. Traditionally the English future is also called a tense. In Athabaskan languages, the future is more properly a mood, like the subjunctive, indicative, and so on. The difference is just a slight variation in the definition of tense (that is, whether tenses must be indicated by inflection only, of if a periphrastic verb is also allowed). See The LINGUIST List. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm personally on the looser side, with languages as a whole having so many ways to express grammatical functions that cannot be translated too well to other languages' systems that simply do something else entirely. e.g. English and its auxiliaries. Wondering how other Wiktionarians feel about what a tense is. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've come across that understanding of it as well, more than once. We should probably include it alongside the main one. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put the narrow sense as a usage note already. Hillcrest98 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A user has been redefining the entries for non-medical slang phobias like queerphobia from "fear of hatred of..." to "irrational or delusional fear or hatred of...", "an unreasonable fear of...", etc, including in cases like Islamophobia where every other reference I find offhand does not restrict the term in that way but defines it simply as "fear or hatred of...". is this appropriate? As I noted in my edit summary at Islamophobia, most of our non-medical phobia entries are not restricted in that way, either in our definitions nor AFAICT in real-world use. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It has become clear to me that political phobias require more precision to protect criticism from undue abuse. The words Islamophobe and Islamophobia in particular have been wielded as blunt weapons to silence criticism of Islam. If these words are to stay true to their form, the meaning of phobia must be held onto, that is adjacent to the medical terms whence they sprang. This requires a narrowing of their meaning into the case of irrational fear. The suffix -phobia indicates an irrational or disproportionate fear or loathing and a lack of sound mental health in the one, the phobe, who is so unusually, inexplicably afraid or angry. When applied politically and socially rather than medically, the suffix -phobe intends itself as a kind of condemnation, a statement that the person who holds the phobia is a bigot and unfair minded. Thus a phobe allegedly finds himself wallowing in fears and hatreds that are beyond his own faculties to explain. Phobe thereby draws on its related medical meaning. If publishers have not made qualifications such as "irrational" or "delusional", they have simply failed to account for vital nuance, perhaps out of cowardice. Wiktionary is a part of the ecosystem of ideas, likely more than many a publisher. That is why it is important that political phobias be specified and distinctions laid out as to the source of the fear and the kind of fear. Otherwise, irrationality and prejudice will be implied but not explicitly stated, leaving an opening for pejorative use of the words. This ambiguity must be split.

Try an analogy. If a murderous truck driver makes up the word Collisionalsemitruckophobia on the spot, does this excuse the trucker when he creams into your Prius head on? Are you a mad fool for fearing the collision and taking all measures necessary to swerve away from the oncoming threat? The saying that Collisionalsemitruckophobia is simply a vague or nonspecific fear or hate of semitrucks or their drivers, or that the Collisionalsemitruckophobe lacks mental faculties or has some form of prejudice is clearly absurd. The fear is of the hostile intent and the events that are unfolding before the Prius driver's eyes, not an abnormal, delusional, or irrational prejudice against trucks or truckdrivers. The Prius driver's fear is a rational response, a result of a critical assessment of the situation imposed upon him. When a person loaded with ideas approaches you with the purpose of unfolding all the consequences of his ideas, the person about to suffer the consequences of somebody else's ideology should not be called a unhinged person for loudly expressing his suffering or his fear of further suffering. If all truckers had collision manuals in their glove compartments that authorized and encouraged them to plough into electric cars such as the Prius, then Collisionalsemitruckophobia could be applied to all electric car drivers who criticized truck drivers before they got on the road. Thus is the situation with Islamophobia and Islamophobe.

One must distinguish between natural or physical characteristic phobias and ideological phobias. Homophobia is politicized, but it is not an ideological phobia (which means my queerphobia edit was a bit overzealous). A homosexual is not an idea, or a person defined by an ideological association. He is defined by a biological association, that is a birth characteristic. One cannot convince a homosexual to stop being a homosexual. Thus, criticism of homosexuals is at best a misdirected criticism of Darwinian evolution and quantitative genetics, not the people who happen to be homosexual. In other words, the homosexuals are no more answerable for their characteristic sexuality than is a heterosexual for his characteristic sexuality. It is not a matter of debate.

More English equivalents to Homophobia and Homophobe are Samesexfright and Samesexfearer respectively. Those forms show the true nature of the words better. Likewise, English has failed us miserably, for the more English equivalents to Islamophobia and Islamophobe are Submissionfright and Submissionfearer respectively. English's failings are simply an aside however.

True political, or ideological phobias are ones where ideas and their consequences form the basis of the fear. Whether or not somebody has examined the given ideas in the given ideology before becoming afraid thereof, or has become afraid before witnessing any consequences of the given ideology, is a critical distinction. If the ideology were neither examined nor witnessed, then fear or hate thereof would be irrational and fear of those who possess belief in the ideology would be prejudiced. I simply ask that Wiktionary do what publishers have failed to do, that is make distinctions in political phobia definitions to account for the difference between criticism and prejudice, between nature and ideology, between rationality and irrationality, between measured responses and disproportionate attacks. If fear and its cases of criticism and prejudice are not distinguished, then the -phobe and -phobia words will suffer from their conflations and political and social critics will suffer from their application.—Williamclayton (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, we need to define words by how they are actually used, and not how they "should" be used. This is the same old issue of trying to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Your rant isn't that much different from our grandfathers complaining that "gay" should mean "happy". We can argue etymologies all day but it definitely does mean "homosexual" in the 21st century. Equinox ◑ 01:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You have it backward. Think about this scenario: someone sees the word "Islamophobe" in the news. They go to Wiktionary to find out what the word means, and see that it's "a person who has irrational or delusional fears or hatred for Muslims." They come away from this thinking that the news item is talking about a dangerously abnormal individual rather than someone who merely dislikes Islam and Muslims. Congratulations! You've just used the authority of our dictionary to reinforce the very attitudes you're trying to discourage. Trying to use a dictionary to reprogram people's minds will never work the way you intend, and will create more distortion rather than the clarity that's needed. Honest, impartial information is the only effective way to deal with ignorance- once you start to play games, people recognize it and you've lost your credibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If the words "irrational" and "abnormal" simply mired the words deeper in the direction of a psychological disorder, then consider clear cut cases for the definitions that would maintain their breadths. Another case besides the current, deliberately vague definition for Islamophobia should be "criticism of Islamic doctrine and fundamentalist Muslims". Likewise, for Islamophobe, "a critic of Islamic doctrine and doctrinaire Muslims". This covers the actual usage in more detail. How are these meanings accounted for by an unqualified "fear or hatred"? They are swamped by the association to medical disorders and forms of bigotry such as homophobia. You see, the word is already mired in confusion and in dire need of resolution. The cases of phobia have to do with medicine, identity, and ideology. Why not make them all explicit? Likewise, the three types of phobes would therefore fall into the mentally ill, bigots, and critics. Critics must share the same room as lunatics and bigots! That is what makes this word so problematic. The way the word is now, the casual hearer or reader simply understands that all those meanings share same room together. It is deliberate guilt by association, especially if the definition leaves those distinctions up in the air.--Williamclayton (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen "good night" used as a general mild exclamation, and in fact use it myself; for instance, in an argument on gun control on the Catholic Answers forum (of all places). Is this an acceptable entry? --74.214.171.140 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Good night !" as in "I give up !", "I'm out/done/spent/finito !", or "Holy Sh*t !" ? --yeah, I would tend to think so Leasnam (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The linked post uses it more like good grief. Equinox ◑ 02:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's more of an expression of shocked disbelief and/or total exasperation. It's only mild in the sense of not being vulgar or blasphemous. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised we don't have it already. I've heard/seen it many times before. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be a proverb in Finnish: ne piirtää joilla on liitua, which literally means something like "they who have chalk draw". I suppose it has a more nuanced idiomatic meaning to Finnish speakers, so it might be worth an entry. But I'm struggling to figure out why it is "ne piirtää", which seems to have a wrong subject-verb agreement, and not "ne piirtävät". This, that and the other (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Colloquial Finnish has lost 3rd person number marking for verbs and regularly uses forms like piirtää for both singular and plural. "Ne piirtävät" would be a register mismatch similar to "you drawest". --Tropylium (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tropylium Thanks, it makes sense now. It might be worth mentioning this in our entry for ne, and possibly even at w:Finnish verb conjugation#Type I verbs, which mentions "ne tietävät" as a possible form. This, that and the other (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ne tietävät is standard when ne refers to non-persons (e.g. animals). --Hekaheka (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on dialect, whether one can say ne tietävät also of persons or not. I tried a Google search for kyllä ne sen tietävät and got 203 hits, most of which appear to discuss people. I think it's a good idea to stick to standard language as far as possible. The dialectal forms are so numerous that explaining them easily produces an unintelligible mess. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this common usage in India? DTLHS (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• This almost looks like an automated text processing or conversion goof that accidentally stripped out the / that I would normally expect to see. I notice one instance of she he with whitespace, for instance, suggesting inconsistent handling, at a minimum. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Checker" can also be a noun, referring to a checkered pattern, right? We seem to be missing this sense currently. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Tooironic: I think it should be check . DonnanZ (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  But checker can, indeed, sometimes refer to an individual square in a checker pattern, as in these three quotes. I would think that check would be more common, but I don't really know one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it really so nonstandard to use candelabra as a singular noun? I'm not sure I've ever even heard candelabrum before today; certainly in my own speech candelabra is the normal word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In Ngrams "a candelabrum" and "a candelabra" are about equally common. Incidentally, the word is rarely (nonstandardly?) respelled candleabrum, candleabra, and almost all of the citations of candleabra are singular and most of the ones which aren't unambiguously singular are ambiguous and could be either singular or plural, like "the candleabra of intellect blazed more or less brightly". - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the etymology of "high" in "two-high mill" (metal rolling) and does Wiktionary have a relevant entry? --15:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "having a specified elevation", now sense 3 at high, covers it. "Rolls" are the units of elevation. Thanks for asking. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the article over which has 'Etymology' and 'Etymology 2' combination, but the user Robbie SWE rolled it back. Why is this ok that the first 'Etymology' doesn't have '1'? Doesn't it make it more readable? Also with multiple etymologies child categories are always on the deeper level. Now over is the only article that has 'Etymology' and 'Etymology 2' combination (multiple etymologies aren't numbered). I think Robbie SWE commit should be reverted. 24.5.143.190 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The revert seems to have been in error, I restored your edit which seems entirely fine indeed. — Kleio (t · c) 18:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! After discussing it with Kleio, I appologise for reverting your changes. I was clearly in the wrong, but hey, I got to learn something new today :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We have an English word pre-heart attack, sure, but I'm sure there's a better phrase for it. --Turnedlessef (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it preinfarction? Equinox ◑ 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

We have that as an adjective only. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• That sounds really odd to me, and the example given looks more like the attributive use of a noun. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And, FWIW, there's evidence of the expected adjectival form google books:"preinfarctive". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any unambiguous use of "preinfarction" as a noun in bgc. "Preinfaction syndrome" may actually be the English term for preinfarto. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• There is some use of this as a noun, as in the fourth and sixth links currently at google:"a preinfarction": Preinfarction (Angina) Symptoms and Symptoms of a Preinfarction.

Limiting just to Google Books finds what looks like enough evidence for a noun, as at google books:"a preinfarction" or google books:"preinfarctions". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

These are claimed to be homophones in accents with flapping. My accent has flapping but I'm pretty sure these aren't (quite) homophones for me: the quality of the a differs, similarly to writer vs. rider. Anyone else notice this, or is this a strange idiosyncrasy of my speech? Benwing2 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I notice it too, although for me it is the length of the a, which is slightly longer in carder, and is barely noticeable. I do not doubt, however, that for many people this distinction does not exist, as also for writer and rider. --WikiTiki89 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there’re probably many possible patterns of distinction here; I have carter and carder as homophones , but writer and rider distinguished by a mild variant of Canadian raising. —Vorziblix (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vorziblix: Do you have a length distinction in writer-rider as well, or is it only quality? For me, it is both. --WikiTiki89 20:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Too much corporate history here. It needs a trim. Equinox ◑ 09:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, and duly cut. Ƿidsiþ 12:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont think that carouse should be so closely linked to being drunk (i.e. alcoholically). but is just a more or less open ended perusal or random dalliance.

"His carousal (s.p.?) of the flea market gave him an overlook of where he could best find the often dismissed items he sought".

"When he last caroused the neighborhood he realized the stark hollowness of the inner mission and the link with the popular rise of zombie flicks".

"As he caroused the pages of supermarket rags his mind constantly returned to the articles that hinted of his inner obsession."

Just a thought, I was slightly inebriated when I wrote this.--Kcidkelley (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Are you thinking of peruse? —76.121.122.152 01:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the right place for it, but the Pronunciation at English aby sounds like the Polish word. Leasnam (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It was the Polish one. Apparently there is no English (en) file. I have removed it. Leasnam (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

dispense with the pleasantries

As seen in a quote at the entry for dispense, I'm wondering if this could stand on its own as an English phrase? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 02:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem to you that it is readily decoded from its components? We once had considered adding a collocation space for such "common collocations", those which are (or were) in abundant use, beyond what one might expect (say, using mutual information on a large database), but were SoP. For now having such expressions as usage examples at least allows them to be found by search. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This phrase doesn't feel special. One can dispense with politeness, good manners, diplomacy, etc. Equinox ◑ 08:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at not that there's anything wrong with that and thought, just as that entry was "Popularized on an episode of Seinfeld", dispense with the pleasantries was actually popularized in a movie: Star Wars: The Empire Strike Back. To me, not that there's anything wrong with that seems much more common and less special than dispense with the pleasantries. But maybe that's why it has an entry and the other one doesn't? How common and in use (or special-feeling) does a phrase need to be in order to get an entry in Wiktionary? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 14:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It was definitely not invented by the writers of Star Wars: The Empire Strike Back, though it was not much used before the 1960s. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it was even popularized by Empire. I've seen Empire more times than I can count, and I don't even remember anyone saying it. It's certainly not one of the "quotable quotes" from the movie, like "Do, or do not. There is no try" or "'I love you.' 'I know'" or "And I thought they smelled bad on the outside" or "Laugh it up, fuzzball". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

1.
I'm not very experienced on Wiktionary, though I am on Wikipedia. The following may be obvious to the experienced, but I don't get it.

In copyediting Zika virus, § Mosquito on Wikipedia I came across the unfamiliar and unlinked term "viremic". I tried Wiktionary and found it here, so I linked it*; but the track to understanding was IMHO excessively long and winding:

1. viremic: Of or pertaining to viremia
2. viremia: (US) Alternative spelling of viraemia
3. viraemia:

   Alternative forms

   • viremia (US)
   • viræmia (archaic)

   (medicine) The condition or disease of having a virus in the bloodstream.

So "viremia" is listed only as an alternative spelling of "viraemia", which defines it and says that "viremia" is specifically a US form.

• Is "viraemia" used only in the UK (which I know favors many "ae" or "æ" spellings, like encyclopaedia), or generally in the English-speaking world?
• Is there any reason for the double redirect_{not in the Mediawiki sense}? Couldn't "viremic" be defined as "Of or pertaining to viremia" (linked to viraemia) and save the user a step?

PS: I just decided to link the word in the Wikipedia article to viraemic. Guess what? That's even worse, a triple redirect!

1. viraemic: Alternative spelling of viremic
2. viremic: Of or pertaining to viremia
3. viremia: (US) Alternative spelling of viraemia
4. viraemia:

   Alternative forms

   • viremia (US)
   • viræmia (archaic)

   (medicine) The condition or disease of having a virus in the bloodstream.

Now, isn't this super-ridiculous?

* And as I type this, I've just received thanks from another WP user for the link! :-)

2.
In order to insert that asterisk at the beginning of the previous line I had to use <nowiki>*</nowiki>. I'm familiar with that code from Wikipedia, and to save keystrokes I went to the alphabet dropdown menu, just above "Templates used in this preview", and selected the only plausible candidate, "Miscellaneous". There I found a "Wiki markup" section, but it was minuscule and didn't include what I needed, so I typed it by hand.

Since Wiktionary uses that tag (it worked), why isn't it in the Wiki markup menu? I suspect I could ask the same question about a lot of other Wiki markup as well.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes I see the problem: viraemia has been lemmatised as the main form of the noun, but viremic has been lemmatised as the main form of the adjective. This mismatch has come about because of a Wiktionary convention that the variant which was first entered on Wiktionary should be established as the main lemma form. In this case (and probably others) it leads to a confusing chain of redirects. Since the earliest entry from all four possibilities was viraemia in October 2005, I will make viraemic the lemma adjective to fit, and probably add a short definition beyond just pointing to the noun. Ƿidsiþ 09:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Tea Room is the best place to discuss it, but I think one of the images at sexuality is too explicit, not to mention that it is probably unnecessary. Should it be removed/collapsed? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's too explicit (nothing showing except lots of skin), but the "man and a woman in bed" image is very strange, with bodies turned at unnatural angles in a sort of w:M. C. Escher-like composition, and a rather jaundiced-looking color balance. It may be art, but it's not a very good dictionary illustration. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think we need either picture there, not because of explicitness or otherwise, but simply because sexuality is an abstract noun, not something that a picture can be taken of. Pictures of people in sexual-romantic relationships may make sense for an encyclopedia article on sexuality, but not a dictionary entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, but children also use Wiktionary, and we should keep that in mind Leasnam (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Angr that it's odd to have an image for an abstract noun. One might expect a similar image at sex, but not sexuality. Regardless, I think that due to the fact that there are younger users of Wiktionary, and others who simply won't want to see images they might consider inappropriate. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The artsy hetero image must be intended to illustrate "sexual orientation."

But seriously folks, which definition(s) does each image illustrate? These seem like images for a cocktail table book on sexuality.

Further, I suspect that there is either no usage of the word for some of the senses or a high degree of overlap. Also, which definitions are countable? DCDuring TALK 08:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the images. I'll leave improving the definitions to other people. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Just chanced upon this discussion. I added the images as part of a general exercise to improve the entry before it appeared as a Word of the Day. It's funny that the images were thought to be too risqué as I took care to select images that were not particularly explicit. Anyway, I have no strong feelings on whether there should or should not be images on the page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Leasnam, apart from the fact Wiktionary is not censored, I'm not and never have been convinced that pictures of the human body are harmful to children. For this specific case, it's hard to think of a good image for 'sexuality' because it's such a broad subject and an abstract noun. A link to Commons at the bottom of the page, perhaps. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The OED has this quotation under their definition "To wet or sprinkle as with dew":

1. 1638, William Rawley, History of Life and Death, translation of original by Francis Bacon:

   Generally, to the irroration of the body much use of sweet things is profitable, as of sugar, honey, sweet almonds, pineapples, pistachios, dates, raisins of the sun, corans, figs, and the like.

The definition doesn't seem adequate. Does anyone know what Bacon was talking about here? DTLHS (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See here , and search for that word. It looks like old medical pseudoscience, but is something like increasing the liquids (or certain "humours") in the body. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it an American term? There's no entry for home field either (probably should be); I'm thinking of creating an entry for home ground ( Done) which seems to be the British equivalent. DonnanZ (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Only Macmillan among general OneLook dictionaries has it, labelled "American". Would we need home-court advantage, home-pitch advantage, home-turf advantage, etc? DCDuring TALK 11:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Oxford mentions home ground advantage (no hyphen used) . DonnanZ (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Macmillan also has the following definition of home: "the place where a sports team is based and plays most of its games." DCDuring TALK 11:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's not strictly true either - it's usually half of the games at home, and the other half at away grounds. DonnanZ (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, where I come from, all the children are above average. DCDuring TALK 10:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

rfv-pronunciation. ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Which language? The English looks fine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the Quebec French pronunciation, since that's the one that was tagged with {{rfv-pronunciation}}. I would guess that the question is in regard to the dropping of the /s/, since the /tʃ/ is as expected as far as I know. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a valid pronunciation that I've heard many times. I removed the {{rfv-pronunciation}}. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The pronunciation I'm used to is actually (with the final /s/) which we don't have. Andrew, did you notice the lack of a final -s? Renard Migrant (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard both (when living in Québec City). I'm not sure which I've heard more, but it's probably about the same for each. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't claim to know anything (much) about Québec French. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

First off, I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. This is my 1st time editing Wiktionary, and I don't have much time right now. I'm wondering if the English phrase buck the trend is an idiom. I first saw this phrase on w:Humanitarian intervention in the last sentence of the lead section. If it is an idiom, it should be labeled so in the Wiktionary page and it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. --JMtB03 (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We are a descriptive dictionary, not a style guide, so we do not provide style advice. I believe that most authors trying to address an audience that included many who were not native speakers would avoid using an expression like buck the trend, which would require some to look the expression up. The last lead paragraph in the WP article you refer to suffers from more than just one poorly chosen expression, IMO. DCDuring TALK 03:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia uses idioms or not is a matter for them. I think they're almost impossible to avoid in English without it sounding very artificial. It's not the simple Wikipedia after all. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To me, the problem is not that it's an idiom, but that it's too colloquial for the encyclopedic tone for which Wikipedia strives. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's considered that colloquial or informal these days. It seems fine in the context of the Wikipedia article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)